Ed Hudgins

Baltimore Riots as Criminal Culture Writ Large http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2015/04/30/baltimore-riots-criminal-culture-writ-large By Edward Hudgins The rioting in Baltimore represents criminal culture writ large. It is what happens every day on a smaller scale in poor minority communities: theft, vandalism, and violence. The flames in Baltimore hideously illuminate the fact that the culture of the welfare state creates the criminals and rioters that plague this city in my native state. The cycle of poverty and violence The ostensive cause of the riots was outrage at the death of Freddie Gray, a young black drug dealer with a long rap sheet, whose spine was injured when he was arrested. Let me be clear that whatever the outcome of the investigation into this particular case, police overreaction is a real problem nationwide. And yes, most of those in Baltimore who protested excessive police force were peaceful. And also many responsible black community leaders were in the streets urging those bent on destruction to stop. Especially heartbreaking were Pastor Donte Hickman’s efforts to stop the violence as the senior and community center that his group was constructing burned to the ground. And yes, poverty and a lack of economic opportunities create frustration and a sense of impotence. And yes, the failed schools do not prepare young people for jobs. And yes, these factors contribute to inner-city crime. The rioting was followed by anguished politicians, community leaders, and citizens coming together to declare that such violence does not represent the community and must stop now, and that the underlying causes must be dealt with.But we see on a smaller scale such sad scenes of crime and violence all the time in Baltimore and other cities across the country. A child is killed in the cross-fire of a drive-by shooting. The killing is followed by candlelight vigils as politicians, community leaders, and citizens come together to declare that such violence does not represent the community and must stop now, and that the underlying causes must be dealt with. Yet little changes. Thugs riot in Baltimore The rioters no doubt were frustrated, but so were the peaceful protestors and other citizens who did not burn and steal.Most of the looters have the values and souls of thugs and criminals. It seems obvious that they had no moral inhibitions when they saw the opportunity—and perhaps when local politicos decided to “give them space” to destroy—to combine mindless destruction with targeted looting; liquor and hair-care products were much sought-after items. These rioters were not addressing the problems of the community. They themselves are the problems of the community.Thugs The rioters were mainly from the same neighborhoods as those who abhorred the riots. They were not an army of outside vandals—though outside agitators egged them on. They were the sons, daughters, siblings, parents, and friends of those who say they want peace. They live under the same roofs. And this is the case not only for those rioters but for the criminals who plague Baltimore and other major cities in this country. Since Martin Luther King’s inspiring “I have a dream” speech in 1963, nearly 400,000 blacks nationwide have been murdered by other blacks, not by police. Baltimore politicos in denial But most local politicos refuse to acknowledge this fact or its implications. That’s why we saw the bizarre controversy surrounding even calling those rioting thugs “thugs.” Baltimore City Council President Jack Young apologized for using the “T” word and instead said the rioters were “misguided,” adding, “We are all Baltimoreans.” Really? No wonder the population has dropped from 900,000 in 1970 to only 622,000 today. If the rioters are Baltimoreans, no decent person would want to be one. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a black woman, initially called the rioters thugs but also apologized, saying,Mayor in denial “We don’t have thugs in Baltimore.” No thugs? Perhaps she missed the 211 murders in Baltimore last year, or over 4,000 violent crimes and 24,000 property crimes. Just “misguided” but well-meaning Baltimoreans, no doubt. But hey, the number of murders in Baltimore has dropped in recent years and it now has only the third highest murder rate in the country after Detroit and New Orleans. I guess that’s progress. Trapped in failed welfare state policies This refusal to call a thug a thug is an attempt to evade another reality: the material and moral failure of welfare state paternalism. For decades—in the case of Baltimore, since 1967—Democrats have run major cities and have carried out the welfare state agenda. They redistribute taxpayer money, taken from the most productive enterprises and individuals, to “the poor,” thus posing as wonderful benefactors. Their government employees, who provide them with votes, administer onerous regulations on businesses and entrepreneurs, all the while providing substandard services to the citizens. And their public employee union allies, especially in the failed schools that are often as dangerous as prisons, block any possibility of reforms. Local economies stagnate. Productive enterprises and individuals flee the city for the suburbs, creating hardships that the same politicians then can promise to solve with more of the same failed policies. And so the cycle has gone on for decades. The welfare state teaches sloth and crime The welfare system teaches those trapped in it that they are entitled to a living; that they need not work for it; that others owe them; that their economic plight is not their fault; that any misery they experience is because others are selfish and malicious. The system creates envy and resentment. If you don’t have it, it’s because others do. So either redistribute it yourself with a gun to a merchant’s head or as part of a mob breaking store windows, or let the government mob grab it for you. The welfare state creates the thugs because its redistribution premises are themselves criminal! The welfare state assumes that entire classes of people are too weak and stupid to take care of themselves without government assistance. But it is the welfare system that destroys moral character and creates weakness and stupidity. The strong and the wise would not need it. The real revolution: individual responsibility As the flames of Baltimore’s buildings burnt out in the riots in 1968, the welfare state was offered as the solution. It has failed miserably and morally, in Baltimore and across the country. Those in Baltimore who are honestly anguished by the destruction the rioters have wrought and by the plight in the inner city, there and everywhere, must recognize that same stale solutions will fail again. A real moral revolution is needed that focuses on facilitating in the individual the morality of personal responsibility and autonomy, of true self-empowerment, of a desire to be left free to achieve and to take pride from achievements. Only then will the ashes of burning cities be relegated to the ash-heap of history. ------ Hudgins is a senior scholar and director of advocacy at The Atlas Society. Explore: · Edward Hudgins, “Martin Luther King's Dream and Today's Racial Nightmare.” August 27, 2013.· William Thomas, “How Racist Are We?” Summer, 2010. · Edward Hudgins, “Thoughts on Racial Thinking.” January 17, 2009.

Obama Disproves His Own Assumptions About Iran By Edward Hudgins Barack Obama is pushing for a nuclear weapons agreement with Iran because he believes “the more people interact with open societies, the more they will want to be part of an open society,” according to former NATO ambassador Ivo Daalder (quoted in the Washington Post). But Obama himself disproves his own belief in the open society. Why Obama is giving in to Iran Critics and even some supporters are baffled by Obama’s eagerness to secure from Iran any deal that pretends to prevent that theocratic tyranny from getting the bomb. But he has essentially let Iran get what it wants—it can continue to enrich uranium and develop ballistic missiles, avoid serious inspections, and not close down key facilities.It continues its quest for nukes even as it continues to spout its “Death to America” rhetoric, declare that the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable, and support Islamist terrorism and its political proxies throughout the Middle East. This current behavior makes clear that, when armed with nukes, it will be one of the most dangerous regimes in the world. So why is Obama letting Iran continue to prepare for mass murder? Ambassador Daalder’s remark seems to confirm what many opponents think: that Obama is dangerously naive about the world. He believes that arrogant American foreign policy is the root of most of the world’s problems, and that if America just makes nice, a friendlier world will result. Commentator Charles Krauthammer even suggests that Obama thinks he can make Iran his partner in managing affairs in the Middle East. If Nixon can go to China, he can go to Iran! This belief is, at best, delusional and, at worse, malicious. But it is important to sort out why. The virtues of the open societyThe best advertisement for the virtues of an open society is to spend time in one. Students from overseas who study in America can take back to their countries an appreciation for the free exchange of ideas and the prosperity that results when entrepreneurs are allowed to follow their visions in a free market. Military officers from other countries who train here can see how an army can remain under civilian control while Constitutional safeguards keep government power in check. But those virtues will only be appreciated by those individuals who already hold at least some of the corresponding Enlightenment values: a love of life, a respect for individual autonomy, an appreciation for the power of human reason, and a desire for economic prosperity. But many don’t share these values. The Islamist enemies of freedomSayyid Qutb, an Egyptian on a student scholarship in Colorado, was appalled by the materialism, individualism, the elevated status of women, and the sexual openness in American society. And that was in the America of 1950! On his return to Egypt, he became a leading ideologue in the murderous Muslim Brotherhood. Osama Bin Laden was from a wealthy Saudi family. He was educated in a Saudi school that had a more modern Western-style curriculum and allowed Western dress. He traveled for vacations in the West. But he founded al Qaeda. The 9/11 terrorists who followed his orders to fly planes into buildings in America were mostly Middle Eastern students studying in Western countries. And the Islamists who’ve carried out attacks in European countries in recent years have mainly been home grown or living in these Western countries for some time. Islamists reject the EnlightenmentIslamists don’t fall in love with open societies because they do not share Enlightenment values. Instead of peaceful coexistence with others, they violently force others to adhere to every barbaric prescription of their religious dogma, no matter how much poverty and misery they inflict on the world. And killing anyone who disagrees is central to their dogma.Further, they refuse to reflect on their values; that is central to their dogmatism. So exposure to the prosperity and peace of open societies will only infuriate them and reinforce their commitment to their dogmas. Obama rejects Americanism And does this mindset not describe Obama? He has spent much of his life in open America. Yet, in a dogmantic pursuit of “equality,” he has made himself the mortal enemy of the entrepreneurs, businessmen, and businesswomen who make everyone wealthy. Never mind that his policies clearly impoverish the very people he claims to be helping. He has made himself the enemy of the Constitutional checks and balances on government, unilaterally assuming powers not granted to the executive, using the government to punish enemies, all in the name of creating “social harmony.” Never mind that this has made the country become increasingly polarized. If Obama looks in the mirror and understands his own mindset, he would understand that his belief that Iran will grow kinder and gentler because of interactions with an open America—which Obama is trying to close—is an illusion. But he can’t or won’t. This is why both the nuclear deal with Iran and Obama are dangerous to a peaceful and open world. Explore: Edward Hudgins, “Obama Endangers Israel.” March 7, 2014.Edward Hudgins, “Iran and Obama’s Hollow Moral Core.” June 25, 2009.David Kelley, "Does Islam Need a Reformation?" Spring, 2011.

Thanks Ba'al! Since I now have "skin in the game," I'm even more fanatical about creating a society and culture based on freedom and reason!

I've always considered young people a "target audience." In fact, in several standard speeches I explore in detail Millennials and entrepreneurial achievers as our hope for the future. And I have two young people in my own household!

Politico Writer Plays Race Card by Calling Millennials Racist By Edward Hudgins In a Politico article Sean McElwee of Demos argues that, in the words of his title, “Millennials Are More Racist Than You Think.” In fact, the Pew study he cites shows the contrary and reflects on his own race-tainted ideology. How tolerant are millenials? Using Pew data, McElwee acknowledges that Millennials [those born after 1980] “are indeed less likely than baby boomers to say that more people of different races marrying each other is a change for the worse (6 percent compared to 14 percent).” Further, he notes that 92 percent of Millennials are okay with interracial dating. However, he notes that by both these measures Millennials are pretty much on par with GenXers, those born from 1965 through 1980. So what? You’d think two generations that are more tolerant than the previous ones would be occasion for applause. McElwee equates leftism with antiracism So where’s the racism? McElwee tells us that questions like the above “don’t really say anything about racial justice” and that Millennials “simply ignore structural racism rather than try to fix it.” McElwee complains that to the question, “How much needs to be done in order to achieve Martin Luther King’s dream of racial equality?” the opinions of white Millennials are little different from those of previous generations—42 percent of them answer “a lot” compared to 41 percent of white GenXers and 44 percent of white baby boomers, those born from 1946 through 1964. McElwee then lets his full dogma spill out. He supports his contention by citing the work of Professor Spencer Piston who “examined a tax on millionaires, affirmative action, a limit to campaign contributions and a battery of questions that measure egalitarianism.” The professor found that young whites were not enamored of those policies, evidence for McElwee that they are racists. And McElwee is even more depressed because in the Pew data “there is also evidence that young blacks are more racially conservative than their parents, as they are less likely to support government aid to blacks.” The damage of leftist attitudes on race So the racism is really in McElwee’s ideology. To begin with, the policies of race-based privileges and handouts run completely contrary to King’s goal of a world in which individuals “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Those policies have encouraged in many blacks an entitlement mentality with a resentment at having to earn their way in the world rather and having the world given to them. Affirmative action policies and the ideology that goes with them have discouraged entrepreneurship and personal responsibility. McElwee mentions the problem of “deep disparities in criminal justice” faced by blacks. Let’s grant that there are problems: the drug war hasn't helped poor blacks, that's for sure. But let's take note of the elephant in the room: disproportionate black involvement in violent crime. Since King’s inspiring speech five decades ago, over 400,000 blacks have been murdered mostly by other blacks. Blacks make up 12 percent of America’s population. Half of murder victims are blacks. About 38 percent of the murders are committed by blacks, with about one-third committed by whites and most of the rest by assailants of unknown race. The deep racial problems in this country today are no longer the result of Southern bigots or Klan members but, rather, they are caused the ideology accepted by leftists like McElwee and promoted by race hustlers like Al Sharpton—as well as by the man Sharpton has visited in the White House over 60 times: President Obama. Millennials as the individualist solution Pew data also show that Millennials are very cynical about politics and politicians. For example, half of millennials consider themselves political independents, compared to only 37 percent of baby boomers, and only 31 percent believe there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats, compared to 49 percent of boomers. Millennials overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008 but, like much of the country, have become disillusioned with him. The fact that Millennials are anything but naïve means there is a good chance today that they will challenge that leftist racial orthodoxy. Rather than being more racist, as McElwee assets, they could help turn the country away from the collectivist orthodoxy and in the direction of King’s dream, so that individuals “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” and so that our characters will manifest the best in all of us. ---- Hudgins is a senior scholar and the director of advocacy for The Atlas Society. For further information: Edward Hudgins, “Martin Luther King's Dream and Today's Racial Nightmare.” August 27, 2013. William Thomas, “How Racist Are We?” Summer, 2010. William Thomas, “Objectivism is Not Anti-Family,” August 13, 2014.

MSK, of course! I just wrote a piece referring to the guy with the "L" in the middle of his name and, without enough caffeine in my brain, it simple failed to sub the appropriate "S!" Interesting timing for this discussion. The headline on Drudge today is SCIENTISTS TRY TO MODIFY HUMAN EGGS GENETICALLY . The story is about eliminating genetic tendencies in eggs to certain diseases. The idea of the Google/Singularity/Transhumanist folks is to discover and modify the genetic mechanisms that produce aging. But eliminating a propensity for dementia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and a list of others would be a great start!

Read the linked-to piece. The billions are Google's. But Maris also attracts other capital to promising ventures. MLK, I have my doubts about Kurzweil's timetable and will be writing a longer piece on transhumanism in the future. But I too love the work of the Singlularity folks. Talk about life-affirming! Here's a link to my review of Peter Diamandis's book book Abundance. Inspirational!

Stephen - I'm skeptical about Kurzweil's timetable but, like you, am glad so many are devoting time, intelligence, and money to life enhancement and life extension. For other efforts along these lines, see my review of Abundance by Peter Diamandis, who co-founded Singularity U. with Kurzweil. And yes, entrepreneurship can only operate in a free market system. Otherwise its object become creative ways to secure government favors rather than create new goods and services to satisfy paying customers.

Ba'al is such an optimistic, can-do guy! Make sure you share with the thousands of scientists, researchers, engineers, and investors of your All-Knowledge so they stop wasting their time and billions of dollars on their futile quest!

Google, Entrepreneurs, and Living 500 Years By Edward Hudgins “Is it possible to live to be 500?” “Yes,” answers Bill Maris of Google, without qualifications. A Bloomberg Markets piece on “Google Ventures and the Search for Immortality” documents how the billions of dollars Maris invests each year is transforming life itself. But the piece also makes clear that the most valuable asset he possesses —and that, in others, makes those billions work—is entrepreneurship. Google's Bio-Frontiers Maris, who heads a venture capital fund set up by Google, studied neuroscience in college. So perhaps it is no surprise that he has invested over one-third of the fund's billions in health and life sciences. Maris has been influenced by futurist and serial inventor Ray Kurzweil who predicts that by 2045 humans and machines will merge, radically transforming and extending human life, perhaps indefinitely. Google has hired Kurzweil to carry on his work towards what he calls this “singularity.” Maris was instrumental in creating Calico, a Google company that seeks nothing less than to cure aging, that is, to defeat death itself. This and other companies in which Maris directs funds have specific projects to bring about this goal, from genetic research to analyzing cancer data. Maris observes that “There are a lot of billionaires in Silicon Valley, but in the end, we are all heading for the same place. If given the choice between making a lot of money or finding a way to live longer, what do you choose?” Google Ventures does not restrict its investments to life sciences. For example, it helped with the Uber car service and has put money into data management and home automation tech companies. “Entrepreneuring” tomorrow Perhaps the most important take-away from the Bloomberg article is the “why” behind Maris’s efforts. The piece states that “A company with $66 billion in annual revenue isn’t doing this for the money. What Google needs is entrepreneurs.” And that is what Maris and Google Ventures are looking for. They seek innovators with new, transformative and, ultimately, profitable ideas and visions. Most important, they seek those who have the strategies and the individual qualities that will allow them to build their companies and make real their visions. Entrepreneurial life But entrepreneurship is not just a formula for successful start-ups. It is a concept that is crucial for the kind of future that Google and Maris want to bring about, beyond the crucial projects of any given entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs love their work. They aim at productive achievement. They are individualists who act on the judgments of their own minds. And they take full responsibility for all aspects of their enterprises. On this model, all individuals should treat their own lives as their own entrepreneurial opportunities. They should love their lives. They should aim at happiness and flourishing—their big profit!—through productive achievement. They should act on the judgments of their own minds. And they should take full responsibility for every aspect of their lives. And this entrepreneurial morality must define the culture of America and the world if the future is to be the bright one at which Google and Maris aim. An enterprise worthy of a Google investment would seek to promote this morality throughout the culture. It would seek strategies to replace cynicism and a sense of personal impotence and social decline with optimism and a recognition of personal efficacy and the possibility of social progress. So let’s be inspired by Google’s efforts to change the world, and let's help promote the entrepreneurial morality that is necessary for bringing it about. ---- Hudgins is a senior scholar and the director of advocacy at The Atlas Society. For further information: *David Kelley, “Life: Your Adventure In Entrepreneurship.” Summer 2008. *Edward Hudgins, “Transhumanism vs. a Conservative Death Ethos.” August 20, 2014.

Leftist Delusions About Honduras and Alleged Freedom Failures By Edward Hudgins A recent piece by Mike LaSusa entitled “The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise,” published on Alternet and reposted on Salon, is a disjointed collection of out-of-context semi-factoids that bear no relationship to the title. The piece reveals what's wrong with the minds of the leftists who seem to lap this stuff up. Crime in Honduras LaSusa tells us that stating with a military coup in 2009 Honduras has had a succession of governments that have sought the “privatization of Honduran society” and “the militarization of public security efforts.” Crime in the country is out of control and growing, with gang activity contributing to corruption of the police and government. But a group of leftists headed off a constitutional amendment to give “permanent status to the country’s militarized police force” which is under the control of the president. Further, while only 27 percent of the people have confidence in the ability of the police to deal with crime, 73 percent think the military should be involved in crime-fighting. What does this have to do with libertarianism? Nothing! LaSusa complains about the government’s “heavy-handed” approach to fighting crime. Since he is concerned with crime but also with the country’s constitution, shouldn't he prefer a more militarized police to a military prone to pulling off coups? Be that as it may, what does it have to do with libertarians? For the record, libertarians oppose police states with open-ended powers but argue that the basic function of government is to provide police protection from the sort of crime about which LaSusa complains. But so far he offers no indictment of libertarians whatsoever. Zones of development LaSusa then turns to a discussion of special employment and economic development zones (Zonas de Empleo y Desarrollo Económico or ZEDEs) proposed by the Honduran government. Private investors would develop infrastructure, set up enterprises, establish educational and policing systems and, in effect, write laws. He quotes from the ZEDE website that they seek to provide “a 21st century, business-efficient, non-politicized, transparent, stable, system of administration, plus a special police and institutional security to overcome regional issues and meet world standards.” Sounds pretty good! And he tells us that lots of libertarian thinkers from around the world had a hand in developing this concept. So are ZEDEs a bad idea? Why? LaSusa seems to have the usual leftist visceral hatred of private folks with money making money, since he complains about private investors exploiting “Honduras’ voluntary surrender of its national sovereignty to make a ‘legal’ profit.” Does he prefer the current corrupt system? And would private investors create conditions any worse than the poverty-stricken, crime-ridden dump that is Honduras today? No libertarian nightmare But the discussion of ZEDE's is irrelevant, it turns out. LaSusa provides us with no information whatsoever about how ZEDEs are functioning and no recitation of nightmare stories. Perhaps this is because none are actually functioning as yet. LaSusa tells us that the ZEDEs were declared unconstitutional. The government tried to change the law to allow them to operate legally but failed, and is now trying to allow ZEDEs and local municipalities to request help for security from the militarized police. And the problem is, what? LaSusa’s attention then wanders to the fact that since 20008 the United States has provided $65 million in aid to Honduras for security. Libertarians generally oppose all foreign aid but again, where is the “nightmare?” Let's see: no libertarian policy has actually been put into effect in Honduras, so how on earth can Honduras's current problems be due to libertarianism? AsAyn Rand would say—Blank out! Crony, Corrupt Honduras Let’s put this discussion in a wider context by considering how Honduras does on the Index of Economic Freedom. (Full disclosure: I developed this index concept at the Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s.) Honduras scores only 57.4 out of 100, meaning it is “Mostly Unfree.” Of special note, it only scored a 30 on protecting property rights. And it only scored 26 for freedom from corruption. Overall, Honduras ranks only 116th out of 178 countries evaluated, in terms of economic freedom. This country is not nor ever has been an Ayn Rand laissez-faire paradise. Here is a crucial point that leftists refuse to acknowledge. A free market system is built on the moral premise that individuals should deal with one another based on mutual consent. This requires the rule of law with governments protecting private property. In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Rand’s villains are corrupt crony businessmen who use government force against competitors or to extract money from them through confiscatory taxes. The heroes are true capitalists who prosper by creating goods and services to sell to willing customers. When LaSusa complains about a libertarian “Peruvian economist” he is no doubt referring to Hernando DeSoto. DeSoto documents how governments in his native country as well as throughout the region are crony, or what he calls “mercantilist,” systems. They are the principal reason that the poor are denied the opportunity to prosper through their own efforts. To the extent that ZEDEs would afford everyone a “non-politicized, transparent, stable, system of administration, plus a special police and institutional security,” this is just what Honduras needs. Immigrating to freedom LaSusa’s attention deficit discussion then swings to immigration. He complains about “U.S. government practice of deporting thousands of Hondurans with criminal records” thus contributing to crime in Honduras. What does he expect the United States to say? “Welcome criminals! Come here where the pickings are better!” He also complains about deportation from the United States of women and children immigrants. But libertarians tend to oppose such deportations and favor an open and welcoming immigration policy. LaSusa also complains about America’s war on drugs, but then, so do all libertarians. LaSusa’s meandering mess offers no indictment of libertarians. He offers no evidence, data or logical connection at all between pro-freedom policies and Honduras’s sad state. Yet he declares the “disastrous results” of “neoliberal economic prescriptions.” Leftist delusions LaSusa’s piece is most interesting for what it reveals about the leftist mind. It is unfocused. It seems self-satisfied with lists of disconnected factoids that in no way hold together. A tone of indignation alone is supposed to prove the fallacies of political opponents. The goal of DeSusa’s piece seems to be to damn libertarians and Objectivists in the minds of fellow leftist by plucking at their emotional chords rather than offering serious discussion concerning problems like crime and poverty that he claims to want to vanquish. Relying on self-delusional rather than clear-eyed, honest analysis simply ensures that such problems will continue. All this obfuscation should suggest that there is much in the libertarian and Objectivist approaches to society and economy that should be seriously explored! --- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. Posted February 6, 2015. Explore William R Thomas, “Objectivism Is Not Anti-Family.” August 13, 2014. Thomas called Salon out the last time they got Rand wrong.Laurie Rice, “Myths About Ayn Rand: A Challenge To Journalists.” Rice demands that the likes of the Salon writer get Rand right for a change.Edward Hudgins, “Make Trade, Not War.“

Holocaust Remembrance Day, 2015 By Edward Hudgins The anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp is now marked as Holocaust Remembrance Day. The Jewish survivors who gathered there today escaped with their lives 70 years ago. They have lived to ripe old ages and experienced the joys of life denied to millions of their murdered fellows, and many are no doubt haunted by memories of those terrible times. But what should remembrance of the Holocaust teach us? Ideas have consequences Ideas have consequences, and evil ideas produce the greatest evils in this world. Irrational Nazi dogma taught that there are superior and inferior races, and that the superior should wield absolute power and should enslave—or even exterminate—the inferior. To the extent that individuals took that dogma seriously, they butchered millions of Jews, Slavs, and members of other groups not approved of by the self-declared Master Race. Ideas can destroy civilizations Evil ideas can metastasize to destroy the civilizations they infect. Humans have butchered each other since humans have been around. But they’ve also built cultures and institutions based on respect for the autonomy and dignity of individuals and on the highest human aspirations. It has become a cliché, but a true one, that Germany was the land of Beethoven and Schiller yet succumbed to Nazi brutality. The causes of the rise of Nazism are complex, but ultimately that rise showed that there is no guarantee that civilizations will endure without their defenders. Without intellectual defenders, the good will perish The failure to oppose evil ideas and to defend civilized values allows the evil ones to crush the good. In the 1930s European leaders and thinkers, rightly seeking to avoid another world war, ignored the fact that Hitler’s ideology and actions showed that he was serious in his goal of creating a Greater German Reich dominated byhis Master Race. The result of their failure to oppose his ideas and policies led to another world war. Nazi ideas live on in Islamism The ideas that led to the Holocaust are infecting our world today, principally through Islam. Islamist dogma holds that theirs is the only true religion, that they should wield absolute power and should enslave or even exterminate the infidel. How many butchers shrieking “Allah Akbar!” will it take to get this point through some people’s pig heads? How many World Trade Centers destroyed; London subways bombed; Paris journalists and Pakistani grade-school pupils murdered; African villagers gunned down; innocent men, women, and children beheaded; or Jews everywhere, but especially in Israel, targeted with destruction? The Nazis saw the need to hide their atrocities for fear that Germans, still holding a semblance of civilized values, would be appalled. ISIS, on the other hand, advertises its atrocities to attract recruits. Mullahs in Europe and America as well as in the Middle East declare the goal of subjecting the world to barbaric Sharia law and killing all who stand in their way. Muslim no-go zones in Europe and even in America allow this dogma to spread. Cultural relativism gives in to evil The failure to oppose Nazi-style dogma and to defend civilized values is itself based on another irrational, confused doctrine. This doctrine holds that all cultures are “equal” because all values are relative. But relativists also single out Western culture as the unequal, ignoble exception. The West, they hold, is the root of much evil and repression, and Westerners should apologize for their values and history. Relativism holds that screamingly irrational, murder-minded Islamists—and their sympathizers who flood the streets demanding death for all who insult them—deserve respect to the extent that they are screamingly irrational and murder-minded. It holds that free speech should be limited to the extent that those holding the most morally odious beliefs feel offended by speech that opposes them. As the death camps in Europe were being liberated 70 years ago, every civilized person was asking, “How could this have happened?” and vowing, “Never again.” The “how” is on display in our world today. The only way the “never again” vow can be fulfilled is for all individuals who aspire to be civilized stand up and fight for the values of reason and individual liberty, and against any dogmas and dogmatists who would oppose them. ----- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. This piece posted on January 27, 2015. You can email comments to ehudgins@atlassociety.org. ExploreDavid Kelley, “The Assault on Civilization.” (September 13, 2001.)Edward Hudgins, “Israeli Independence and Libertarian Blindness.” (May 6, 2014.) Edward Hudgins and William R Thomas , “The Challenges of the 21st Century.” (October 4, 2013.)

All true, which does not negate the fact of growing anti-Semitism. By the way, France has also had elected Jewish officials at the highest levels. Be that as it may, today the Muslim population even more than the extreme right is the source of anti-Semitism.

Hollande's Netanyahu Snub Proves The Need For IsraelBy Edward Hudgins January 16, 2015 -- We took hope at the sight of French President Francoise Hollande marching in solidarity with dozens of world leaders to denounce the Islamist massacres of Charlie Hebdo journalists and Jewish shoppers in Paris. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas marched in the front row, so maybe Hollande could have taken this rare occasion of accord to play the diplomat and further Middle East peace. But hope became disappointment when it was reported that Hollande, in fact, had informed Israel that he did not want Netanyahu or Abbas at the event. He was particularly angry when Netanyahu decided to come anyway. The French then made sure that Abbas was there as well. When Hollande walked out of the Paris Grand Synagogue when Netanyahu got up to speak at a unity service, he seemed to snub the Israeli leader. Hollande ignoring IslamistsHollande’s supposed motive for wanting to bar Netanyahu and Abbas was to keep the focus of the solidarity events on France and not introduce distractions from the Israel-Arab and Jewish-Muslim conflicts. But Islamists committed the carnage in Paris, targeting Jews in the process. Returning to Israel along with Netanyahu were the bodies of these victims, who have since been buried in Jerusalem. And Israel is a principal target of Islamist terrorism. A rally of three million individuals and over 40 world leaders to protest political murders becomes a shallow exercise when those leaders, especially Hollande, bend over backwards to ignore the Islamic roots of the crime. French anti-Semitism and Israel's foundingUnder the influence of the Enlightenment, Western European Jews in nineteenth century were gaining civil liberties such as the right to vote and equality before the law, rights that had been denied them in nearly two millennia of ghettos, oppression, expulsions, and pogroms. Many Jews thought they could assimilate into the wider world. But in 1894 French military officer Alfred Dreyfus, a Jew, was wrongly convicted of treason and sent to Devil’s Island. During the trial, writer-journalist Theodor Herzl witnessed massive anti-Semitic demonstrations in Paris. He concluded that assimilation and the law could not protect Jews from persecution, and that the only way Jews might live and flourish would be by establishing their own homeland. So began Zionism and the aliyahs, the waves of immigrants to Palestine. Most European Jews who made their way to Palestine in the following half century survived the Holocaust (America was the first choice of many, but it was closing to immigrants); most who stayed in Europe did not. The day after the State of Israel was founded in 1948, the armies of five Arab countries attacked with the goal of finishing the job Hitler had started. They lost, and Israel has survived as a place of refuge for Jews around the world. A sanctuary for Jews todayAnd such a place of sanctuary might especially be needed again today. In Europe anti-Semitism is on the rise, principally because of the influx of Muslim immigrants, with attacks on Jews becoming more frequent including in France. In Paris, after the unity rally that the French did not want Netanyahu to attend, Israel’s Prime Minister visited the site where Jews were murdered and declared that “A direct line leads between the attacks of extremist Islam around the world to the attack that took place here at a kosher supermarket in the heart of Paris. … I expect all of the leaders, with whom we marched in the streets of Paris yesterday, to fight terrorism wherever it is, also when it is directed against Israel and Jews.” He then said "To all the Jews of France, all the Jews of Europe, I would like to say that Israel is not just the place in whose direction you pray, the state of Israel is your home," and he invited them to migrate, as so many first did over a century ago. It is about IslamLet’s grant that there has been progress over the past century. At least the throngs in the street on this occasion were opposing violence rather than shouting “Kill the Jews” as the Parisians did during the Dreyfus affair. But such shouts can be heard from Muslims in Europe. And perhaps Hollande himself doesn't understand that by seemingly snubbing Netanyahu rather than reaching out to him in the face of Jews murdered in France, he was proving the need for an Israel as a sanctuary for Jews and as a strong force against terrorism today just as the Dreyfus affair demonstrated the need for the establishment of an Israel long ago. But the need for Islam to reform itself, to adopt Enlightenment principles, and to clean up its own ranks is not lost now on many, now including Muslims. Many Muslims did, indeed, denounce the Charlie Hebdo murders. But others still endorsed those atrocities. And many Westerners, including Pope Francis, suggested that individuals bring such fates on themselves when they don’t censor themselves. The only way Europe, the Middle East, and the world can survive in peace and prosperity is for the Enlightenment principles of reason and individual liberty to be promoted clearly and unapologetically, especially by those in Europe and America who are the most direct heirs to those principles. ---- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. Posted on January 16, 2015. For further information: Edward Hudgins, “Global Jihad vs. Islamic Enlightenment. “ January 9, 2015.Edward Hudgins, “Israeli Independence and Libertarian Blindness.” May 6, 2014.David Kelley, Does Islam Need a Reformation? Spring 2011.Edward Hudgins, “Allah Bless America!” November-December 2002.

I gave you guys the numbers and will leave it to you to figure out basic demographics. But I'll give you a hint: Different birth rates between different groups. Good luck in your statistics classes!

Here are some demographics from my piece of September 11, 2011. High birthrates among Muslim immigrants together with virtually no net population increase among the natives of Western European countries equal the following: "Some 90 percent of the population growth in Western Europe since 1990 has been the result of Islamic immigration. In France, 30 percent of children under 20 years old are Muslim. In 40 years the majority in France could be Muslim. In the Netherlands, about half of newborns are Muslim. In 15 to 20 years the majority in the Netherlands could be Muslim. In Germany, a government report from the Federal Statistics Office says that the Fatherland could be majority Muslim by 2050."

Global Jihad or Islamic Enlightenment? By Edward Hudgins The murders of French journalists by Islamist jihadists make clear even to the dogmatically self-blinded that the values of the modern world are in mortal danger. But an underreported ray of hope came recently from Egypt's president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has called for a revolution to banish violent jihad from Islam. How many Islamist massacres? How many Islamist massacres will it take to make the point that the values of the modern world are under threat? A dozen at Charlie Hebdo in Paris? Hundreds of school children with their teachers in Pakistan? Hundreds more in a subway in London, a restaurant in Bali, and trains in Madrid? Thousands in the World Trade Center? Tens of thousands in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan? These slaughters are not simply blowback from American foreign policy. They are manifestations of a clash of values between the civilized world and the Islamic one. It is true that there are Muslims who support tolerance for different religions and lifestyles, and who give priority to peace and prosperity. Many say that “true” Islam does not involve jackbooted theocracy. But for millions of others, Islam demands violence, or at least finds it acceptable. A religion is to a great extent a construct of its adherents. It consists of the beliefs, values, priorities, assumptions, and expectations shared by those adherents and reinforced by their culture and institutions. Academics arguing that particular acts of violence and repression are not condoned by the Koran do not negate the fact that millions of Muslims still believe they are. Islam is in a civil war with itself. Islam values violence What values are reflected in the fact that when Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed were published ten years ago, tens of thousands of Muslims took to the streets of Europe calling for repression and violence against the infidel, while others murdered hundreds, especially Christians, worldwide in orgies of mindless revenge? What does it say about peaceful Islam when, on the anniversaries of the September 11 attacks, there were no massive demonstrations in America or elsewhere to mourn the dead and to declare “Ours is a religion of peace,” but on the first anniversary there was a major conference in London by Muslim leaders to celebrate the attacks? What can we deduce about Muslim culture when we consider that the Nazis had to hide their genocide for fear that Germans, even the most anti-Semitic ones, would be repulsed by death camps, but that ISIS sees it as an effective recruiting strategy to post videos of beheadings, butchery, and mass murder? These facts reflect the pre-modern values that still permeate many Muslim communities—dogmatic orthodoxy and superstition; rejection of reason and free expression; contempt of individual autonomy and dignity; subservience to dictatorial authority; death doled out casually to all who disagree. Add to this the model of Mohammad spreading the religion with the sword and the ideal of a Caliphate that unites church and state and the distance between the sentiments of many Muslims and those of more secular Westerners is clear. A new Dark Age? The West went through centuries of religious wars and oppression before gradually integrating Enlightenment values into its culture and political institutions, and they’re still only imperfectly realized. The Islamic world never went through such a transformation. It now struggles to do so in only a few decades lest it continue to be the vanguard of war and oppression. The problem is acute in European countries where Muslims have become a large portion of those countries’ populations through immigration and high birth rates. But a legacy of European nationalism means Muslims are not integrated well into those countries, nor are they instilled with the values of open societies. As Muslims become the majority in those countries in decades to come, the remnants of Enlightenment culture could succumb to demands for Dark Age sharia law. A ray of Islamic hope One ray of hope comes from Egypt. After its Arab Spring, with the thousands rising up to overthrow the repressive Mubarak regime, the potentially even more repressive Muslim Brotherhood took power. Another uprising, backed by the military, overthrew the Brotherhood. Now Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a Muslim, is trying to bring his country into the ranks of modernity in terms of religious toleration. On Christmas Day, for example, he became the first Egyptian president to attend mass at a Coptic Christian church. And in an extraordinary speech marking the birth of Mohammad, he declared, “We are in need of a religious revolution.” He asked, “Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims worldwide) should want to kill the rest of the world’s population—that is, 7 billion people—so that they themselves may live? Impossible.” He argued that “We need a revolution of the self, a revolution of consciousness and ethics to rebuild the Egyptian person.” He maintained that "It's inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.” And concerning the thinking behind extremist opinion, he stated, “You have to get out of it, inspect it, and read it with a real enlightened thought.” Sisi addressed his remarks to Dar al-Iftaa, a prestigious Sunni religious institution founded over a millennium ago and sponsored by the Egyptian government. It is carrying out Sisi’s enterprise. For example, it has launch a campaign to rectify what it considers to be an incorrect image of Islam with views that “suit the modern age,” and it recently held an interfaith conference to combat extremism. Celebrate Enlightenment If Sisi and his allies make a priority of bringing Islam into modernity, they could be a major force offering the alternative to al Qaida, ISIS, Hamas, and the theocrats both in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Ironically, a major barrier to this alternative could be the politically correct or cowardly leaders in the West who coddle extremists rather than celebrate Enlightenment values and insist that Muslims and everybody else be held to their standards. Those are the values of civilization that apply to all individuals at all times, and will make Europe, America, and the Middle East places fit for human life and achievement. ---- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.Posted on January 9, 2014. For further information:Robert Bidinotto, “Cartoon Journalists.” Winter 2005.Edward Hudgins, “The Jihad Against Free Speech.” Winter 2005.Edward Hudgins, “The Means and Ends of Islamists.” July/August 2005.David Kelley, “9/11 and the War Against Modernity.” May 2002.

Individuals take different paths to the truth, and the discovery of truth is an ongoing process. Epiphanies and "Road to Damascus" conversions happen but tend to be rare because each individual carries different values, priorities, assumptions, and expectations. That's the real world. Many in Rand's circle half-believed that within months if not a year of the publication of Atlas Shrugged the philosophy would catch fire and triumph in this country. The philosophy did begin to spread but it often takes decades to change a culture. Enlightenment ideas and values were developed, accepted, and reenforced by social institutions and culture over a period of centuries and then only imperfectly. We're in a long-term battle that we are fighting on many fronts.

Division of labor. Making pronouncements from the sidelines is okay--hell, I do it all the time. But to actually be in the fight, to actually work within a system to change it for the better, is another and usually tougher matter. Anderson did serious studies but, certainly in the case of the draft, engaged in politics and actually was instrumental--with other Objectivists--in eliminating it.

Martin Anderson Remembered By Edward Hudgins January 6, 2015 -- Friends of freedom have lost a friend. Martin Anderson, 78, a Hoover Institution scholar and policy advisor to presidents, has passed away. Among his achievements were helping to eliminate the military draft and heading off a national ID card. Anderson was a life-long fighter for freedom. From the 1960s he was part of Ayn Rand’s New York circle and he helped make real the principles of individual liberty and limited that she espoused. In his 1964 book The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal, 1942-1962 Anderson demonstrated how government policy was actually destroying affordable housing and at huge taxpayer expense. Martin Anderson’s fight for libertyAnderson was a leading advocate of eliminating the military draft. In 1968 he was instrumental in persuading then-candidate Richard Nixon to make replacing conscription with an all-volunteer army a central part of his presidential campaign. Nixon carried through on that promise, at least. Anderson made his mark as domestic policy advisor for Ronald Reagan. For example, at a cabinet meeting early in Reagan’s first term, Attorney General William French Smith presented a plan to require a national ID card for anyone working in the United States, in part to deal with illegal immigrants. Anderson, who normally didn’t speak at those meetings, raised his hand and, when called on by Reagan, explained that such a card could easily be faked or lost. So why not tattoo a number on everyone’s wrist? Reagan immediately understood the illusion to Nazi practices and the threat such a “Papers please” dictate would pose to liberty. The proposal died there and then. Documenting Reagan’s legacyAnderson, a trustee of the Ronald Reagan Library, documented the achievements of the Reagan administration in his aptly-titled book Revolution. And as a Reagan biographer with his wife Annelise, he set the record straight about the country’s 40th president. For example, Reagan, a hardline anti-communist, was perceived by many as a war-monger. But when I visited Anderson’s Hoover Institute office in the mid-2000s, he explained to me that too few people appreciated just how strongly Reagan had as a top priority—along with cutting taxes and eliminating government intrusion in the economy—eliminating the possibility of nuclear war. Before Reagan was elected, America practiced a strategy of “mutual assured destruction.” The notion was that if the Soviets launched a nuclear attack on the United States, this country would retaliate by destroying every major Soviet city. Both countries would be destroyed and fear of such a holocaust would keep the country safe. Reagan rejected this “balance of terror” strategy. With the Strategic Defense Initiative he sought to create a system to protect American cities by shooting down incoming Soviet nukes. And on a parallel track he sought to negotiate actual reductions in the number of nuclear weapons, not out of a naïve view of benevolent Communist leaders but under the sound principle of “trust but verify.” Martin and Annelise documented the Gipper’s success in their 2010 book Reagan's Secret War: The Untold Story of His Fight to Save the World from Nuclear Disaster. Anderson’s legacyAnderson’s scholarly work also included Welfare: The Political Economy of Welfare Reform in the United States published in 1978, a few years before he brought his insights to the Reagan administration. And his 1992 book Impostors in the Temple: The Decline of the American University called attention to a reality that is all-too clear to day. In the words of the book’s subtitle, “American intellectuals are destroying our universities and cheating our students of their future.” We're living that future now and seeing the effects that Anderson predicted. Martin Anderson’s was a life of the mind and a life of achievement. His life should be celebrated and he will be missed. ---- Hudgins is Director of Advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. Posted January 5, 2015.

Nathaniel Branden Remembered By Edward Hudgins December 3, 2014 -- I first met Nathaniel Branden, who passed away this morning, in fall 1983. I had successfully passed my Ph.D. oral defense of dissertation that morning, so except for shuffling paperwork, I was now “Doctor Hudgins.” I don’t know how others would mark such a milestone, but I was eager that evening to hear Branden’s talk on “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.” Discovering Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden I had discovered and loved the works of Rand a decade earlier. She presented a vision of a rational world of flourishing, self-actuated, self-confident, achievement-oriented individuals, in sharp contrast to the corrosive culture of whim-worshipping irrationality and self-abnegation of that time. With Rand, of course, I encountered Nathaniel Branden. I knew he had been her philosophical heir-apparent, and that they had had an angry break. And I had heard rumors of their affair. But even though he was persona non grata in Objectivist circles, I eagerly read his post-Rand books, including The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Breaking Free, and The Disowned Self. The latter two were especially important. The Objectivist world at the time had what some called cult-like qualities, which Branden himself later acknowledged he had helped create in his years with Rand. One simply was to assume that Ayn Rand was right about everything, and as a “student of Objectivism” your goal was simply to understand her philosophy. Ironically, independent thinking--a key Objectivist virtue--was frowned upon in practice. Nathaniel Branden's Breaking Free While Branden in Breaking Free and The Disowned Self was not directly addressing the defects of the Objectivism movement, he was dealing with self-alienation and other deep problems that held individuals back from being independent and flourishing. He was clearly drawing from the problems he had encountered in individuals who loved Rand’s vision but found the official Objectivist movement stifling. So that evening in 1983 I listened to Branden address head-on the benefits and hazards of Rand’s philosophy. It was refreshing and liberating. Whether I agreed completely with his analysis or not, there was now a more open, adult conversation going on about the Rand and the philosophy. Branden argued that Objectivism indeed presented a radiant vision of, in Rand’s words, what the world can be and should be. But too many individuals who loved Rand’s vision saw themselves as so far removed from the heroes of her novels that they despaired. Too many would say “I’m no Roark or Galt, so I must be no good.” Technology for Self-Esteem Pioneered by Nathaniel Branden Branden defined his goal as creating the psychological technology to help individuals get from where they were to where they wanted to be. Branden is often credited as being the father of the modern self-esteem movement. This is true, but misleading. Today, many see “self-esteem” as a lazy and vacuous glance in the mirror to say “I’m great!” Branden defined self-esteem as the recognition that one is worthy of happiness and capable of achieving it. But happiness and flourishing require effort. In The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem he identified the necessary practices to reach those goals as living consciously, self-acceptance, self-responsibility, self-assertiveness, living purposefully, and personal integrity. Branden was, in effect, operationalizing Rand’s dictum that “as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul.” Over the decades that followed “Benefits and Hazards” I had many opportunities to attend and to host conferences with Branden, to discuss with him his insights about psychology and about Objectivism, and to see the benefits that his own work brought to many in this world. To his wife, Leigh, and all his friends I pass along my condolences. Keep in your hearts and minds the good memories of him. He would have wanted it that way.

Illegal Immigrants, Tax Evaders, and Imperial Power By Edward Hudgins Are you, like me, pro-immigrant and in favor of a path to legal residency for illegal immigrants? If you are, you nevertheless must understand that President Obama’s use of executive action in this matter undermines what’s left of our Constitution, and this is a far greater evil than the problem he is trying to address. Obama’s actions on immigration Obama claims he’s frustrated by the failure of Congress to pass legislation to give many of the estimated 12 million “undocumented” immigrants a way to legitimize their residency and perhaps even become citizens. Thus, he has announced that he will act unilaterally to achieve this goal using executive powers he claims to have, power he declared dozens of times until recently that he didn’t have. And he challenges the Republican Congress to send him an acceptable bill that deals with the immigration situation. Obama’s order specifies that he will defer prosecution of undocumented immigrants so they will need not fear deportation if they have children who were born here or are legal residents, are able to pass a criminal background check, and can meet other conditions. Interestingly, one condition is that they have been here for at least five years. But how will undocumented individuals without stamped passports, social security cards or other legal documentation be able to document their statuses? No doubt Obama’s operatives will mandate that the mere assertion of having been here for half a decade, or the most dubious documentation will be sufficient. Obama’s motives vs. immigrants’ virtues Critics point out that Obama’s failure to seek reform legislation when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress is proof that his current executive action is a disingenuous political stunt. They argue that Obama wants to legalize immigrants so they can become staunch supporters of the Democratic Party in exchange for every manner of welfare state handouts. The critics are probably right. But whatever Obama’s motives, Republicans are wrong and, indeed, seem mean-spirited to deny the virtues of immigrants, whether legal or not. Most come here to better their lives through hard work. That is, indeed, the American spirit that we should celebrate. Those who complain that illegals broke the law because they didn’t even try to go through the dysfunctional American immigration system should direct their anger at the system, not the immigrants. Obama rightly points out that it’s unrealistic to expect the government to round up and deport millions of illegal immigrants. Something must be done. So are Obama’s actions justified? No. Abuses of power Ask yourself this. What would a liberal Democrat (perhaps you, dear reader!) say of a president (probably a Republican!) who asserts executive authority to order the IRS to cease prosecution of anyone accused of tax evasion? What if such a president argued that the tax code is corrupt beyond redemption? It has thousands of pages of special interest loopholes. It takes an army of attorneys and accountants to sort through its contradictory, convoluted clauses. Its “progressive” rate system is a malicious, envy-based punishment of the most productive and prosperous individuals for the “sin” of being productive. And its enforcement arm, the IRS, has become a vehicle for presidents like Obama to punish political enemies. My first instinct (I’m not a liberal Democrat) would be to stand up and cheer: “Got you, you rotten statist bastards! No more loot for you!!” But the more sober me would understand that such executive action would undermine and help destroy the separation of powers and checks and balances system set up by our Founders. That would be an evil that, in the long run, could be even worse than the current tax system. And that’s pretty bad. Rule of law Whether you’re Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, you need to understand that the rule of law and constitutional limits on political power are essential to a free society. Imagine the horrific instability of abandoning the rule of law for the whims of a capacious ruler. A new president reinstates the immigration rules suspended by Obama, makes them even harsher, and suspends collection of all corporate taxes. A later president suspends the enforcement of all drug laws and reinstates corporate taxes with penalties and late fees for those who didn’t pay because of the prior suspension. Frankly, a state with wide authority to control every aspect of our lives is the liberal Democrat aim. But what will you, dear Dem, do when a conservative Republican president that uses the sword Obama is forging to go after some of the personal liberties—mostly ones involving sex—that you still support? It’s even tempting for limited government advocates to wonder whether it’s time of a future president like a Rand Paul to use the accumulated power of the executive as a meat cleaver to chop the state down to size. But I say not yet. Republicans should join with Democrats and Obama to work out a legislative solution to the immigration problem, not an executive one. But all parties must understand that if Obama’s executive actions stand, the stage will be set for future abuses by presidents of both parties. EXPLORE: Four Facts for Conservatives about Immigration Policy, Edward Hudgins The Golden Door: Immigration, Liberty, and the American Character, Edward Hudgins

After the Elections: The GOP Civil War By Edward Hudgins November 12, 2014 -- Impressed by the Republican Party’s 2014 election victories? Not so fast! At best their wins are opportunities to offer a positive agenda. But this might not be possible because the GOP is still engaged in a three-way civil war that could doom the party’s prospects for future victories and the country’s prospects for freedom and prosperity. Obama vs. the GOP For the GOP the election was the easy part. The Republicans beat the party of Barack Obama, whose policies have been abject failures, whose incompetence has been appalling, and whose lust for arbitrary power has been unbounded. Now comes the tough part. Obama remains arrogant and unapologetic in the face of his party’s defeats. He’ll disingenuously deign to consider GOP proposals only if they’re the sort of measures that most voters rejected in the election. So the Republicans will be offering proposals that they expect Obama will often veto. The Republicans will probably use those proposals to rebrand their party’s tarnished image and to highlight their governing principles and policies for the 2016 elections. The GOP civil war But there’s a problem. There is not a strong consensus on those principles and policies. This is because three factions are battling for the soul of the Republican Party. First, establishment Republicans want to tweak the welfare state to make it work a little more efficiently. These are the McCains and Romneys who want to “save” Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like. Second, extreme social conservatives would give priority to a liberty-limiting, religious-based agenda. These are the Santorums and Huckabees, the latter of whom threatens to leave the GOP if, for example, it doesn’t oppose same-sex marriage. Third, there are the libertarian-leaning and traditional limited-government Republicans with a number of Tea Party folks thrown in. This coalition of freedom-lovers actually wants to repeal oppressive programs and roll back the government’s scope and power. Rand Paul and a few others are leaning in this direction while trying to keep a foot in the social conservative camp as well. Pipeline, Obamacare, or disunity? So what does the GOP’s internal conflict mean for its external offerings? There are some proposals upon which the factions can agree, that enjoy widespread public support, and could even garner votes from some Congressional Democrats. For instance, approving the Keystone pipeline from Canada is popular with labor unions and free marketers alike. The Republicans will certainly take a stab at repealing Obamacare in its entirety. Obama would certainly veto the bill, but the Republicans who campaigned on repeal will have honored their commitment. But here’s where the situation gets dicey. Republicans could then try to repeal specific parts of Obamacare, for example, the tax on medical devices, which punishes production of life-enhancing technologies, or now-the delayed Obamacare employer mandate. They might even pick up some Democrat votes for such measures. But would libertarian Republicans see this as a move by the establishment GOP to merely tweak the law? After all, it would keep major parts of Obamacare in place. Worse, it could enshrine the principle that subsidized healthcare is a right that we owe one another, with the government as the wealth redistributor. Remember that a number of Republicans at the state level have worked to expand Medicaid coverage in keeping with provisions of Obamacare, much to the chagrin of the libertarians, sparking primary challenges to establishment Republicans. And could we see in Congress social conservatives pushing for gay marriage bans? Will they push for so-called family-favoring rather than neutral tax or welfare programs, the kind of discrimination favored by Mike Huckabee when he was Arkansas governor? Unite in liberty? If the GOP in the next two years offers a contradictory hash of limited government and paternalistic, interventionist programs, they might not only lose the elections in 2016. They might also lose their party. Millennial generation voters tend to like economic opportunity but they are socially liberal and thus tend to lean against the GOP. They will be the majority of voters in the future. Hispanic citizens, who make up 17 percent of the population today will make up 50 percent by 2030. They are heavily pro-Democrat. White evangelicals are the largest voting bloc in the GOP but a declining portion of the population. The Republican Party’s death spiral might have slowed in the 2014 election. Or perhaps the low voter turnout simply gave more weight to the party’s shrinking base. But if its internal conflicts continue, if it does not adopt a consistent pro-freedom, limited government agenda, the GOP could slip into the dustbin of history. The pro-freedom faction has an opportunity in the next two years to educate the public on their vision of a free society with a culture that celebrates achievers and wealth-creating entrepreneurs. But they will also have to convince their fellow Republicans to join them or else the victories of 2014 will simply be blips as the party declines along with the country. ---- Hudgins is the director of advocacy and a senior scholar at the Atlas Society. His latest book is The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “GOP Sound Bites vs. Libertarian Trends.” October 21, 2014 *Edward Hudgins, “Rand Paul Revolution in Silicon Valley.” July 25, 2014.

1994 yes. I should know. I did drafts of several of the planks!

GOP Sound Bites vs. Libertarian Trends By Edward Hudgins October 21, 2014 -- GOP Chair Reince Priebus has released his party’s “Principles for American Renewal.” By coincidence, Grover Norquist, longtime political activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform, penned a piece entitled “Beyond Rand Paul: The Libertarians Are Coming!” The Principles might contribute in some minor way to the Republican’s chances of taking the Senate in 2014. But Norquist’s insights not only could help the GOP gain long-term political dominance but also could lead to a true renewal of American freedom. General to specific Flashback to 1994. House Republican leaders put together the “Contract with America” to contrast their positions with those of President Clinton, offering specific proposals to address general problems. For “Job Creation” it called for a cost-benefit analysis for potentially employment-killing federal regulations. For "Legal Reform” it called for a “losers pay” rule to reduce nuisance law suits. For “American Dream Restoration” it sought a higher child tax credit. The Contract helped focus Republicans in the 1992 election and no doubt helped them win control of the House for the first time in some four decades. Principles or sound bites? While winning elections is the aim of the new GOP Principles, the similarity with the Contract pretty much ends there. Under “Economy” in the Principles we find “Start growing America’s economy instead of Washington’s economy so that hard-working Americans see better wages and more opportunity.” Under “Constitution” we’re told it “should be preserved, valued and honored.” And under “Poverty” we find “The best anti-poverty program is a strong family and a good job.” Nothing wrong with these, but they’re more like sound bites, albeit goods ones, offering few specifics. On the controversial issue of “Values” we’re told “Our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty, and hard work.” (Should have mentioned cute puppies as well.) And for hot-button “Immigration” we’re told we need a system “that secures our borders, upholds the law, and boosts our economy.” Weak consensus This weak consensus is the best the GOP can offer because it is currently engaged in a three-way civil war. Establishment Republicans simply want to tweak the welfare state to make it run a bit better. Extreme social conservatives give priority to a liberty-limiting agenda, for example, opposing same-sex unions. And limited-government and libertarian-leaning Republicans, including many social conservatives, give priority to rolling back the welfare state and restoring individual autonomy. So the Principles must be generic to avoid offending any faction. Four freedoms trending And here’s where Grover Norquist comes in. For decades he’s touted a “Leave Us Alone” coalition of economic and social conservatives. To that end he runs weekly “Big tent” meetings in D.C.: a kind of bulletin board for center-right groups, a model now reproduced in most states. Norquist has always been a uniter, not a divider. But Norquist’s latest piece affirms his place in the freedom faction, both challenging the agendas of the extreme social conservative and establishment Republicans while inviting them, in their own best interests, to join the liberty camp. On school choice, Norquist observes that “Thirty years ago home schooling was illegal in all 50 states.” Today 10 million have been home schooled, a growing trend. All GOP factions should celebrate this. On Gay marriage, he offers that “Thirty years ago there were laws actually criminalizing gays.” Today, legal and public opinion have shifted and gay marriage is spreading. But some protest that individuals should not be forced by government to cater or officiate at gay weddings if it’s against their religion. Norquist says the “team that frames its side as ‘defending and expanding liberty’ will win.” On the Second Amendment, Norquist notes that “Thirty years ago, 80 percent of Americans supported stricter gun control laws. … Today, 41 states have enacted concealed carry laws.” Surely all factions can agree on this one. And finally, on drugs he reminds us that “Thirty years ago, marijuana was illegal as medicine or even as a ‘recreational use’ drug in 50 states. Today, 21 states allow the use of medical marijuana,” with Colorado and Washington legalizing all sales. Not a user? Norquist argues you should welcome the “Right to Try” trend. Some states are allowing individuals to treat their illnesses with medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration as safe but not certified as “effective,” the part of the process that delays new cures and life-saving products for years. Embrace the free future The GOP might chalk up important victories in upcoming elections, more because of President Obama’s failures than because of its Principles statement. But in the long run, the only way the GOP can stop its death spiral as its ranks decline and younger voters, minorities, and new entrepreneurs drift toward the Democrats, is to embrace a bold liberty agenda that will truly lead to American renewal! ---- Hudgins is director of advocacy at The Atlas Society and editor of the new book The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “Michigan, Georgia pols show the fork in the GOP's road.” August 12, 2014. *Edward Hudgins, “Rand Paul Revolution in Silicon Valley.” July 25, 2014.