March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
Brink Lindsey revisits the “liberaltarians” debate over at TNR. I think most of the points made against his thesis by Jonathan Chait from the left and John Tabin from the right still stand, but I’d nevertheless like to quibble with one minor detail of Lindsey’s political analysis.
Lindsey writes, “According to data analyzed by David Boaz and David Kirby, Democratic House and Senate candidates in 2006 did 24 percentage points better with libertarian-leaning voters than they did in the midterm elections of 2002… So much for the idea that gaining ground with libertarians is doomed to be a net vote loser.”
But the “libertarian” vote shift toward the Democrats actually occured in 2004, when the rest of the electorate swung the other way. Democrats don’t seem to have gained any new ground among libertarians in the last two years, though they gained plenty with other voters. So I’m not sure there was some successful appeal to libertarians that failed to offend nonlibertarians. The data doesn’t seem to show one.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?