The Freedom Agenda

The Republican Party is doomed. John McCain isn't, but the Republican Party is doomed. It has no unifying philosophy, no will to fight for anything (with the glaring exception of continued military presence in Iraq), and no intellectual strength to convince the public that it is right. The principal cause of the party's electoral success in the last few election cycles (2006 naturally excepted) will shortly become an Achilles' heel. That principal cause was pandering at all levels of the party to socially conservative Evangelical Christians. Pandering to this interest group has created the not unjustified belief that the Democratic Party is the party of individual liberty. To conservatives, this is obviously false, but to the uninitiated, who is more obviously the defender of liberty, the party of free choice in the bedroom or the party of anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments? The party of rights of the accused or the party of "Chuck Norris Facts?" This conundrum demands that the Republicans redefine themselves not as carbon-copies of the Democrats but as unqualified defenders of freedom.



The following issues could define a "Freedom Agenda:"

1. Freedom to Earn: This plank is classical 1898 Republicanism: Lower taxes. All taxes. Not just income taxes.


2. Freedom to Worship (or not): Keep government out of matters of metaphysics. Let people, not judges, decide whether or not "In God we Trust" and "under God" are acceptable to 21st-century sensibilities. Accept their judgements.


3. Freedom to Broadcast: The FCC is nothing more than legalized censorship. Get rid of it. Tell the Parents Television Council to go to Hell along with the Fairness Doctrine. End the "public airwaves" nonsense.


4. Freedom to Surf (the Web): Keep internet commerce free of taxes. Legalize internet gaming.


5. Freedom to Trade: Enact free trade with all allies, such as Colombia. Educate the American people on the benefits of trade.


6. Freedom to Drill: Drill for oil in ANWR and the outer continental shelf. Educate the American people on new technologies that reduce risk to ecosystems and the benefits of increased domestic oil supplies.


7. Freedom to Drive: End CAFE standards. Let the free market determine the primacy of fuel economy in American automobiles. Raise speed limits where prudent.


8. Freedom to Eat: Fried food is banned at the Democrat National Convention (I shit you not). Barack Obama says we can't eat as much as we please. Let the people make their own lifestyle choices. Let them also accept the consequences.
9. Freedom to Smoke: Let the people who choose to smoke tobacco smoke. Call for national dialogue on the legal status of marijuana.
10. Freedom to Drink: End further restriction on the alcohol industry. Reconsider legal age 21.
11. Freedom to Choose: Appoint federal judges who will return abortion law to the legislatures of the states. Accept the judgements of each individual state with respect to itself.
12. Freedom Abroad: Foster, by use of hard (military) and soft (nonmilitary) power, growth of democratic states and institutions across the world.

In the coming months I will elaborate on these as I see fit.

Not a Catastrophe

So Matt Beato has now lost the race for City Council. I will now determine what this means, what this doesn't mean, what I would like to have, and what I don't know.

What This Means

• The Three-Person Rule will remain unresolved: Councilman Freiling, who supports reform of the rule, won re-election by wide margins. However, former mayor Granger lost narrowly to highly anti-reform candidate Judy Knudson. This means that the rule will remain in limbo for the next couple of years at least, as the council will be divided among pro-reform and anti-reform elements who will not view the rule as central to their governance.
• City noise regulations will favor non-students: The turnout by non-students was high enough to counter any student bloc vote, and thus rulings will still be made in favor of the more numerous non-students.
• Limousines and identity politics are not the best response to perceived marginalization in city politics: Forgetting the sheer waste of student funds that providing stretch limousines was (student activities vans do the same job for much less), it is now clear that an identity-based campaign for a council seat is insufficient. Regardless of the number of students registered, the citizens of Williamsburg will have a plurality of votes. Thus, putting forward a student candidate heavily dependent on the fickle student turnout profile (see limousines) is not going to be a winning formula unless the candidate is capable of appealing to citizen voters on the issues on which they move their votes: property taxes and schools. Perhaps Sievers was more able to do this in 2006 when he ran, or he may have had a larger proportion of anti-incumbent voters than Beato in this cycle. This election shows that the 157-vote defeat in an election without student votes that Sievers sustained was a fluke, as Beato lost by a larger margin in an election with more favorable demographics.

What This Doesn't Mean:

• The City Council can ignore student concerns: They can't for the same reason they couldn't before the election: We can vote still. Depending on the turnout model one uses, anywhere from 30-60 percent of registered student voters turned out. For young voters in any non-presidential election, these figures are actually rather high! As student political thinking matures (go figure first go-round we'd screw it up), if these turnouts remain the same students will be able to carry the balance in some races. What this election shows is that students cannot elect a candidate. Students can and ought to, however, enter coalitions with candidates friendly to their interests. This can get student opinion on Council, as was the case with Freiling.

What I'd Like to Have:

• An exit poll! It would make all this speculating a whole lot more certain. As it stands, nobody really knows anything, not even how many students voted. After-the-fact surveys, especially those conducted by the annoying folks at Rock the Vote (STOP TEXTING ME GODDAMNIT), will surely be subject to social desirability bias, distorting crucial findings which would affect future student political action strategies.
• Specifically, information on under-voting: Compared to the 2006 City Council elections, there were 1907 "whole ballots" (total votes/seats available) in the '08 race versus 1748 "whole ballots" in '06. Did students go to the polls for Beato alone, or only two candidates? Surely some did, but how many? For whom did they vote? Could this practice have gifted Knudson a seat? Wanna-be Michael Barones need to know!

What I Don't Know

• What the loss does to the Flat Hat: The paper had been a big booster of the Beato candidacy and likely will blame low student turnout (which I do not believe was the case) for the defeat. Will this affect readership?
• What the deal with the limos was: When I take up my position with the Informer in the fall, I intend to rip Valerie Hopkins et al. a new one for spending my money on limousines to get out the vote for Beato. That is, of course, for another day.
• What Beato does now: Other than sitting on the Soil and Water Conservation board (it's easy to win when no one runs!), it is unclear what Beato will do in wake of the defeat, as he had previously resigned his position as SA Senate Chairman. I do not know if he holds a Senate seat still.