From the Archives - Trans vs. bi: Michael Ostrolenk explains the difference between 'transpartisan' and 'bipartisan'

Trans vs. bi: Michael Ostrolenk explains the difference between 'transpartisan' and 'bipartisan'
July 15, 2010 12:16 AM MST

For the past several weeks, the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute has been hosting a summer speakers series featuring experts on a wide range of policy issues, mostly but not entirely related to the organization’s core mission of protecting basic civil liberties.

Last Friday, July 9, Rutherford's afternoon speaker was Michael Ostrolenk, chief executive officer of the Transpartisan Center. A psychotherapist with extensive experience in political organizing and policy analysis, Ostrolenk is also affiliated with the Medical Privacy Coalition, the Liberty Coalition, and the American Conservative Defense Alliance, among other organizations.

In his talk, and later in an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, Ostrolenk explained the meaning of “transpartisan.”

“The transpartisan imperative in American life and the necessity of it,” he said, must be seen from “four different perspectives: that we need transpartisan policies; transpartisan activities based on principles; transpartisan processes (in order to take decisions on our behalf); [and] a transpartisan analysis of the social and economic system” in which “we’re now living.”

‘Trans’ vs. ‘Bi’
He offered a distinction between “transpartisan” and the more familiar term, “bipartisan.”

“Trans,” he said, “means to transcend through and beyond the partisan.”

What differentiates that from bipartisan, he went on, is that with bipartisan, “you think of a pie and you split it half/half.”

With bipartisan, “you have the so-called left, the so-called right, the Republicans and Democrats, and then they split the difference. In that, you only have two voices; that’s why you have the ‘bi.’”

Explaining further, Ostrolenk said that “the transpartisan is a recognition that there are multiple different voices, perspectives, and worldviews operating in the world that we live in, especially here in the United States.”

That means that, “if you really want to be transpartisan, you have to listen to and integrate into your discussion all the different voices to have a bigger picture and understanding of what’s actually happening in the world, in people’s lives and community lives in the United States and the world in general.”

In contrast with bipartisan, with transpartisan, Ostrolenk continued, “you’re not splitting the difference, you’re just listening to all of the other voices and you’re trying to figure out how to integrate the different voices together, to both create a larger map of social and political reality and a way of operating inside of that map to effect positive and sustainable change in the political system.”

That sounds like a mouthful, but it really comes down to bringing people together who disagree on some issues in order to find how they might have common ground on other issues.

Practical Initiatives
Ostrolenk gave two examples of practical initiatives that the Transpartisan Center has pursued.

One, he said, “is Audit the Fed, as a project of the Campaign for Liberty. I’ve helped create a coalition, left and right, conservatives, libertarians, progressives, and liberals in support of an audit” of the Federal Reserve, with 331 cosponsors of legislation in the House of Representatives.

Another example he gave is the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran, "which was a left-right effort that emerged about three years ago, [which] had liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and progressives coming together, recognizing that war with Iran would be majorly problematic for the United States.”

When people ask about that, “Have you guys been successful?” Ostrolenk wryly replies, “Well, we haven’t attacked Iran yet.”

The Rutherford Institute has five more speakers scheduled between now and July 26. More information can be found on the Institute’s web site.

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on July 15, 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.

From the Archives: LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia

LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia
June 25, 2013 11:51 PM MST

On the eve of the U.S. Supreme Court's historic rulings in two gay marriage cases -- Hollingsworth v. Perry, which addresses the Proposition 8 marriage ban in California, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- one Virginia candidate has released a campaign video declaring his intention to "lead the fight now—in this election—to recognize same-sex marriages in Virginia."

Libertarian nominee for Virginia governor Robert Sarvis announced his position on his campaign web site on June 25.

While Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe has said he supports marriage equality, he has also said that repeal of the state's constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage "would not be among his legislative priorities."

According to the Washington Post, McAuliffe said:

“If you look at the composure of the legislature, it’s not an issue that I’m going to spend my time focusing on. It’s not going to change during my four years as governor.”

For his part, Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli, in his role as Virginia's Attorney General, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in the Hollingsworth (Prop 8) case arguing that “there is no coherent reason for government to recognize same-sex marriages.”

Libertarian contrast

In contrast to the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor, the LP's Sarvis declared this week that he will make marriage equality a priority in his administration.

Sarvis, whose own marriage is mixed-race, noted that it was a Virginia couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, who took the fight to end the state's ban on interracial marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court, and won.

"We all know the slogan, 'Virginia is for lovers,'" he says in the 48-second campaign video, "but today Virginia still isn't for all lovers."

For that reason, Sarvis explains, "I want to honor the Loving legacy and lead the fight now, in this election, to recognize same-sex marriage in Virginia."

Notably, as early as 1996, the Libertarian Party platform "urged the abolition of laws banning same-sex marriage."

The Sarvis campaign's video addressing marriage equality can be viewed on YouTube and also on the campaign's web site.


Publisher's note: This article is part of a series to mark June as Gay Pride Month. It was originally published on Examiner.com on June 25, 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.

From the Archives: Revisiting a libertarian classic - Charles Murray's 'In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government'

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 23, 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.

Revisiting a libertarian classic - Charles Murray's 'In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government'
June 23, 2010 9:41 PM MST

Question: If money can’t buy happiness, what can?

Answer: Read Charles Murray’s 1988 book, In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government. It may not provide the definitive answers to this question, but it certainly focuses the argument.

Preceding by a few years Murray’s What It Means to Be a Libertarian, this follow-up to his successful critique of Great Society social policy, Losing Ground, demonstrates that Murray is probably the most lucid and readable writer on questions of social policy since Jane Jacobs.

Accessible Writing
Unlike so many “scholarly” texts on this and related topics, Murray makes accessible to any interested reader the issue of the role government may have in enabling individuals to pursue happiness. And since the questions he addresses are those that have badgered us since the beginning of speech -- What is the ultimate meaning of life? What is virtuous behavior? Where do we go from here? -- it seems few readers could be uninterested.

Murray points out that simply giving money (or food stamps, or housing vouchers) to poor people will not break the cycle of poverty. Nor can it make people happy. Money is just one of a number of “enabling conditions” that allow people to put-sue happiness in their own fashions. The proper role of government, Murray argues, is to build the base for these conditions and then stand out of the way.

Murray draws on the work of psychologist Abraham Maslow for his categories of “enabling conditions for the pursuit of happiness, which is to say, if all of them were met, it is difficult to see how a person could claim that he was prevented by external conditions from pursuing happiness.” These conditions are: material resources or physiological needs (food, water, shelter, sex), safety (predictability, order, protection from physical harm), intimacy (friendship, relations with spouse or children). self-respect or self esteem, and self-actualization or, in Murray’s terms, “enjoyment.”

Government as Obstacle
In Murray’s argument, government is more likely to stand in the way after these enabling conditions are laid down, impeding the pursuit of happiness rather than facilitating it. The basic difficulty is that we deal with social problems in a fashion that either leads to no solution or to making the problem worse.

Murray cites sociologist Peter Rossi, who has formulated the Iron Law of Evaluation and the Stainless Steel Law, which say, respectively, “The expected value of any net impact assessment of any large scale social program is zero,” and “The better designed the impact assessment of a social program, the more likely is the resulting estimate of net impact to be zero.” In other words, social planners are like dogs chasing their tails. They run and run and bark and bark, but they don’t get anywhere and they don’t catch anything.

Drawing examples from the real world -- the 55-mph speed limit and the task of attracting good teachers to public schools, for instance -- Murray demonstrates that conventional ways of thinking are wholly inadequate for the issues we confront. New questions must be asked, he says, questions that do not necessarily have quantifiable answers.

Individuals Alone
Much of what comprises “happiness” and the “pursuit of happiness” cannot be expressed in terms of dollars, gallons, or percentiles. The metaphor for their work used by social planners should be changed from engineering to healing. As a result, Murray says, “the world would not be perfect; it would just be better.”

The essence of Murray’s message is that individuals alone can best determine their own destinies and can best decide how they shall pursue happiness.

From the Archives: Author Brian Doherty explains Ron Paul’s ambivalence on gay issues

Publisher's note: This article is part of a series to mark June as Gay Pride Month. It was originally published on Examiner.com on May 18, 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 Brian Doherty explains Ron Paul’s ambivalence on gay issues
May 18, 2012 10:13 PM MST

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has a record on gay-rights issues that can best be described as mixed.

For instance, Dr. Paul was one of only four Republicans in the House of Representatives to vote in favor of repealing the ban on openly gay personnel in the armed forces known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Paul also opposes a federal constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage across the United States, yet he is the sponsor of legislation that would remove from federal courts the jurisdiction to hear and rule upon challenges to laws that ban gay marriage.


‘Voluntary and consensual agreements’
In his 2011 book, Liberty Defined, Paul suggests there should be a separation of marriage and state, just like there is separation of church and state.

In his chapter on marriage, he argues that “[if] the government was not involved, there would be no discussion or controversy over the definition of marriage. Why should the government give permission to two individuals for them to call themselves married? In a free society, something that we do not truly enjoy, all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized. If disputes arose, the courts could be involved as in any other civil dispute.”

This reference to the courts as protectors of contracts seems to be at odds with the bill he introduced to take marriage laws out of the jurisdiction of the federal courts.


‘One man and one woman’

While Paul seems to be tepidly endorsing the idea that same-sex couples could wed, he has said on several occasions that he thinks marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.

While campaigning in Iowa earlier this year, he said that he believes “that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state.”

Journalist Brian Doherty has covered Ron Paul since 1999. He is the author of a new book, Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired. After a panel discussion about his book this week at the Cato Institute, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner asked Doherty about what appears to be Ron Paul’s “uncharacteristically studied ambivalence” about gay rights issues, particularly with regard to marriage equality.

Something ‘weird’
Paying a compliment to his interviewer, Doherty replied that “It is likely that you know every twist and turn of his thoughts on this issue better than me,” but he did go on to offer a partial explanation for Paul’s positions.

“I remember where he’s come to at this point, where I think he reliably will give the ‘get government out of marriage entirely’ answer, but I know his history with things like DOMA is more complicated than that. I’ve honestly forgotten every twist and turn of it.”

At bottom, Doherty explained, Paul’s inconsistent positions on gay rights issues can be explained by the fact that “he’s a 77-year-old American man who’s lived in Texas. There probably is a personally rooted, religiously rooted sense” – and here Doherty spoke sotto voce – “that there’s something a little ‘weird’ about homosexuality that maybe he’s not entirely comfortable with.”

‘Bruno-esque’
At the same time, Doherty noted, “I’m pretty sure both from watching him and knowing some of his associates, that that doesn’t come out in person, except possibly in a Bruno-esque situation” -- referring to a bizarre episode in the 2009 film Bruno in which actor Sacha Baron Cohen makes a pass at Ron Paul in a dimly-lit hotel room – “which I think is understandable.”

But, Doherty added, “circumstances and time had to probably open his mind a little on that question and I don’t personally fault him for it too much.”

In the end, he said, the answer to the gay-rights question that Ron Paul has come to embrace “seems to me about the correct libertarian-qua-libertarian answer.”

Complete audio of this interview with Brian Doherty can be heard as a podcast through Bearing Drift.

Additional excerpts from this interview focus on a post-Ron Paul political future and the decentralized nature of the Ron Paul phenomenon.

From the Archives: Talking about 'liberaltarianism' at the University of Virginia

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 16, 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.

Talking about 'liberaltarianism' at the University of Virginia
April 16, 2010 11:23 PM MST

On April 15, an interdisciplinary group of scholars from two universities and a Washington think tank participated in a panel discussion at the University of Virginia on the topic, “Libertarianism: Left or Right?” The panel was organized by Jennifer Burns, an assistant professor of history at UVA, who explained how it came about to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner.

“I met Brink Lindsey in the course of doing an event at [the Cato Institute] on my book, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. I had read his article about “liberaltarianism,” proposing an alliance between liberals and libertarians. I thought it was really interesting, a really creative new way to think about politics in the 21st century.”

Lindsey, vice president of research at Cato, had “brought a liberaltarianism discussion to several universities,” Burns said, including Princeton and Stanford, and he “asked if I wanted to do it down at the University of Virginia. So I put together some folks who are interested in engaging these questions.”

The eventual panel was made up of Lindsey and a colleague from Cato, Will Wilkinson, as well as Gerard Alexander and Colin Bird, both associate professors in the UVA Department of Politics; political scientist Steven Teles from Johns Hopkins; Sahar Akhtar, assistant professor of philosophy at UVA; and Burns.

There were some distinguished names in the audience, as well, including UVA English professor Paul Cantor, UVA psychology professor Jonathan Haidt, and UVA philosophy professor Loren Lomasky.

After the free-wheeling panel discussion ended, Lindsey explained the basis of his argument, which was first published in an article in The New Republic called “Liberaltarians” on December 4, 2006:

There is, he said, a “need to rethink the historical alliance between libertarians and social conservatives, that that alliance was born out of unique historical circumstances, specifically, the challenge of socialism at home and totalitarian socialism abroad. That’s gone now. There’s a lot of ideological flux on the right. It’s an appropriate time for libertarians to see the possibilities of engaging people on the left side of the political spectrum.”

Asked why there is an organized libertarian caucus within the Republican Party but no equivalent in the Democratic Party, Lindsey replied:

“Who knows? One reason is that libertarians have not made an effort to present libertarian policy ideas in a way that is calculated in any way to be congenial to the way liberals think.”

He added, “Whether they think of themselves that way or not, libertarians have been part of a right coalition. They have framed their arguments in conservative terms, in terms of preserving the heritage of American liberty and venerating the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, rather than in presenting their case in terms that might find a more receptive audience on the left.”

One of Lindsey’s respondents on the panel, Gerard Alexander of UVA, set out his own point of view of “liberaltarianism” as one that understands “that where libertarians ally themselves is a historically contingent thing. I don’t believe that conditions justify them allying more with people to their left than their right. I think the basic conditions that obtained 40 or 50 years ago still obtain.

“Therefore,” he concluded, “the most logical alliance, however imperfect, for libertarians in modern America is still with people who call themselves conservatives.”

From the Archives: UVA historian explains Ayn Rand's unusual popularity in 2010

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 16, 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.

UVA historian explains Ayn Rand's unusual popularity in 2010
April 16, 2010 5:03 PM MST

To many people, the unusually high level of interest in the works of Ayn Rand and her surge in popularity are puzzling.

In January 2009, the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore published an article called “'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years,” in which he wrote:

“Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that 'Atlas Shrugged' parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.”

Two months later, The Economist reported that according to “data from TitleZ, a firm that tracks best-seller rankings on Amazon, an online retailer, the book's 30-day average Amazon rank was 127 on Feb. 21, well above its average over the past two years of 542. On Jan. 13 the book's ranking was 33, briefly besting President Barack Obama's popular tome, ‘The Audacity of Hope.’”

Earlier this year, Marsha Enright and Gen LaGreca noted in The Daily Caller that Moore’s 2009 article “seemed to ignite an explosion of interest in Ayn Rand. Sales of this prescient novel tripled; two Rand biographies have been selling like hotcakes; and references to her in the media have skyrocketed.”

What explains this phenomenon: A philosopher/novelist who died in 1982 is more popular now than when she was actively writing and promoting her books?

Yesterday, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner put this question to one of the authors of the two Rand biographies that were published last year, University of Virginia historian Jennifer Burns. Burns wrote Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right.

She replied to the question in Charlottesville on April 15, just after moderating a panel discussion on whether libertarians should seek an alliance with liberals (with the resulting combination called “liberaltarian”).

Burns said that Ayn Rand “has become a rallying point for the opposition to Obama. Definitely, she has become a really strong presence in the Tea Party. I think a lot of people are seeing her writing as prophetic, both predicting what’s happening now and warning about what can happen if the state gets too big.”

In Burns’ opinion, Rand’s “time has come, in many ways.” She cautioned, however, that “it’s probably a temporary boom. She may fade away and then she’ll probably come back the next time we see this kind of state expansion.”

Burns said that so far her book has received “a very enthusiastic reaction.” Rand, she said, “is a really important figure in American intellectual life [who] hasn’t been recognized as such [and who] hasn’t been treated as such. Most readers of Rand simply appreciate that I take her on her own terms and explain just why she matters.”

From the Archives: Five reasons to be a libertarian

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 8, 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.

This was my fourth article published on Examiner.com. Eventually I wrote about 500 articles that appeared on the now defunct news site over the six years between April 2010 and June 2016.

Five reasons to be a libertarian
April 8, 2010 9:15 PM MST

What does it mean to be a libertarian?

Members of the Jefferson Area Libertarians, who are active in and around Charlottesville, Virginia, meet monthly for a happy hour at West Main restaurant, to discuss current affairs and other topics.

At their meeting on April 8, several JAL members answered the questions: What does it mean to be a libertarian? What is the essence of libertarianism?

Here are five of their responses.

Personal and Economic Freedom

John Munchmeyer, chairman of the Jefferson Area Libertarians, explained how he discovered libertarian thought.

“I was reading a book by Harry Browne, Why Government Doesn’t Work, sitting at Dulles Airport, waiting for a flight, when I got to the part about health care and it was like a light bulb went on in my head. It was like, “oh my gosh, government can never solve the problems in health care because it caused them in the first place.”

The essence of libertarianism to Munchmeyer? “Libertarianism is when you believe in personal freedom and economic freedom.”

Respect for True Human Rights
James Curtis is treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Virginia. He said he thinks the essence of libertarianism is “respect for true human rights, recognition that each of us owns our self, that we have the right to do as we choose, that government exists (when we choose to form governments) to protect those rights.”

Liberty and responsibility
Jim Lark, secretary of the Jefferson Area Libertarians and former national chairman of the Libertarian Party, said that libertarianism “means that you believe in individual liberty, that individuals have rights, that they have the right to acquire property, that they have the right to the fruits of their labors. They cannot, however, violate the like rights of others and they must be held responsible for their actions.”

Non-Initiation of Force
Steve LaBianca, an alternate member of the Libertarian National Committee, said that libertarianism “is a political philosophy characterized by the absence of the initiation of physical violence, physical coercion, [or] physical force.” What that means personally, he said, is “to practice not coercing anybody for any reason whatsoever. Obviously, that means I can exert force in defense of myself, if I choose to (not necessarily required).”

He added: “In a political sense, it means institutions which also do not do that, which means governments specifically should not engage in the initiation of force, as well.

‘Leave Me Alone’
Albemarle County resident Tim Hulsey, who is not affiliated with any political party but who attends JAL happy hours for the intelligent conversation, summed things up in few words:

“I hate politics. I hate the way politics always comes around to bite me in the ass, and I want politics to be less important in my life.”

The Jefferson Area Libertarians meet on the second Tuesday of each month from 4:30 p.m to 6:30 p.m. at West Main Restaurant, 333 W. Main Street, in Charlottesville. For more information, visit www.4JAL.org.

From the Archives: Will the U.S. Supreme Court uphold freedom of expressive association?

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 7, 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.

This was my second article published on Examiner.com. Eventually I wrote about 500 articles that appeared on the now defunct news site over the six years between April 2010 and June 2016.

Will the U.S. Supreme Court uphold freedom of expressive association?
April 7, 2010 3:22 AM MST

On April 19, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. At issue is whether the University of California’s Hastings School of Law can force a student organization (the Christian Legal Society, or CLS) to accept members who do not share its core values.

The case resulted from the CLS’s preference to reserve membership to evangelical Christians who sign a statement affirming their religious and moral code, which includes a belief that sex outside of marriage is sinful and that homosexuality is also wrong.

Gay and lesbian students at Hastings objected to the CLS membership requirements, arguing that they were being excluded on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Adam Kissel Speaks at UVa
Last week at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Students for Individual Liberty and the Liberty Coalition jointly hosted a presentation by Adam Kissel of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a Philadelphia-based group that defends the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, of the press, and of association on college campuses across the United States.

Kissel was asked about the CLS case. (See the accompanying video, below, for his full response.)

The rules at the Hastings School of Law, Kissel explained, say that “every student organization has to accept all comers … even if you completely disagree with the mission, even if you are joining it simply in order to thwart what it does and vote against all its policies … and vote in all your friends as leaders, it doesn’t matter.”

This has ramifications even for political organizations, he said, noting that the president of the college Democrats received a letter that said “she had to let anybody into her group, including campus Republicans, to be a voting member or a leader of her group, and she couldn’t have in her constitution” a provision saying that “only Democrats can be campus Democrats.”

Turning to the UVa students in the audience, Kissel said: “That sounds pretty ludicrous to you, I hope.”

Who Complained?
Kissel explained that the gay and lesbian group at Hastings, called “Outlaw,” filed a complaint against CLS, “saying ‘this group is discriminating against us’ and that kind of makes sense from a discrimination point of view. Only people who believe in discriminatory policy are allowed to be voting members. Not only that, there’s a whole category of people who are very, very unlikely to be self-hating so that, even though you’re saying it’s a matter of belief, it’s kind of also a matter of status."

Kissel illustriated his point by suggesting a fictional “Anti-Semitic Appreciation Society [that], if you’re Jewish, you’re very unlikely to be anti-semitic, so you’re kind of automatically excluded.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the argument of Outlaw and the Hastings administration and ruled that CLS had to accept gay and lesbian members, even if those people do not share the core values of CLS.

How did this get to the U.S. Supreme Court? Kissel explained that “the Seventh Circuit disagrees. Fourteen Attorneys General, including the Attorney General of Virginia, disagree.”

The Supreme Court took the case because there is divided opinion at lower judicial levels. What’s more, both sides can make a compelling case.

“So you have a very strong First Amendment group on one side,” Kissel said, “and you have a very strong anti-discrimination group on the other side. Both sides have reasonable arguments.”

The FIRE has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in CLS v. Martinez, because the organization foresees broad and deep ramifications if the Supreme Court rules against CLS.

What Is at Stake?
“My feeling is,” said Kissel, “if the Supreme Court lets this rule through, it’s going to apply not just to universities having what I call ‘unconstitutional conditions’ (which is what the Attorneys General call it), but it means any city or state could have a non-discrimination rule that applies to every fraternal organization, every organization in the country. Basically, your First Amendment right to freedom of expressive association is thrown out the window.”

He went on to say that if CLS does not prevail, it “means that any other ‘content-neutral’ rule is going to also be accepted, if it’s furthering some kind of government interest. Government has lots of interests. So I’m pretty hopeful that the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing on this one.”

Further reading:

Amicus curiae brief of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Amicus curiae brief of the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute
Amicus curiae brief of the libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute
Amicus curiae brief of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL)
Amicus curiae brief of 14 state attorneys general (including Virginia’s)

Guest Post: Vote Against Both Evils, by Will Hammer

This November 8th, if you decide to vote, you have a huge choice to make. You can either vote for a corrupt crony politician, or you can vote for a vulgar corrupt crony reality TV star. Because of the media, the partisan Commission on Presidential Debates, and the two major parties who have a vested interest in only having two parties, you would think those are your only choices.

Will Hammer, left, with Robert Sarvis in Buena Vista, Virginia

Well, you actually do have a choice at the ballot box this November. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, is on the ballot in all 50 states and D.C. He is an honest and a great man, not your typical crony politician or a bigoted, morally corrupt, gaudy salesman. Do I agree with Johnson on everything? No, but he is leaps and bounds better than Clinton or Trump and represents real change from the business as usual in Washington that has gotten us here. Is Gary Johnson perfect? No, but he actually admits that and it’s refreshing when a politician admits their humanity. Will you agree with him on everything? Probably not, but at least you know he does not have an agenda and he’s not speaking out of both sides of his mouth, or other orifice.

The biggest smear the media can come up with for Johnson is his ‘Aleppo moment’, in which he didn’t know what Aleppo was when randomly asked during a live interview. Should he have been able to answer that question? Of course, he’s running for President, but it’s definitely not a disqualifier. I’d rather have someone whose foreign policy won’t cause Syrian and other middle eastern strife, than someone who would know, but only because she was part of the administration that caused the major humanitarian crisis. He had another moment where he couldn’t name a foreign leader he respected. A week later, he still can’t. The media would have you believe that he couldn’t name ANY foreign leader, but that’s untrue. He cannot name a current foreign leader he admires and he explained that he doesn’t want to defend them against things that he’s not even aware of. Again, this was an unscripted, live question. The other candidates NEVER have unscripted questions. They are screened, planted, and given well beforehand to prepare.

So those are Gary Johnson’s big ‘scandals.’ Now, let’s compare those to Trump and Clinton. If I were to include all of them, this article would take up the whole newspaper, not 1600 words. Trump and Clinton are different sides of the same corrupt, crony coin. One sells her political power and influence and the other buys it. Trump is definitely no outsider, and Clinton is no progressive politician putting people before profits.

Trump has a horrible temperament and would be a disaster diplomatically, saying whatever came to his head on a whim in public, completely alienating us and quite frankly being a national embarrassment. He has spoken about media organizations such as the Washington Post having issues if he becomes President because of stories they have written about him. He has spoken about companies such as Amazon (both owned by Jeff Bezos) getting taxed essentially out of business. His careless speech may even incite violence, with him making suggestions about gun owners taking care of Clinton and many other situations. Trump has exploited horrible eminent domain laws to obtain private land to build his developments. He scammed people with Trump University, used bankruptcy to screw people and contractors over while walking away with millions, and the list goes on. He’s a bigot, demonizing Mexicans and others. And he’s a misogynist, saying crude and horrible things to and about various women. That’s bad enough, but we have just found out that he sexually assaults women and brags about it in private. This latest revelation was caught via a hot mic. Some are defending him, saying that it’s ‘locker room’ talk. Of course men do that, just as women do the same. But, there is a HUGE difference between what Trump said and ‘locker room’ talk. Trump actually talked about how being famous and a star allows him to sexually assault women and get away with it. I could care less about the “lewd language”, I care about the actions he described and he gets away with. This is DISGUSTING. This is it, this is your moment of truth. Are you going to defend and vote for this loathsome egomaniac?

Gary Johnson and William Weld at Libertarian Party Convention, May 2016

Clinton is definitely no saint either. Clinton is about as hawkish as they come. She voted for the Iraq War, costing thousands of US lives, an estimated 250-500k Iraqi lives, instability, and nearly $2 TRILLION. She was Secretary of State while the Obama administration bombed at least 8 countries, thousands upon thousands of innocent lives. She was part of regime change that created more and more instability, which led to the rise of ISIS. Simply put, she is one of the biggest advocates for and participants in our horrible foreign policy that has cost us US lives, innocent foreign lives, trillions of dollars, created more terrorists and allowed for ISIS to fill the void, and so on. War is a racket and Clinton is no peace candidate. The Clinton Foundation and pay to play with foreign governments/leaders. Recently she has also had some scandals involving emails. A leak revealed the DNC conspired to make sure Bernie Sanders did not receive nomination and that Clinton would. As a Ron Paul supporter in 2007 and 2012, I feel your pain and disgust Sander supporters.There is also the private email server that was in a bathroom that Clinton used instead of secure servers provided by the government for classified and official business while Secretary of the State. The FBI decided not to pursue charges against Clinton, but made it clear that she was extremely careless and frankly inept at handling classified information. But, why the double standard? Others have been charged with mishandling classified information, not intentionally. 30,000 emails deleted with BleachBit, 30 new emails recovered by FBI recently related to Benghazi, Clinton IT specialist asking Reddit how to alter ‘very VIP’ emails, and the list goes on. And now, the same day that Trump’s sexual groping audio comes to light, Wikileaks has released emails from Clinton’s campaign manager, revealing excerpts from Clinton’s Goldman Sach and other speeches, where she has earned more than $22 million, such as “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

I recommend voting against both evils and voting for Gary Johnson. He is a two term Republican governor from a heavily Democratic state, as is his running mate Bill Weld. They will bring sanity and non-partisanship to the office, reaching across the aisle and working with coalitions of all parties. They are fiscally responsible and socially accepting, like the majority of Americans. They do not want to continue our failed foreign policy of drone strikes, invasions, backing various rebel groups, and overthrowing governments. They want to balance our budget and stop the growing $20 trillion deficit, which has doubled under Bush and then again under Obama. Reject both of the two major party Presidential candidates, the most hated in US history. The Democrats and Republicans believe they own your vote. They do not, you own your own vote. A vote for anyone is not a vote for someone else, like the narrative they are trying to play right now. Gary Johnson is polling roughly 10% nationally. But these are polls that do not include people under 40 (which actually favor Johnson) and/or have only Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the top line, head to head. In reality, they are not going head to head. This is at least a 3 way race in all 50 states, and a 4 way race in most states with Jill Stein. Johnson is polling over 19% in five states, over 15% in 15 states, and over 10% in 42 states. He currently is actually polling within margin or error to Trump in New Mexico. If Gary Johnson does get 10% in Virginia, then the Libertarian Party would get major party status and be able to run candidates within obtaining the ridiculous amount of signatures required currently. There are many other states where Johnson’s success would create more choice on the ballot as well. If he was allowed on the debate stage, run by the Commission on Presidential Debates which was founded by former Democrat and Republican national chairs, then I have no doubt that he would be even higher, and possibly overtake both candidates. But thanks to Ross Perot’s success, who was polling lower than Johnson and was allowed to debate, the CPD raised the arbitrary percentage to be in the debates. It’s a scam and even the League of Women Voters, who used to run the Presidential debates, dropped their sponsorship because they did not want to help “perpetuate a fraud on the American people.” Even dozens of major newspapers and publications are calling for Gary Johnson’s inclusion into the debate, with over 60% of polled Americans wishing for Johnson to be included. Gary Johnson has even received six major newspaper endorsements, to Trump’s zero.

Will Hammer is a Libertarian who ran in 2014 for U.S. Congress and 2015 for Virginia House of Delegates. Hammer was the sole recipient of the Libertarian Party’s Patrick Henry award in 2016, which recognizes a very effective campaign for public office at the state or federal level, while communicating Libertarian ideas, principles, and values.

From the Archives: At the 9/12 March on Washington: Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson aims 'to put a voice to the outrage'

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 14, 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.

At the 9/12 March on Washington: Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson aims 'to put a voice to the outrage'


Gary Johnson, the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico and current chairman of the non-profit Our America Initiative, was the only 2012 presidential contender to speak at the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington last Sunday.

Because of his position as head of a tax-exempt group, Johnson demurs when asked if he’s planning to run for President. Nonetheless, a Facebook group called “Gary Johnson for President 2012” has 2,918 members and 47,900 Facebook members have clicked “like” on a page called “Gary Johnson – Our America" -- all potential supporters in a bid for the White House.

In the past few months, Johnson has visited 27 states and spoken before at least 100 groups. He has appeared on radio talk shows and TV talking heads programs.

Just prior to Sunday’s march, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner took Governor Johnson aside to ask him privately about pressing issues of the day and the mood of voters in 2010.

‘A voice to the outrage’
“When I started this out,” he said, “I was trying to put a voice to the outrage that people are feeling when it comes to spending being out of control and the fact that taxes are going up across the board, the fact that America is broke, that we’re bankrupt. What I’ve found is that, yes, this really is a concern. There’s an awareness today that’s never existed before.”

Despite the foul mood of the country, Johnson identified what he called an “optimistic side.”

He said that “there’s an opportunity here to right the financial ship in this country and return to what we’ve always been about, which is liberty and freedom and personal responsibility that goes along with that.”

Johnson called the Tea Party movement “terrific” and noted that at a South Carolina Tea Party rally he had attended, “they were handing out circulars [saying] ‘here are the ten things the Tea Partiers stand for,’ [and] all ten had to do with spending and taxes and real pocketbook issues. On that basis,” he concluded, “I think that’s reflective of what all America’s feeling right now.”

De-emphasize social issues
The former New Mexico governor said he agreed with the assessment of the current governors of Indiana and Mississippi (Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour, respectively), who have suggested that Republicans should de-emphasize divisive social issues and focus on economic matters.

“If Republicans don’t return to the religion of the checkbook, I don’t see Republicans hanging around,” Johnson said.

He explained that he sees “sentiment right now that anybody who’s in office belongs out of office. As a result of that sentiment, I see Republicans picking up seats, simply because they’re the minority.”

In the 2010 election, he said, “Republicans are going to gain in a big way simply on the basis [that] incumbents belong out of office. That’s the sentiment right now.”

Cause of our ills
It’s not the case, he said, that voters see “Republicans being the saviors, but” rather that the “status quo [is] the cause of all our ills.”

Anticipating the remarks he was going to make on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol, Johnson said he would “talk about my experience as governor of New Mexico and the fact that everything I did was a cost-benefit analysis. Everything that we look at today needs to be from a cost-benefit analysis.”

He said the question that must be asked is, “What are we spending and what are we getting?”

If action to “right this financial ship” is not taken immediately, Johnson said, “I think we could be on the verge of economic collapse.”

These issues, he said, “need to be addressed now. Now. Today.”

After the march on Washington, Governor Johnson was scheduled to travel to Cleveland, San Francisco, Texas, and New Hampshire. He conceded that he would not have a chance to be home in New Mexico for at least three weeks.

Update: Governor Gary Johnson will appear in Charlottesville on Friday, September 17. He will be speaking in Jefferson Hall on the West Range at the University of Virginia at the invitation of the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society. His speech begins promptly at 7:29 p.m.

From the Archives: Author Craig Shirley considers whether Ronald Reagan was a libertarian

Author Craig Shirley considers whether Ronald Reagan was a libertarian

Yesterday was the tenth anniversary of the death of President Ronald Reagan. He died on June 5, 2004, the eve of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion and the 20th anniversary of his speech at Normandy remembering “the boys of Pointe du Hoc.”

Earlier this year, Craig Shirley, author of Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All and of Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America, came to Charlottesville to speak at the Virginia Festival of the Book.

In an interview that weekend with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, Shirley noted how Reagan viewed libertarianism as intrinsic to conservatism and often defined himself as a libertarian.

'Heart and soul'
Reagan, he explained, gave an interview to Reason magazine in 1975, in which “he said that libertarianism is the fundamental basis for American conservatism.”

That interview, conducted by Reason's founding editor Manuel Klausner, appeared in the magazine's July 1975 issue. In it, Reagan said that “if you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

Shirley pointed out that, “for a time, [Reagan] referred to himself publicly as a 'libertarian conservative.' I have interviews with him on CBS in which he referred to himself as a 'libertarian conservative.'”

Reagan, Shirley explained, “was not libertine but he was very much of the opinion, following Locke, Paine, and Jefferson, that [limited government] was about the individual and the privacy and the rights and the dignity of the individual. He said that many, many times in his political career.”

Anti-gay Briggs Amendment
As an example of Reagan's libertarianism, Shirley recalled the then-future president's opposition to the Briggs Amendment in California, a 1978 voter initiative that would have banned gay men and lesbians from teaching in government schools.

John Briggs, he explained, was a California state senator in California. Briggs “had seen the political success that Anita Bryant had done in Dade County” with her campaign to end the local anti-discrimination ordinance that protected gay workers. “Her political star began to rise as she was taking on the gay rights movement,” he said, noting that “Briggs had higher aspirations; he wanted to run for governor of California.”

Briggs, he explained, “came up with an idea that would prohibit either those who championed a homosexual lifestyle or those who were gay and were out from being public school teachers. This deeply offended Ronald Reagan. You could say it was because of his libertarianism, or because of his upbringing, because of his mother's [influence] about allowing people to live and let live, or because of his cosmopolitan lifestyle that he was aware of during his days in Hollywood. He may have been informed by all three experiences but he was against it and he campaigned against it.”

The November 1978 referendum was defeated by a 14-point margin and afterwards, Shirley recalled, Briggs had a press conference where he “was asked by a reporter, why did it lose?”

Briggs replied: “Ronald Reagan. Reagan campaigned against it, and that was it.”

Confirmation
Shirley's recollections are confirmed in an article by James Duke Mason on June 5 in The Advocate, an LGBT magazine.

“Believe it or not,” Mason wrote, “Reagan was one of the first major politicians in history to come out for gay rights. Just a year before he announced his candidacy for president, he came out forcefully” against the Briggs Amendment.

Not only did Reagan “have no political incentive to do it, but it could’ve been a huge catastrophe. In speaking out against the initiative, Reagan used language that was way ahead of its time; he argued that 'prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.' Some dismiss his support as too last-minute to have made a difference. But as his biographer Lou Cannon once put it, Reagan knew the risks but 'chose to state his convictions.'”

Briggs himself blamed Reagan for his amendment's defeat. Could he have equally blamed Reagan's core libertarianism?

SUGGESTED LINKS

Craig Shirley recalls events at the start of World War II in 'December 1941'
Virginia Senate candidates remember Ronald Reagan on his 100th birthday
Historian Paul Kengor on Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the USSR - Part I
Historian Paul Kengor on Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the USSR - Part II
Amity Shlaes discusses significance of Calvin Coolidge at Heritage Foundation

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/author-craig-shirley-considers-whether-ronald-reagan-was-a-libertarian

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 6, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go 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.