[282] in libertarians
Re: liberals support civil liberties?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Wed Sep 28 16:06:26 1994
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 94 16:03:02 -0400
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: smcnair@willamette.edu, tjic@icd.teradyne.com
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
tjic>
>Given that the judiciary tends towards left-wing activism, I agree
>with Vernon that rightists in the executive and judiciary aren't as
>dangerous as leftists in these posts: the checks-and-balances (also
I didn't say that. I think it was Kevin.
>known as Gridlock(tm)) of the constitutional system result in less
>extremism being enacted.
Historically, this has not been the case. It was only a few decades
ago that the conformist 50's were the norm. All alternate opinions,
lifestyles, or questioning of authority was branded as subversive
and dangerous. The "chill factor" (to speech etc.) was incredible
compared to today.
>I'd be interested in hearing why anyone thinks that either (1) we have
>less to fear from the Left or (2) in practical terms, we have as much
>to fear from the Left as from the Right.
>
>To reiterate, I am speaking only in the context of 1990's America
>where the Judiciary and the Media tend to be leftist.
The biggest fear from the right is probably the attacks on the 4th
and 5th amendments, not necessarily speech laws. Asset forfeiture,
the drug war, and other "law and order" measures were all revived
by the right. In the last crime bill, it was the right that wanted
(and got) tougher mandatory minimum laws for the drug war. Indeed,
one could make a strong argument that the drug war is/was a tool
of the right to raise public fears, a necessary feature of any attempt
to erode liberty "for security sake."
On speech, the question is usually more of "chill" than legally upheld
oppression. If one is agressive and willing to take heat, you can beat
speech codes, banned books, moments of silence, indocrinated religion,
etc. The problem is that many do not. Ideas are by far the most
essential requirement for liberty. Any policy that chills them is very
dangerous.
I suppose I beware the "religious right" becuase I am a Christian myself.
I know from experience how "mainstream" these folks think they are, and
how serious (and capable) they can be. (In fact, many are most dangerous
to other Christians since they want to impose their own doctrine over
all.)
Now, I agree that we probably have to support the "right" more now, since
they are the weaker of the two majors (with balance of power being the
objective). However, it is very naieve to think they are not VERY serious
about setting national moral standards and eroding numerous civil liberties
protections.
One could argue that the Left is already reeling economically from the
collapse of communism. Many of them are running as "New Democrats" with
much more of a Keynesian "public-business partnership" approach than the
adversarial pure socialism approach. Really, the biggest remaining
"new deal" democrats left are Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo, both of which
are in serious trouble. Thus, it could be that leftists are the ones
looking for new economics right now (though old habits die slowly),
while the conservatives -- content with the success of their economics --
feel no compunction to give in on social liberties issues. Also, if they
are true to their name, liberals would be the more likely to change their
mind (about anything) than conservatives.
Remember, these characterisations are mostly towards the populace, not
the leaders. The people who can actually make the rules -- from both
parties -- are generally more authoritarian than EITHER of their
constituiencies. I'm talking here about feasability of reaching the
"liberal voter" versus the "conservative voter." If the candidates
could be "reached" we wouldn't need the LP.
Vernon
