juryindex

JuryFury.com Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics JuryFury Chat I-Traderschool QuietPoly.com Contributors Research Future Discussions Sept. 15th, 2004
Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschoo l, our sister magazine, for debates and news.	US Elections Whose Vote does Badnarik Split? by Sophia Barkat The Michael Badnarik campaign for President is hardly ever covered on TV. Except for C-SPAN no other cable or network cares that there are other parties running for election in November 2004. The Libertarian Party's campaign can’t afford the million dollar advertising costs. Hence, most don’t know he is even running for President or that his running mate is Richard Campagna. Imagine their surprise on election day when they find his name on the ballot! Indeed, Badnarik’s not likely to be a major threat in the 2004 Election. But suppose he was – i.e. people knew he was running, they knew about his platform, and then they voted. Who would he be hurting the most – the Democrats or the Republicans? What about Nader? Let’s look at Badnarik’s take on various issues and then decide what side if any his party is leaning to and which voters he is likely to woo. On Health care & Pharmaceutical Costs: Badnarik says, "Health care and insurance costs will plummet if excess regulation is eliminated and malpractice awards are made only on the basis of strict liability. Lower costs, along with the savings from downsizing regulatory bureaucracy, will fund tax credits for those who establish Health Savings Accounts for themselves, their families, Medicare/Medicaid recipients, and the needy...Excess regulation has increased new drug development time by a decade since the 1960s and multiplied development costs 5-fold. Consequently, our seriously ill die waiting for life-saving medicines and pay exorbitant prices when they finally can purchase them. Since these excess regulations kill many more people than they save, they can be safely eliminated, slashing pharmaceutical prices virtually overnight!" Democrats want to spend more on Medicare but say they can reduce costs too. Republicans want to give huge sums of money to Medicare too and keep health care costs high. Democrats however, think they can keep costs down in there are no caps on civil settlements. Republicans see lawsuit settlements as being passed on as higher costs. Here, Badnarik is wooing the Republican voters. On Marriage: Badnarik says, "On the face of things, the federal government has an even smaller role in that area than it does in most, and I favor keeping Washington out of issues like defining and licensing marriage, regulating home-schooling, mandating childhood vaccinations or using tax policy for "socially engineering" the makeup and function of the family." Bush favors a marriage amendment that the Congress doesn’t, despite a Republican majority in both houses. Kerry is opposed to any such amendment. Here, Badnarik competes with Kerry for votes. Nader would agree with Badnarik. On Deficit Spending: He says, "Every working American is acquainted with the principle of balancing his or her checkbook. You have income. You have expenses. If your expenses are larger than your income, you either cut expenses or you start getting nasty letters from your bank and your creditors about bounced checks. Maybe you end up in court. Maybe you go to jail. Unfortunately, we—the people—are the federal government's "bank" ... and right now, we don't have any way to bounce the rubber checks that Congress writes and the president signs." Here, again Badnarik competes for Kerry’s voters. Republicans like deficit spending. Democrats boast Clinton’s balancing the budget and assume they can too, though more Republican Governors do so over Democratic Governors. And yet this is an unfair comparison as State budgets don’t have defense expenditure to consider and this is often so high that the Federal Budget is a deficit in Republican Presidencies. Ralph Nader would agree. Immigration Border Badnarik thinks, "By any reasonable measure, immigration is not just beneficial to the American economy but indispensable to the goal of a nation of freedom and opportunity. This nation was built on immigration. Allowing peaceful people to enter our country is not just an option. It's a benchmark by which we measure whether or not we're living up to the American ideal. This does not mean, however, that the national defense must be sacrificed to some naive conception of "open borders." The right to enter the United States is not the same as the right to enter the United States in contravention of its legitimate interest in securing itself against those who would do it harm." Badnarik is not weak on National Defense. Bush and Kerry are on even keel here. However, Bush supporters tend to be white and anti-immigration. Hence, ultimately, Kerry would lose votes to Badnarik. Nader too agrees with Badnarik. Civil Liberties & Rights of the Accused Badnarik believes, "The erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11 does not represent a new phenomenon. It represents an acceleration of long-existing trends. As president, my goal will be to reverse those trends and to restore, respect and enforce the Bill of Rights...Of all the infringements upon our Constitutionally protected rights, the most egregious in living memory may be the post-9/11 "detention" of individuals—American and non-American—in secrecy and without charges or access to counsel....As someone who values all our rights, I do not make this statement lightly. Consider, however, the nature of the crime (and yes, it is a crime)." Here, Badnarik is anti-Patriot Law and for protection of civil liberties that the Bush Administration prefers to take away. Again he is a threat to the Kerry’s campaign and also to Ralph Nader. The Military Draft Badnarik says, "Coerced military conscription—also known as the draft—is perhaps the single most anti-freedom action governments regularly take against their own citizens. The draft, represses indiscriminately by directly stealing not only the "treasure" of our citizens, but also by taking years of their precious time and—in many cases—their lives. The draft has been justifiably resisted throughout American history because it is inherently unfair, unjustifiable, and un-republican...If a free America were ever subjected to attack, most Americans would be more than willing to defend themselves, their homes, and their families against the foreign aggressors. The very fact that too few Americans are volunteering to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates that too few Americans view the actions being taken by our government as integral to the preservation of our freedoms. This is simply the free market working." Badnarik opposes a draft. Kerry and Bush both prefer a strong military. There is some talk about bringing back the draft in the Congress (See Veteransforpeace.org). My bet is both will bring it back if needed. Here, Badnarik might have the popular vote and compete with Ralph Nader. Free Trade & State Corporatism He asserts, "The twin tenets of peace and free trade are mutually dependent. As French visionary Frederic Bastiat once said, "If goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." When countries rely upon each other in peaceful commerce, the people of those countries have every incentive to avoid violent conflict. Wars undermine trade like nothing else. The globalization of commerce fell dramatically during World War I, and we didn't see pre-war levels of international trade and cooperation until the 1970s. Because of the importance of trade, embargoes and trade sanctions are often seen as aggression and even acts of war. The punitive embargo on Germany after World War I impoverished the German people terribly, making it impossible for them to meet the demands of the League of Nations that they pay the full cost of the war. This was one of the major grievances the Germans cited in their vengeful desperation as they allowed Hitler to come to power. Trade aggression helped bring about the bloodiest war in world history...More recently, we have seen the real effects of a trade embargo on Iraq, where hundreds of thousands died of malnutrition from lack of food and medicine. Iraqis were forced to import goods according to the rules set by the United Nations' Oil for Food Program, which we have since learned was utterly corrupt...Although free trade is a blessing, managed bureaucratic trade is not. It is a dangerous misconception to think of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other international quasi- governmental structures as free trade organizations. They rely on thousands of pages of confusing regulations and corrupt agreements between multinational corporations and oppressive governments. True free trade — the kind that fosters peace — does not depend on such organizations and rules, but is actually hindered by them. Managed trade — the kind that fosters resentment and poverty — is all that these organizations have so far delivered." A candidate against State Corporatism! That explains why he can’t raise money against Bush or Kerry. Here he probably has the majority voter on his side and competes with Ralph Nader. Gun-control "If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment...Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. Allow me to point out some fallacies in the arguments frequently used by the anti-gun movement." Now I know why the Republicans may not want to help finance a strong Badnarik Campaign ever! Clearly, the gun-lobby is a major gun of the Republican Party. Losing the NRA would be a deadly blow. Here Badnarik is eyeing Republican Voters indeed. Crime "Crime rates go down when offenders must compensate their victims and responsible citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons. Privatizing police gives them incentive to emphasize prevention and focus on violent, rather than victimless, crimes...Establishment politicians want to "get tough" on crime with more gun control laws, longer prison sentences, and larger police forces. Yet robberies, rapes, and homicides go down when states permit civilians to carry concealed weapons. Studies show that longer prison sentences, although costly for the taxpayer, won't deter criminals. Still others show that prohibition, whether of alcohol or of drugs, doubles the homicide rate by empowering organized crime." Badnarik here stands alone. No other camp proposes privatization of police to stop crimes. They would lose the union votes. Republicans do propose people be allowed to carry hand-guns. Democrats are not pro-gun. Affirmative Action "Most minorities feel that something about our "system" still discriminates against them, but can't quite identify its cause. Establishment politicians propose more quotas and affirmative action, creating animosity between those who are favored by such legislation and those who are not. Since these programs must be funded by taking money from the private sector, jobs, primarily those held by unskilled minorities, are destroyed. The few who benefit from quotas and affirmative action do so at the expense of their less advantaged brethren....Libertarian Steve Mariotti, mugged for the paltry sum of $10, decided to teach inner city teens how to become successful business men and women so that they wouldn't have to steal. His organization, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE), gave Kansas high school student Monique Landers their annual award when she started her own hair braiding business called "A Touch of Class." The Kansas state government wanted to put teen age Monique in jail for braiding hair without a cosmetology license, which takes a year of schooling and several thousand dollars in tuition to obtain...Throughout our nation, entrepreneurial African-American hair-braiders have been similarly threatened. Would-be van operators and taxicab owners face prosecution unless they pay thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a permit. In some areas, newcomers are routinely denied permits no matter how much they are willing to pay. Minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged have a difficult time jumping these costly hurdles. Without the ability to go into business for themselves, their opportunities are much more limited than the average middle-class American. Employers can more easily exploit them when self-employment is not an option....Only Libertarians recognize that the golden door of opportunity has been slammed shut by such regulations. The Institute for Justice, the nation's premiere libertarian public interest law firm, has racked up a number of landmark victories defending—pro bono—minority hair braiders, van operators, and taxicab drivers, and other victims of excess regulation (for examples, see www.ij.org)." He does not favor Affirmative Action policies that create more resentment in society, as they are paid by tax-dollars. Favors getting rid of regulations that deter minorities and the poor from entering a business. Democrats are pro-Affirmative Action, as they carry the minority vote. Republicans are anti-Affirmative Action. Here, Badnariks appeal is to voters on both sides, though he would lose the Democrats if they heard he was not Affirmative Action all the way, and win Republican Votes at the same time for favoring ease to entry of markets.. Who Loses when Badnarik Wins? It would seem that the Badnarik campaign is original on Crime Policy, Free Trade and State Corporatism, and also Affirmative Action and Empowering of Minorities. If Republican Voters are not too happy about the Republican policies on these issues, this might make them vote for Badnarik. Since Democrats are also against State Corporatism and also for empowering of Minorities by way of easing entry to trade, they may even favor a Badnarik presidency. That if Badnarik can look beyond Affirmative Action as a divisive issue and not be against it. The message of the campaign is clear. The real challenge for the Party remains to get it's message across. How are they doing about this? I invited a few diehard Libertarians from various college campuses to see what their take on Badnarik was. Dick Clark, President of Auburn University Libertarians, a group affiliated with the national Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Alabama, responded. Let’s have a look at what he said about the Libertarian Campaign in his area and who they are appealing to. What does Michael Badnarik's campaign stand for? Of these ideals which appeal to you the most? DC: Michael Badnarik stands for small government and individual freedom. As a constitutional scholar, he understands the limitations put on the federal government in that compact, and how they have been surpassed by politicians since that time. How is he different from Bush? From Kerry? From Nader? DC: Badnarik differs from Bush in that he is far more genuine in his support of 2nd amendment rights, as well as being a champion of other individual civil rights. In addition, Badnarik opposes the "war" in Iraq, which was disingenuously sold to an American public still reeling from 9/11. How well known is Badnarik in your area? Amongst young people? What's the voter base like? DC: Badnarik is a new name in the Auburn, AL area, but his recognition is growing. More and more bumper stickers and yard signs are beginning to crop up, and we had a Libertarian meeting the other night that revealed some interest on Auburn University's campus. More than five hundred Auburn students have signed petitions to achieve his ballot access here in Alabama, and that number is likely to reach into the thousands by the end of this week. Badnarik enthusiasts include disgruntled Democrats and Republicans, as well as some people who have never been involved in politics before at all. If you have met him in person please tell us about the meeting. How did you change your mind about him after the meeting? DC: Mr. Badnarik is very personable, although quite mild-mannered. I met him in his hospitality suite at the Libertarian National Convention in Atlanta. Tell us about your role in the Badnarik campaign. Do you organize rallies, inform voters and get funding? How do you go about this? DC: As a campus organizer for the Libertarian Party, I host events on Auburn's campus and off campus. At these events, I and my fellow activists distribute literature, administer the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" and talk about various issues including the War on Drugs, the War in Iraq, international trade, and more. How are your campaigns financed? DC: All the campaigns that I have had a hand in were funded entirely through private donations. More often than not, a candidate spends a sizable chunk of his or her own capital, and that represents the lion's share of the budget. This seems not to be the case with Badnarik, who is enjoying brisk returns on campaign fundraising efforts, but I am afraid I don't know much about that aspect of his campaign. Will you be working in the 2008 Campaign for the Libertarian Party? DC: Yes, I will be involved then too. Tell us something about the Libertarian Party. How diverse is it? DC: The diversity of the Libertarian Party is incredible. I have been to few events that combine such contrasting groups from our society as Libertarian events. The LP has atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, agnostics, pagans and more. Some people attend events in business attire, and some look more on the "hippie" end of the spectrum. The key that unites all of us is mutual respect for each person's right to make autonomous personal decisions. We don't have to look alike to get along--we simply must respect the basic human rights that this country was founded in recognition of. How do you feel about monopolies and even free trade? Are you for or opposed to treaties like NAFTA, WTO? DC: I am opposed to NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, the WTO, and all their ilk. Free trade does not require thousands of pages of specifics. If we are indeed going to conduct free trade, the government need only to get out of the way. Free, voluntary trade is good for all parties involved. If the United States is to maintain its position as an economic leader, we must engage in free trade with as many countries as possible. As grassroots organizers tell us how hard or easy it is to inform voters about your party. DC: It is getting easier every day, but many still want to limit people's access to information about us. Here at Auburn, the College Democrats and College Republicans have decided to exclude us from an October Debate, despite our previous (Spring 2004) participation and assistance. Are you informed and are you informing voters about the problems with the Diebold Voting Machines, that Bev Harris helped expose? (See right-hand menu of http://www.juryfury.com about Bev Harris and the ES&S voting software) DC: I cannot remark on this, as I am unfamiliar with this issue. What changes would you like to see happen in the nation as far as the War in Iraq, the US Congress and also in Public Education? DC: I want for our soldiers to be taken out of harm's way. As for public education, we need local controls over local schools. If the cry for more funding is heard, cut extracurricular budgets before asking tax-payers to assume a greater burden. Are you happy with the way Democrats and Republicans have been managing the Defense Budget? DC: They have hardly managed it. If we eliminated all domestic spending by the federal government, we would still be over budget thanks to the Iraqi conflict. As usual, politicians prey on the fears of the electorate to generate more money that can then be diverted by graft. How would you convince anyone not yet registered as a Libertarian to vote for Badnarik in 2004? DC: I try to explain that peaceful free trade will better insure a prosperous, safe US in the future than Bush's or Kerry's respective plans of "more killing, less trade." Conclusion It seems as though the appeal of the Libertarian Party is increasing amongst the young people who may have become disenchanted by the third-party system, at least on one college campus. Looking back at my own college years in Mount Holyoke College, I never once considered joining any campus political party. Then again, I never thought I'd be interested in American Politics. How times change. Hopefully, more disinterested and disenchanted youth in America will rise to the occasion in the November 2004 Election, and who knows, maybe some day in the future they will even elect a third-party candidate to the White House. Many thanks to Dick Clark for the interview. About the Author(s): See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article.		Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Social Economics Religious Science About Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com