Although Charles Murray is a self-described libertarian, he is more of a classical liberal that believes government should do as little as possible and that its political subdivisions that weaken it actually make it more effective in how it serves the people.
It's not what Donald Trump is against that bothers me. It's what he's for. So much attention has been paid to his immigration stance from a race perspective that no one seems to care how anti-free market his platform is. Trump is running on economic fallacies that have been consistently refuted by free market economists for hundreds of years.
Perhaps the failure of the experience argument over the last two elections is why Republicans seem so eager to pick a candidate who has never held a political job for even a day.
We're going to begin today with a wrapup of the week that was in the presidential campaigns, and as befitting his status as the Republican frontrunner, we're going to start with Donald Trump.
Social Security needs reform. But, that reform should take place in the form of expansion not cuts. Like millions of other Americans, Social Security is a lifeline for my family, but without an expansion, it is an increasingly fraying one.
The entire political punditry world has been holding its collective breath since last Thursday night, waiting for some polling numbers to interpret. But one question in particular seems to show some very bad news for the Republican Party.
The Republican Party doesn't seem to understand the fact that threats to the United States originate from the actions of human beings. These human beings resort to violence when they are marginalized by society to the point where they believe that the only way to better their country is to work around the democratic system through violence.
Many Republican politicians call themselves "values candidates." What does that really mean? Is there another way to talk about "values" that expands the definition and lends more predictability to the success of the 2016 presidential election?
With millions watching, a governor vanishes! ...
Well, that was entertaining, wasn't it? We refer, of course, to the grand spectacle of the first Republican presidential debates, held last night on Fox News. Since this is all anyone's talking about in the political world today, we are going to follow suit and devote most of this column to our reactions.
Four years ago, Chris Christie was the most popular potential Republican presidential candidate in the country. His charm and straight forward non-political demeanor won us all over.
The GOP Debate. It came, we watched, it blew our minds! Donald Trump is like teflon...nothing sticks to that guy. Marco Rubio was a surprise standout. Jeb Bush looked pretty old. Scott Walker was boring.
In fact Christie, who reminded Republicans during the debate that he'd been appointed by President Bush the day before 9/11, went so far in '03 as to actually threaten to arrest that Passaic County sheriff (whose office uncovered the fake ID scandal) and "shut down" his department.
Racism, child labor, poverty, gender inequality and homophobia are not phenomena of the 21st century. They are our history. Over the past 5 or 6 decades the doors to these parts of our reality were kicked open and folks like those in Monday's focus group and forum audience don't want to look.
It seems to me there are four basic strategies the other nine Republicans on the stage have to choose from: ignore Trump, outdo Trump, attack Trump or agree with Trump.
One resource that Senator Paul can invoke to defend his libertarian approach to Cuba is Ronald Reagan's flexible approach to communist countries in transition. That is what Cuba is today.