Ken Matesz: Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Ohio

I must admit to being torn about the upcoming gubernatorial election. Here in Ohio, we have Republican John Kasich challenging Gov. Ted Strickland. I have generally supported Republicans, but for the past few years, I have been rethinking that. What I have come to realize is that, when dealing with the Republican Party, one cannot count on them to come through with their promises of smaller government. Eight years of George W. Bush have given free markets a bad name and President Obama his opening to spew his nonsense that free markets caused our recession. What the Republicans can be counted to push through with are precisely those creepy anti-science anti-personal liberty initiatives that they usually just hint at and for which I have needed to work very hard at "hear no evil, see no evil" for. (I am no longer willing to accept candidates who dance around the evolution as I close my eyes, cover my ears and tell myself that they are not Young Earth Creationists.) Whatever problems I have with the modern liberal intellectual tradition, it is at least an intellectual tradition. Modern conservatism has sold itself out to a talk-radio tea-party culture that is fundamentally against intellectuals, whether liberal or just simple academics like me. If the Ohio Republican Party had the decency to nominate an outsider I might have been willing to go along, but John Kasich is the personification of the establishment. You want a Republican who failed to fix government spending; Kasich was on the House Budget Committee during the 90s. Want a Republican in bed with our conservative anti-intellectual culture; Kasich had a regular stint on Fox news. I actually voted for Strickland four years ago, since he struck me as a relatively moderate guy and the Republican candidate, Ken Blackwell, made me nervous, particularly the fact that he opposed abortion even in cases where a mother's life was at risk. If Strickland supports wasteful government spending at least he supports the kind that benefits me, government funded universities. At the end of the day, though, Strickland is a high profile supporter of the Obama stimulus program, which I cannot support.

Thankfully for this libertarian, there is a Libertarian Party candidate for governor of Ohio, Ken Matesz. Matesz is the kind of candidate, from what I can tell so far, supports things that I can affirm wholeheartedly such as bringing government down to its basic functions and getting rid of government service programs such as welfare and education.

I recognize that Matesz cannot win. So why bother voting for him? Am I not simply wasting my vote and helping the candidate I disagree with the most, Ted Strickland, to win? I struggle with the issue, but I have come to believe that, on the contrary, voting outside of the two party system is actually making good use of my vote. If John Kasich is going to win he is likely going to win without my vote. Matesz can actually use my vote. If he can crack that 1% barrier maybe he will get some actual attention from the mainstream media. My vote brings him that much closer to receiving just a few minutes to talk to the general public about libertarian ideas. If Matesz actually costs Kasich the election even better; that will bring attention to the fact that Republicans do not represent libertarian ideas and make them take us seriously for next time.

Addendum: For those of my readers living in New York there is Warren Redlich running as the Libertarian Party candidate for governor. Yes, he looks and sounds like someone who got his underwear pulled over his head in high school, but on the issues he is solid. I can understand and accept that my liberal readers will vote for Andrew Cuomo. Under no circumstances, though, could I accept someone voting for Carl Paladino.

Slouching Toward Bosnia

In many respects this sort of tit for tat conflict, I described earlier, where each side is going to push the boundaries as to what is acceptable and justify it as simply doing to the other what is already being done to them is behind the deepening divisions in this country. Republicans maligned President Clinton, Democrats maligned George W. Bush in revenge and now Republicans seek to do the same to Obama. Democrats filibustered judicial nominations and now the Republicans are doing the same. Conservatives decided that the mainstream was not playing fair with the news so they created Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. Liberals responded in kind by creating Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. We are not shooting at each other yet. But we could all too easily, I fear, go from only accepting the media of our side as legitimate to following Michael Makovi and saying that we will only accept the legal authority of the people we support. This would mean that there would be Republican and Democrat police officers, judges and each side could have its own congress and president. At this point the best possible scenario would be secession as the country officially is broken up to accommodate all parties. If, as is likely the case, this is not practical in terms of territory and allotment of natural resources, we are left with war as each side attempts to subjugate the other to its will. (The Israelis and Palestinians are a good example of this. Neither side trusts the other to form a single country. There are no workable boundaries for two different States. Thus we are left with a state of war with both sides attempting to force a solution on the other.)

In British parliamentary culture there is what is known as a "shadow cabinet." The party out of power lists its leading members according to the positions they would have if they were in power. This speaks to one of my major objections to the parliamentary system and its lack of set elections; it creates a system where a large minority of the government is actively seeking to bring down the government and force new elections. As opposed to the American system where, in theory at least, Republicans, for example, are supposed to accept the fact that they were defeated by Barack Obama, that Obama is now the President and they are obliged to work with him for the next four years.

One of the virtues of the American two party system (and this maybe is what saves the British model as well) is that, regardless of what one might think of the many ideologically unsatisfying outcomes, it forces a certain level of moderation. Regardless of their party affiliation, I can count on the fact that elected officials on the one hand are not out to completely socialize the economy, but on the other support some sort of welfare state with at least some government health care. No one is going to support a religious theocracy, but on the other hand we retain a political rhetoric that acknowledges some sort of general divine providence. The military's dominating presence in the budget is not going to change anytime soon and neither is this country about to return to isolationism and stop interfering with other countries. I am not saying this is good or bad. Just that it provides a government that no one is going to feel pushed to such an extreme as launching an actual civil war.

In Orson Scott Card's two recent mediocre novels, Empire and Hidden Empire, he postulates a near future American civil war between the right and the left. (In truth it is more like secular leftist radicals, trying to destroy this country, going up against moderate patriotic Christians.) I can think of far more creative civil war scenarios. We can start with Evangelical Christians from rural Pennsylvania launching a tea-party with automatic weapons against Manhattan liberals. Manhattan liberals beg an Al Sharpton-like character to use his connections with black street gangs to save them. In a magnanimous gesture of tolerance, a Pat Robertson-like character visits a synagogue in the front lines of Brooklyn to meet with Israeli arms dealers and announces that Jews are not nearly as hated by God as Catholics. This causes a stir when it hits the internet, and the entrance of suburban New Jersey Catholics, armed with a papal indulgence for the sin of birth control for each slain Protestant. (I leave it to readers to continue the scenario.)

The point here is that government hangs on a very narrow thread as people decide whether to trust each other and whether their differences are not so large as to prevent their joining together in bounds of state-building. In many respects, functional governments are not the norm. Normal is Bosnia, Rwanda and Northern Ireland where neighbors kill each other over race, religion, culture or any other good excuse they can find on hand. The question we have to ask ourselves is why we are not in a Bosnia type situation now. There, if not by the grace of sensible moderates, go us.

Insanity at the Texas School Board

Last month I posted on the Texas school board and its attempt to turn history textbooks into conservative Christian propaganda tools. There is more on this popping into the news. It is somewhat heartening to see that the insanity is not just from the right. The Democrats on the board, all minorities, wanted to insist that Tejanos killed at the Alamo be listed by name. They also wanted to insist that hip-hop in addition to rock and roll be listed as an important cultural achievement. To be clear I do not support history being taught exclusively as a laundry list of dead white males. When talking about the Alamo (in of itself more important as a cultural symbol than as a historical event) it is worthwhile to point out that not everyone inside was a WASP. That does not mean that we should be memorizing names. There are more important names from nineteenth-century American history to memorize. A parallel example would be the case of Crispus Attucks and the Boston Massacre. Yes, he was a black man and he was killed. I would certainly encourage teachers doing the Boston Massacre to bring up Attucks and ask students to consider what having a black man listed among the dead tells us about Boston society of 1770. Should Attucks be a name that students should make the effort to memorize? No.

Of course, since this board has a 10-5 Republican majority, the important insanity to consider comes from them. The board has felt the need to remove Thomas Jefferson from the question: "Explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present." The question now reads: "Explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Sir William Blackstone." First off, I should acknowledge that I was not familiar with Blackstone and had to look him up. He was an eighteenth-century English legal scholar. Let us acknowledge the purpose of this change. The board wants students to understand the religious element in the rise of modernity. I certainly support this, but what the board is doing is making the entire question meaningless.

The question, around which I teach modern history, both Jewish and general European, is how our secular society came about. Granted this very question is not as simple as most people assume; medieval society was not nearly as religious as popularly portrayed and modern society is not nearly as secular. That being said, once we get through defining what we mean by religious and secular, we are still faced with how we moved from the more religious society of the Middle Ages to our more secular society. As readers of this blog already know, this story is certainly much more complex and interesting than people all of a sudden becoming "rational" and rejecting "religious" superstition. While it is important to talk about the religious motivations of thinkers like John Locke, we should not be side-stepping modern secularism. Like him or hate him, Jefferson stands at the center of this modern divide, particularly within the American context. He wrote the Declaration of Independence and coined the term "wall separating Church and State."

Sticking Thomas Aquinas into this negates the entire question of modernity. Yes, Thomas Aquinas was an important medieval political thinker, in addition to his theology, and his work continues to be relevant. That being said, if you are going to understand this modern world of ours, one of the first things you have to acknowledge is that there is a giant wall called the American and French Revolutions separating us from the Middle Ages. I would add that there is a second wall of the early modern Reformation. John Calvin is one more thing that separates us from Aquinas; he is also, though, separated from us by the same Enlightenment revolutions that separate us from the Middle Ages. As such, while deserving of his own question about the role of theocracy and democracy, he should not be part of the modern political thinkers.

Again I challenge readers; either you are in favor of ideological government boards or you are in favor of the teaching of history. The only way that history or any other subject can hope to be taught in a responsible manner is if government is out of education.

Birthday Presents

Today is my twenty-sixth birthday. Here are some of the things on my birthday wish list, ranging from the personal to the “in terra pax homínibus bonæ voluntátis.” I would like Patrick Rothfuss to finally finish Wise Man’s Fear and for Amazon to stop filling me with false hope about its release. For those of you who do not understand what I am talking about I strongly suggest that they pick up a copy of Name of the Wind and read what is looking to join Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever as one of the greatest works of fantasy ever written. While we are on the topic of Thomas Covenant, I would not say no to having book three of the Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Against All Things Ending, come out a little sooner. It is slated for 2010. It would be nice if Stephenie Meyer would reconsider her decision not to complete Midnight Sun, her parallel novel to Twilight. Can Fox cancel Joss Whedon’s miserable new television series, Dollhouse, and then allow him to bring Firefly back?

For Israel I would ask that they may form a stable coalition of parties that will actually manage to stay together for a full four years; a coalition made up of conservative parties that will actually defend Israel. May they be able to do this without the help of a single Haredi party to hold the government hostage. Benjamin Netanyahu is one of a rare breed of non-American politicians who supports limited government; he grew up here in the United States and received much of his political training here. So his leadership may have an economic side bonus for Israel. For America, I would ask that they be given a Democratic party that will, now that they are in power, take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously and a Republican party that will, now that they have been rightly tossed out of power, support limited government. I think having at least one small government party, even if it the one in the minority, is worth wishing for.

For those of you who are unable to come through with any of these gift suggestions, but still wish to get me something here is my Amazon wish list.

History 112: Who are these Folks? (How Religious People are Part of the Modern Narrative) Part II

Part I

Let us move this to the Christian context. Haredi Jews do not have the numbers to really affect American society. There are millions of fundamentalist Christians on the other hand. One of the things that I find very interesting about religious Christians is that unlike Haredim they do not dress differently and, from the outside, are completely indistinguishable from ordinary Americans. The person you meet on the street wearing a tie-die shirt, cut-off jeans and shoulder-length hair might very well be a very religious Christian. Fundamentalist Christians have also developed their own counter-culture. For example, the Left Behind Series was a mega-bestseller a few years ago. Over the past few decades, it has been the Evangelical churches that have been really successful and not the mainline or even liberal churches. How can this be; in our modern liberal age shouldn’t people be running to join liberal churches? Why would someone bother to join a church that accepts LGBTs and preaches that there are other means to salvation besides Jesus Christ? If you do not have to accept Jesus as your personal savior then why bother going to church? Evangelical Christianity preaches a doctrine that is worth caring about; there is heaven and hell, sin and sinners, such as gays. The very salvation of your soul rests on you coming to church and accepting Jesus as your personal savior. The moral “decline” in our society also helps their cause. It creates an easy target to polemicize against. It is hard to justify taking an adversarial relationship with the general society when the general society holds similar values. If I am in 1950s America and there is school prayer and officially society is opposed to pre-marital sex then I do not need the Christian right.

In What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank makes the argument that there are many poor white Christians in this country who would benefit from government welfare programs and should really be voting Democrat. The Republicans, though, keep them focused on issues such as guns, gays, and abortion and get them to vote against their economic interests. What Frank does not consider is how government welfare strengthens religious fundamentalists. We are used to thinking of big government advancing the cause of secular liberalism; it also, though, allows dissident groups, like fundamentalist Christians, to stand outside of mainstream America.

To reverse Frank’s question, there are a lot of fairly conservative blacks voting Democrat. For example, 70% of blacks voted for Proposition 8, against gay marriage. Why are blacks who oppose things like gay marriage still voting Democrat, against their own ideological beliefs? It would seem that the two main reasons for this are that blacks associate Republicans with segregation and that they see the Democrats as the ones who will give them the government aid they require.

If you remember, back in 2000, when George W. Bush first ran for president, he ran under the banner of “Compassionate Conservatism." Compassionate Conservatism was the belief that government should be engaging in welfare programs, though in a more socially conservative-friendly fashion. For example, through faith-based initiatives, government dollars would be channeled through religious organizations as a means to help those in need. This can be seen both as an attempt to protect Republicans against the sort of vulnerability outlined by Frank and to reach out to conservative minorities, particularly blacks. Poor white Christians would get the government aid they need in a manner they could feel comfortable with and would have no need to turn to the Democrats. As for conservative blacks, they would finally have a Republican party they could feel comfortable with, one that took their concerns seriously and offered government aid, likewise, in a way that would be consistent with their conservative beliefs. This had the potential to create a political alliance that would have kept the Republicans in power for the next generation. History, though, caught up with George W. Bush, after only a few months in office, on September 11. This radically changed his presidency and, for the most part, placed Compassionate Conservatism on the political backburner.

One can see Barack Obama as trying to put together his own version of the proposed Compassionate Conservatism coalition. When I first heard Obama speak, back in 2004, what struck me about him was that he was a Democrat who could talk intelligently and believably about faith. This man was clearly a sincere and believing Christian. I had a flash of him running for president, canvassing Evangelical churches and talking about how he came to accept Jesus as his personal savior, bringing over white Evangelicals to the Democratic party; clearly, this was a man who would be a dangerous candidate in a general election. As it turns out Obama did not run on his faith; he had no need to as the Republicans fell apart. That being said, Obama has not abandoned this potential alliance with white Evangelicals. He has invited Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. Rick Warren is an Evangelical pastor known for his interest in social welfare issues such as AIDS and the environment. As such, Warren is precisely the sort of Evangelical Obama would wish to ally with and he can serve as a bridge to the larger Evangelical community. It may be possible to get many white Evangelicals to go along with such socially liberal notions as gay marriage and abortion if these things are sold the right way. As we can see, religious voters are important to American culture and to American politics and not simply as the dark forces of superstition waiting to overturn modernity.

Why have I been spending all of this time talking about this topic? We are used to thinking of modernity in terms of liberalism and secularism. In the Prop 8 piece we saw at the beginning of class, the good guys of modernity are liberal. Then there are these dark scary buffoonish religious characters lurking in the background trying to ruin everything; seeming to be outside of modernity. In truth, these religious characters are also part of the modern story. Much of what goes on in modernity plays into their hands and benefits them as well. If you do not understand the role of religion, even fundamentalist religion, then you have failed to understand the modern story. This goes for dealing with the sixteenth-century and the twenty-first century as well.

My Optimistic Scenario for the Next Four Years

So the election has come and gone and as expected John McCain lost and Barack Obama won. I supported McCain and continue to have serious reservations about Obama, both in terms of the American economy and in terms of Israel. The Democrats now control the presidency and have greatly strengthened their hold over Congress and the Senate. The radical left is triumphant and no doubt they will push their advantage for all it is worth. That being said I am willing to be cautiously optimistic. For one thing, despite my disagreements with Obama, I respect the man; he has always struck me as a highly intelligent individual who, despite his personal liberalism, honestly desires to reach out and cut across the traditional ideological lines. Here is my optimistic scenario for the coming four years.

I do not believe that Obama is going to turn tail and run neither in the War in Iraq, specifically, or in the War on Terror, in general. Obama has nothing to lose and everything to gain from pursuing an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. If he fails it will be blamed on the Bush administration and if he succeeds he will be able to take the credit for himself. I suspect that the Left in this country and the European Union will be far more willing to support an aggressive foreign policy now that it is no longer the Bush administration taking the lead. Obama may, in fact, be better suited than George W. Bush to pursue an aggressive foreign policy because he will not be caught up in the us versus them in the liberal establishment trap; Obama will have no need because the establishment will be on his side. Just as it took Richard Nixon to go to China so to it might very well require an Obama to fight the War on Terror.

Personally, my number one reason for supporting Republicans is in order to make sure that strict constructionist judges are appointed and to stop Liberals from appointing activist judges who will reinterpret the Constitution to give Liberals everything they fail to get through the democratic process and call it a "civil right." The two best things President Bush did in his eight years in office was to appoint John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Obama defiantly will try to appoint activist judges. I do not think he will be able to too much damage. The only justice who is likely to step down over the next four years is John Paul Stevens, one of the courts most liberal members. We can assume that, one way or another, we will still have our four conservative judges (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) and one judge (Kennedy) who usually can be relied upon.

Hopefully, Obama can be relied upon to do something stupid that will not do too much damage but will help bring about a Republican comeback in 2010 and even allow them to take back the White House in 2012. I am thinking along the lines of him going back on his campaign pledge not to raise the taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. I am really keen for him to fulfill his campaign promises to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will enshrine Roe vs. Wade into Federal law, and support equal pay laws for women. These things should be enough to alienate the American center over the next few years, particularly as their anger toward Republicans cools.

Meanwhile, the Republicans can take the opportunity of this well-deserved defeat to take stock of their situation. This defeat may serve as a badly needed intervention to save them from themselves and maybe get them back to things like small government. I think there is little chance that the Republicans could ever have changed on their own without some disaster of Obama proportions. Of all the disasters that may have struck the Republican Party, I could imagine worse than an Obama presidency.

Hopefully over the next few years we can put together a Republican Party that we can be proud of.