Liberty Means Freedom for All: A Novel About Alternative Political Movements

By Steven H. Propp

Thomas Anderson has just graduated from CSU Stentoria, with his degree in Political Science. Its an election year, and as a young progressive in California who has been raised by equally progressive parents, he is very much concerned with the political issues currently being discussed in the mass media.

A chance encounter with a fellow graduate named Kelly Kelso, however, shakes up his sett led view of the world. He is challenged to examine the rising number of alternatives to the two-party system presented by third party movements such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, and is forced to acknowledge that there is far more to politics than simply Democrat versus Republican, and liberal versus conservative.

Thomas delves energetically into not only the growing Libertarian movement, but the free market perspective of the Austrian School of economics, as well as the rigid yet compelling view of Ayn Rands philosophy of Objectivism. His explorations grow wider, now encompassing the Tea Party movement and the Christi an Right; tax resisters and gun rights advocates; survivalists and militia members; anarchists, communists, and Democratic Socialists; as well as the Occupy Wall Street movement.

He debates the radical environmental views of animal welfare and animal rights advocates, and challenges opponents of corporate globalism as well as deniers of global warming, as he struggles to reformulate and articulate his own developing beliefs, while coping with a sea of conflicting ideas and opposition.

But this abstract political theory is brought into sharp encounter with concrete political reality, when Thomas hears a news report of an armed conflict with authorities taking place just outside of town, involving someone with whom he has become emotionally involved

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Nov 16, 2012
• ISBN: 9781475958737

Steven H. Propp

Steve Propp and his wife live and work in northern California. He has written many other novels, as well as two nonfiction books (‘Thinking About It,’ and ‘Inquiries: Philosophical.’)

Book preview

CHAPTER 1

GRADUATION DAY

(Friday, May 18, 2012)

ARE ANY OF THESE SEATS taken? I asked the young man—who, like me, was wearing a cap and gown. He was sitting in the very last row of chairs placed for our graduating class, and he had several vacant seats on both sides of him.

No; go ahead, he said, nodding at me agreeably.

I sat down, leaving an empty seat between us, and said, Thanks.

No problem, he said, adding in a quiet tone, But I’ll warn you: you can’t see very much, or hear very much, from way back here.

Actually, that’s kind of why I wanted to sit here, I whispered back. I’m not really into this kind of stuff; you know, the whole cap and gown shtick. It’s too hot to be wearing this thing, anyway.

Then why are you wearing it? he asked, raising an eyebrow and looking at me with curiosity. I slid over into the chair next to him, so we could converse without disturbing the students around us.

For my folks, I replied with a sigh. My Dad’s a professor at UC Davis, and my Mom runs a nonprofit foundation that, among other things, provides scholarships for disadvantaged kids; so they’re both really into education. And since they’ve paid all the bills for me these last four years, I guess they deserve to see me graduate... with all the trimmings.

I hear you, he said, adding grimly, I’m mostly just here to get a few pictures taken with my camera phone, to prove to my Dad that I actually was here.

Your Dad’s not here? I asked.

He shook his head, and said, He’s back east, planning an expansion of his factory.

I hesitated, and then asked, No other family?

I’m an only child, he replied, adding quickly, Which is just how I like it.

Me, too, I said. I thought for a moment, then added, "But I guess that I’m also here for … well, for the total experience; after all, after spending four years at California State University at Stentoria to get my degree, I may as well live out everything that goes along with it—but I don’t take it that seriously, believe me."

Me, either, he replied. We both fell silent, and began listening to a speech by the college President, who was strongly emphasizing how we all needed to strongly lobby the state Legislature (particularly the Republicans, although he didn’t say this in so many words) to provide more money for higher education.

The guy next to me sighed, and said, I’m not a Republican, President Hallow; so can we, like, move on? I chuckled.

After the President finally finished his speech, the guy sitting next to me whispered, So what’s your next step? Got a job lined up? It sounds like your folks are pretty well-connected.

I shrugged, and said, I’m signed up to come back here in the fall to start my Master’s, or maybe even go on for a doctorate; Dad says that with all the competition out there these days, just having a Master’s may not be enough.

What’s your field? he asked.

Political Science, I replied. What about you?

Economics, he replied. I’m hopefully going to get picked up as a staff economist for some think tank.

Economics, huh? That’s my minor, I said, nodding my head with approval. "Now that I think of it, I might have seen you in a class or two. Frankly, it’s always seemed to me that economics is often just a ‘mask’ for what are basically political arguments. But if you majored in Econ, you must be a lot better at math than I am."

Not really, he said modestly. I subscribe to the Austrian School, which uses very little math.

The Austrian School? I replied, puzzled. What’s that?

With genuine surprise, he said, You have a minor in Econ, and you don’t know about the Austrian School? I shook my head, and he went on, You’ve never heard of Friedrich von Hayek, the winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1974? Seeing my continuing blank look, he added incredulously, Or Carl Menger? Or Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk? Or the greatest of them all, Ludwig von Mises?

Uhh… I think I might have heard of Hayek, I said. But I’m most interested in political analysis—you know, breaking down why soccer moms vote for one candidate rather than another; that kind of thing. My interest in economics mostly revolves around how it relates to policy issues.

Soccer moms, huh? he said, with a hint of a smile on his lips. So I guess you’re pretty wrapped up in the presidential contest this year, right?

Absolutely, I replied without hesitation. After a beat, I added, In fact, my folks have been hinting that I should volunteer to work on the presidential campaign; at least until school starts back up in September.

That’s what I’m going to be doing, he said, casually. Working on the Presidential campaign: particularly trying to get the word out about the issues, and signing up new voters.

Good for you, I complimented. I said expansively, Actually, I think the main thing we have to worry about this fall is the economy; if the improvement under Obama continues, and if the Republicans would quit trying to deliberately sabotage the economy just to make the President look bad—such as by their refusal to pass the American Jobs Act he proposed last year, and the Keep Our Educators Working Act the year before that—I think we’ve got a good chance of picking up some seats in the House; maybe even getting back our majority.

Personally, I think it would be a disaster if the Democrats won some more seats in the House; or in the Senate, for that matter, he replied calmly.

Oh, crap, I thought, crestfallen. I thought he said he wasn’t a Republican…

With a slight smile, he added, But it would be nearly as much a disaster if the Republicans picked up some more seats in either house.

I frowned, and then asked, Well, the Republicans and the Democrats are the only two options, and… I suddenly snapped my fingers, and asked, Wait a minute—you’re not one of those ‘Tea Party’ loons, are you…? but he just shook his head, a cocky smile on his lips.

I’m a Libertarian, he replied, casually. In fact, I just got back from our national convention in Las Vegas.

A Libertarian? I exclaimed, genuinely surprised.

A young black woman sitting in the row in front of us turned around and looked sharply at me, and hissed, Shh!

Sorry, I said meekly, and we both fell silent. The Class Valedictorian of the School of Business and Economics was giving a speech…which frankly seemed to be more an attempt to curry favor (and maybe land an internship, or even a job) with some of the local business leaders who were in attendance, rather than representing any original thought about the future of our graduating class.

I whispered to my new acquaintance, So you belong to one of those tiny parties that clog up the ballot, and make it hard to find the real candidates?

"Our people are ‘real’ candidates, he replied indignantly. Nationwide, there are more than 150 Libertarians holding elective offices—some of them nonpartisan, and some not—and our party is the third largest, and fastest growing political party in the United States. We’re also the only political party who’s ever gotten an electoral vote for a female—which is something that you Democrats can’t claim!"

What? I replied, skeptical. When is that supposed to have happened?

1972, he replied. "Our Presidential candidate was a philosopher named John Hospers—and by the way: when has either the Democratic or the Republican Party had a genuine professor of philosophy as their Presidential candidate?—and our Vice Presidential candidate was Theodora ‘Tonie’ Nathan; she and Hospers received one electoral vote, after Roger MacBride—a Republican elector who was pledged to Nixon—voted his convictions, instead, and cast his ballot for John and ‘Tonie.’ In fact, Roger became our Presidential candidate in 1976. With a satisfied smile, he added, So I think we’ve done pretty damn well, considering our party has only been around since 1971."

But these third party candidates have a terrible effect on our political system, I argued. For example, some of them receive enough votes to keep the eventual winner from receiving a majority of the popular vote, so the President enters office handicapped, because the other party can claim that he doesn’t have a true ‘mandate’ from the people! That really crippled Clinton during his first term, for example.

"Do any of the major party candidates really have a genuine ‘mandate from the people’? he asked rhetorically. Think of it: even the guy who eventually became President probably only won his own party’s primary with maybe 60% of their votes, and then won the November election with only 51% of the popular vote, or less—so that means that he was the ‘first choice’ of less than one-third of the American voters! With a smug smile, he added, And that’s not considering the fact that, even in presidential election years, fewer than 50% of people eligible to vote will bother to do so. So the bottom line is that for whoever wins the presidency, he was only the ‘first choice’ of maybe one-sixth of the potential voters—which doesn’t sound like much of a ‘mandate’ to me!"

Shh! the young woman in front of us said, looking at us crossly.

I shrugged, and said to my neighbor quietly, If you don’t mind throwing your vote away, I guess it’s fine to be a Libertarian; but personally, I’d rather…

We call ourselves ‘The Party of Principle,’ he said with dignity. He sniffed, and then added disdainfully, To me, ‘throwing your vote away’ is to vote for some candidate that you really don’t like, on the grounds that he or she is the ‘lesser of two evils’!

Unfortunately, that’s how the system works, sometimes; politics is ‘the art of compromise,’ I replied. I thought for a moment, then added, But I think that voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’ makes sense, compared to voting for a third-party candidate who doesn’t have a prayer of actually winning the election!

"So you’re saying that someone who isn’t likely to win an election shouldn’t even run? he asked. What kind of ‘democracy’ is that?"

Let’s face it: most minor party candidates receive substantially less than 1% of the vote; so at best, a third party candidate is only functioning as a ‘spoiler,’ rather than as a serious contender for the office, I replied. The 2000 election is the perfect example: Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party candidate, and he was obviously in opposition to Bush; but rather than gracefully conceding before the November general election and asking his supporters to vote for Al Gore—who is about the most ‘green’ major candidate you’re ever likely to see—Nader stubbornly continued his campaign, and it cost Gore the election. And the net effect is that instead of having as our President the very environmentally-aware Gore, Nader and the Greens gave us eight years of the incompetent son of the first President Bush—a son who was so much less qualified than even his father, that I call him ‘Shrub’—and who was a complete anti-environmentalist! I shook my head, and added passionately, I used to have a lot of respect for Nader, but the 2000 election turned me totally against him!

The young woman in the row ahead of us turned around and gave me another sharp look, and I said sheepishly, Sorry.

But what makes you think that the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, rather than Bush? my neighbor said softly.

They’ve done surveys, and…

He interrupted, But those surveys are based on people who call themselves ‘probable voters’; what about the people who are eligible to vote, but don’t? When I didn’t reply immediately, he added, From what I’ve read, Pat Buchanan’s candidacy probably cost Bush more votes than Nader cost Gore! And about one-third of the people who voted for Nader wouldn’t have participated in the election at all, if Nader hadn’t run. He shrugged, then added, "Maybe what people like Nader and the Greens—as well as other third parties like the Reform Party—are actually doing is encouraging people to vote who otherwise would have just sat the election out, because they didn’t care for either ‘major’ candidate."

All of the other students began to stand, and I said, Oops! I guess we’re about to graduate, and the two of us stood up as well.

My seatmate said nervously, Say, since you’ll be going ahead of me, could you take a picture of me getting my diploma? I need it for my Dad.

Sure; no problem, I said, and he handed me his camera phone.

The next thirty minutes were occupied with the ceremony of us individually receiving our diplomas. As soon as I had received my own diploma and shaken our President’s hand, I turned around on stage and coolly took a picture of my neighbor getting his. I handed the camera phone back to him as soon as we were off stage.

Fantastic; thanks, man, he said gratefully, looking with approval at the picture I had snapped.

Once we were all seated again, the President made the announcement that we were now officially graduates, so we duly flipped the tassel on our caps to the left, and all of us gave a loud whoop of joy and relief, while our parents, family members, and friends in the audience applauded vigorously. Then the ceremony was over, and the graduates began to disperse, and merge with the members of the audience who came forward to greet them.

Well, that’s it, I said to my neighbor. We’ve graduated. I took off my cap, and put it under my left arm. Extending my hand, I said to him, Congratulations! By the way, my name’s Tom Anderson.

Glad to meet you, Tom, he replied with a smile. I’m Kelly Kelso; Kel, for short.

I looked around, and asked, So you meeting anyone? Friends, or maybe a girlfriend?

He shook his head, and said, Nope; just me. Like I said, my Dad’s back east on business, and my Mom and I … we don’t communicate. And my girlfriend broke up with me six months ago, because she didn’t think I was ‘serious’ about our relationship.

I hear that, I replied, with a rueful smile. My girlfriend broke up with me last summer, because she didn’t think that our relationship was ‘going anywhere.’ I shook my head, and observed, "Sometimes, I think there’s like a timer in the mind of female college seniors, who think they have to be ‘committed’ by the time they graduate. I thought for a moment, and then added, She was really good-looking; but unfortunately, we kind of grew farther apart over the years; by the time she broke up with me, I have to admit that we had almost nothing in common—particularly intellectually! I’d suggest to her that we check out a lecturer who was speaking at the Student Union, or go to a political rally, but all she wanted to do was go out to some noisy club and dance and drink all night. I sighed, and then added, So I’m meeting my… oh, wait; here they come…" and I turned toward the fifty-something couple that was walking briskly towards me.

Congratulations, graduate! my mother said, giving me a warm hug. I shook hands with, and then hugged, my father.

Thanks, Mom and Dad, I said. Noticing Kelly standing by quietly, I indicated him, and said, Oh, Mom and Dad: this is Kelly Kelso.

They all shook hands, and my father said, Nice to meet you, Kelly; so what’s your major?

Economics, he replied.

My father nodded respectfully, and said, Ah, that’s an interesting field—particularly these days. So what’s your prescription for getting us out of this economic mess we’re still mired in?

Kelly replied confidently, "My reply is the same as what a group of 17th century French merchants said to a mercantilist minister, who asked them what the government could do for them: they said ‘Laissez-faire,’ meaning ‘let us be.’" This response elicited a puzzled look from my father.

My father than turned back to me and asked, So are you coming home for dinner? Or are you guys going out somewhere?

I replied, I hadn’t really thought about…

My father handed me a fifty-dollar bill, and then explained, Oh, you guys go out and get dinner, or have a beer or something; you just graduated from college, after all! That’s a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

Wow; thanks, Dad, I said, surprised.

Just remember to call or text me if you’re going to stay out late, my mother requested.

I will, I assured her. I hugged my parents again, and then waved goodbye, as they walked away.

Kelly said, I don’t know about you, but I’m in the mood for a drink; so I’m going to head for the bar at Manny’s around the corner—care to join me?

I shrugged, and replied, Sure, why not? Like my Dad said, graduation is a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

Sounds good, he said. Did you drive? I nodded, and he said, Great! Then I’ll meet you over there in a few minutes.

See you then, I said, and we both headed off to the parking lot, but in different directions.

I unzipped my gown as I walked, and then removed it, draping it over my arm as I walked, thinking, Well, California State University at Stentoria, I think I’ve earned a summer away from your clutches; but I’ll see you again this fall, to start my Master’s program…

Arriving at my Toyota, I pressed the button on my key ring to unlock it. I tossed my cap and gown carelessly into the back seat, and then got into the driver’s seat. After starting the car up, I turned the stereo on, with the CD cued up for an album by Coldplay. With the music blasting, I drove toward the parking lot exit.

I’d driven past Manny’s Restaurant & Bar on my way to and from school literally hundreds of times during my college career, but I’d only been inside it once. I pulled into the parking lot, and found an empty space near the entrance.

I saw Kelly standing by the door to the bar; he smiled and waved when he saw me. I followed him inside, and he led the way to a quiet table in the back, where we sat down. I looked around with curiosity.

Never been here before? he asked, studying the expression on my face.

I shook my head and said, My ex-girlfriend and I ate at the restaurant once, but I’ve never been in the bar.

Then you’ve been missing out; this bar is where a lot of the ‘movers and shakers’ of Stentoria go to make their secret deals, and generally run the local world; it’s a favorite of my Dad’s, when he’s in town, he said, smiling widely as a pretty young waitress in a very short skirt approached us. He said to her in a cocky tone, Good evening, Heather; you’re looking lovely, as always. Aren’t you going to congratulate us?

Congratulate you? For what? she asked, a puzzled look on her face.

My friend Tom and I just graduated, he replied. So we’re here to celebrate.

Oh; congratulations, she said, frowning as she examined me closely. She explained apologetically, Kelly’s a regular; but I’m going to need to see some I.D. from you.

Sure, no problem, I said, removing my wallet from my back pocket, and showing my driver’s license to her.

She read it over with a practiced eye, then handed it back to me and said brightly, You’re good to go; what can I get you guys?

Kelly responded instantly, J.B., straight up.

She nodded, and then looked at me expectantly.

I hesitated, and then said, Uhh… how about a Bud Light?

You’ve got it; be right back, she said, turning and walking away, with her high heels making a clicking sound on the floor. Kelly watched closely as she walked away.

When she was out of sight, he turned to face me, and then said, Anyway: I believe we were discussing third-party candidates, and whether or not they should run.

I nodded, and said, "Yeah, right. Anyway, Nader received less than 3% of the popular vote in 2000, which wasn’t even enough to qualify the Green Party for public funding in the next election. It had been perfectly clear for months that Nader didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning the election. If he’d dropped out and endorsed Gore, rather than continuing his futile candidacy, Gore would have taken Florida and New Hampshire, and would have won the electoral vote, in addition to taking the popular vote. So that means that when 9/11 happened, we would have had a President who wouldn’t have overreacted, and gotten us into a pointless series of conflicts in the Middle East, which have only further destabilized the region. We spent more than $1.3 trillion on Bush’s Iraq fiasco, and on Afghanistan—some people like Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz say as much as $3 trillion, in all—but thankfully, we’re largely out of that business now."

I definitely agree with your opposition to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, he said, nodding his head.

I shrugged, and added, Who knows—maybe 9/11 wouldn’t even have happened? The Clinton administration tried to warn the Bush administration when they handed over the reins to them, telling them about all the intelligence reports they had received about possible terrorist attacks in this country, but the Bush administration dropped the ball completely—and now hundreds of thousands of people are dead, as a result. I shook my head, and went on, The 2000 election just underscored the fact that we desperately need to amend the Constitution to get rid of that stupid Electoral College, so that we elect our President on the basis of the popular vote, period! At that point, our waitress returned, and placed our drinks down in front of us.

Thanks, I said, reaching for my wallet again.

Kelly held up his hand to stop me, and then said, The next round’s on you, and he handed a few bills to the waitress, saying, Keep the change, beautiful.

Why, thank you, sweetie, she said, winking at him with her long false eyelashes, then turning and walking away (deliberately putting a swivel into her hips as she moved); Kelly again stared after her until she was out of sight.

He turned to me again, and after taking a large swallow of his drink, asked, But would getting rid of the Electoral College really accomplish anything? I mean, didn’t the whole presidential election in 2000 ultimately hinge on whether there were more Supreme Court justices who had been appointed by Republicans than by Democrats, when they decided whether the Florida recount could continue or not?

I snorted, and took a long swallow from my bottle of beer, then replied, "Unfortunately, you’re exactly right; both Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor wanted to retire, for example, but they delayed their retirement because the wanted a Republican, rather than a Democrat, to appoint their successors. I shook my head, and said, That 2000 election was surreal; I was ten at the time, and just starting to pay attention to politics. And that whole farce in Florida: where Bush’s brother Jeb was the Governor; and where the Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris maliciously set an impossible deadline for completing the recount, which Gore had every right under Florida law to request; and then the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court overruled Florida’s own Supreme Court, and halted the hand recount of 70,000 ballots that the Florida voting machines had rejected, thereby giving Bush the ‘victory’ by a lousy 537 doubtful, and ill-gotten votes. I shook my head, and said, That travesty just proved what we’ve known for a long time: the U.S. Supreme Court is every bit as ‘political’ as Congress and the President are—‘Shrub’ and his cronies stole the 2000 election; beyond any doubt."

Well, to my way of thinking, that’s the problem, he said, taking another large swallow of his drink. If Bush only received 47% of the vote, maybe he shouldn’t have received 100% of the Presidency.

I was surprised, and said, What?

He smiled and replied, "I’m talking about a proportional representational system—where if your party gets 20% of the popular vote, your party should get 20% of the seats in Congress. In our current system—with its legislative districts ruthlessly gerrymandered by whatever party is currently in the majority—since the ‘winner takes all,’ about 49% or more of the people feel as if they have no representation after an election. But under a proportional system, if the Green Party got 3% of the vote, they should be entitled to proportional representation in Congress. And if my Libertarian Party gets 10% of the vote, we should get 10% of the seats in the House and the Senate."

I shrugged, and said doubtfully, "That kind of system obviously wouldn’t work for the Executive Branch, where you’ve got only one guy who wins the election. I thought for a moment, then added, In countries like Israel, that do have a proportional representational system for their legislature, I’ve read that it makes it incredibly hard to ever achieve a majority vote to pass any legislation, and…"

He interrupted, saying, Don’t we have that problem here? Isn’t whoever is the President always complaining that Congress won’t pass the legislation that he favors?

I replied, "That’s only a problem when the voters elect a Republican majority in the House or the Senate, while there’s a Democratic President. Now, if they’d just elect Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress along with a Democratic President, then you’d really see things get done…"

Didn’t Obama have that situation his first two years? And didn’t Clinton? he countered. When I looked uncertain, he added with a smug smile, I don’t recall the first two years in either of those administrations being recognized as particularly ‘productive’ years.

Uncomfortably, I replied, "Obama’s first term was obviously handicapped by the Great Recession that he inherited from ‘Shrub’; and … well, I think some good things did get accomplished during Clinton’s first two years; but he was crippled during his last term by that stupid Monica Lewinsky sex scandal thing, and by the House Republicans going through that whole farce of impeachment. With energy, I added, But in both cases, the real problem was that the schizophrenic voters elected a Republican majority in one or both houses in 1994 and 2010, which undercuts…"

"But doesn’t that contradict your argument that ‘you would really see things get done’ if you had a President and both houses of Congress of the same party? he cut in, adding with a cocky smile, Besides, if Clinton and Obama were getting so much done their first two years, why didn’t the voters see that, and keep the majority party in office? Before I could answer, he said, And this isn’t just a Democratic Party problem; the Republicans gripe about losing their majorities in midterm elections, like in 2006 and 1986."

I drank deeply from my beer, and (stifling a burp), replied, I suppose that the truth of the matter is that the voters often act like they want to try and ‘balance out’ the government, by electing a Congressional majority that’s different from the President; but all that does is create dysfunctionality, and prevent needed things from getting done.

Kelly finished his drink with a gulp, and signaled with his finger for the waitress to bring him and me another drink, then said triumphantly, That kind of dysfunctionality is why, to me, the whole two-party system is irretrievably broken.

I finished my beer, and said, Look; I’ll admit that the two-party system can create a lot of conflict, argument, and gridlock, and that a lot of good legislation gets watered down during the approval process; also, a lot of unrelated ‘riders’ and ‘pork’ projects can be attached to a good bill, in order to get it passed. Still, the two-party system is the best compromise solution we’ve come up with, after nearly 225 years of our system of government.

As the waitress approached our table, I removed a bill from my wallet, as she put another drink in front of Kelly, and another bottle of beer in front of me. I handed her the bill, telling her to keep the change, and she thanked me, then walked away (with Kelly watching her closely, again).

I took a swallow of my fresh beer, and said, "Look; some of the things you’re saying make sense, Kelly. But even if we had a proportional system of congressional representation, would that really make any significant difference? These minor parties are all so tiny—it’s rare for any of them to even get 1% of the popular vote—they’d only be entitled to one Senator at most, and only a bare handful of Congressional representatives. And besides, they’re usually scattered all over the country; so how would you decide which states would have to give up some of their seats, so that the Libertarian or Green Party candidate could be seated…"

You can bet there’d be a hell of a lot more people voting for the so-called ‘minor’ parties if there was a proportionate representational system in place—so that people knew their vote was going to be counted! Kelly said, with fire in his voice. He took a swallow of his drink, and said, "Look, Tom: the number of voters who refuse to identify themselves with either the Democratic or Republican parties has grown every year, as does the number of people who stop voting—not, contrary to popular opinion, because they’re too lazy to mail in an absentee ballot, but because they’ re disgusted by the current two-party system. These people represent a vast untapped field; and as a Libertarian, I want to un-disenfranchise them!"

I want to bring those people back into the system, too, I protested. "But what would be the point, if they were going to vote, say, Libertarian? I mean, do you people even have anyone in office currently, or…"

He interrupted, Actually, the Libertarian Party has more people currently in office than all of the other ‘minor’ parties put together! I was surprised by this, and he added, "And given all of the constraints that are put on third parties—like all of the hoops you have to jump through just to get on the ballot in most states—I think we do pretty damn well!"

I said with frustration, But the whole third-party approach seems … like such a waste of resources to me. I mean, there have probably been half-a-dozen Socialist and/or Communist parties in this country of various persuasions; so many, in fact, I can’t keep them all straight. But wouldn’t they be more effective if they ignored some of their ‘inter-group’ disputes and formed a single party, advocating a broader-based platform? Or even better, if they just joined one of the larger parties, and used their energy to try and influence that party’s platform, so that it was closer to what they advocate?

So you’re saying that the Democratic Party would welcome into its upper party ranks people who were avowed Socialists or Communists? he asked pointedly. When I hesitated, he added, "Because I know for a fact that the Republicans sure wouldn’t!"

I said awkwardly, "Well, no; the Democratic Party itself would certainly never even use the term ‘Socialist,’ because of all the backlash it would create with the general public…"

He interjected, "So why, then, would a Socialist or a Communist ever want to join your party, if you’re embarrassed to even use the word that’s most important to them?" I remained silent, and drank my beer while I was thinking.

I finally shrugged, and then said, Look, if you want to try and get the Constitution amended to allow for a proportional representation in Congress, go ahead. But in the meantime, voting for a candidate who you know is going to get less than 1% of the popular vote just seems ludicrous to me.

He said with a smirk, "Oh, there are lots of third party candidates who get well beyond ‘1% of the popular vote.’ Take George Wallace in 1968, for example, when he ran for the American Independent Party: he got 13.5% of the popular vote—and more than one third of the votes in most Southern states—and he even scored 46 electoral votes! By contrast, the Democratic candidate in 1972, George McGovern, carried only one state, and received only 17 electoral votes!"

I said distastefully, Wallace was a racist ideologue; and the so-called ‘Boll Weevil’ Southern Democrats voted for him because they still had that residual prejudice from the Civil War against voting for a Republican, and…

Then how about John Anderson in 1980? he shot back. He scored as high as 26% in the early polls in a three-way race with Reagan and Carter; and despite being drastically outspent, he still finished with 7% of the popular vote.

He got that much? I asked, genuinely surprised.

He might have won, if he’d run a better campaign, Kelly said, adding with a smile, "Even the title character in the ultra-liberal comic strip Doonesbury endorsed Anderson in 1980!"

I shrugged, and said, "Well, 1980 was an unusual year, because the incumbent President, Jimmy Carter, apparently seemed … too impotent to get anything done. That’s why Carter faced a serious challenge from Ted Kennedy, before he could even get the nomination of his own party—which is almost unheard of, for an incumbent! I took another swallow of my beer, and then said confidently, But since then, I’m sure that no third party candidate has scored anywhere near as high as…"

What about Ross Perot in 1992? He had a real ‘shot’ at the presidency, he challenged. In the summer, Perot actually had the lead over Bush and Clinton in the polls, with 39%! He sighed, then took a swallow of his drink, and added, Unfortunately, Perot’s campaign died of self-inflicted wounds; his oversized ego and inconsistent actions doomed him. He wouldn’t listen to the advice of his own campaign staff, for example, and then he temporarily dropped out of the race, only to soon after reenter the contest—by which point, he’d sabotaged his own cause irreparably. Still, he finished with almost 19% of the popular vote, which was the best showing by a third-party candidate in modern times; it was also more than twice what he got in 1996, when he ran under the banner of the Reform Party. I nodded with genuine interest, but remained silent.

He went on, And then Ron Paul—who was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President, by the way, and still has a lot of support from our sympathizers—is always on the verge of becoming one of the ‘major players’ in the Presidential campaign; including this year, when the Republicans apparently can’t come up with anyone better than Mitt Romney! Then Pat Buchanan did very well as a Republican in 1996, before he lost the nomination to Bob Dole—who ultimately lost to Clinton in November anyway; Buchanan then became the candidate of the Reform Party in 2000.

That’s true, I acknowledged.

With enthusiasm, he continued, "And the widespread disenchantment with the two largest parties has led to the formation of a lot of new political parties within the last generation, such as the New Alliance Party, a pro-socialist group that forms alliances with marginalized groups such as the LGBT community and women; the Constitution Party, a very conservative party that wants to re-establish this country on its supposed ‘Constitutional limits’ and ‘Biblical foundations’; the Working Families Party, which is a coalition of labor unions, community organizations, and public interest groups; the America First Party, that was formed by Pat Buchanan supporters who left the Reform Party; the Populist Party of America, which advocates decentralized government, but hasn’t put up any candidates for office yet; the Citizens Party, that seeks a more sustainable, self-reliant America by focusing on middle class economic issues and government reform; America’s Party, formed by supporters of the black conservative Alan Keyes; the American Conservative Party, which was founded by people who were disillusioned with the Republicans; the American Populist Party, which advocates classical liberalism, and strict Constitutional limits on governmental power; and there were also some now-defunct parties, such as the older Populist Party, which Bo Gritz—the guy the Rambo movies was based on—ran for president under; the late Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s Natural Law Party; the New Party; the Labor Party; and the Independent American Party."

You know, I’d never paid any real attention to those other parties, and their candidates, I said respectfully, taking a large swallow of my beer. "I guess as a Poly Sci major, I should pay more attention to details like those! I thought for a moment, and then said, But I think that one of the advantages of the two-party system is that, even if you don’t like everything about your candidate, at least a majority generally ends up having voted for him, so there’s somewhat of a ‘consensus’ behind him. But if we had a proportional representation system, probably no given candidate would ever get more than, say, 25% of the overall vote; to me, that kind of government would be like trying to play a football game with ten different teams on the field, instead of just two—who could ever ‘win’ a game like that?"

"Everyone would win… because they would all be cheering for a team that they really believed in! he replied confidently. With a slight smile, he added, Doesn’t golf manage to find a ‘winner,’ even though they may have dozens of different players all competing against each other at the same time?"

I started to reply, but then stopped myself, and simply toyed with my beer bottle reflectively. Looking at Kelly, I said earnestly, "But doesn’t it get discouraging? I mean, I guess third parties do have more of an effect than I had thought; but do any modern third party candidates actually get elected to any major office?"

Sure, he replied immediately. How about Jesse Ventura, who was elected Governor of Minnesota in 1998 on the ticket of the Reform Party?

A look of extreme distaste came over my face, and I said, You mean the guy who was a former pro wrestler, whose supporters wore t-shirts saying, ‘My Governor Can Beat Up Your Governor’? I shook my head in disdain, and said, As far as I’m concerned, Ventura was just a ‘freak’ candidate—kind of like Schwarzenegger in California in 2003—people are sometimes just so disgusted with the other candidates, that they’ll literally vote for anyone… even if the person is totally unqualified for the office! I mean, the residents of Carmel voted for Clint Eastwood as mayor in 1986, and people in Palm Springs voted for Sonny Bono as mayor in 1988, and then sent him to Congress in 1994!

Kelly smiled and suggested, Apparently Clint Eastwood was a pretty popular Mayor in Carmel, and Sonny Bono got fairly good ratings from his peers in Congress; and Ventura had been Mayor of Brooklyn Park in Minnesota before he ran for Governor—so he wasn’t a total political neophyte.

Grudgingly, I admitted, I suppose.

With a thoughtful look on his face, he said, "New Zealand since 1984, and Chile in the 1970s and ‘80s, are examples of countries that have moved toward libertarianism; so they show that it is possible. In this country, I personally think the best chance for a third-party candidate to win the Presidency will be when there’s a basically strong candidate—a Libertarian, hopefully—and either the Democratic or Republican nominee does something that basically disqualifies him in the eyes of his or her own supporters. For example, suppose that Clinton’s camp hadn’t been able to keep the lid on the Monica Lewinsky thing during the 1996 campaign? Or what if it had been Sarah Palin, and not her daughter Bristol, who’d gotten pregnant out of wedlock in 2008? Or suppose that Gary Hart had gotten the Democratic nomination in 1988 before he took that fateful ride with Donna Rice on the ‘Monkey Business’ boat? If people were deserting one of the two ‘big’ parties in droves—but couldn’t, for ideological purposes, see themselves ever voting for the candidate of the opposition party—then the third-party candidate would, by default, look much more attractive."

I laughed, then took another swallow of my beer, and said, "You mentioned Chile. But wasn’t Chile a military dictatorship under Pinochet, back in the 1970s and later…"

At that point a middle-aged man (who smelled strongly of tobacco smoke) came up to Kelly and clapped him firmly on the shoulder, saying, Hey, Kelso—how are you doing, kid? The newcomer had several other middle-aged men, along with some very intense-looking young men—wearing full business suits, despite the temperature outside—following closely after him.

Hey, Mr. Howard, Kelly replied, in a friendly tone. My friend and I are just out celebrating our graduation!

No kidding? the middle-aged man said, with unfeigned enthusiasm. Well, congrats! You should be ready to come work for a real political party, now—we can always use a bright young mind. He jerked his thumb behind him at the young men in suits, who seemed offended by his suggestion.

Kelly explained for my benefit, Tom, this gentleman is Blake Howard: he’s a high mucky-muck in the local Republican Party; they’re obviously ready for their evening libation, after a hard day of trying to con the residents of Stentoria into voting Republican.

Mr. Howard shook his head, and said to Kelly, I can’t understand how any son of a lifelong Republican like your old man could grow up outside of the Grand Old Party; I mean, if you were a Tea Party guy, I could semi-understand that. But this ‘Libertarian’ thing you’ve hooked on to just doesn’t make any damn sense to me. Spreading his open hands against his chest, he said, "I’m a libertarian, too; only that’s ‘libertarian’ spelled with with a small ‘l.’ I believe in freedom, and in lower taxes, and in getting rid of all this government bureaucracy that’s strangling our economy, and so do you. So why don’t you just face reality, and join us?"

With a slight smile, Kelly said confidently, Because your party also got us involved in all these pointless overseas conflicts for the benefit of your corporate sponsors, and their partners in the defense industry; and because you want to make abortion illegal; and because you’re opposed not just to gay marriage, but to equal rights for gays and lesbians in general; and because you think we should continue to lock up kids for minor, completely nonviolent drug offenses; and because you think that people with a particular extremist set of religious beliefs should be able to impose them on the entire nation…

One of Mr. Howard’s older companions tapped him on the shoulder and said impatiently, Look, B.T.; we’ll be over at our regular table, discussing strategy. Want us to order the usual for you?

Sure, he replied, and his companions departed swiftly.

Why don’t you sit down and chat for a minute, Mr. Howard? Kelly invited, indicating the seat next to him. Tom and I were just discussing your favorite subject, politics!

Don’t mind if I do, he said, taking the offered seat.

CHAPTER 2

IS THE RIGHT WRONG, AND THE LEFT RIGHT?

THE NEWCOMER, BLAKE HOWARD, LOOKED me directly in the eye, and asked bluntly, So what’s your politics, son?

He’s a liberal, definitely, Kelly responded, before I could say anything; Mr. Howard sighed wearily. Kelly added (with a glint of wicked humor in his eyes), He’s even a Political Science major.

God help us, the older man said, signaling for the waitress to bring his drink to this table. After she placed it on the table in front of him, I noticed that he didn’t pay her for it. (He’s probably a ‘regular,’ who’s got a tab, I thought.)

The older man looked with approval at Kelly’s drink, and asked, J.B. straight up?

Nothing else, Kelly said with a smile, taking another swallow from his drink.

Mr. Howard said approvingly, "Well, at least you drink like your old man! After taking a large swallow from his own drink, he turned his attention to me, and said, So is Kelso right? Are you really one of those tree-hugging, bleeding-heart liberals?"

I grimaced, and replied, I personally prefer the term ‘progressive,’ but…

He snorted with contempt, and said, Son, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig! You liberals need to just ‘man up,’ and admit to the general public exactly who you are, without hiding behind a fancy new name for yourselves—that you only started using in the mid-‘80s, after the American people got wise to what a ‘liberal’ really stood for! He took another large swallow from his drink, and said to me contemptuously, "Your sorry excuse for a President is an out-and-out Socialist, who is buddy-buddy with old-time radicals like William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn—who both used to belong to the Weather Underground, who are following Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals—as well as out-and-out Socialist groups like ACORN; and your political party supports the same old tried-and-failed ‘tax and spend’ policies that didn’t work for FDR, Johnson, Carter, or Clinton, and are failing even more badly for Obama. He pointed his finger directly at me, and said in a fiery tone, The liberal politicians in California have already driven out nearly all of the wealth producers from this state, with their insanely high tax rates—and that’s exactly what Obama and his fellow socialists are trying to do at the federal level. The plain fact is, there isn’t a damn thing that represents ‘progress’ in your so-called ‘progressive’ agenda!"

Bristling with indignation, I replied, "You conservatives now call yourselves ‘neoconservatives’ and ‘neoliberals’; so what’s wrong with us using a different, more descriptive term for ourselves? And the term ‘neoliberal’ is particularly dishonest, since it’s nothing more than a sneaky attempt to pass yourselves off before the public as true ‘liberals’…"

He said with a mocking grin, "Son, the term ‘liberal’ originally meant someone like Jean-Baptiste Say, Alexis de Tocqueville, Edmund Burke, or John Stuart Mill—men who favored private enterprise, free markets, and civil liberties; it’s you liberals who stole the term, and tried to apply it to yourselves! The liberals were the Tories, in England. So a ‘neo-liberal’ is just a modern conservative who’s trying to recapture the original definition of that term. For my own part, though, the term ‘liberal’ has been so corrupted by your kind, that I am completely repelled by anything with that word in it, so I would never use it! He finished his drink, and signaled for the waitress to bring him another, then said, Now, the term ‘neoconservative’ used to be a valid one; it meant guys like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Michael Medved, or David Horowitz—who used to be liberals, or even Socialists, but finally ‘saw the light’ and became conservatives; Kristol once said that a neoconservative was a liberal who’d been ‘mugged by reality’!" Kelly laughed.

The older man continued, But the term ‘neoconservative’ has gotten so watered down, it doesn’t mean a damn thing, any more; sometimes the term is used by the media to refer to so-called ‘Big Government Republicans,’ or ‘compassionate conservatives.’ And the liberal media has also used the word for practically anyone who thinks that the United States has a unique global role to play, or who supports U.S. intervention overseas, or who favored the Iraq War—even including that late, loudmouthed atheist Christopher Hitchens! He shook his head, and said, "As William F. Buckley once put it in National Review’s Mission Statement, a conservative ‘stands athwart history, yelling Stop! at a time when no one is inclined to do so.’ The fact is, the modern conservative isn’t like the ‘conservative’ of the pre-World War II period; we don’t favor protectionism in trade, or non-interventionism in foreign policy; we are humbly willing to accept the role that God Almighty has bestowed upon us, as the only remaining world superpower! We are ‘conservatives’ because we believe that we urgently need to conserve the traditional values that were bequeathed to us by God, and the Constitution of the United States. I am a proud ‘Reagan Republican,’ and a lifelong member of what the mass media puts down as the ‘Old Right.’ He eyed me, and then said casually, Of course, a young whippersnapper like you probably doesn’t have a clue about the origin of the terms ‘right’ and ‘left,’ much less what a ‘Whig’ or a ‘Tory’ is, but…"

I said in clipped tones, The ‘Whigs’ were members of the English party who thought that Parliament should hold authority over the king, and religious dissenters should be tolerated; whereas the ‘Tories’ were the supporters of the monarchy, and the state-run Church. The term ‘left wing’ came from the French Revolution, where the supporters of the French Republic sat to the left side of the President’s chair in Parliament, while the supporters of the monarchy sat on the right side. Looking the older man directly in the eye, I added, "So the modern Republican party—as heirs of the Tory philosophy, as well as admittedly being the ‘right wing’—likewise are the ‘elitists,’ who think of yourselves as the hereditary rulers of this country; whereas we Democrats are truly the party of the people!"

He chuckled, and said, "I’ll have to give you some credit for knowing what a Whig and a Tory are; maybe you did learn something in that state university, after all. He looked up and said, Finally!" as the waitress arrived with his drink; he frowned at her as she profusely apologized, and then hurried off.

He took a large swallow of his drink, then sat back in his seat, and said to me with a smile, "Look, son; I know you’re young and idealistic, and you think that the social welfare programs you liberals love so much are humanitarian, and that they’re only opposed by rich, fat cat Republicans like me, who are supposedly cold and heartless, and don’t care about anyone or anything outside of their own mansions, stock portfolios, and private retirement accounts. But the fact is that most of us really are ‘compassionate conservatives,’ who want freedom from government intervention because it will help more people; Marvin Olasky’s book The Tragedy of American Compassion was key to many of us, because it emphasized the responsibility of people of faith to the poor. The plain reality is that liberal programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare have been the greatest disaster this country has ever seen! The welfare program, for example, has been the biggest liberal-caused tragedy of all: by giving money directly to unmarried mothers, it’s not only resulted in a huge population of illegitimate children, it’s also contributed mightily to the breakup of the family—since under welfare, a man isn’t the ‘breadwinner’ of his family, the government is; in fact, the man isn’t even considered important to its survival! Even a noted liberal like Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted this back in 1965! Nowadays, we even have 2nd and 3rd generation welfare mothers, who…"

I admit that there have been some problems with the welfare system, I interrupted. "But it was a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who made modifications in, and then signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which Clinton predicted would ‘end welfare as we have come to know it,’ and has since cut the welfare rolls by nearly half. And it was also Clinton who declared before Congress in his 1996 State of the Union address that ‘The era of big government is over,’ and implemented changes which created the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, cut the unemployment rate from 7.5% to 4%, tripled the Dow Jones, and created our first and only budget surpluses in…"

He cut me off, saying, "All Clinton did was talk; he didn’t do a damn thing until the Republicans were in control of Congress. Any credit you try to give him for the budget or welfare reform, was due to the Republican lawmakers who wrote the legislation that he was forced to sign. But he actually vetoed welfare reform twice, before he finally signed off on a watered-down version of the bill. He shook his head, and continued, The liberal welfare program remains a travesty, and it continues to promulgate the message that you don’t need to work to get along in this world—because the federal government will give you money, for doing nothing!"

I shrugged, and said, The problem is, the kinds of manufacturing and home services jobs that people used to have in the ‘40s and ‘50s are gone, today. Without a social ‘safety net’ such as welfare provides, many families, including the children—and disproportionately affecting minority households—would be literally starving! Is that what you want to see?

He said confidently, "Working as maids or janitors was good enough for lots of minorities before the 1960s; and it would still be a viable option today, if those liberal minimum wage laws hadn’t priced such services out of the market!"

With a slight smile, I asked, So in other words, you want black people and Latinos to go back to being domestic servants?

"At least it was honest work—and much better than being on the government dole!" He looked me directly in the eyes, and said, "And speaking of minorities, did you know that Social Security is a racist program—because, since blacks live shorter lives than whites, they therefore will receive significantly less in terms of benefits? So your Social Security program is, in effect, taxing blacks to support whites! Before I could answer, he added, These programs like welfare, Social Security, and Medicare are so pernicious because they’ve created a sense of entitlement in people; they believe that just by virtue of being born, the government should support you for your entire life!"

I replied calmly, "If you’re so opposed to welfare, what about ‘corporate welfare,’ such as farm price supports, subsidized loans for exporters, direct corporate subsidies, and corporate tax breaks? Why don’t you shut the ‘open door’ that exists between Republicans and big business, which allows people like former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to make millions from his company Gilead Sciences, Inc., by selling a supposed ‘antiviral drug’ called Tamiflu to governments around the world to combat a bogus ‘bird flu’ epidemic? What about all of the ‘sweetheart deals’ that defense contractors are given by Republicans in government, such as those creating materiel for the Iraq War—for example, the $7 billion ‘no-bid’ contract that went to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s company, Halliburton. Self-righteously, I added, Why is it that you Republicans are only opposed to ‘welfare’ for the poor, but not for the rich?"

He asked with pretended innocence, Did you complain when your Senator Diane Feinstein—who sits on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee—helped steer $600 million to her financier husband Richard Blum’s company Perini, for ‘environmental cleanup’ in Iraq?

Defensively, I said, There was nothing inappropriate about…

He interrupted sharply, "There’s a huge difference, son, between the government providing for our national defense, and the government paying people to sit around on their butts, watching pornographic Rap music videos, smoking crack, and creating more and more illegitimate babies! Shaking his head, he added, You liberals call your welfare programs ‘entitlements,’ but that’s a complete fiction: no one is ‘entitled’ to anything in this life—the Bible says that man shall live by the sweat of his brow, and not by getting government handouts for doing nothing!"

I replied, "If you’re so opposed to ‘entitlements,’ why are you conservatives so opposed to estate taxes? They’ve been phased out here in California, thanks to conservative pressure, and federal tax excludes money left to a spouse, or up to $5 million for anyone else; but why should estate taxes be challenged? If I’m leaving behind a vast fortune that I accumulated through my own hard work to someone, simply because they happened to be born into my family, doesn’t that contradict your whole argument? My children and other relatives haven’t done a thing to ‘earn’ that money, like I had to: they were just fortunate enough to be born a Rockefeller, or a Kennedy, or a Bush, or into some other family of privilege…"

"A survivor shouldn’t have to visit the undertaker and the tax collector in the same day, he replied calmly. Being able to provide a better life for your children is probably the biggest incentive for private initiative that there is; take that away, and you’ll destroy the motivation for creators to create, and for wealth producers to produce. I was about to reply, but he added too quickly, Let’s get real, here, young man: Can you name me even a single federal program that has clearly been successful?" He had a satisfied smile on his face—as if he had just played his trump card—and he leaned back in his seat and toyed with his drink.

I said placidly, "How about that ‘national defense’ you just mentioned? I mean, would you want a national defense program that was being run solely by profit-seeking corporations, and not directed by our elected representatives? He was momentarily silenced, so I went on, And wasn’t it a government program that developed the atomic bomb that ended World War II? And that developed all the weapons systems that you conservatives love?"

"I didn’t mean that kind of federal program, he said impatiently. Defense programs are excellent illustrations of the proper relationship between government, and private industry. I meant things like the public school system, which liberal policies and ridiculous ‘self-esteem’ programs have virtually destroyed; that’s why President Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ program—intended to bring accountability back to teachers and schools—was so important. I also mean programs like Social Security; Medicare; Head Start; and especially affirmative action, falsely referred to as ‘civil rights’…"

There are millions of Americans who will gladly testify that without their Social Security check, they’d be well below the poverty line, I replied. And without Medicare, there are millions and millions of senior citizens who wouldn’t have any health care at all.

He spat out, "Those programs are all going broke, and aren’t much better than a Ponzi scheme…"

I interrupted him, At the start of his second term, President Bush used his supposed ‘mandate’ to push his proposals to ‘privatize’ Social Security, and allow people to withdraw their proportionate share of the money from the Social Security Trust Fund, and invest it themselves. I added with a grin, "Of course, if Bush had gotten his way, nearly all of those people would have lost everything when the housing bubble burst in 2007, or during the stock market crash in 2008-2009! Frankly, privatizing Social Security hasn’t sounded like a very attractive option to most people since then; in fact, most investors are starting to see good old-fashioned treasury bonds as a very good ‘investment’ these days." He grimaced (but I noticed that his grip on his drink tightened).

I continued, "All that ‘No Child Left Behind’ has done is make teachers teach to the test, rather than focus on the students’ broader grasp of the material; Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ program was much more effective. But the higher education system in