Jonathan Chait wrote a really interesting article yesterday, Why Hillary Clinton Is Probably Going to Win the 2016 Election. He goes after six arguments that people make for why Clinton is not a strong candidate. I think it is kind of interesting that we are even discussing such matters. The truth is that the people claiming that Clinton is a weak candidate are almost exclusively Republicans. They aren’t exactly the most objective sources of information. It reminds me of Brer Rabbit, “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch!” In this case it is, “You’re making a big mistake running Hillary Clinton against us!” Yeah, right. I think we are a bit smarter than Brer Fox.

The one point I want to discuss is Chait’s fifth, “Is it time for a change?” This is the idea that the electorate gets tired of having the same party in power. I’ve never found this to be a very compelling argument. For one thing, FDR won four terms in office. But let’s just look at recent history. George Bush managed to win a third straight term for the Republicans in 1988. And then, right after that, Al Gore won a third straight term for the Democrats in 2000. (The fact that the Supreme Court decided the election doesn’t change the fact of which party the people voted for.) So the last three times there has been a chance for three consecutive terms for the same party, it happened twice.

What’s more, people are pretty predictable in their voting. I have a hard time thinking that people are really going to be swayed by which party has been in the White House for the previous eight years. And that’s especially true when you consider that Constitutionally, that third term will have to be held by someone new. So people may be tired of Barack Obama (I know I am), but they won’t be voting for Barack Obama.

In his article, Chait pointed out the one thing that would kill a Clinton candidacy, “Unless the economy goes into a recession over the next year and a half, Hillary Clinton is probably going to win the presidential election.” And that is about it. In fact, if we look back at the candidacy of Al Gore, we learn something interesting. The unemployment rate was flat. In fact, from April to August, it was going up. The fact that Gore won that election is an indication Democrats really do have an edge in presidential elections. Yet Gore won that election 291-246 — not a bad margin — roughly the margin Carter beat Ford with.

So I’m with Chait: the 2016 election is not even at this point. It is Hillary Clinton’s to lose. And about the only way that she does lose is if the economy tanks. And that isn’t a question of tanking at any time. We could go into recession now, and as long as we were coming out of it by this time next year, she would be fine. Of course, that doesn’t make me feel good, because anything could happen in that time frame.

Will sent me the current odds on different candidates. Clinton’s were by far the best: 13/10. And the odds of the Democrats keeping the White House are -200 and the odds of the Republicans taking it are +160. If I understand odds correctly (and it has been a long time), that means you would have to risk $200 on the Democrats to win $100; and you would have to risk $100 on the Republicans to win $160. In other words, the gambling community is about correct on the state of the race right now. Hillary Clinton is sitting in a very good place.

An unarmed black man was shot and killed by the police. I guess I could write that as an opening for an article every day. This one occurred on 2 April when 73 year old “reserve deputy” Robert Charles Bates mistook his gun for his taser and killed 44 year old Eric Harris. Bates is a rich insurance executive who apparently gets to ride around with the real officers just like a kid from the Make a Wish Foundation. It’s not my intention to be mean, but it seems to me that Bates could spend his twilight years doing something more appropriate and positive than playing cops and robbers.

I don’t doubt that Bates did sincerely mistake his gun for his taser. But I know from my own life that as I’ve gotten older, these are precisely the kinds of errors that I increasingly make. So maybe having a 73-year old who is, after all not a professional, carrying a loaded death cannon is not the smartest thing in world. Of course, these mix-ups happen all the time with professional officers. They are doubtless the result of high anxiety situations. People don’t make the best decisions when under pressure and I think that law enforcement officers should be given more training with regard to this. Drawing a gun means there is a high likelihood of death. Roughly the same thing can be said about drawing a taser.

More important in this situation is why Bates felt the need to use his taser anyway. As you can see in the video, Harris was fleeing from the police. They caught him and tackled him. He was on the ground with various officers on top of him. They were, as usual, spewing out profanities as fast as they could because apparently that is what they learn at professional crime fighting school. (That, or they are just a bunch of thugs in uniform.) It was in this context that Bates saved the day by attempting to tase Harris.

Once he realized what he had done, Bates said, “I shot him; I’m sorry.” Harris complained, saying, “Oh man, he shot me!” One of the officers responded by showing his humanity, yelling, “You fucking ran! Shut the fuck up!” At that point, the video cuts out. According to the officials, it was not turned off by the officer, but I seriously doubt that. There is just way too much of this sort of thing. Police officers know that if there is no video, judges and juries will believe whatever they say.

Later, Tulsa County Sheriff’s Major Shannon Clark claimed that the officers did not hear the gun shot and so didn’t know that Harris had been shot. This is why they acted so abominably toward Harris. This absolutely can’t be the case. Guns are extremely loud and this one went off just a couple of feet from them. What’s more, I’m pretty sure I see blood on Harris’ shirt. I’m sure that they were pumped up on adrenaline and had all their attention focused on the “bad guy” who they probably would have summarily executed if they had been able to get away with it.

Yesterday, German Lopez reported, Tulsa Reserve Deputy Charged With Manslaughter for Shooting Eric Harris. I doubt very seriously that he will be convicted. For on thing, he is nominally a police officer. In that regard, it is shocking that he was even charged. For another thing, he’s rich. So he will get the best representation available. And finally, there will be an endless line of officers who will testify in court that he’s a great guy. What? You gonna destroy his life for one little mistake? On the other side of things, they will vilify Harris. In The Los Angeles Times article on the shooting, a whole paragraph was spent painting a picture of Harris as only slightly less terrible than Al Capone.

To me, none of it matters. The problem is not Bates. The problem is our policing. As it was, I don’t see the need for the big chase. But police officers love these kinds of adrenaline fueled confrontations. This is why we now have SWAT teams used for regulatory inspections. And none of this is going to change just because some doddering old fool who likes to play cops and robbers gets charged with manslaughter.

Afterword

For the record, I don’t think that Robert Charles Bates ought to be convicted of this crime. The problem is systemic. I don’t doubt for a moment that this was an honest error and that Bates feels terrible about it. Our society has a habit of using the punishment of people like Bates as a way of not dealing with the larger problems that are literally killing us.

I understand why libertarians get upset when people attack them. When I was one, I was something of a singularity. For example, although I know of libertarians who support labor unions, in all my time as an active libertarian, I never met a fellow traveler who agreed with my position. So usually, when I argued with people about libertarianism, I would agree with their criticisms — but it didn’t reflect on the libertarianism that I practiced. Of course, I was being silly. I didn’t define libertarianism. I called myself a libertarian, but really I was just a political eccentric with libertarian tendencies.

Matt Bruenig wrote about this recently, #NotAllLibertarians: an Illustration. It’s about how it is pretty much impossible to argue with libertarians because they always comes back with, “But that’s not what libertarianism is.” It is in reference to an article by Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig, Porn Star Belle Knox Doesn’t Know What Libertarianism Is. Neither Do Libertarians. It is based on a Pew poll that I had wanted to write about, In Search of Libertarians. Because what it shows is that people who call themselves libertarians are not what I would ever have called libertarian.

Let’s just start with the fact that twice as many Republicans call themselves libertarians as Democrats. The first thing that I noticed when I started going to libertarian meetings was that almost everyone was a disaffected Republican. One of the big topics of conversation was what Rush Limbaugh had been talking about on the radio that week. At best, these were people who fully embraced economic conservatism and held their nose about social liberalism — the two pillars of what libertarianism is supposed to be. And indeed, the Pew poll bears this out. On most social issues, libertarians are distinctly more conservative than liberals.

Let’s take another issue that isn’t discussed in the poll. Libertarians, almost to a person, believe that local control is better than federal control. Yet it is almost always state and local governments who infringe on the rights of individuals. This is why libertarianism is so associated with racism and the neo-confederacy. A sizable portion of libertarians just want to be “free” to discriminate. Rand Paul might say that he would never discriminate against African Americans, but the fact that he thinks people ought to be able to do it is a big part of his appeal.

On foreign affairs, libertarians are more bellicose than the country as a whole. About the only place where libertarians deviate from the Republican script is that they are slightly more in favor of legalizing cannabis. But I don’t think that means anything. A lot of young people consider themselves “libertarian” for the single reason that candidates like Rand Paul are for legalization. And again, that isn’t even a libertarian position. Saying that people ought to be able to do drugs that the government thinks aren’t harmful is what we have now. The argument is simply about which drugs should fall in that category.

I understand why more serious libertarians would bristle when we point out that most libertarians are nothing more than Republicans who are slightly less hostile to the LGBT community and slightly more in favor of cannabis legalization. The problem comes in with a general belief among serious libertarians that if only people knew what libertarianism was, they would sign up. And certainly, the Libertarian Party was attending Tea Party meetings and talking up the rise in “libertarianism” in the country. Well, they can’t have it both ways. Either roughly 10% of the country is libertarian, and by that definition, libertarianism is just a minor variation on the Republican Party; or almost no one in the country is libertarian, and it actually means what these defenders of libertarianism claim it means.

Of course, even among the more serious libertarians, there is fierce disagreement about what a libertarian is. Anti-Libertarian Criticism provides a Critical Map of the American Libertarian Movement, in which they list eight different kinds of libertarianism. But ultimately, libertarianism is a utopian philosophy. And it ought to be dealt with on that level. The question is simply if the world would be a better place if we moved in that direction. And we’ve seen over the last forty years that the answer to that is a resounding no.

But this is all part of the same thing. The truth is that libertarianism is not a serious philosophy. Although proponents claim that they come to it from first principles, they actually come to it because it gives them something: tax cuts, legal drugs, “states’ rights,” whatever. And as I’ve noted, proponents always start by arguing from a practical standpoint. When they find those arguments untenable, they change to theoretical arguments. But ultimately, there is really nothing supporting libertarianism. So it isn’t at all surprising that libertarians constantly change their arguments. Because the real arguments are much like the essays in The Early Ayn Rand.

Dean Baker has been having an ongoing argument with libertarian columnist Megan McArdle for the last week. It’s always interesting to listen to libertarians make their arguments, because they are so certain that they are all evidence based. But in fact, libertarians are the most ideologically constrained thinkers around. I’ve written a lot around here about how libertarians start with practical arguments like, “The minimum wage kills jobs.” But when those arguments fall apart, the libertarians retreat to theoretical arguments, “People should be able to enter into any contracts they want.” That’s because all they had to start with was their ideology. And as Baker has noted again and again, McArdle makes a lot of different arguments against Social Security, but all she really means is that that she hates the program.

Baker caught her most recently using one of the classic disingenuous arguments against Social Security. You see, people arguing against the program want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they argue that the there is no way to separate taxes for Social Security and the general fund. Thus, the idea that Social Security has a huge trust fund is meaningless. Then, on the other hand, they argue that if Social Security spends more than is brought in with payroll taxes, it is bankrupt because it can’t take money from the general fund.

So Social Security is damned either way. When it is bad for the program to be just another part of the general fund, it is just part of the general fund. When it is bad for it to be a separate program, it is not part of the general fund. And these claims are not always made at different times. They are made inside the very same arguments. In McArdle’s article on Friday, she uses this trick. Basically, she argues that we can’t increase Social Security payments because we don’t have the money — as though we don’t have the trust fund. But at the same time, the money can’t be taken from the general fund.

I discussed the basic issue before, Reagan’s Legacy: Tax Cuts for Rich, Tax Hikes for the Rest. Those big tax hikes on the non-rich were intended to create a huge trust fund — to tax more for Social Security than was being spent at that time. But people like McArdle want to brush that all aside and claim that the government just spent that extra money and it is gone. This was part of Baker’s longer argument with her.

It is true that the federal government has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. But it is never clear why people like McArdle think this is different from the federal government borrowing from bond holders. In her most recent article, she argues that this is because the bond holders exist outside the government, but the government could just end the Social Security program and pocket the cash. That strikes me as disingenuous because the government could also decide to default on its debts. Governments have done that before. Of course, the government is not going to eliminate the Social Security program, although people like McArdle want to do just that.

It would be a whole lot better Megan McArdle would just admit that she doesn’t like Social Security. It goes against her ideology. It just wastes everyone’s time to write endless articles about accounting and how it all proves that retired Americans are just living too high.

See Also

Megan McArdle Ridiculous Anti-Filibuster-Reform Argument
Megan McArdle Humiliates Eric Alterman
Mitch McConnell’s Cunning Plan