From the Archives: Belafonte criticizes Barack Obama on civil liberties in Charlottesville

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on January 24, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016. I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Belafonte criticizes Barack Obama on civil liberties in Charlottesville

Harry Belafonte in Charlottesville - January 2012

Harry Belafonte – actor, author, singer, and political activist – appeared in Charlottesville on January 24 at a screening of his autobiographical film, Sing Your Song, as part of a community celebration of the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was a close friend and colleague of Belafonte’s in the civil rights movement of the early 1960s.

In a discussion led by University of Virginia history professor Julian Bond at the historic Paramount Theatre, Belafonte reflected on his life and career, offered his thoughts on politics, culture, education, and other topics, and criticized President Barack Obama’s record on protecting civil liberties.

‘Critical of the president’

Replying to a question posed by a member of the audience, Belafonte prefaced his remarks by promising that he would vote for Barack Obama’s re-election and would campaign for him this year.

“But recent utterings,” he cautioned with a smile, “have unsharpened my dance card to come to the White House for the next ball.”

Turning more serious, he added, “I’ve been critical of the president and I’ve let that go public.”

Referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which had been drafted by his friend, Eleanor Roosevelt, in the 1940s, Belafonte pointed out that the human rights record of any country “becomes the first litmus test of how we create policy in relationship to the country under examination.”

That litmus test, he suggested, has to be applied to the United States as well as any other country.

‘Patriotic treason’

Paraphrasing Theodore Roosevelt, Belafonte argued that “if a citizen finds himself at the crossroads of a moment when the people, who have been invested with the power to lead this nation, begin to betray the Constitution of this country and betray the citizens of this country, it is not only the right but the responsibility of any citizen and all citizens to raise their voice against this evil, and anyone who does not do that should be charged with patriotic treason.”

In that context, he said, Barack Obama had “laid out his mission, not with complete clarity” but with enough substance “for us to linger with hope.” Obama had promised, upon taking office, that he would end the wars – yet they continue.

In addition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Belafonte identified something else of concern.

“More important,” he said, are “the homeland security laws, which were written to such extremes that they defied imagination that anyone could have thought of those laws.”

That those laws made their way through Congress and were signed by the President, he said, “was an absolutely stunning experience for all of us, and certainly for some of us who saw it in the depth of its villainy.”

Looking out over the audience, Belafonte painted a darkly dramatic picture of the effect of laws like the USA PATRIOT Act and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed on December 31 by President Obama.

“Anyone who is sitting in this room tonight,” he said, “could walk out of that door and be whisked away by strangers, people who you’ve never met [and] don’t know, whose task it was to apprehend you and never tell you why you’re being apprehended, never tell you what you’re being charged with, never ever give you the right to make a phone call or get the benefit of a lawyer.”

‘Deeply wrong’

If someone is willing to surrender his rights, he said, or “willing to surrender all that is precious” under the framework of the Constitution, then “something’s wrong. Something is deeply wrong.”

Belafonte then explained the importance of the system of checks and balances found in the American constitutional system.

“The House watches the Senate, the Senate watches the House, both watch the Executive, the Executive watches the House and the Senate,” and the Supreme Court is “the final arbiter” for what becomes “the law of the land.”

When that system is out of balance, however, it needs “a leader who is made of such moral courage and strength to step into this frame and put himself on the line.”

By his tone of voice, Belafonte implied that Barack Obama lacks that courage and that strength.

“It is said by some,” the activist pointed out ruefully, “that Barack Obama’s second term as President will reveal all these mysteries [and] will reveal all these good deeds. He just needs to get the second term.”

Unfortunately, Belafonte added, “I’m not quite that optimistic. I’m not too sure that what we saw in the first term will not be” much different from “what we see in the second term.”

Even with that note of pessimism, he concluded, he is “infinitely more prone to devote all of my resources into his camp” than he would be willing to support any of the potential Republican candidates seeking to unseat Obama.

With that, Belafonte left the stage so he could autograph copies of his new book, My Song: A Memoir, for several dozen local fans.

From the Archives: Georgetown philosophy professor Jason Brennan explores ethics of voting

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on July 31, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016. I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Georgetown philosophy professor Jason Brennan explores ethics of voting

“Every day you see the same message: ‘get out the vote, get out the vote, get out the vote,’” says philosophy professor Jason Brennan.

“What if all the sentiments underlying that were just wrong?” he asks. What if they “could be shown to be wrong pretty easily?”

According to Brennan, his new book, The Ethics of Voting, shows those underlying sentiments to be, in fact, wrong.

Brennan, an assistant professor of business and philosophy at Georgetown University, summarized his book at a Cato Institute forum on July 21. After his presentation, he spoke with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about what motivated him to write The Ethics of Voting, how the book has been received by academics, and his new research on private behavior and the common good.

Brennan has long been interested in the topic of the ethics of voting.

Is voting special?

“Growing up,” he said, “I kept hearing, over and over again, the American civic religion [says] that voting is special, that political participation is special, that serving in the military makes you an especially good person.”

These claims were not satisfying to Brennan, he explained.

“I never found myself gripped by that,” he said. “I always wondered: What were the grounds underlying that? Why did people believe it?”

He also discovered, he continued, that “at the same time, there’s a kind of interesting philosophical question about what you should do in situations where we as a group are doing something bad but that your individual input doesn’t make a difference. That happens a lot in politics.”

Those two different but related things brought him to this topic.

Is voting rational?

He had read some of the literature about voter behavior but George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan’s 2008 book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, provided extra stimulus to write his own book.

“After reading that, I asked myself, suppose he’s right that voters are irrational. What does that mean about what they should do?”

The answer is not simple, he said. One cannot simply say, “Well, if they’re rational they shouldn’t vote, because individual votes don’t make a difference.” Instead, “it’s actually a real philosophical puzzle as to why it would even matter at all [with regard to] what an individual does and why they should vote well or not.”

Caplan’s book, Brennan said, was “like the last straw” in how it “pushed me over the edge to have to write something more about the philosophy behind” the ethics of voting.

Reaction from scholars

Brennan has received feedback from other academic philosophers, as well as from political scientists. Most of it has been positive.

Jason Brennan at Cato Institute, July 2011

The reaction he has had from philosophers, he said, “has been overwhelmingly very positive. Even if they disagree with the conclusions -- and many of them do -- what they’ve tended to like about it is that it takes on common sense. What it does is start with rather simple, plausible premises and leads to counterintuitive results. Philosophers tend to like that.”

Moreover, he added, “what a lot of philosophers have recognized, too, is that there are just a lot of unfounded assumptions about how politics works and what we should do. At the very least, I’m being a devil’s advocate in challenging” those assumptions, and that challenge makes philosophers “recognize that common sense [claims] about voting need to be justified, if they are justified” at all.

The reaction of political scientists, he said, “has largely been the same,” but faculty in political science departments who do political theory, “which is sort of philosophy but done in political science,” have a tendency “to be more skeptical because they tend to have a much more strongly emotional attachment to democracy than philosophers do.”

Private behavior as a public good

Brennan is now conducting new research on how private behavior contributes to the public good, something “that ended up being a major premise even in this book.”

He explained that “we can express civic virtue anywhere: by running a good business that helps people [and] makes them richer, by coming up with inventions, by making art, and so on.”

All these things, he said, help “promote the common good. They’re doing as much good as politics is doing, perhaps even more.”

The practical effect of this for individuals is that, “if you’re a person who is publicly spirited and you want to promote the common good, that doesn’t mean you have to get out of the market and go to the forum,” Brennan explained. “It might instead mean you should stay in the market and work there.”

Giving two prominent examples, Professor Brennan pointed out that “Thomas Edison did a lot more for us with his inventions than he ever would have done as a voter. Michelangelo did a lot more with his art than he ever would have done as a voter.”

He concluded by noting that “private civil society is really important for promoting the common good. If civic virtue is about promoting the common good, then private civil society might be the way to do it.”

Brennan wrote The Ethics of Voting while he taught at Brown University; it was published in April by Princeton University Press.

From the Archives: Amity Shlaes discusses significance of Calvin Coolidge at Heritage Foundation

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 20, 2013. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016. I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Amity Shlaes discusses significance of Calvin Coolidge at Heritage Foundation

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation on February 20, author Amity Shlaes reminded her audience, “if you want to know only one thing about Calvin Coolidge,” the subject of her new biography, “it is that when he left office in 1929” – 67 months after he had succeeded Warren Harding -- “the federal government was smaller than when he had become president in 1923.”

That singular achievement is one of the aspects of Coolidge's life that motivated Shlaes, a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg View and director of the Four Percent Growth Project at the George W. Bush Presidential Center, to write the simply-titled Coolidge, which is both follow-up and prequel to her previous best-selling book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression.

“I'm on a mission of reputation-building,” Shlaes said, in light of the fact that Coolidge tends to be ranked low among historians of the presidency. She identified parallels between the time Coolidge took office in post-World War I America and the present day, when crises seemed to emerge day after day, tempting the government to “do something.”

Parallels to today

For instance, federal debt had grown by a factor of 20 since before the First World War. The times were “troubled,” Shlaes said, because thousands of returning veterans had been unable to find work and as many as one-third of them were disabled.

At the end of the Wilson administration, she explained, “the machine of government was broken. They had gridlock,” not unlike the current standoff between Republicans in Congress and the Obama White House.

In 1920, the presidential ticket of Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding and Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge ran on a platform of “no” – as Shlaes put it, “not kinder, gentler, but 'no'” to spending, to taxes, to expanding government.

During Harding's term, Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act, which established the forerunner of today's Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For the first time, the federal government was able to invoke independent analysis of budget proposals with an overarching view of how programs added up. Previously, appropriations were made on an ad-hoc basis, which made it difficult for presidents, when asked for something, to say “no.”

Cutting tax rates

After Harding died, Coolidge continued and built upon his program of austerity. With Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, he cut the top marginal income tax rate to 25 percent, resulting in increased revenues paid to the U.S. Treasury. (No other president has been able to achieve such low marginal rates since then. Ronald Reagan, Shlaes pointed out, was only able to cut the top rate to 28 percent.)

Coolidge made cutting government into an art. He used the political skills he had honed since first being elected to public office at age 26 to veto 50 bills over six years. He also made ample use of the “pocket veto,” which requires no message of explanation and, because Congress is not in session when the president quietly rejects the bill, it cannot be overridden. Coolidge, Shlaes said, “was like an Isaac Stern of the pocket veto.”

Coolidge's use of the veto and pocket veto reflected his view that “it's better to kill bad laws than to pass good ones.” As then-prominent political commentator Walter Lippmann put it, Coolidge used “dullness and boredom as a political device,” in order to prevent bad legislation.

Bothersome Prohibition

In reply to a question posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about Coolidge's role in Prohibition, Shlaes said he regarded it “as a bother.” Earlier in his career, she explained, he had seen commerce in alcoholic beverages as beneficial to local farmers and businesses. He also understood that Prohibition was unpopular among recent immigrants, and he was concerned about his party (the Republicans) losing immigrant votes – something, she pointed out, with parallels today.

Coolidge, she explained, “tried to ignore [Prohibition] as best as he could” but felt constrained to uphold it because it was the law of the land. He disfavored Prohibition because “there was too much social legislation when economic legislation is more important.”

Still, before the repeal of the 18th Amendment, Coolidge bought stock in a grocery-supply company that sold a great deal of yeast, a major component of making beer and other fermented beverages. He was betting, Shlaes said, that Prohibition would end sooner rather than later.

As it turned out, of course, Coolidge ended sooner than Prohibition. He died on January 5, 1933; Prohibition was repealed on December 5 that same year, exactly 11 months later.

From the Archives - Author Earl Dudley: from child prisoner of the Japanese to UVA law professor

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on November 21, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016. I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Author Earl Dudley: from child prisoner of the Japanese to UVA law professor

Having had a childhood that virtually parallels the story of Steven Spielberg’s 1987 movie, Empire of the Sun, retired UVA law professor Earl C. Dudley, Jr., begins his memoir, An Interested Life, with the Japanese bombing of the Philippines that followed the attack on Pearl Harbor.

“My mother and I were injured in the first Japanese bombing of the Philippine Islands on December 8, 1941,” he told the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner in an interview. “With my parents, I was interned in the Japanese internment camps for a little over three years in the Philippines, and we were rescued by a very dramatic operation of the 11th Airborne Division on February 23, 1945.”

Dudley was one of more than 30 local and regional writers at a “Meet the Author” book signing at the Holiday Inn in Charlottesville on November 19.


‘My parents were starving themselves’

“I was only 4 when the war was over,” Dudley explained, “so I have little independent memory of my own, but I have no memory of having had an unhappy childhood. My life was sheltered. My parents were starving themselves to feed me.”

He recalled that his father, “who was about 6 feet tall and normally weighed about 175 or 180 pounds, weighed about 120 pounds when the war was over. It was an experience for the adults that involved a tremendous amount of deprivation and unpleasantness.”

Yet, he remembers that, “as a child, I had the full attention of my parents. They were prisoners and so they focused their attention on me and they starved themselves to feed me. So I don’t think I had an unhappy childhood.”

After spending one’s earliest years in a prisoner of war camp, anything after that must pale in comparison. Yet Dudley’s life was peppered with poignant moments.

John F. Kennedy Assassination

In the early 1960s, he was working as a journalist for UPI in New York. As it happens, he was on the editor's desk when President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

He writes in his memoir about that day:

“The news of the assassination hit me, as it did almost everyone, like a punch to the solar plexus. But I had no time to grieve. I was running an international news wire with the biggest story in many years. Given the magnitude and pace of events, there was no time for a transition to a new editor, so I remained in the [editor’s] slot for most of the next shift as well…. I simply operated on instinct and somehow made it through the crisis without panicking.”

End of segregation
Dudley grew up in the South during the last years of enforced segregation. He was in the ninth grade in Northern Virginia, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” schools were inherently unequal and, consequently, unconstitutional in the case of Brown v. Board of Education.

“I was the only kid that I ever found at my Herndon High School in 1954 whose parents told him the Supreme Court got it right,” he said.

Working for civil rights, he continued, “was always a priority of mine. I organized a demonstration at the White House in the spring of 1960 in support of the sit-ins in Greensboro, North Carolina, and then in later years, I did a fair amount of pro bono work for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in Washington.”

Studying at the University of Virginia Law School drew Dudley to Charlottesville and, after graduating, he clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren during the Supreme Court’s 1967-68 term.

Police pat-downs
Dudley clerked during the year the Court decided Terry v. Ohio, a case that may have relevance in the current controversy about Transportation Security Administration searches at U.S. airports.

Dudley said that case was probably the best-known of that Supreme Court term, adding that he worked on it, explaining that it “dealt with the question of police pat-downs on the street, with less than probable cause to arrest. It was very controversial case at the time and has spawned a huge, whole jurisprudence of its own.”

After two decades working for various Washington law firms, Dudley returned to Charlottesville to teach.

His classes included “mostly litigation-related courses, because that’s what I had done in practice. I taught evidence, civil procedure, criminal procedure, criminal law, constitutional law, and trial advocacy.”

Dudley retired from teaching in 2008, and now enjoys quietude and travel with his wife of more than 50 years, Louise, and his family, seven decades after a tumultuous beginning to what he calls “an interested life.”

From the Archives: Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 13, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016. I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans

David Lampo, a longtime activist with the Virginia chapter of Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) and publications director at the libertarian Cato Institute, is author of a new book, A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights, scheduled to be released on June 16 by Rowman & Littlefield.

Lampo spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about the book at the 2012 Capital Pride festival on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, where he was promoting the book at the LCR information table.

He describes his book, A Fundamental Freedom, as “a primer about gay rights for Republicans [and] all right-of-center voters.”

GOP’s ‘bad reputation’
The Republican party, he explained, “has a bad reputation regarding gay rights and I thought it was time that somebody try to explain the concept and the philosophy behind [gay issues] from someone who shares their basic, fundamental political values.”

He felt it was important that “rather than liberals or leftists preaching at them about gay rights from the Left, I thought that somebody on the Right, specifically [someone] with a libertarian perspective, should address the issue with them.”

As might be expected, given the subtitle, the book is “primarily about gay issues, mostly at the federal level,” Lampo noted, as well as “the constitutional issues involved with the Tenth Amendment, DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act], a federal marriage amendment, and issues like that.”

The author explained that he was “inspired to write” A Fundamental Freedom last year, “at the beginning of the Republican presidential nomination process, because a lot of the comments and policies advocated by most of the candidates were so outrageous -- yet they rarely got any kickback from more mainstream or socially tolerant Republicans.”


Endless material
Lampo said that he “just got tired of the lack of a response to the most radical statements from people like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.”

Although there was, he said, “a never-ending amount of material coming out of the presidential nominating process,” he finished writing the book last fall before taking it to a publisher.

Lampo pointed out that some of the contestants for the GOP presidential nomination were more supportive on gay-rights issues than others, including former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

In those cases, he said, “I usually contrast their positions with what most of the candidates said and did.”

The book’s last chapter, he explained, includes a “score card of all the major Republican candidates,” giving each a grade on a scale of A to F.

“Of course,” he noted, Huntsman and Johnson “and even Ron Paul do pretty well, but most of the others [received] Fs.”

DADT and libertarians
If one were to look for supportive Republicans on gay-rights issues, Lampo recommended going first to the Republicans in Congress who voted to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy of excluding openly gay members of the armed forces.

There were eight GOP Senators who voted to repeal DADT, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Richard Burr of North Carolina. Five Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for repeal: Judy Biggert of Illinois, Anh Cao of Louisiana, Charles Djou of Hawaii, Ron Paul of Texas, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.

“It was their votes that actually got it repealed,” Lampo asserted.

More generally, gay-supportive Republicans can be found “in the more libertarian wing of the party,” he said. Those are the people “who are going to have to lead on it and, in fact, have led.”

LCR and GOProud
The role of gay political groups like Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud can also not be discounted, he said.

“It’s self-evident that they’re the two main groups that have brought these issues to the attention of mainstream Republicans and conservative Republicans,” Lampo explained.

“I think their influence on” the Republican National Committee and on “Republican leaders in the House and Senate have been pretty remarkable given the history of the party on gay rights,” he concluded.

David Lampo will be the featured guest at a book-launch party for A Fundamental Freedom in Alexandria, Virginia, on Friday evening, June 15.