Why the Republicans Lost, and Why They Deserved It

Helen Shibut

            To state the obvious, the Republicans lost because they didn’t get enough votes (specifically, electoral votes based on states’ popular votes). For the most part, this wasn’t because people were particularly fond of President Obama’s positions on the economy, foreign policy and social issues. The Republican Party systematically worked to alienate many of its own natural supporters and focused on trying to make everyone believe it wasn’t the worst of the two major parties.

            Many young people were first attracted to the Republican Party because they believed the party offered fiscal common sense that the Democrats lacked. Growing up in a devout Republican household, I was told that “the Republicans are the party of responsibility, and the Democrats are the party of irresponsibility.” But increasingly, when Republicans say “responsibility,” they mean spending government dollars on wars and Medicare, and when they say “irresponsibility,” they mean welfare and the Affordable Care Act. “Responsibility” is the drug war and foreign aid, and “irresponsibility” is Planned Parenthood and green energy.

            As a candidate, Ron Paul defined these terms very differently. He said that responsibility means not spending money you don’t have. He pointed out that our entitlements and wars are financially unsustainable, and that the federal government has a terrible track record of keeping costs in check. He questioned US involvement in other countries, and whether it’s really in our best interest to have a military eight times larger than any other country’s. He called on the Republican Party to focus on real spending cuts instead of on how people conduct their personal lives.

            Many people thought these ideas made a lot of sense, but the GOP went beyond ignoring them, actively pushing Paul and his supporters out of their party. Some Paulites held out and voted for Romney, in the hope that his business savvy would translate into a marginally more balanced budget. Others, feeling frustrated and defeated, voted for Obama, because at least he told them the truth: he wanted to keep spending and borrowing. Many looked to the Libertarian Party as a way to send a message that the two major parties are so corrupt that another group needs to come in and clean up after them. But I think that many of Paul’s supporters ultimately chose not to vote at all, feeling like the system is rigged against them and in favor of people who promise not to cut anything, and instead project rosy budgets for the future, when growth is higher than ever and taxes produce more than enough revenue to pay for everyone’s everything.

            As America’s debt problem becomes progressively more impossible to ignore, it seems obvious that one of the current major parties will recognize the need to embrace common sense budget solutions. But since that seems unlikely, I hope that the Libertarian Party, which has often been plagued by infighting, will pull together to incorporate a broad range of ideas about how to allow free people and free markets to solve the country’s problems. 

Interview with Roger Baker

Helen Shibut

Last week I interviewed Roger Baker, a Harrisonburg City Council candidate. Baker does not have a campaign website, so it was difficult to find his positions outside of candidate forums. Fortunately, he was willing to sit down with me to inform the JMU community about his views.

I agreed with Baker's belief that raising the meals tax was not the right decision for how to deal with unfunded mandates coming from Richmond, but I thought he was incorrect when he said that the private sector could not provide a golf course better than the city government. In our interview, Baker said that a private golf course in the area is close to going out of business, while the Harrisonburg one is doing well. In fact, if a private golf course ran the same kind of deficit that the public one does, it would have gone out of business years ago.

Madison Liberty does not endorse political candidates at any level.

Are YOU A Terrorist Suspect?

Helen Shibut

            Does the government suspect that you might be a terrorist?

            When the United States passed the USA PATRIOT Act following the September 11th attacks, it empowered the states to create “fusion centers” to collect information on citizens who the states suspect might be involved in terrorist activity. The fusion centers coordinate with the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland security to keep an eye on suspicious individuals. So what exactly can get you a file at one of these centers?

            Adam Schwartz of the ACLU looked through some reports from different states’ fusion centers. In Maryland, people who oppose the death penalty are scrutinized. In Missouri, Ron Paul supporters and people who dare to have the popular “Don’t Tread on Me” flags outside their homes are considered possible domestic terrorist threats. Here in Virginia, all it takes is involvement in one of the state’s historically black colleges, because the fusion center considers them such institutions dens of dangerous radicalism.

            I looked at the Virginia Fusion Center website to see if I could find out about any specific files. I didn’t have much luck. When I opened the page, a video entitled “Cost of Freedom, Fighting Terrorism” started playing at the bottom of the screen, complete with ominous music and images of terrorist attacks. The video explained how the PATRIOT Act emerged in an attempt to alleviate citizens’ fear of terrorism. The website told me how to submit a Suspicious Incident Report if I noticed any of the “7 Signs of Terrorism.”

            Ironically, several of the “7 Signs” pointed to the fusion center itself as a domestic terrorist threat. Here are the signs that point to this threat (these are taken directly from the Virginia Fusion Center website! )

-“Surveillance: Recording or monitoring activities. May include drawing diagrams, note taking, use of cameras, binoculars or other vision-enhancing devices or possessing floor plans or blueprints of key facilities.” 

-“Elicitation: Attempts to obtain operation, security and personnel-related information regarding a key facility. May be made by mail, fax, e-mail, telephone or in person.”

-“Acquiring Supplies: Attempts to improperly acquire items that could be used in a terrorist act. May include the acquisition of explosives, weapons, harmful chemicals, flight manuals, law enforcement or military equipment, uniforms, identification badges or the equipment to manufacture false identification.”

-“Suspicious Persons: Someone who does not appear to belong in a workplace, neighborhood or business establishment due to their behavior, including unusual questions or statements they make.”

            Perhaps I should be worried—according to the website, it sounds like a potential terrorist organization could be compiling a secret file on me!

            In all seriousness, the fact that our government identifies organizations and people that conduct surveillance on innocent people and try to find out details about their personal lives as suspicious, but sees no problem with performing these activities itself, is a little creepy. If our government discovered that China or Russia had a similar program, it would attack them for gross violations of civil liberties. Regardless of your political affiliation or whether you engage in any peaceable activities that the government might frown upon, all freedom-loving Americans have a responsibility to stand up to their government when it gets out of hand. That means protesting irresponsible government spending, poorly thought out wars, and perhaps most of all, violations of civil liberties and privacy. A government that spies on its own people is a government not to be trusted.