COVID Travel Bans Are a Death Sentence for This Remote Border Town


dpaphotosfour480321

Point Roberts, Washington, has always been isolated.

Nineteenth-century cartographers are to blame for that. As Great Britain and the United States squabbled over what would become the Canadian border, mappers chose the 49th parallel as the boundary. The whole of Vancouver Island went to the British, but everything else south of the line was to be American.

Cartographers didn’t realize that a tiny peninsula jutted into American territory where the 49th parallel crosses Boundary Bay, about as far west as you can get in the lower 48. At just five square miles, the inconveniently American land became Point Roberts. Today the community boasts around 1,200 people, one grocery store, and a glimmering marina filled with boats. Connected by land only to Canada, residents must cross into British Columbia and back into what locals call “the other side” (mainland Washington state) to reach just about everything—doctors, schools, and veterinarians.

Crossing two international borders to travel from one part of your state to another is difficult enough during normal times. During a pandemic, it’s impossible.

Point Roberts suddenly found itself cut off from both Canada and the mainland U.S. as officials in the two countries buttoned up their land crossings. Residents were stranded and businesses began to shrivel without the revenue brought by Canadian property-owners and visitors.

“It’s been devastation,” says Brian Calder, president of the Point Roberts Chamber of Commerce. “This time of the year, we would have around 4–5,000 people here. Now we have 800.”

A popular summer destination for people in the greater Vancouver area, Point Roberts’ economy is driven by Canadians, who own approximately 1,800 of the community’s 2,400 homes, according to Calder. Their homes and lawns, now untended for 18 months, have fallen into disrepair. Canadians who long drifted over the border for cheaper gas and parcel pickup have entirely vanished. “Our market is down 90 percent,” says Calder. There’s no traffic on the peninsula. Parking lots that once held hundreds of cars now contain just a handful.

Relief has evaded Point Roberts. While every border community has suffered due to restrictions on international movement, visitors and revenue from the same country can still generally flow through. Point Roberts survives on business from Canada. Town officials raised $50,000 and offered to buy and operate a testing site at the Canadian border if the White House would grant them an exception to the closure and allow Canadians to enter. They even offered to vaccinate Canadians who own property in Point Roberts.

The community has gone to great lengths to stay safe during the pandemic. Around 85 percent of the population is vaccinated. It didn’t even report its first COVID case until February 2021. In spite of the town’s diligence and offers to test and vaccinate Canadians at its own expense, proposals have been met with silence from the federal government.

“We’re getting a government attitude of ‘one-size-fits-all,’ and it doesn’t—certainly not with Point Roberts,” says Calder. “It’s totally unique in many ways. We don’t have the government giving us a unique solution.”

Businesses in Point Roberts are feeling the heat. Ali Hayton is the owner of International Marketplace, the town’s sole grocery store. She says it’s the only place in Point Roberts where locals can buy fresh fruits, vegetables, meat, or dairy products.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, Hayton has continued to operate International Marketplace at a great personal cost. “She’s kept it open for 18 months, losing $30,000 a month and supporting the community with no help from the government,” says Calder. Hayton was hesitant to accept government aid, explaining that she favored an end to the closure: “We just want our border open. We want our customers back.” But as the closure was extended again and again, she contacted state officials for relief. Washington Governor Jay Inslee agreed to send her $100,000 in relief funds. During a normal week in July before the pandemic, Hayton says, she would’ve had revenue of over $300,000.

“I can’t keep subsidizing this,” she says. “I just don’t understand why either government thought it was the responsibility of a private citizen, a private business owner, to subsidize the needs of all those people for this length of time without offering any assistance.” Though the government money was welcome, it was a temporary, limited way of addressing a problem with an obvious solution.

Still, Hayton knows the community needs her grocery store’s service. International Marketplace has cut hours but is still open daily. “We didn’t wanna close any one day because, you know, we’re the only option for everybody on the Point.”

Restaurants have been ravaged, serving a fraction of their normal audience. They’re “open four hours a day, just on the weekends,” explains Calder. The town’s marina hosts 180 of its normal 850 boats. Families that have owned homes in the Point for four generations have been barred from visiting for the first time ever, two summers running. American residents have only been able to access the mainland via a passenger ferry to Bellingham, which involves a two-hour journey on the open water each way.

The “plight of the Point,” as Calder calls it, may well worsen as the Canadian government opens its border to vaccinated Americans—a move made effective this past Monday. Disconnected from their neighboring communities for a year and a half, residents of Point Roberts are eager to get out of town to shop and eat elsewhere. “Up until now, I’ve kind of had a captive audience,” says Hayton. “I don’t begrudge any of them a bit for wanting to get out of the Point and shop elsewhere. But now that they do have that option, I’m watching the bottom line really carefully this week.”

The U.S. border could theoretically open to Canadians on August 21, but Hayton has her doubts—both because there is no vaccination verification system in place and because the closure has been extended multiple times. “Canadians want to come down here and spend their money, and we’re not letting them,” she says. “They could rescue our economy so quickly, if [the U.S. government] would just let them come down.”

Everyone has experienced the pandemic differently, but it’s united people in tiny Point Roberts. “When something hits the community hard, all pretenses are dropped,” Calder says. “They all come together for that, even if they were mad at each other, they overcome that in a dire circumstance.”

Life in Point Roberts involves tradeoffs. Locals find the isolation worth the rewards—marvelous beaches on three sides, ample green spaces, and land that still feels like a sleepy holiday community, even as the nearby urban centers in Washington and British Columbia swell.

But many residents of Point Roberts have left the community during the pandemic in search of employment. The already-small population is fading. The unlikely town has an uncertain future.

“None of us ever imagined a situation like this,” says Hayton. “It’s gonna be hard to imagine how we come out of it.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3CCJLAt
via IFTTT

Reason Is a Finalist for 15 Southern California Journalism Awards


Reason logo featured image

The Los Angeles Press Club today named the finalists for the 2021 Southern California Journalism Awards. I am proud to share with Reason readers and supporters that our writers, producers, and contributors are up for the win in 15 categories across print, online, and broadcast media.

Now in their 63rd year, the Southern California Journalism Awards honor stories published in and about Southern California by a broad spectrum of media outlets and journalists. The Reason Foundation, which publishes this magazine, is headquartered in Los Angeles and has been a member of the LAPC for over a decade. We consider it an honor to have our work critically examined and recognized by members of other press clubs, who hold a range of views and serve as judges. 

Without further ado, let’s fête some of that good work. Winners will be announced on October 16. 

“Every Political Ad Ever,” by Reason TV Director of Special Projects Meredith Bragg, Producer Austin Bragg, and Remy, is a finalist for best humor/satire writing in the print/online category and in the broadcast category:

 

“Hospital Technicians Ignore Copyright Law to Fight COVID-19,” by Reason TV Senior Producer Paul Detrick, is a finalist in the solutions journalism category: 

Coronavirus Cuisine,” written by contributor Jacob Grier and published in our August/September 2020 issue, is a finalist in the pandemic reporting category:

A few months into life under COVID-19, we’re beginning to figure it out. The combination of state lockdowns and public fear of the virus has gutted the hospitality industry at all levels, taking down businesses of every size and stature. Serving a quality product and cultivating a loyal following is no guarantee of success in the present crisis. Through no fault of their own, many beloved places will shutter forever. But amid the grim news, some of the top bars and restaurants in the country are finding innovative ways to survive. They provide hopeful glimpses into the possible future of a drastically altered dining culture.

Our October 2020 special issue on fixing American policing, designed by Reason Art Director Joanna Andreasson, is a finalist for best single issue.

Against the New Nationalism,” written by Reason Managing Editor Stephanie Slade and published in our April 2020 issue, is a finalist for commentary published in a magazine: 

Today’s nationalists think the federal government has an obligation to actively pursue what they call the “national interest.” Any agenda that assumes the existence of such a thing must begin by making a variety of determinations, from who should be allowed to join the polity to whether to privilege the producer’s bottom line over the consumer’s. And in anything short of a monolithic society, that means overriding some individuals’ preferences—and often their right to make choices for themselves.

Reason Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward is a finalist for magazine columnist based on the submission, “The Dangerous Lure of Political Violence,” which appeared in our December 2020 issue: 

It’s a mistake to conflate bad tweets with revolutionary violence, but it is worth pointing out that in the waning days of the election season, Bhaskar Sunkara, a co-founder of the aptly named Jacobin magazine, tweeted: “I think killing little Romanov children was justified. But it’s not surprising why these views are controversial given most people’s ethical and moral frameworks.”

Sunkara ultimately took down the tweet. But the thing he may have been most wrong about was the notion that most people’s moral and ethical frameworks can’t accommodate violence in the name of political change. Increasing numbers of Americans see those who disagree with them as subhuman and view politics as a worthy cause for violence, even if they’re not ready or willing to do violence themselves. For these new Jacobins, the romance of the guillotine persists.

Why Does Hollywood Hate Real Estate Developers? written by Associate Editor Christian Britschgi and published in our August/September 2020 issue, is a finalist for arts/culture feature in the magazine category: 

At the heart of all these portrayals is a fantasy of a world without tradeoffs or even annoyances, one in which the only spaces anyone needs or wants are the ones they already have. It’s wishful thinking that works from the assumption that housing just exists without having to be provided. Embedded in this worldview is a denial of the fact that preventing development and change means some people inevitably have to go without, while politically connected interest groups profit from higher rents and home values. The politicians who make this all possible are in turn rewarded with campaign donations and easy reelection. The bias is toward the status quo, and a corrupt one at that.

“The Reawakening of the Black Gun-Rights Movement,” by contributor Qinling Li, is a finalist in the national political/government reporting category and in the category of news feature over 5 minutes: 

“Venezuelans Fleeing Socialism Find Community at a Miami Storage Facility,” by contributor Claudia Murray and Reason TV Executive Editor Jim Epstein, is a finalist in the immigration reporting category: 

“Meet the Trans Activists Fighting for Sex Worker Freedom,” by contributor Qinling Li, is a finalist in the gender and society category: 

“Cypherpunks Write Code,” a series by Reason TV Executive Editor Jim Epstein, is a finalist for investigative reporting: 

“OnlyFans Didn’t Save Sex Workers, Sex Workers Saved Themselves,” by Reason TV Senior Producer Paul Detrick, is a finalist in the documentary short category: 

And last, but not least, the Reason Roundtable is a finalist in the inaugural radio/podcast category for talk show. The episode we submitted was one of our most popular of 2020: “The Great Bernie Freakout.”  

Please join me in celebrating these folks and the excellent work they did in 2020 and continue to do in 2021. I would also like to thank our donors, readers, viewers, and listeners, without whom Reason‘s work would not be possible.  

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sbbq6A
via IFTTT

Evil Greenpeace Objects to Philippines’ Approval of Genetically Improved Golden Rice


GoldenRiceIRRI

Golden Rice, which has been genetically engineered to have higher levels of the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene, has finally received regulatory approval for planting by farmers in the Philippines. The grain gets its name from the golden hue imparted to it by the beta-carotene. Greenpeace anti-biotech activists have been slinging low, dishonest neoluddite propaganda against golden rice since it was developed by a Swiss non-profit back in 1999. So predictably, the group decried the Philippines’ regulatory approval for planting the genetically improved rice variety last month.

“Greenpeace Philippines strongly denounced the approval of genetically modified ‘Golden Rice’ (GR) for commercial propagation and called on Department of Agriculture (DA) Secretary William Dar to reverse the decision and represent the interests of Filipino farmers and consumers,” reads the Greenpeace press release.

Regulatory approval of the grain in the Philippines is a big step toward improving the health of some of the poorest people on the planet. As AgDaily notes, “a one-cup portion of cooked Golden Rice contains enough beta-carotene to meet 30 to 50 percent of the estimated average requirement of vitamin A for children aged 6 months to 5 years, the group most at risk of vitamin A insufficiency in the Philippines. At present, only 2 out of 10 Filipino households meet the estimated average requirement for vitamin A intake in their daily diet.”

Vitamin A deficiency causes blindness in between 250,000 and 500,000 children each year, half of whom die within 12 months, according to the World Health Organization. A study by German researchers in 2014 estimated that activist opposition to the deployment of Golden Rice has resulted in the loss of 1.4 million life-years in just India alone. Since 2005, an estimated 14 million children worldwide have died of Vitamin A deficiency and an estimated 3.5 million to 7 million are permanently blind.

Back in 2016, a group of 100 Nobel Laureates issued an open letter to Greenpeace demanding that the anti-technology activist group “cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general.” The laureates pointed out that “scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.”

The laureates’ letter ended:

WE CALL UPON GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD to reject Greenpeace’s campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace’s actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.

How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a “crime against humanity“(emphasis theirs)?

If not a prosecutable crime, Greenpeace’s decades-long campaign against modern crop biotechnology is a disgraceful disservice to their fellow human beings.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ABkvbW
via IFTTT

Howard Mortman: Why Does Congress Pray Every Day?


Untitled-1

The United States may be a secular nation but Congress has begun every session since before there was a Bill of Rights with a prayer. In When Rabbis Bless Congress, Howard Mortman explores that weird tradition while paying special attention to Jewish religious leaders whose first appearance came in early 1860, when the pro-slavery, Swedish-born Morris Jacob Raphall addressed Congress weeks before Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as president. Raphall’s exotic garb and anodyne invocations of divine blessings were received warmly by both Southern members and The New York Times.

“This is a book for lovers of congressional history, for junkies of congressional history,” says Mortman, who tells Nick Gillespie that the content of the prayers adds up to an interesting, off-kilter history of the nation. From slavery and the Civil War to the Depression and World War II to Vietnam and women’s rights, the addresses made by religious leaders are “mirroring what we as a country are experiencing.”

For the past decade-plus, Mortman has been communications director for C-SPAN, the cable network that provides live coverage of Congress and a variety of related programming. He got his start working for the former congressman, Housing and Urban Development secretary, and vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp, and was a producer at MSNBC’s Hardball before the network’s decision to go hard left. He also worked as a columnist and on-air host of an early web show for National Journal‘s Hotline.

In a discussion about the rise of the internet and decentralized news sources, he tells Reason that the past 25 years have seen constant change in legacy media and that The New York Times, NPR, and most cable news are rightly understood to be more biased than in the past. If outlets were more upfront about that and if they strove to be fair to views they disagreed with, he says, the loss of trust and confidence in media would be less worrisome. “If you’re sleeping with elephants, you can’t cover the circus,” says Mortman, paraphrasing the old Times editor Abe Rosenthal. The rise of new voices and new perspectives is great, he says, but if you’re going to build a strong reputation, you’ve got to be believed and respected especially by your opponents. Absent that, the result is cacophony and polarization rather than a vibrant public square of debate.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XjZ9BH
via IFTTT

Poetry Wednesday!: “somewhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond” by e.e. cummings

Here’s “somewhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond” (1931) by e.e. cummings (1894-1962). (This is on my YouTube channel, which mostly consists of my Sasha Reads playlist, plus a smattering of law-related songs.) Here are links to two previous cummings poems I’ve read, “anyone lived in a pretty how town” and “love is more thicker than forget”.

somewhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond
any experience,your eyes have their silence:
in your most frail gesture are things which enclose me,
or which i cannot touch because they are too near

your slightest look easily will unclose me
though i have closed myself as fingers,
you open always petal by petal myself as Spring opens
(touching skilfully,mysteriously)her first rose

or if your wish be to close me,i and
my life will shut very beautifully,suddenly,
as when the heart of this flower imagines
the snow carefully everywhere descending;

nothing which we are to perceive in this world equals
the power of your intense fragility:whose texture
compels me with the colour of its countries,
rendering death and forever with each breathing

(i do not know what it is about you that closes
and opens;only something in me understands
the voice of your eyes is deeper than all roses)
nobody,not even the rain,has such small hands

For the rest of my “Sasha Reads” playlist, click here. Past poems are:

  1. “Ulysses” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
  2. “The Pulley” by George Herbert
  3. “Harmonie du soir” (“Evening Harmony”) by Charles Baudelaire (French)
  4. “Dirge Without Music” by Edna St. Vincent Millay
  5. “Clancy of the Overflow” by A.B. “Banjo” Paterson
  6. “Лотова жена” (“Lotova zhena”, “Lot’s wife”) by Anna Akhmatova (Russian)
  7. “The Jumblies” by Edward Lear
  8. “The Conqueror Worm” by Edgar Allan Poe
  9. “Les Djinns” (“The Jinns”) by Victor Hugo (French)
  10. “I Have a Rendezvous with Death” by Alan Seeger
  11. “When I Was One-and-Twenty” by A.E. Housman
  12. “Узник” (“Uznik”, “The Prisoner” or “The Captive”) by Aleksandr Pushkin (Russian)
  13. “God’s Grandeur” by Gerard Manley Hopkins
  14. “The Song of Wandering Aengus” by William Butler Yeats
  15. “Je crains pas ça tellment” (“I’m not that scard about”) by Raymond Queneau (French)
  16. “The Naming of Cats” by T.S. Eliot
  17. “The reticent volcano keeps…” by Emily Dickinson
  18. “Она” (“Ona”, “She”) by Zinaida Gippius (Russian)
  19. “Would I Be Shrived?” by John D. Swain
  20. “Evolution” by Langdon Smith
  21. “Chanson d’automne” (“Autumn Song”) by Oscar Milosz (French)
  22. “love is more thicker than forget” by e.e. cummings
  23. “My Three Loves” by Henry S. Leigh
  24. “Я мечтою ловил уходящие тени” (“Ia mechtoiu lovil ukhodiashchie teni”, “With my dreams I caught the departing shadows”) by Konstantin Balmont (Russian)
  25. “Dane-geld” by Rudyard Kipling
  26. “Rules and Regulations” by Lewis Carroll
  27. “Vers dorés” (“Golden Lines”) by Gérard de Nerval (French)
  28. “So That’s Who I Remind Me Of” by Ogden Nash
  29. “The Epic” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
  30. “La chambre double” (“The Double Room”) by Charles Baudelaire (French)
  31. “Медный всадник” (“The Bronze Horseman”) by Aleksandr Pushkin (Russian)
  32. “Herbst” (“Autumn”) by Rainer Maria Rilke (German)
  33. “Romance de la luna, luna” (“Ballad of the Moon Moon”) by Federico García Lorca (Spanish)
  34. “The Four Friends” by A.A. Milne
  35. “anyone lived in a pretty how town” by e.e. cummings
  36. “Листья” (“Leaves”) by Fyodor Tyutchev (Russian)
  37. “The Pobble Who Has No Toes” by Edward Lear
  38. “The Persian Version” by Robert Graves
  39. “Les deux voix” (“The Two Voices”) by Victor Hugo (French)
  40. “Lines Written in Dejection” by William Butler Yeats
  41. “Loveliest of Trees” by A.E. Housman
  42. “Akh, chto-to mne ne veritsia…” (“Oh, somehow I can’t believe…”) by Bulat Okudzhava (Russian)
  43. “Alone” by Edgar Allan Poe
  44. “The Man from Snowy River” by A.B. “Banjo” Paterson
  45. “À la mémoire d’une chatte naine que j’avais” (“In memory of a dwarf cat I had”) by Jules Laforgue (French)
  46. “When We Two Parted” by George Gordon, Lord Byron
  47. “A-Sitting on a Gate” by Lewis Carroll
  48. “Стихи о Петербурге” (“Verses About Petersburg”) by Anna Akhmatova (Russian)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3lV10aj
via IFTTT

To Fight Communism, the U.S. Should Beam Internet Into Cuba


Webp.net-resizeimage (6)

Are they still protesting in Cuba?

I don’t know.

The Cuban government has shut off the Cuban people’s internet.

The big demonstrations began four weeks ago, sparked, curiously, by a rap song. The key lyric is: “Freedom! No more Doctrine!”

“Doctrine” refers to the “constant cycle of propaganda” from the government, explains Cuban émigré Alian Collazo in my newest video.

Sadly, silly TV reporters in America claimed the protests were about “hunger, pandemic restrictions and the lack of COVID vaccinations,” or, according to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “food and fuel shortages.”

“Nonsense!” says Collazo. The cause is clear. “The protesters were yelling, ‘Down with communism!’ and ‘Libertad! Liberty!'”

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) claimed, “They are protesting the lack of materials during the pandemic, particularly the lack of medical supplies.”

Collazo is bewildered. “She speaks Spanish! Can she not listen to what the Cuban people are saying? ‘Libertad’ means ‘freedom’!” It’s true that Cubans want food, “but if you don’t have liberty, you don’t have food.”

Some people say Cubans lack food because of what Ocasio-Cortez calls America’s “absurdly cruel” embargo.

The embargo is absurd and counterproductive.

But that misses the point.”

Do research on what the embargo is! Medicine, food, and all of that can be traded,” says Collazo.

Yes, they can. America exempts food and medicine from its embargo.

Also, at least 80 other countries do trade with Cuba.

The real reason for shortages and suffering in Cuba is communism. “When the government controls your business,” says Collazo, “people don’t have food. All resources end up in the hands of the state.”

Other American “useful idiots,” like Michael Moore, praise Cuba’s “free” services.

In his documentary Sicko, Moore took a group of Americans to a Cuban hospital and celebrated how they were given free health care.

But Collazo points out that “free” is misleading. “Go to a hospital in Cuba—they don’t even have aspirin! Yeah, [health care’s] free. [But] it’s horrible.”

When the recent protests began, a reporter asked President Joe Biden’s press secretary, Jen Psaki, “Do you think that people are leaving Cuba because they don’t like communism.” She responded, “They are opposed to the oppression [and] mismanagement of the government.”

She wouldn’t condemn communism by name.

Fortunately, a few days later, her boss did. “Communism is a failed system, a universally failed system,” said Biden. “I don’t see socialism as a very useful substitute.”

Good for Biden for saying that.

Collazo wishes he would do more.

“The Cuban people are not asking for military intervention,” he says. Instead, “Get the president of the United States to deliver internet.”

The current protests “happened spontaneously,” says Collazo, “because of social media. That’s why the regime didn’t even know about it…they were surprised by the enormous amount of individuals that went out at the same time.”

Because of that, Cuba’s government has now shut down the island’s only internet provider. Future protests will be hidden from the rest of the world.

The United States could beam internet into Cuba.

I don’t know if it would make a difference.

But Collazo thinks it would. “This is historic. In Cuba, we have never seen this.”

COPYRIGHT 2021 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fWEKZP
via IFTTT

John Marshall Argued for the Independence of Federal Prosecutors

I think it’s relatively commonly believed these days that the President has a great deal of authority of federal prosecutions, even if he should generally abide by a norm of non-interference. This is obviously the view of “unitary executive” types, but even those who question some aspects of the unitary executive thesis have sometimes accepted this as to criminal prosecutions.

One early example I often see cited is Thomas Jefferson’s order to the district attorneys to stop prosecuting cases under the Sedition Act, which he believed unconstitutional. Here, for instance, is his explanation in an 1801 letter to Livingston:

the President is to have the laws executed. he may order an offence then to be prosecuted. if he sees a prosecution put into a train which is not lawful, he may order it to be discontinued and put into legal train. I found a prosecution going on against Duane for an offence against the Senate, founded on the Sedition act. I affirm that act to be no law, because in opposition to the Constitution; and I shall treat it as a nullity wherever it comes in the way of my functions. I therefore directed that prosecution to be discontinued & a new one to be commenced, founded on whatsoever other law might be in existence against the offence.

So I was very interested when Professor Matthew Steilen linked on Twitter to an account of a letter by John Marshall which seemed to disclaim presidential authority, writing: “The laws are made, & those who violate them are prosecuted by the proper officer wo the knowledge or direction of the President.”

Neither Professor Steilen nor I had the original text, and the letter was not as easy to find online as Jefferson’s earlier letter, so I dug it up in Volume 6 of the Marshall Papers and will copy it below.

For context, this is the year before the Jefferson letter, while John Adams is still President, and Marshall is explaining to his friend St. George Tucker why President Adams is not going to stop a prosecution of a man named Callendar. (Tucker had pointed Marshall to several criticisms of Adams, including one by Alexander Hamilton, that he thought far more scurrilous than what Callendar had written, so he thought it unfair that Callendar should be prosecuted if Hamilton wasn’t.)

Here’s the letter, with a few key parts bolded:

Washington Novr. 18th. 1800

Dear Sir

I receivd with much pleasure yours of the 6th. inst. I wish with all my soul that those with whom I have been formerly in habits of friendship, woud like you, permit me to retain for them that esteem which was once reciprocal. No man regrets more than I do, that intolerant & persecuting spirit which allows of no worth out of its own pale, & breaks off all social intercourse as a penalty on an honest avowal of honest opinions.

Fennos attack on Mr. Adams I never saw & that of Genl. Hamilton I wish for his sake had never been seen by any person. I have no doubt that it wounds & irritates the person at whom it is directed infinitely more than the Prospect before us, because its author is worthy of attention & his shaft may stick. Whether it is as properly the subject of judicial enquiry is a question on which I have no opinion because I have only given it one hasty reading & that not with a view to such an object. Be this as it may the proceeding, or omiting to proceed against him, can make no impression respecting the character of the executive because that is a subject over which the President exercises no control. The laws are made, & those who violate them are prosecuted by the proper officer without the knowledge or direction of the President. “The laws are made, & those who violate them are prosecuted by the proper officer wo the knowledge or direction of the President.” With respect to Mr. Callendar I am mistaken if you & all the world, so far as the circumstances of the case are known, do not concur in the opinion, that nothing can render him an improper object for the punishment of the law but his being below its resentment. On that principle & on that only coud he I think, with any sort of propriety, be recommended for mercy. On that account my own private judgment woud have been against his being prosecuted, but I am not quite sure that it is a sufficient reason for interposing and arresting the course of the law. However this may be I do not think Mr. Adams woud take any step in the case while the election is uncertain. These acts are so often attributed to other than the real motives, that unless there were stronger reasons for them than exist at present, it woud not be adviseable to do any thing til the choice of future President shall be over.

The unconstitutionality of the law, cannot be urgd to the President because he does not think it so. His firm beleif is that it is warranted by the constitution. This opinion is confirmd by the judgement of the courts & supported by as wise & virtuous men as any in the Union. Of consequence whatever doubts some of us may entertain, he who entertains none, woud not be & ought not to be influencd by that argument.

There will be a house of representatives to day. I beleive confidently that an accomodation has taken place with France tho we have as yet no official account of it. I think it is time for peace to be univeresal. I am dear Sir with much esteem & regard, yours &c.

J Marshall

Now, a few thoughts about the letter.

1, Steilen points out that this letter seems to be neglected in historical debates about the unitary executive (at least, I could find nothing in the law review literature quoting the key passage). If we take some weight from Jefferson’s position, we have to consider the weight of the opposing position in the Adams administration. And I think that’s true even if we think (as I do) that Jefferson was fundamentally right about the unconstitutionality of the Sedition Act. His rightness on the substantive question doesn’t mean he was right about the structural question. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.

2, That said, I see some ambiguities in Marshall’s position. For after stating that the federal prosecutors operated without “the knowledge or direction of the President,” Marshall does seem to anticipate a couple of reasons that the President might nonetheless intercede.

(A) He might be “below [the law’s] resentment.” I think this means his conduct might have been too minor to actually violate the Sedition Act. Here, Marshall says maybe that’s true, but the President isn’t going to intercede because of the pending presidential election.

(B) The law might be unconstitutional. Here Marshall says “The unconstitutionality of the law, cannot be urgd to the President because he does not think it so.” Well, fair enough!

3, The fact that Marshall entertains these two (and only these two) possibilities after noting the independence of the federal prosecutors makes me wonder if his view was that the decision to institute prosecutions was vested in the US Attorneys, but that the President could interfere if but only he had a legal objection—either the criminal statute was not actually violated or it was unconstitutional.

Now this would actually be consistent with Jefferson’s letter, which focused on prosecutions that were “not lawful” on constitutional grounds. And it would operate as a plausible interpretation of the President’s constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” even though today we might expect the President to be able to supervise even legal prosecutions that he thought unjust or otherwise inadvisable.

Perhaps there is ample other evidence against this view, but I thought it was interesting enough to be worth noting here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37BTngs
via IFTTT

No Self-Respecting American Should Aspire to Hungarian-Style Nationalism


CarlsonOrban

Though much of the great August 2021 debate over the aspirational role Viktor Orbán’s Hungary plays in America’s still-fermenting National Conservative movement has amounted to a willful misconflation of politics with policy, it’s still worth lingering for a moment on Tucker Carlson’s fondness for Magyar architecture.

“Here’s what I like about the landscape of Hungary, a few Soviet remnants notwithstanding,” the top-rated cable news anchor said in a speech Saturday. “It’s pretty. It is pretty, the buildings are pretty, the architecture uplifts. So this is another third rail in American politics: You’re not allowed to note that our buildings are grotesque and dehumanizing. Why are they bad? Because they are ugly, and ugly dehumanizes us…’dehumanizing’ is the act of convincing people that they don’t matter, that they’re less significant in the larger whole.”

Well, about that. Budapest—and the nearby upstream cliffside town of Esztergom, where the Fox News host was delivering his remarks—are indeed lovely to look at, if you don’t mind the shabby bits lurking just off-camera in the postcard shots, and otherwise avoid venturing out to the concrete panel housing units that scar all formerly communist metropolises.

But what pleases the foreign eye in the Hungarian capital is often a Potemkin grandeur, the projection of insecure nationalism, the architectural equivalent of fin de siècle bling, dating from that all-too-brief half-century (1867–1914) when Hungary was not just a small-population serial loser of wars, but rather the dual (if junior) monarch of imperial Austria’s last Habsburg stand. For a brief window, Budapest got to dress up as Vienna, and boy did it ever.

The city’s most celebrated piece of architecture, the Parliament Building (completed in 1904), with its neo-Gothic bones rattling over the Danube, never fails to awe from land or river. Yet inside the structure it’s hard to suppress a giggle, once you see the spatial ludicrousness of devoting the world’s third-largest legislative building to the unicameral parliament of the planet’s 94th largest country. It’s like designing the Sistine Chapel to host Wednesday night bingo.

Around the corner is another spectacular colossus I spent too much time in during the mid-1990s, reporting on what would eventually be an ominously illiberal post-communist media law. In that space during the first decade of the 20th century (exact dates vary) opened the Budapest Stock Exchange, then “the largest building of its kind in Europe,” and “of a scale far beyond Hungary’s requirements.” The bourse was liquidated by the state at the bloody end of World War II, and then in 1957, mere months after the Soviet Union put down the October 1956 uprising within Molotov-throwing distance of the palace’s magnificent arched entrance, this temple of capitalism was transformed into the imposing headquarters of…communist state television.

It is indeed a gorgeous building, especially now that the audiovisual apparatchiks have decamped. But television journalists from the Land of the Free might pause a breath before whistling too sweetly at nationalist Gargantua that started out as monuments to free enterprise only to be conscripted by the state for purposes of blasting out government propaganda.

The thick roots of 21st century Hungarian nationalism are no mere tangential offshoots from the allure of Orbánism; they anchor the whole enterprise. Though you will usually hear Orbán’s GOP fan club enumerate exactly three of the prime minister’s tangible accomplishments—he pays Hungarians to reproduce, he limits immigration, he tells Western elites to get bent—the hiding-in-plain-sight attraction to the Fidesz leader is about politics far more than policy. And those politics spring directly from a paranoid sense of historical grievance no self-respecting American should want to experience, let alone emulate.

“Viktor Orbán is winning his culture war,” declared the Hungarian’s leading American herald, Rod Dreher, in The Spectator last week. “Orbán’s Hungary…is an unapologetic beacon of National Conservatism….Hungarians would like to stay Hungarian, without the blights of mass immigration and Heather Has Two Mommies textbooks in kindergarten,” enthused ex-National Review columnist John Derbyshire at the “race realist” site VDARE, in a piece Dreher enthusiastically retweeted and then later recanted, maintaining he had no idea that a site named after the first English child born in America may have some off-putting hangups.

“Western elites are terrified that their smear campaign against Hungary will unravel,” added a palpably thrilled Frank Furedi at Spiked: “The globalist media have succeeded in establishing a cordon sanitaire around Hungary.”

The media have indeed supplied enough hyperbolic fuel to keep a battalion of conservative anti-anti-Orbánists well-fed, grossly mislabeling him a “fascist,” “far-right autocrat,” and even “the ultimate twenty-first century dictator.” (Xi Jinping would like a chat.) The pattern is eye-glazingly familiar by now in the age of Donald Trump: Politician does or says something provocative (Orbán delights in assuring western nationalists that “liberal democracy” is “over“); an appalled political class overreacts, the anti-anti brigades man their battle stations, and around we go, dumbly, until the next controversy.

This depressing cycle may appear newish to American eyes, but it’s old hat in post-communist Europe, where opportunistic pols learned early and often that you can gain and consolidate power by replacing the “commun” prefix with “national.” Sometimes it would get bloody, as in Slobodan Milošević’s Serbia, sometimes it could come off to outsiders as bloodlessly rational (as with the Czech Republic’s Václav Klaus, who preceded Orbán in playing the Anglo-American right like a fiddle). But always, the nation is being besieged by globalists from without, undermined by possibly disloyal intellectuals from within, and requiring a father figure to navigate the treacherous waters.

When Trump escalatored successfully into our political lives, those of us foreign correspondents who covered three-time Slovak Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar immediately began sending each other can-you-believe-it notes. A crudely entertaining, larger-than-life serial litigant barking conspiracies and crazy lies, while also steadfastly, democratically, venturing into corners of national life that the condescending elites had long abandoned? Generating unhinged hyperbole while also governing as an unhinged hyperbolist?

It was stunning to see such politics find fertile soil in a mature liberal democracy. And even after that hard-earned lesson in humility, it’s jarring still to watch Americans kiss the ring of a prototype of the form, albeit one considerably more polished. (Mečiar once told me before a 1993 trip to the U.S. that he’d consider the visit a success if “people see that I don’t eat children.”)

Orbán can point to the electoral scoreboard—he’s governed Hungary for the past decade, and most of this century—and he also whets the power appetites of American conservatives who no longer have patience for due process, individual autonomy, and limited government. “You are thinkers, but we are doers,” the prime minister told a rapt audience at the February 2020 National Conservatism Conference in Rome. The I-wish-we-had-that-here fantasia at this point is right out front. “Orbán impresses,” Dreher wrote this week at The American Conservative, “because he understands better than our own politicians the kind of wicked insanity we are up against.”

But aside from electoral success, there are some aspects to Orbán’s national-politics variant that are unique to Hungary and should be uniquely worrying to those of us who value freedom in the United States (which, Carlson’s host-flattery notwithstanding, beats Hungary’s like a drum).

Magyar grievance-nationalism begins with a wound the U.S. has never come close to absorbing—losing nearly two-thirds of its territory at the post-World War I Treaty of Trianon. Granted, Hungary’s pre-war landmass was at an ahistoric high filled with subjugated minorities, but the peace agreement left millions of Hungarian-speakers stranded outside their native country.

Given the feebleness of interwar Hungary, the fascist irredentism of its Axis-allied WWII regime, then the Communist control after the war, this created not just an unrequited nationalism, but an unrequitable nationalism. Orbán’s most fateful political choice (on which more below) came in recognition of a persistent national itch that can never fully be scratched.

The Hungarian language plays a key role in nurturing national paranoia, for the salient reason that almost no one else understands it. (Not even Finns, despite sharing the same linguistic family tree.) Poland and Czechoslovakia may have also been small countries frequently overrun by militaristic neighbors, but at least they shared the same Slavic roots as their Russian tormentors.

Hungarians, particularly in the capital, have long since mastered the art of presenting one face to the world in German, English, or Russian; quite another amongst themselves in their secret code of a mother tongue. Meanwhile, a majority of the country’s 10 million people do not speak a second language, rendering them surrounded by sporadically hostile Slavs and German speakers they cannot comprehend.

Perhaps the biggest example of Tucker Carlson telling on himself during his great inter-nationalism adventure is when he said, “Every Hungarian I have met… had better English than our own president.” Not only is the joke feeble; it’s a confession that he never visited the part of the country that gave Viktor Orbán his political power in the first place.

This is where the unstoppable Hungarian encomia of the anti-globalist anti-elites finally meet an immovable paradox. Carlson, Dreher, and the Fidesz-fluffing brigades love-love-love them some Budapest. Love it! Not just the chest-puffing dual-monarchy architecture, but the sprawling street cafes, the flamboyant Franz Liszt sculptures, the foie gras, the bathhouses, the Tokai, the Jewish quarter, the Turkish influence, the multilingual intellectuals, the stylish young things parading down endless pedestrian streets. It’s all so sensual, so intoxicating, so…cosmopolitan. And Viktor Orbán has been politicking against the place for a quarter-century.

Almost every country has some version of the rural/urban divide; country mouse vs. city mouse. But almost nowhere is it so dominant as in Hungary, whose capital city, at 1.75 million, contains 18 percent of the country’s population, and whose second city you’ve almost certainly never heard of. (It’s Debrecen, at 200,000.)

Orbán started his political career as a pretty young thing, co-founding Fidesz (the Alliance of Young Democrats) with a bunch of Budapest university pals in 1988 as an anti-communist, pro-environment, pro-Western political movement that was originally—and spectacularly!—limited to those under the age of 30.

After getting around 5 percent of the vote in the 1990 parliamentary elections—the nationalist Hungarian Democratic Forum, with 24 percent, would run the government for the next four years—Fidesz put Orbán in charge of the party in 1993, upon which he made a fateful decision: No more would this be the party of young urban liberals; Fidesz would re-position to the center-right, stumping for the Puszta vote with consciously anti-cosmopolitan politics.

The Budapest liberals of the party, many of them Jewish, bolted in alarm (the country has a fraught history of murderous anti-Semitism), joining the Alliance of Free Democrats (SzDSz), a center-left anti-communist grouping that then shocked many Hungarians by joining the unreformed Socialist Party in an uneasy coalition government after the 1994 elections. (It should be noted here that Hungary’s “goulash communism” was considerably softer than the totalitarianism of many Warsaw Pact countries, and that by some measures the mid-’90s Socialists were about as pro-market as Klaus’ Civic Democratic Party in the Czech Republic.) In opposition, Fidesz and Orbán tacked increasingly nationalist and illiberal, and by 1998 that translated into Orbán becoming prime minister and SzDSz largely scattering to the wind.

Orbán has been the country’s dominant politician ever since. And judging by one of the key measures Republicans used to care about, he has been a disaster.

In 1988, when Fidesz was just getting its start, Hungary and its goulash communism was far ahead of the regional pack in privatization, adopting market reforms, and the resulting GDP. As late as 1993, the country was still at or near the top of the Visegrád Group including Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, and ahead of the newly independent Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Ever since 2012, near the beginning of Orbán’s current reign, Hungary ($15,900 in 2020 GDP per capita, per the World Bank) and Poland ($15,700) have been at the bottom of the pack, and not by a little—Estonia’s up at $23,300, the Czechs are at $22,800, and even once-lowly Slovakia is kicking it at $19,200. Like a meal at McDonald’s, nationalism looks tempting in the ads but doesn’t digest particularly well.

Instead of examining his economic stewardship, or taking seriously critiques of his record, Orbán’s American boosters are left cheering on his culture war triumphs from the luxurious comforts of Budapest’s cosmopolitan excess. It’s a bit like crediting Donald Trump for the civilizational glories of the Bay Area while cavorting in Nob Hill; it does not quite compute.

Worse, by aspiring to Orbán’s strategic and proudly anti-liberal wielding of consolidated state power against perceived internal enemies, the Hungaro-cons are threatening to sink deeper into the conservative rut of anti-factual paranoia, enemy-scapegoating, and egg-breaking, swapping out even the pretense of philosophical governing principle for a transparent will to power.

“The key insight about Orban is that he believes that the future of his nation and of Western civilization hangs in the balance. He’s right about that,” Rod Dreher wrote last week, after a no-doubt sumptuous dinner in Budapest with Tucker Carlson. “I prefer the (possibly flawed) ways that Orban is meeting the crisis than the ways that the American Right is failing to do same.”

So it’s Flight 93s all the way down, then, only this time hijacked by a Hungarian. Perhaps one day the American right will regain its faith in America.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iD3d8n
via IFTTT

Hawaii Limits Indoor Social Gatherings to 10 People. Will More States Follow Suit?


reason-mask2

Hawaii is bringing back a whole swath of pandemic restrictions on social gatherings and businesses in response to rising COVID-19 cases on the island.

On Tuesday, Hawaii Gov. David Ige, a Democrat, issued an executive order limiting indoor social gatherings to 10 people, and outdoor gatherings to 25 people. Restaurants, bars, and other “social establishments”—in addition to abiding by those gathering limits—must also require patrons to be seated and masked when not actively drinking or eating. Mingling between parties is expressly prohibited.

Indoor capacity at those establishments, as well as gyms and other “high-risk” activities, is limited to 50 percent. (It’s not entirely clear to me whether this half-capacity cap supersedes the indoor gathering limits bars and restaurants are also supposed to comply with.)

“The dining rooms can only hold 50 [percent] capacity, where most restaurants and your financials are all structured around 100 [percent] capacity,” said Hawaii Restaurant Association Executive Director Sheryl Matsuoka to Civil Beat. “You only have 50 [percent] of your income, but then you have to pay 100 [percent] of your bills.”

Restaurants were already required to operate at 75 percent capacity, Matsuoka said.

Ige’s executive order allows for “professional events”—which the Honolulu Star-Advertiser says includes weddings, meetings, banquets, and conventions—have to follow state and county rules regarding their operation, but not the new state gathering limits. Organizers also have to consult with counties when hosting an event with more than 50 people.

A dashboard run by the state’s Emergency Management Agency shows that 65 percent of ICU beds in the state are occupied. The state has been averaging one COVID death a day for the past several months. Some 60 percent of Hawaiians are fully vaccinated, and almost 70 percent have received at least one shot.

Nevertheless, Civil Beat reported today that intensive care units (ICU) in a number of hospitals in the state are at or nearing capacity thanks to a surge in new COVID-19 patients. In Florida, a surge in delta variant cases has since been followed by a huge, and still rising, surge in COVID deaths. It’s plausible the situation in Hawaii will get worse soon.

Thus far, most states and localities that have reimposed COVID restrictions have stuck to mandating indoor masking or requiring that patrons of restaurants and other establishments show proof of vaccination.

Hawaii’s return to imposing limits on small gatherings—especially when statewide ICU capacity is still in good shape and COVID deaths are low—is a worrying sign that more states might soon start dredging up pandemic regulations we thought were behind us.

It doesn’t appear Hawaii state officials have put much more thought into these restrictions since the last time they were imposed.

It’s pretty widely accepted that requiring people to wear masks when entering a restaurant but not while they’re sitting there talking and eating for an hour is useless. Limits on outdoor activities are also considered to be ineffective.

Likewise, imposing different limits on the size of gatherings depending on where they’re happening doesn’t appear to make much sense. Is a 40-person wedding really less dangerous than a restaurant patio filled with 30 people?

Ige’s order is supposed to end on October 13, unless the governor chooses to extend it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3xy6oCs
via IFTTT

Gavin Newsom Takes Aim at Larry Elder as California Recall Builds Up Steam


Elderballot_1161x653

It looks like California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is recognizing the risks of a recall are real as he takes aim at Republican front-runner, conservative-libertarian radio host Larry Elder.

In a Zoom call at the end of last week, Newsom, without actually naming Elder, referred to him as a Donald Trump supporter who “thinks climate change is a hoax, believes we need more offshore drilling, more fracking, does not believe a woman has a right to choose [and] actually came out against Roe v. Wade, [and] does not believe in a minimum wage.”

According to the Los Angeles Times, Newsom even said Elder subscribes to the woefully mistaken belief that Trump actually won reelection. In an interview with the Sacramento Bee, Elder actually made it clear that he believes President Joe Biden won the election, but then went on to complain about how Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing when she lost to Trump in 2016—complain inaccurately about the election being stolen.

Elder, in some of the most recent polling, is the front-runner to replace Newsom should the recall against Newsom succeed. And while early polling had Newsom successfully holding the recall off, subsequent polls have shown more and more undecided voters saying they want to replace the governor, and now the race is dead even as to whether to keep or toss him.

Newsom and the Democratic Party’s tactic has been to paint the recall as a plot to seize power by Republicans and to paint everybody involved as pro-Trump anti-vaxxers. And therefore, all the Republicans jockeying to replace Newsom are the same.

But Newsom’s tactic here has actually ended up being the opening to give Elder the space to actually talk about what he really believes, and an interview with SFGATE‘s Eric Ting published Monday lets him hit back at some of these claims. And to give Elder some credit here, he is well aware that just because he holds certain conservative positions doesn’t mean he can or will be able to implement them as governor. Yes, he doesn’t support the state’s minimum wage and he’s anti-abortion, but Elder also tells Ting, “I’m not going to change the minimum wage. I’m not trying to overturn Roe v. Wade; I don’t even have the power to control abortion as governor. I’ve been in Kern County these past few days and no one has asked about the minimum wage or these other issues the media and Newsom are talking about.”

And with that, Elder smartly pivots to what people in California actually are talking about: crime, homelessness, and housing issues. Ting pushes Elder on what he could actually do as a Republican governor given that the Democrats will maintain a supermajority in the legislature, meaning they could probably pass whatever they want to over his objections.

Elder says he’d issue executive orders declaring a crisis in housing and water, which he believes will make it easier for developers to build housing without getting thwarted by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), responsible for an oppressive regulatory system that greatly drives up the price—and often simply prevents—much development in the state.

He blames Newsom for crime levels going up in California for releasing felons from jails due to the pandemic and pretty much accepts the police narrative that the rise in crime is due to “passive policing” or the “Ferguson effect” where police are reluctant to intervene because they fear criticism. He says, “as governor, I’d use the bully pulpit to change the narrative around policing.”

Ting actually points out to Elder that his tough-on-crime position seems to be at odds with how libertarians approach policing. He asks Elder if he has any criminal justice positions that align with libertarians or progressives, and Elder responds by suggesting that most people don’t agree with those positions on crime anyway, and the only reason San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin and Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon won their elections were due to financial support from megadonor George Soros. In reality, San Francisco’s Libertarian Party endorsed Boudin (and Ting further notes that Boudin didn’t get any Soros money).

Elder dismissively says, “If you’re a young black man, the best thing to do in encounters with the police is to cooperate. But if they’re taught the police will do something to them and cause harm, how can we expect them to cooperate? Most of the police killings could have been avoided if people had complied.”

Reason has exhaustively documented any number of cases where people who are compliant with police are nevertheless brought to harm. It’s a flippant, oblivious response that certain people continue to believe, even as more and more video evidence shows the reality of how many police actually behave.

But while Elder isn’t on board with criminal justice reforms, it is worth observing that he is genuinely engaging in the issues that are a focal point of discussion in many areas of California. The Democratic response—that Republicans are engaged in a “power grab” in Sacramento—just seems to present itself that Democratic control of the government, not actual citizen needs, is what is at stake in the September 14 recall race. The rallying cry around Newsom is essentially just listing a bunch of progressive goals as though they are somehow dependent on Newsom being governor.

“It’s about immigration. It’s about our health care policies. It’s about our criminal justice reform,” Newsom told San Francisco’s KQED in March. “It’s about the diversity of the state. It’s about our clean air, clean water programs, meeting our environmental strategies.”

But … is it about all of those things? Or is this recall election about a large group of Californians growing increasingly frustrated with a party that doesn’t seem to care about the negative effects many regulatory policies have been having on the state’s residents? The reason Newsom’s French Laundry incident, where he defied his own lockdown orders in order to attend a birthday dinner with lobbyists, keeps being brought up is because it aptly demonstrates the massive disconnect between the party and the people of the state it represents. It doesn’t just show that Newsom is above the rules—it also shows that Newsom simply doesn’t have to deal with some of the negative and frustrating consequences of California’s rules that others in the state have to struggle with.

I noted earlier in August that the anti-recall ads starring Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) tell Democratic voters that they should simply vote against the recall and completely leaves out that Democrats who oppose the recall can nevertheless choose a successor should Newsom be removed. If the recall succeeds and Democrats followed Warren’s advice, they’ll have lost the chance to select who will replace Newsom. It’s an example of Democratic leaders emphasizing their own political survival above properly educating their own voters.

Some of Elder’s more conservative positions might be objectionable to some libertarian voters. The L.P. has endorsed Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Hewitt, a Libertarian, who is also on the ballot.

But at least Elder’s responses are based on what he is actually hearing from citizens in California and not just about maintaining a particular party’s control over the government. He’s actually honest about how some of his conservative positions are going to end up irrelevant to the role of being governor, and he knows that what voters want is for particular, chronic issues to be handled.

We’ll see what happens if Democrats continue to present the recall as a “power grab” when polls show half of voters supporting it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VDrJxv
via IFTTT