Putin’s Russia and Modern Authoritarianism

Note:  More often than not, my libertarian philosophy ensures that I am reluctant in broadcasting my views concerning foreign governments.  This is because most discussion of foreign policy in the United States is spurred from the intellectually dominant premise that the U.S has a right to unlimited intervention in the affairs of foreign governments.  My observations concerning the political activities of other countries are completely passive.  Although as a student of political philosophy I obviously disapprove of the practices of many foreign governments, I do not suggest that the United States should “do something about it.”

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia is the poster child of 21st century authoritarianism.  Considering his intention to seek a third nonconsecutive term as President of Russia in 2012, there is no doubt that PM Putin intends to rule Russia for the rest of his life.  Putin has completed the playbook on 21st century democratic authoritarianism.  Since the beginning of his first term as President in 2000, Putin has had great success in making authoritarianism “cool” again.

Putin, from all impressions that I can gather, seems extremely popular, both in Russia and around the world.  Surprisingly, the projected image of the authoritarian iron fisted ‘He-Man’ has propelled Putin into a state of international celebrity that few other world leaders have managed to achieve.

In the view of a civil rights loving westerner such as myself,  Putin is not defined as much by his supposed strong and capable leadership as he is by his personal responsibility for the re transformation of Russia into an anti-democratic nightmare state.  Since Putin’s ascension to power in 2000 via a practical military coup;

Putin has waged social warfare on benefactors of Russia’s 1990′s era free market, ironically terming leaders such as Boris Berezovsky as “oligarchs”.  Berezovsky gained prominence actually as the prime mover in Putin’s ascension to power in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.  Berezovsky was by no means a social liberal, but he did have political influence independent from Putin’s, therefore he had to be eliminated.

Putin ‘s regime also quenched significant political opposition in 2007, this time in the form of the United Civil Front lead by former chess master Garry Kasparov.  The United Civil Front’s humble goal was to establish a “free political floor” on which free elections could be held.  Once again, at the cusp of Kasparov’s influence, Putin eliminated his political influence in Russia.

Furthermore than his antagonizing of all alternate political expression; Putin has increased military spending an average of 20 percent annually since 2000.  Although this growth is perceived by most as an effort to consolidate Russia’s image as a powerfully independent nation in the international arena, it undoubtedly adds to Putin’s already near dictator like power.

Upon Putin’s expected return to the presidency next year, awareness should be spread of the notion that in the coming years Vladimir Putin will undoubtedly be the world’s most powerful man.

“Ideas Are More Powerful Than The Weapons Of War”

The Only One We Can Trust

I endorsed Ron Paul for President in the 2012 Republican Primary back in May, however, I just wanted to share a video which perfectly illustrates exactly why I do support Ron Paul.  Please take time to watch, and feel free to comment.

Of Kings and Governors…

In last night’s GOP Presidential Debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, the main action of the debate consisted of  three governors squabbling over their records as chief executives in their respective states.  Gov. Rick Perry and former Governors Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman spent their allotted time picking apart each others records on job creation, Health-care, and other miscellaneous statist policy.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a consensus amongst political pundits that being a governor of a successful state is a part of a litmus test that determines whether or not someone is qualified as a candidate for the presidency.  In this day and age, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

If the presidencies of George Bush and Barack Obama have taught us anything, its that the constitutional understanding of the Executive Branch’s power in government is being completely misinterpreted.

We live in an age of the Imperial Presidency.  This is an age in which it is characteristic of our chief executives to completely ignore the legislative branch when their whims are not met with absolute support and compliance.  It is almost impossible to count the instances in which our last two presidents alone have over stepped the bounds of their constitutional authority.  In their book, Power Surge, Gene Healey and Tim Lynch outline our twisted, modern view of executive power:

“

• a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
• a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
• a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as “enemy combatants,” strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and
• a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.  “

 

Almost all actions taken by the Obama Administration in the last two and a half years have completely endorsed this understanding of executive power.  From outright abuses such as Obamacare and military action in Libya, to amusing contemplations such as ignoring Congress’ ruling on the recent debt ceiling measures, it should be clear to all of us that action such as this would infuriate our nation’s founders.

In “The Federalist No. 51″ James Madison described the nature of the idea behind the system of checks and balances:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

Madison’s words beautifully illustrate a very simple point.  The great American experiment of Constitutional Republicanism was meant to be framed in such a way that secures the liberties of it’s citizens from the will of a king or tyrant.

In regards to the search for our current President’s successor, I think that voters would not be wrong to be wary of candidates who are experienced in the use of Executive power.  My intention is not to undermine or criticize the character of any of the candidates previously mentioned, I just think that a healthy distrust of any executive who has served in this age of  radical executive decision making would prove to be more wise than foolish.

As for a suggestion of what voters should be looking for, I humbly suggest that we nominate a figure of principle.  Obviously, I would seek a figure who recognizes the severe abuse of executive power in recent history.  In my view as someone who seeks to further the cause of liberty, I would also prefer a figure who has shown a consistent dedication to the principles of our founders and our constitution.  We should seek for the nomination of one who does not cast aside those principles for the sake of political expedience.

Does this sound like anyone we know?

 

 

 

The Media Is the Enemy of Peace, Liberty, and Truth- AntiWar.com

The Media Is the Enemy by Justin Raimondo — Antiwar.com.

Why The Debt Ceiling Suddenly Matters

I can only imagine how confusing the sudden “Debt Ceiling Crisis” must seem to everyday Americans.  For the first time since almost anyone can remember, the almost yearly ritual of raising the federal government’s borrowing capacity actually seems to matter.  President Obama, politicians and so called “economists” are telling us that Congress must use a compromised, “balanced” approach in raising the debt ceiling.

We have been forewarned on what to expect if this does not happen. Yesterday, Credit Suisse predicted that the stock market would fall 30% if a deal wasn’t  reached by the August 2nd deadline.   Additionally, last Monday President Obama proclaimed that all functions of the federal government would shut down immediately in the event of debt default.  Specifically mentioning a halt on Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits and all government contracts, Obama seems to be just as terrified as you and I should be.

Pandemonium!  Rioting in the streets!

Chaos!

Not so fast.  Unfortunately,

The raising of the federal debt has been a common occurrence since 1917, when congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act to help with the government’s financing of the United States’ involvement in World War I.  In fact, the debt ceiling has been raised 77 times since 1962 and even three times in the last three years, twice in 2009 and once in 2010.

One has to ask; what’s the big deal this time?

Suddenly, Congress is selling us the pretense that the current debt ceiling vote is a battle of ideology.  Left versus right, liberal versus conservative.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As a fellow blogger pointed out a few weeks ago, in a 2006 vote  every Democrat in the U.S Senate voted against raising the debt ceiling, and all but two Republicans voted for raising it.

Clearly the current drama in Washington is nothing but pure political posturing.  Congress’ complete lack of principle, (With the obvious exception of a select few) is completely laughable.

The real reason why we are hearing about the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011 has much to do with how the Tea Party and liberty movements have shaped the debate in Washington during the past year.  Last November, journalists were already speculating whether successful Tea Party candidates such as Rand Paul were going to actually follow through with their libertarian rhetoric and demand balanced budgets and reductions in the federal debt.

Luckily, the mere fact that there is debate on the debt ceiling speaks volumes for candidates such as Sens. Paul, Lee and Rep. Justin Amash.

It is certainly understandable to be frustrated at the seemingly inevitable “compromise” which congress will reach in the coming days.  However, I do think that both Tea Party and Libertarian activists should take time to consider how far the national debate has shifted in the last year.

We must be doing something right.

Is Lupe Fiasco Right?

In an age where politicians want to be celebrities and celebrities want to be politicians, It is rewarding to witness a rare moment when someone from the entertainment industry actually displays some sort of  consistent political principle in what they say or do.

Chicago based rapper Lupe Fiasco did just that in his recent interview in which he spoke out against the foreign policy of the Obama Administration.  In a moment which falls somewhere between courageous and offensive, Fiasco said the following;

“In my fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama and the United States Of America”.  He went on to explain, “I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism.  You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff that the U.S Government allows to happen, and the foreign policies that we have in different countries which inspire people to become terrorists.  And it’s easy for us because it’s just some oil.”

Fiasco’s comments although rather inflammatory, actually sound pretty in line with both the views expressed in Chalmer Johnson’s book, Blowback, and the foreign policy positions of 2012 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.

Certainly, Lupe Fiasco’s musical career might cause some liberty activists to wonder.  His latest music video, “Words I Never Said” features Fiasco struggling to express himself against a fictional oppressive government.  In addition to that, his latest album, entitled “Lasers”, features a red “a” anarchy symbol.

Perhaps the most liberty minded release of his career was a 2009 mixtape, “Enemy Of The State.”  An interlude in the release states, “We will not compromise who we are to be accepted by the crowd.  We want substance in the place of popularity.  We want to think our own thoughts.  We want love, not lies.  We want knowledge, understanding, and peace.  We will not lose, because we are not losers, we are lasers.”

Lupe Fiasco should be applauded for his independent mind, and for his courage to voice his opinion, even when it might be perceived as an unpopular one.