leftlibertarian.org

(I heard about the recent events through the Movement for a Democratic Society announcement list.)

Here is what Oliver Sacks wrote about the legacy of the 1988 Deaf President Now student strike at Gallaudet University, the world’s only liberal-arts university designed for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, and a backbone of Deaf culture in the United States. This is from his beautiful book, Seeing Voices:

All sorts of changes, administrative, educational, social, psychological, are already beginning at Gallaudet. But what is clearest at this point is the much-altered bearing of its students, a bearing that conveys a new, wholly unself-conscious sense of pleasure and vindication, of confidence and dignity. This new sense of themselves represents a decisive break from the past, which could not have been imagined just a few months ago.

But has all been changed? Will there be a lasting transformation of consciousness? Will deaf people at Gallaudet, and the deaf community at large, indeed find the opportunities they seek? Will we, the hearing, allow them these opportunities? Allow them to be themselves, a unique culture in our midst, yet admit them as co-equals, to every sphere of activity? One hopes the events at Gallaudet will be but the beginning.

—Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices: A Journey Into the World of the Deaf (ISBN 0-06-097347-1), pp. 162–163.

Unfortunately, the answer from the Gallaudet University administration and Board of Trustees—even those who were direct beneficiaries of the Deaf President Now movement—appears to be No, not yet. Here’s the story from The Washington Post (2006-10-07):

Hundreds of protesters took over the main classroom building at Gallaudet University on Thursday night and refused to leave yesterday, demanding that the board of trustees reopen the search for a president.

With trustees meeting on campus and celebrating outgoing President I. King Jordan, students pitched tents outside the entrances to Hall Memorial and blocked the doors. Inside, trash cans and desks held elevator doors ajar, and the floor was covered with sleeping bags, cans of energy drink and fliers that spread messages to the school for the deaf: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WON’T LISTEN TO US! and DO NOT LET ANYONE IN.

When security officers arrived early yesterday, students said, they couldn’t understand what officers were saying — that officers gave orders without sign language and did not seem to understand that the protest was peaceful. Some people were injured when officers shoved their way through and used pepper spray, students said.

A lot of people are scared, Leah Katz-Hernandez wrote on a neon yellow notepad, and some faculty members were in tears as they signed with students.

Communication with security staff is an emotional issue at the university. In 1990, a student died while being restrained by security officers; his hands were cuffed, so he couldn’t use sign language.

The administration has denied that pepper spray was used and said that officers used sign language and that no students were hurt.

… The choice of the school’s next leader has divided campus since the spring, prompting faculty no-confidence votes and protests last semester and continuing opposition by a coalition of faculty, students, staff and alumni. In a scene reminiscent of student takeovers of District universities in past decades, protesters barricaded doors and refused to compromise.

At some schools for the deaf elsewhere in the country, groups pitched tents and made signs supporting the Gallaudet protesters.

The leaders of the National Association of the Deaf issued an open letter saying the campus is in crisis and asking the board to exercise leadership and for the university to immediately cease any confrontational tactics toward campus faculty, students, and staff.

…

In May, when the board of trustees announced that then-Provost Jane K. Fernandes would be the next president of Gallaudet University, students stood up and walked out of the auditorium, climbed onto the front gates and began to protest.

They said that the search process was unfair, that Fernandes was not strong enough to lead a school often seen as the cultural backbone of the deaf world and that the board had ignored their concerns.

Because longtime President I. King Jordan swept into office after students demanded a deaf president now and started a civil rights movement, the selection of Fernandes had particular weight for the deaf community.

—Susan Kinzie and Nelson Hernandez, Washington Post (2006-10-07): Protesters Occupy Gallaudet Classroom Building

From The Washington Post (2006-10-10):

Since May, protesters say, the university has only become more deeply divided.

What is her plan? And, what is she waiting for? She had all summer to bring the community together, but as you can see, [that] didn’t happen, wrote Andrew J. Lange, president of the Gallaudet University Alumni Association, which is setting up an independent Web site because it cannot send e-mail to alumni without university approval.

The second wave of demonstrations began last week when the board of trustees met on campus. Protesters say that the way Fernandes was chosen was unfair and that the board has ignored people on campus for too long.

Last night, hundreds of students agreed to spend one more night in the classroom building. They awaited a response from administrators to a proposal that they would leave the building if the university satisfied 24 demands, including guaranteeing their right to protest in specific areas.

The students also are seeking a public apology from university President I. King Jordan, whom they accuse of making misleading statements about the protesters. The students are not backing down from their original demands to reopen the presidential search process and to guarantee that protesters would not be retaliated against.

In May, faculty members passed a series of no-confidence votes after it was announced that Fernandes, then the provost, would become president.

Trustees have said that their decision is nonnegotiable and that they have chosen the strongest candidate. This summer, Fernandes stepped down as provost to work on her transition to the presidency.

… Jordan, who is stepping down at the end of this year, said yesterday that Fernandes’s leadership since May has been outstanding.

—Susan Kinzie, Washington Post (2006-10-10): Intensity of Gallaudet Unrest Surprised Incoming Leader

From The Washington Post (2006-10-14): Dozens of Protesters Arrested On Gallaudet President’s Order:

Campus police arrested dozens of student demonstrators at Gallaudet University last night to reopen the famed college for the deaf after a three-day shutdown staged in a long-simmering protest over the appointment of a new president.

The arrests began shortly before 9 p.m., when police began carrying away students from a jeering throng that had been blocking the school’s Sixth Street NE entrance. Students hollered and signed, This is our school! By early this morning, police said, about 80 had been arrested. Witnesses said many students were still awaiting arrest.

Teams of officers, acting on orders from President I. King Jordan and aided by interpreters in orange vests, picked up individual students, who went limp, and carried them to a D.C. police van.

The students were to be taken from the school, at 800 Florida Ave. NE, to a police training facility in Southwest Washington for processing, officials said.

The arrests brought to a head a bitter dispute that began in May between the administration and students angry about the appointment of then-provost Jane K. Fernandes as the university’s next president. She is scheduled to replace Jordan, who is to step down in December.

Protesters expressed dislike for Fernandes, saying she was remote and divisive. They argued that other candidates, especially minorities, had been overlooked. And they called for her to step aside.

She has refused, saying she is the target of student extremists. And earlier yesterday, speaking to the protesters for the first time this week, she said: This has gone on long enough.

About 7 p.m., Jordan announced to demonstrators at the school’s main gate on Florida Avenue that they faced arrest if they did not disperse. I deeply regret being forced to take this action, he said. But the protesters have left me no choice.

Two hours later, after three warnings from campus Police Chief Melodye Batten-Mickens, arrests began at the Sixth Street entrance.

—Susan Kinzie and Michael E. Ruane, Washington Post (2006-10-14): Dozens of Protesters Arrested On Gallaudet President’s Order

There’s a lot of discussion from a lot of different points of view at the DeafDC group weblog. See especially the statements from Julie Hochgesang (2006-10-13): Why I’m Still Protesting at Gallaudet, Allison Kaftan (2006-10-11): Wolrds Apart: Worlds Apart: Divergences in Perspectives on the Protest, and David Stuckless (2006-10-14): Today, Irving Shot the Buffalo, the criticism from Juanita Garcia (2006-10-13): This Week The World Snubbed Gallaudet and Kirsti Merriweather (2006-10-14): A Fictitious Protest for Fictitious Reasons, and the proposals from Bobby White (2006-10-16): Concerned Students Take a Step Forward and Tom Williard (2006-10-16): A Few Ideas to End the Stalemate. The Gallaudet University Faculty, Staff, Students & Alumni coalition, which is coordinating the protests, offers news updates through their website. There’s also more at WikiPedia: Gallaudet United Now Movement.

I have no particularly strong opinion on the groups, the individuals, or the actions involved in the student strike and lock-in at Gallaudet. How would I know? I’m not deaf (or Deaf), I have no personal connections with Gallaudet or anyone there, and I haven’t done research beyond reading through news stories, Op-Eds, and weblogs for an hour or two today. But I do have some experience with abusive power-mongering and cronyism from University Trustees and administrators. I also do know enough to know that these issues are particularly sensitive for Deaf students, many of whom are sick and tired of being ignored, patronized, and manhandled by know-it-all suits connected with the established power structure. From what I can see, it looks to me like Fernandes had damn well better step aside in light of the vocal opposition to her from students, faculty, and staff.

Further reading:

• GT 2006-03-30: How not to argue against worker co-ops

Via Against Monopoly, here’s a great look at where Democrats’ priorities are:

We are writing you seeking immediate and effective action to promote and safeguard American intellectual property around the world. Goods and services produced by American workers, farmers and business that have a high intellectual property content are critical to restoring broad-based economic growth and job creation, yet they are widely pirated, stolen and copied.

Forget for one moment that this is part of their proposed “alternative foreign policy” to the Republicans’ elitist, corporatist agenda. They’re trying to protect farmers. Please, Pelosi, show me some fucking farmers that make a living off intellectual property of any sort. If anything, they’re suffering because of it. And for God sakes, check out Percy Schmeiser if you still have any doubts about whether the little guy belongs voting for the Democratic Party as it now stands.

Tags: monsanto, percy schemiser

According to the Economist, one family in Sweden controls 40% of the value of companies on the Swedish stock exchange. Think managerialist liberalism is about equality and democracy?

The family quickly points to one factor that helps hold their enterprise together: “No one owns it, which means that we cannot consume it though we can certainly destroy it,” says Jacob Wallenberg, chairman of Investor. Most of the family’s wealth is tied up in the Wallenberg foundations, which have combined assets of some SKr45 billion ($6.2 billion). These non-profit organisations provide grants of about SKr1 billion a year to science, research and the arts in Sweden. The foundations control 46% of votes at Investor and hold 22% of its capital, as well as owning big chunks of SAS, the main Scandinavian airline, Stora Enso, a huge paper company, and SKF, a maker of bearings.

Apparently, the way to preserve the good ol’ fashioned family business is to transform your family into an oligarchic bureaucracy that exerts top down control over the nation’s social and cultural institutions. What an enlightened, egalitarian, democratic society Sweden is!

Hat tip to Tyler Cowen.

Tags: sweden

• My brother John got home from Iraq about three or four weeks ago. Obviously, that’s a big relief. Finally got to see him briefly last weekend at a cookout his wife’s family was having. We didn’t get a chance to talk much, but he definitely wants to give me some insight into what’s going on there. I’m just glad he’s safe.
• Tasha’s ten year high school reunion was last night. It was a lot of fun; got to hang out with some people I hadn’t seen in a while. Unfortunately, I think I knew more people at her reunion than I’ll know at mine…
• Jim Van Fleet’s generosity has resulted in a recent intensive economic and policy education. He loaned me a Tim Hartford book a while ago that was insightful, if a little infuriating (yes, in a perfect market, price does indeed equal cost… so don’t you wonder what the source of all that distortion is, Mr. World Bank?). Now I’m reading Secrets of the Temple by William Greider. I simply can’t put it down - I’ve never read such a captivating narrative about economic policy. Of course, the kicker is that - as Ted Kennedy says on the back cover - what passes for dispassionate, expert management of the economy is in actual fact intensely political. There is a passage that deals with the transformation of American society from its rural agrarian roots to hypermanaged city life that was really touching to this decentralist. Its regular investigations of the interests at work in Fed policy make it a very even-handed book, if framed by an establishment point of view. It will certainly inform a lot of my future explorations of economics (as well as many beer-fueled discussions with Jim).
• Another friend of mine is working on doing a low budget indie zombie flick starring all his friends. It’s going to be intentionally cheezy, of course, but I’ve been invited to do a song or two for the soundtrack. I’ve got a few ideas in mind… I’ve normally stayed away from dark, evil jungle, but this would be a good chance to tap into the dark side. I’m also gonna see if Wil wants to contribute a track, since this sounds right up his alley.
• I need advice on time management, self-discipline, and stuff like that. I’m tired of always procrastinating stuff. I’ve gotten to the point where I’m used to being overwhelmed, and I need to find a way to discipline myself to do things when they need to be done. And to expect myself to do them.

(Link via Le Revue Gauche 2006-10-14.)

But remember, it doesn’t really count as torture unless a government lawyer decides that it’s bad enough to count.

In a new court filing on behalf of alleged dirty bomber Jose Padilla, his lawyers allege that government interrogators forced him to take LSD, Gerstein reported.

Additionally, Padilla was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations, he quotes the filing.

—Justin Rood, TPMmuckraker (2006-10-12): Is U.S. Government Using LSD for Interrogations?

I have no way of knowing how credible Padilla’s specific claims are. But I do know this:

… in 2002, Justice Department lawyers carefully considered the issue and advised the White House that it was okay. In their view, it was acceptable to force detainees to ingest mind-altering substances, as long as it was not intended to cause months-long bouts of serious mental illness.

How do we know that? Because in August 2002, the Justice Department gave then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales a 50-page document saying so. And a follow-up document in 2004 reaffirmed it.

The now-infamous 2002 Bybee Memo was leaked to the press in 2004, at which time the administration quickly disavowed it. (In December 2004, Justice released a new version of guidance for detainee treatment.)

For nearly two years, the Bybee Memo was the administration’s guiding document for how detainees were to be treated. The document which replaced it does not appear to substantively alter its conclusions on forced drug use by detainees.

In the 2002 Bybee Memo, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee (now a federal appellate judge) concluded that giving detainees mind altering substances (that’s a commonly used synonym for drugs, he noted for the squares in the White House) was legal, as long as doing so did not cause prolonged mental harm by disrupt[ing] profoundly the senses or personality, and was not intended to do so.

Bybee wrote that conditions such as months-long bouts of post-traumatic stress disorder or even chronic depression could be considered prolonged mental harm. As for what constituted a profound disruption of senses or personality that would cause such long-term suffering, he included:

• the inabliity to retain any new information or recall information about things previously of interest to the individual.

• deterioration of language function, e.g., repeating sounds or words over and over again;

• impaired ability to execute simple motor activities, e.g., inability to dress or wave goodbye;

• inability to recognize and identify objects such as chairs or pencils despite normal visual functioning;

• the onset of ‘brief psychotic disorder, in which a detainee suffers psychotic symptoms, including… delusions, hallucinations, or even a catatonic state [which] can last for one day or even one month;

and more. (These examples, of course, are in no way intended to be an exhaustive list, Bybee noted.)

Oh — and for this to constitute torture, the government handler who’s forcing drugs into the detainee has to specifically intend to cause prolonged mental harm, according to Bybee.

—Justin Rood, TPMmuckraker (2006-10-13): LSD Mystery: In 2002, Justice Dept. OK’d Dosing Detainees

Please bear in mind that this government has no particular qualms about forcing psychotropic drugs on prisoners against their will, if they find it useful to deliberately destroy the prisoner’s sense of reality in the course of an interrogation, just as long as the psychotic break that they force on you wasn’t specifically intended to be more prolonged than a government lawyer thinks it ought to be.

Welcome to life in Red State America.

Further reading:

• GT 2006-05-11: Free Carol Fischer! State of Ohio puts a political dissident into psychiatric confinement
• GT 2002-08-10: Judge Doumar has made his ruling; now let him enforce it.
• GT 2002-06-11: An Important Update from the War Information Council

Via John at Freedom Democrats, Carl Milsted describes one place where the egalitarian Left went wrong:

The modern day wealth subsidies come not from an explicit desire to help the rich, but from attempts to stimulate the economy during the Great Depression. John Maynard Keynes prescribed a set of anti-savings measures in order to stimulate the economy. The Left took his ideas to heart since they provided an excuse for welfare programs – the poor tend to spend what they get, so taking from the rich and giving to the poor leads to increased spending.

What the Left failed to realize is that the rest of Keynes’ agenda consists of subsidies for the rich! If the government consumes savings, the demand for capital goes up. If you discourage workers from saving via payroll taxes and a promise of retirement income, then the supply of capital goes down. The end result is a greater return on investment for those who have money to invest.

The libertarian Democrat response by Logan Ferree illustrates the difference between minarchism and anarchism (hint: it’s one I’ve descibed before):

Ideally, if capital is so scarce it would make sense for people to try to save more. I think the biggest problem is that we’re trapped in a consumer society that discourages saving not through rational appeal but emotional appeal.

I can see his point that an egalitarian society would have high savings and the like, but I can’t see how this could be sustained except through a culture that encouraged saving at a potentially irrational level.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this analysis, but I do think it begs the question: what is the “rational” outcome he’d like to see?

1. Isn’t having 80% of the nation’s capital in the hands of the top 10% (and I’m being conservative in my estimate) itself an example of “savings at a potentially irrational level”? If it’s so bad for the masses to control capital, why is it so much more proper for a small elite? What outcome is he aiming for: the status quo with cosmetically less government, or a real change in the balance of power? I guess there’s also the question of how big a role the state plays in the way things currently look.
2. He’s appears to ignore the underlying implication of Milsted’s article: the State is the reason why capital accumulation is so concentrated. The real issue is not the amount of capital available for lending, but the (State enabled) cornering of capital markets by a few that raises money costs to monopoly levels. Distributed capital ownership would arguable yield profitability insufficient for living soley off of interest. But again, what’s necessarily wrong with that outcome in the first place?
3. Ferree argues that our consumption based economy can’t handle popularly high savings rates. So is his issue with the amount of change our society will have to endure? Perhaps that consumption is fueled by overcentralized industrial production, made possible by subsidized capital (among other forms of welfare)? Distributed, mutual capital markets charging competitive, lower rates could still fund new enterprises and ensure liquidity, although perhaps not at level sufficient for megacorporate ventures. In the immortal words of Tyrone Biggums, “is that so wrong?!?!”
4. Savings is discouraged not simply through government policies but also through regulations that cartelize the ability to lend. When one has to go through monopoly banks to get a return on one’s money, the power balance is safely shifted away from the little guy. Banks also have Federal Reserve privileges for ensuring far more liquidity to offset their errors than small, potentially competitive lendors.

I don’t want to come down on Ferree too hard, because I think his heart’s in the right place. However, his hesitancy to endorse an authentic, egalitarian, and democratic distribution of capital - by simply libertarian means - does make me wonder how much Democrat is in that libertarian Democrat title of his. I’d be very interested in his response to this: is his priority a particular socioeconomic outcome and whatever policies get us there, or policies that are fairer and freer and whatever outcomes those policies result?

None of this, however, is to say that I do not still owe him a beer.

Tags: democrats, capital, interest, keynesianism

It’s not very often lately that you’ll hear me saying nice things about “libertarian Republican” politicians, mostly because such creatures are much more rare than Republican Liberty Caucus types would have us believe. As a matter of fact, if the “libertarian Republican candidate” ever existed as a species per se, I’d say it’s just about at the point of extinction.

However … there are one or two Republican politicians who proudly own, and try hard not to shame, the name “libertarian” — not just when it’s convenient, but when they’re being slammed for it and when their enemies are using it against them. One of them is US Representative Ron Paul. Another is Michigan’s Leon Drolet.

After several terms in the state legislature, Drolet is seeking election to the Macomb County commission (on which he served before going to the legislature). The Detroit Free Press says that he’s “notably hostile to government programs” and that his “ideas are often impractical or extreme, like privatizing or selling the public library.” I’d be hard put to come up with a better endorsement than the Free Press’s characterization.

If you’re looking for a “libertarian Republican” to support, head on over to Leon’s web site. He’s in a tough fight, and your $10 or $20 could make the difference.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, meeting with troops in Qatar, 28 April 2003:

And there have not been large numbers of civilian casualties because the coalition took such great care to protect the lives of innocent civilians as well as holy sites. … When the dust is settled in Iraq, military historians will study this war. They’ll examine the unprecedented combination of power, precision, speed, flexibility and, I would add also, compassion that was employed.

General Tommy Franks, Bagram Air Force Base, 19 March 2002:

I don’t believe you have heard me or anyone else in our leadership talk about the presence of 1,000 bodies out there, or in fact how many have been recovered. You know we don’t do body counts.

Donald Rumsfeld, interview on FOX News Sunday, 9 November 2003:

Well, we don’t do body counts on other people ….

Gilbert Burnham, Shannon Doocy, Elizabeth Dzeng, Riyadh Lafta, and Les Roberts (principal authors): The Human Cost of the War in Iraq: A Mortality Study, 2002–2006:

A new household survey of Iraq has found that approximately 600,000 people have been killed in the violence of the war that began with the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The survey was conducted by an American and Iraqi team of public health researchers. Data were collected by Iraqi medical doctors with analysis conducted by faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. The results will be published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.

The survey is the only population-based assessment of fatalities in Iraq during the war. The method, a survey of more than 1800 households randomly selected in clusters that represent Iraq’s population, is a standard tool of epidemiology and is used by the U.S. Government and many other agencies.

The survey also reflects growing sectarian violence, a steep rise in deaths by gunshots, and very high mortality among young men. An additional 53,000 deaths due to non-violent causes were estimated to have occurred above the pre-invasion mortality rate, most of them in recent months, suggesting a worsening of health status and access to health care.

Methods: Between May and July 2006 a national cluster survey was conducted in Iraq to assess deaths occurring during the period from January 1, 2002, through the time of survey in 2006. Information on deaths from 1,849 households containing 12,801 persons was collected. This survey followed a similar but smaller survey conducted in Iraq in 2004. Both surveys used standard methods for estimating deaths in conflict situations, using population-based methods.

Key Findings: Death rates were 5.5/1000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1000/year for the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 excess deaths—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate—in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.

The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, though the actual numbers have increased each year. Gunfire remains the most common reason for death, though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005. Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44 years.

…

Deaths were recorded only if the person dying had lived in the household continuously for three months before the event. In cases of death, additional questions were asked in order to establish the cause and circumstances of deaths (while considering family sensitivities). At the conclusion of the interview in a household where a death was reported, the interviewers were to ask for a copy of the death certificate. In 92% of instances when this was asked, a death certificate was present.

White House Press Conference, 11 October 2006:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Back on Iraq. A group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war. That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December, at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure, and do you consider this a credible report?

George Bush: No, I don’t consider it a credible report. Neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me and it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate. And it’s now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods so people can feel at peace.

No question, it’s violent, but this report is one — they put it out before, it was pretty well — the methodology was pretty well discredited. But I talk to people like General Casey and, of course, the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.

Q — the 30,000, Mr. President? Do you stand by your figure, 30,000?

Bush: You know, I stand by the figure. A lot of innocent people have lost their life — 600,000, or whatever they guessed at, is just — it’s not credible. Thank you.

Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (1986/2005):

One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. …The realms of advertising and of public relations, and the nowadays closely related realm of politics, are replete with instances of bullshit so unmitigated that they can serve among the most indisputable and classic paradigms of the concept.

Further reading:

• Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise (2006-10-11): Over half a million additional deaths in Iraq since US invasion
• Glenn Greenwald, Unclaimed Territory (2006-10-11): Counting Iraqi Deaths

If you’re a gambler, don’t bet the ranch on my election predictions. I’m not, to put it daintily, the most accurate political prognosticator. But I make my calls every election and live with those calls, win or lose. This article is a slightly revised version of a post to an Internet discussion group. The only substantive revision is that I had previously listed Missouri’s US Senate race as “iffy” — I’ve since moved it solidly into the “Democratic pickup” column. So, here we go:

I don’t think the Dems will take the Senate, but it’s just barely possible.

Solid Democrat gains:

- Casey over Santorum in Pennsylvania
- Tester over Burns in Montana
- Brown over DeWine in Ohio
- McCaskill over Talent in Missouri

Possible, but iffy:

- Webb over Allen in Virginia
- Whitehouse over Chafee in Rhode Island

I don’t foresee any GOP pickups. The most likely one is in New Jersey, but I think that Democratic incumbent Menendez will beat GOP candidate Keane. I also think Lieberman will win as a faux-Independent in Connecticut.

The current Senate is 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and an Independent.

If the Democrats get those four likely seats, the GOP doesn’t pick up New Jersey and Lieberman is elected, it will be:

51 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 2 Independents.

The Democrats would have to win both “iffy” seats to reduce the GOP to 49, and they’d then have 49 as well, although Sanders and Lieberman will presumably caucus with the Democrats for leadership elections and such. I don’t see that happening. I’m tentatively picking Webb to win in Virginia, but I think Chafee will hold on in Rhode Island. So, final:

50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 2 Independents.

In the House, I predict that the Democrats will pick up 16 seats — 15 from Republicans plus Vermont District 1, which Independent Bernie Sanders is leaving for the Senate. Once again, I don’t foresee the GOP picking up any seats it didn’t already have.

Predictions for Dem pickups:

- Giffords beats Graf in Arizona District 8
- Perlmutter beats O’Donnell in Colorado 7
- Courtney beats Simmons in Connecticut 2
- UPSET — Farrell beats Shays in Connecticut 4
- Donnelly, Ellsworth and Hill beat Chocola, Hostettler and Sodrel in Indiana 2,8 and 9
- Braley beats Whalen in Iowa 1
- Shuler beats Taylor in North Carolina 11
- Space beats Padgett in Ohio 18
- Murphy beats Gerlach in Pennsylvania 6
- Lampson beats the hyphenated lady (and Bob Smither) in Texas 22
- And, of course, that Vermont seat — Welch beats Rainville in Vermont 1

That leaves three seats to meet my prediction. I think Tammy Duckworth will upset Roskam in Illinois 6. That’s one. I think Kilroy will unseat Price in Ohio 15. That’s two. And I think at least one more seat will be an upset Democrat gain … it might be one of a couple of close Kentucky races, or Florida 22. There’s at least one close-to-tossup in New Mexico, but with the LP excluded, the GOP may gain. There’s another race in Minnesota that’s a possible (Wetterling v. Bachmann in the 6th district).

That’s my prediction, but I have a disturbing sense that it’s probably wrong. I have a gut feeling that one of two things will happen: Either the GOP will hold on by the skin of its teeth, or the Democrats will break out even bigger than I’m predicting (i.e. a number of those possibles I listed, instead of just one or two, will go Democrat, and maybe even some others that didn’t look likely at all).

Logan Ferree of Freedom Democrats deserves a medal and a lifetime’s supply of Legend Brown Ale for doggedly engaging Democrats in a discussion about corporate power. He posted a challenge issued by Catallarchy blogger Trent McBride with regard to Kos’s recent suggestion of a libertarian-democrat alliance. McBride’s challenge had a special significance to me: he challenged liberals at Daily Kos to “Persuade [him] that corporate (coercive) power, to the extent that it exists, does not rest on governmental power at its foundation.” Ever since Ferree brought the challenge to the attention of the Democrats and liberals at Daily Kos, he’s been awash in responses - some more coherent or historically accurate than others.

One issue that springs to mind while perusing the discussion is how vague the typical libertarian position on corporations is. This insight is provoked by repeated liberal claims that corporations would exist and oppress independent of government support. While the claim is wrong on its face - corporations are chartered by the state, and there was indeed a time where this power was jealously rationed - it is interesting that liberals as well as many libertarians cling tenaciously to the corporation as an institution. This is curious given the corporation’s statelike bureaucracy and government grants of limited liability and fake personhood, since it seems so unegalitarian and aristocratic.

Libertarians would do well to make their position more explicit instead of conflating corporations with market transactions and general business. As many liberals point out in the course of the discussion, even Democrats are against corporate welfare - so where do libertarians distinguish themselves? My answer is that many left libertarians (such as I) would like to see the corporation’s legal status completely abolished wholesale. I find it difficult to reconcile the idea of privileged legal status with either the egalitarian aims of the liberals or the responsible individualism of libertarians.

I simply can’t think of an entity rising in place of a corporation that doesn’t require special rules from the state in order to exist on the same terms, with the exception of a gang. Insofar as government is a gang, though, we don’t lose too much ground in an anarchy. And at least gangs don’t have the inertial illusion of institutionality solidifying their place in the social fabric.

In addition to the varying conceptions of corporate privilege, there is a point of slippage between libertarians and left liberal Democrats on the exact nature of coercion. Democrats keep coming back to corporations becoming quasifeudal oppressors in the absence of strong govenment oversight, while Ferree tries and usually fails to nail down what exactly they consider coercive. Over at the original Catallarchy post, Nick seems to understand their use of the word:

Take what is usually the main libertarian goal – the minimization of coercion – but start with a somewhat different, but not radically different, meaning of “coercion” than libertarians use. Government wouldn’t be coercive if you could easily switch governments – i.e. if government had low exit costs. Indeed that would be a rather libertarian, perhaps even anarcho-capitalist state of affairs. So let’s define coercion and involuntariness as high exit costs.

Left-wingers believe that the non-governmental exit costs of life are worse than those of government. When you add up all the smaller high exit cost relationships in life, such as dependency on Microsoft, or dependency on Wal-Mart in a community after they’ve driven all the smaller competing businesses out, the sum is far greater than the exit costs of government.

Now, obviously, libertarians will balk at equating expense with coercion. There’s a big difference between being forced at gunpoint to work and needing to work to pay bills. Yet Nick thinks there’s room for honest communication and I agree. Libertarians need to recognize that the economic hegemony of corporations - subsidized by government - crowds out options and alternatives. Liberals need to recognize that losing those options is not the same type of consequence as having your life threatened.

A third objection by liberals was that corporations use state power, but so do us regular citizens - in the form of civil suits, invoking law enforcement, etc. Psychopolitik definitely deals with these issues authoritatively, essentially arguing that those forms of government “privilege” are positively dwarfed by those granted to corporations via regulations, manipulating institutions of government, massive welfare packages, etc. Furthermore, I would raise the point that this apologism for corporate use of government substantially equates corporations with people, resulting in a form of corporate personhood which I find abhorrent and totally incompatible with a free, democratic society. Corporations are not people and neither society nor the State owes them anything. Indeed, corporations are creations of the State and ideally should be as subordinate to the people as the State should. Unfortunately, realizing that goal is our whole problem, no?

To end this on a concilliatory and hopeful not, I heartily suggest both Democrats and libertarians read Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann. The history of corporations is astounding and outrageous, and it really is necessary to have a common factual base in history and law on this matter (it is a dense topic). There’s simply no other way to navigate the threshold between business and politics that has driven the past century.

Even though Hartmann’s epilogue suggests a patently progressive regulatory approach to corporations (which I reject; see this and this), his call to repeal corporate personhood and certain other privileges is in direct parallel with the libertarian agenda. Even with the smarmy communitarianism he exhibits I found the book compelling, so I’d imagine your garden variety liberal would as well. And libertarians can draw their own conclusions without buying into Hartmann’s activism.

One thing is clear from all this: I owe Ferree a couple of beers for his hard work in promoting discussion!

UPDATE: Kevin Carson invokes the “vulgar liberal” label on the Kossacks:

The problem is not unequal enforcement of the laws. The problem is unequal laws. The goo-goo myth that government regulation is idealistically motivated, in order to protect us from the big bad corporations, is the work of court historians; and the people who repeat those myths are useful idiots for big business. The fucking laws were written by big corporations. Hell, if you look at the interlocking elites that have run the state and the large corporations since the large corporation first came into existence, the large corporations are the government, in the same way the big landowners were the government under feudalism. The state is, as libertarians say, the ruling class; but conversely, the ruling class is the state.

Tags: daily kos,, libertarian democrat,, corporate personhood