The Liberty Papers

Tomorrow evening, the nations broadcast and cable networks will interrupt their regular programming for the annual spectacle that is the State of the Union Address. While it’s not quite as ridiculous as Great Britain’s absurdly monarchical State Opening Of Parliament, it nonetheless has it’s moments.

Which is why, I think, Gene Healy’s column on how the State of The Union has become little more than an exercise in statist theatrics is completely right.

As Healy, points out, the modern State of the Union speech owes almost nothing to history. With the exception of Presidents Washington and Adams, no President until Woodrow Wilson actually delivered the annual message to Congress required by the Constitution in person. The man who broke the mold, and set a precedent that should have never been broken was Woodrow Wilson:

For 112 years, presidents conformed to Jefferson’s example, until populist pedagogue Woodrow Wilson delivered his first annual message in person. “I am sorry to see revived the old Federalistic custom of speeches from the throne,” one senator lamented. “I regret this cheap and tawdry imitation of English royalty.”

Yet Wilson’s habit caught on. Most presidents in the 20th century delivered the message in person. And in 1966, Lyndon Johnson moved the speech to prime-time viewing hours, the better to reach a national audience.

Thus the State of the Union has settled into its familiar, modern incarnation: a laundry list of policy demands packaged in pomp and circumstance. And as our presidents have grown more imperial, the tone of the annual message has grown more imperious.

Not to mention the incessant interruptions for applause, partisan and otherwise, and, in an innovation introduced by President Reagan, the use of audience members to make political points of one sort or another.

It’s hard not to analogize the modern State of the Union Address to the ancient British practice of the Monarch addressing Parliament and telling it what the Crown wished to accomplish. The difference in modern times, of course, is that the British Monarch is merely reading a speech prepared by aides to the Prime Ministers, whereas, American Presidents actually think they have the power to accomplish their goals.

Update: Healy has further thoughts on the SOTU at Cato@Liberty.
H/T: The LP Blog

Like me, you many not like Hillary Clinton’s message very much, but her campaign may signal the end of public financing of Presidential campaigns, and that’s a very good thing:

The public financing system designed to clean up presidential campaigns in the wake of the Watergate scandal may have died on Saturday when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced her bid for the White House.

Little noticed amid the announcement rollout was a page on her Web site in which she asked potential contributors to give her campaign checks of up to $4,200. That figure signaled not only that she plans to forgo public funds for primary season but also that, if she becomes the nominee, she will not take public money for the general election.

By opting out of the system, Clinton will be able spend as much money as she can raise, both for the primaries and for the general election, rather that being forced to abide by strict spending limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission on candidates who accept public financing.

Others have opted out of public financing for the nomination campaigns, but Clinton is the first since the current structure was created in 1974 to declare she will forgo public financing in the general election as well.

Clinton’s decision will put pressure on other candidates in both parties to follow suit, and if they do, the 2008 campaign will complete what has been the rapid disintegration of a system designed to rein in unlimited spending in presidential campaigns.

The entire concept of taxpayer dollars being used to finance the Presidential campaigns should have been offensive to everyone from the beginning. Why should my money be used to support a candidate I completely disagree with ? Why should yours be used to support a candidate who opposes everything you believe in ? It is completely anathema to the First Amendment and completely offensive to the idea that individuals should not be forced to support political goals they disagree with.

So if the Hillary Clinton for President campaign means the death of a system that never should have existed to begin with, I say…….thank you Hillary.

Reason Magazine’s Brian Doherty interviewed Texas Congressman, and possible Presidential candidate, Ron Paul and, as is usually the case with Congressman Paul, the results were interesting:

First, Paul clarified the status of his Presidential campaign:

Reason: Does launching an official exploratory committee necessarily mean you will end up launching an official campaign?

Ron Paul: Last week it leaked that we were getting ready to organize an exploratory committee. I haven’t even officially announced that yet. If I find with the exploratory committee that there is some support out there, that we can raise the money you need, then [I’d] declare that [I’m] running.

Reason: Now that it has leaked, what have you thought of the response so far?

Paul: I think it’s been impressive. I’ve been pleased and surprised.

In other words, Paul not only hasn’t announced he’s running for President, he hasn’t even officially announced that he’s thinking about running for President. Yes, there’s a fair degree of political gamesmanship in his response to these questions, but it should reveal an underlying truth — much of the talk we’ve seen in the libertarian-oriented blogosphere about the Ron Paul for President campaign is just that, talk.

Congressman Paul also addresses the criticism he’s received from some libertarians, including my fellow contributor Kevin, over his vote in favor of allowing the Federal Government to negotiate prescription drug prices paid by Medicare:

Reason: Some of your libertarian fans were also upset about your vote on government price negotiations for Medicare drugs.

Paul: The government is already involved in giving out prescription drugs, in a program that the drug companies love and spend hundreds of millions lobbying for, this interventionist program. The drug corporations love it. Should government say something about controlling prices since it’s a government program? I want to cut down spending, so why not say that government has a responsibility to get a better bargain? Both choices were horrible, but the person who complained on the Internet did not understand the vote. I don’t vote for price controls, obviously, but if government has to buy something, even if they shouldn’t be buying it!–they have a responsibility to get the best price. But most importantly, we shouldn’t be in that business [of buying drugs].

Sorry, but this sounds a lot like some of the same justification and obsfucation I’d expect to hear from any other Republican or Democratic politician. Except Ron Paul has always differentiated himself from the rest of Washington. I just can’t see how he can reconcile this vote with his principles.

Paul also addresses the objection some libertarians have noted to his stance on immigration:

Reason: What do you have to say to libertarians who disagree with your immigration position, such as on amnesty, birthright citizenship, and a concentration of federal money on border security?

Paul: If they don’t agree, they’d have to be anarchists, and I’m not. I believe in national borders and national security. My position is, take away incentives–why are states compelled to give free education and medical care? I don’t endorse easy automatic citizenship for people who break the law. They shouldn’t be able to come reap the benefits of welfare state. I don’t think libertarians can endorse that. I think removing the incentives is very important, but I don’t think you can solve the immigration problem until you deal with the welfare state and the need for labor created by a government that interferes with the market economy. We’re short of labor at the same time lots of people are paid not to work. Take away [illegal immigrants’] incentives. I do believe in a responsibility to protect our borders, rather than worrying about the border between North and South Korea or Iraq and Syria, and I think that’s a reasonable position.

I think Paul is confusing two, or perhaps more, completely different issues here.

I agree that border security is a top priority issue, especially given the way the world is today. The concern I have, though, is not keeping Mexicans who want to come here and hang drywall out of the country; it’s keeping people who want to kill us out of the country. Similarly, while I oppose the welfare state, I think it’s absurd to say that immigration should be controlled, or, as some have suggested, eliminated until the welfare state is abolished. Immigrants have contributed greatly to making America the nation it is today; cutting off those masses yearning to breath free would be a repudiation of everything this country stands for.

Notwithstanding my disagreements with him, though, Congressman Paul remains, as always, an interesting man.

Related Posts:

Ron Paul For President !
Ron Paul’s Presidential Chances
Ron Paul Votes For Price Fixing Prescription Drugs
A Moment of Hubris On the Ron Paul For President Campaign
Further Thoughts On The Ron Paul For President Campaign