blog

Our final tribute to a freedom fighter

Sat, 20 Apr 2013 05:34:36 +0100

Margaret Thatcher | 1925-2013

This is our final tribute to the Iron Lady. Her passion for individual freedom and her determination to carry out her vision will continue to inspire our political philosophy. Like the people of Eastern Europe whose liberation from totalitarianism she helped to accomplish, we say thank you.

"The full accounting of how my political work affected the lives of others is something we will only know on Judgement Day. It is an awesome and unsettling thought. But it comforts me to think that when I stand up to hear the verdict, I will at least have the people of the Church of the Holy Cross [in Warsaw] in court as character witnesses." -M.T.

Rest in peace now.

The liberal in Margaret Thatcher

Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:46:19 +0100

Our tribute to the Iron Lady

Few political figures in Britain have provoked such strong reactions –both positive and negative– as former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. There are times when confrontation in a country’s political process is required to generate needed change, whereas in other occasions compromise is the more convenient path. The former certainly describes the times in which Margaret Thatcher took the reins of power as the first female Prime Minister of a major Western democracy –that sole fact would have granted her a special place in the history books. But that historic feature, which opened the doors to the rise of women in global politics, would be all but a single colourful detail in what was to become one of the most revolutionary premierships in British history –certainly the most revolutionary of the second half of the Twentieth Century.

Margaret Hilda Roberts was born in Grantham, in the East Midlands of England, on the 13^th of October of 1925. The younger of two daughters, she grew up in a middle class family where there was no deprivation but also no profligacy. The daughter of a grocer, Alfred Roberts, she learned from a young age the values of hard work and self-reliance which her father instilled on her and which would guide her views throughout her entire life. Her father was her role model, and the young Margaret was her father’s favourite. She used to accompany her father to political meetings and that generated in her an interest in politics and political debate. And although she first graduated in chemistry, she would later succumb to her biggest passion: politics. At a time when the role of women was “in the home,” and despite her conservative predisposition, the liberal in Margaret pushed her to pursue what was not a conservative’s ideal for a woman: a political career.

Margaret Thatcher’s beliefs

After an initially unsuccessful attempt at gaining a seat in Parliament, the now married Margaret Hilda Thatcher finally became a Conservative MP for Finchley in 1959. As an MP, Mrs Thatcher was initially cautious not to sound too radical in the era of “consensus,” when both the Conservative and the Labour parties did not dispute the central tenets of the ever-increasing welfare state. But more privately, Mrs Thatcher –under the influence of her friend, mentor and fellow MP Keith Joseph– was becoming a follower of an Austrian economist and philosopher who was laying the foundations for the resurgence of classical liberalism or, what some later named, neo-liberalism: Friedrich von Hayek. Hayek’s works focused on the dangers of central planning of economic activity in an ever-expanding state which, if left unchecked, would ultimately erode all individual freedoms and lead to a totalitarian society.

It was this combination of her life experience, the conservative values of hard work and self-reliance instilled by her father and her discovery of the radical liberalism of Hayek which formed the core of Margaret Thatcher’s radical –and ironically very un-conservative– individualist vision. Her future political fights and policies would be based on that vision.

The Era of Discontent

One cannot analyse historical events and figures without placing them within a context, and no one can deny that the context of the Britain of the 1970s was anything but congenial. Rampant inflation and increasing unemployment; industrial unrest promoted by out-of-control, over-mighty trade unions who were destabilising governments of Left and Right alike; price controls and over-regulation of economic activity which was making Britain one of the least competitive countries in Europe; a nationalised economy mired in stagnation. This was the state of the United Kingdom when Margaret Thatcher cruised to victory in 1979.

After taking office, Mrs Thatcher quickly identified her two most important enemies: high inflation and belligerent trade unions. She began to act on the former as soon as she took office, putting in practice Milton Friedman’s theory of monetarism, which stressed the need to control the money supply to fight inflation –an idea that turned the then economic consensus upside down. It was a risky move and a radical idea at the time, but previous governments had failed at controlling inflation by following the Keynesian consensus of the time. Thatcher’s radicalism was beginning to show. Even when the initial effect was a deeper recession, Mrs Thatcher didn’t waver and pushed on with this economic experiment. By 1983, inflation had decreased from more than 20% in 1980 to less than 5% in 1983. GDP, which had decreased by 2% in 1980, was growing by 4% in 1983 and would continue to experience a boom (by 1988 the economy was growing by almost 6%).

The second enemy would be tackled later on, once Mrs Thatcher made sure she had the right conditions –both in popularity at the polls as well as in the state of the economy– to win the battle.

The Thatcher Revolution

Militant trade unions had toppled the government of Edward Heath (the Conservative leader who would later be defeated by Mrs Thatcher in the leadership contest of 1975) and undermined the Labour government of James Callahan. Union bosses even used to refuse to hold ballots among their members and declared strikes without their consent. This undemocratic paralysis of the political system provoked by unelected union leaders had to be tackled if there was to be a solution to the plague of Britain’s economic stagnation. After securing her re-election in the landslide of 1983 and with an improved economic scenario, Mrs Thatcher was ready to face this battle. When the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, Arthur Scargill, declared a strike in 1984 –even when no ballot had taken place and many union members had voiced their opposition to it–, the central battle against the excessive power of the unions began. The battle was divisive and harsh, but someone needed to curb the unlimited power of union leaders. Mrs Thatcher had the courage and determination that her predecessors lacked, and she did not flinch until Scargill conceded defeat in 1985. Union power had been defeated and would never be the same in the years to come.

After being victorious against her two main enemies –inflation and unions–, Mrs Thatcher pressed ahead with her revolution. Her vision of radical individualism was extended to most areas of economic life. That vision became to be known as “popular capitalism.” For the first time in decades, a British Prime Minister was determined to “roll back the frontiers of the state.” A series of policies put this vision into practice: the “right-to-buy” scheme which allowed millions of council house tenants the opportunity to become home owners for the first time, materialising Mrs Thatcher’s vision of a property-owning democracy in which property was an essential right; the lowering of what were almost confiscatory tax rates to spur private investment (in 1979, the top income tax rate was 83%); the elimination of state subsidies to non-competitive industries; and the promotion of free trade within Europe and around the world.

But what perhaps became the most revolutionary and quintessential policy of the Thatcher revolution –so revolutionary that put in vogue a neologism– was the selling of state assets and nationalised companies, which came to be known as privatisation. State monopolies such as oil, steel, water, electricity, telephones, airways and gas were all sold to the private sector. The percentage of the British population owning shares went from 7% in 1979 to 25% in 1990 –another example of “popular capitalism” into action. Mrs Thatcher’s drive for privatisation began a global move towards a freer, more open economy and the end of the era of an expanding state.

The Iron Lady

While Margaret Thatcher’s economic legacy at home and its consequences abroad are enormous, almost like a paradigm shift, her contribution to the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Communist totalitarianism is equally gigantic. She was a fervent anti-Communist, but she was also a pragmatic, rational negotiator. When Mikhail Gorbachev became the new Soviet leader, she was able to recognise that he represented a radical break from previous Soviet leaders. Mr Gorbachev was open to dialogue with the West and Mrs Thatcher took that opportunity to start the process that ultimately led to the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the Communist experiment. She was a formidable mediator between Mr Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. She was able to put her fervent anti-Communism aside –without abandoning her distaste for Communism– and promote dialogue with the ideological enemy.

Mrs Thatcher’s firm determination was proved early on her premiership, when in 1982 Argentina’s military dictatorship invaded the Falkland Islands –also known as Malvinas in Argentina– located in the South Atlantic near the Argentine coast and under British rule since 1833. Argentina had claimed sovereignty over the islands for many years and the country’s military junta, under increasing pressure from a population tired of the regime, bet on an invasion and capture of the islands as a way to remain in power. The junta thought highly unlikely that the British would fight for two tiny islands miles away from home and it was confident that the United States would not intervene in the conflict. But to the junta’s surprise, the British government under Mrs Thatcher decided to recapture the islands. Mrs Thatcher resisted pressure from the White House to avoid a conflict, claiming that the islands belonged to Britain and their inhabitants had to be defended. Despite pessimist prospects, the islands were recaptured and the Argentine dictatorship defeated. The result of the Falklands War transformed Mrs Thatcher’s image at home and had positive consequences for the Argentines as well: by 1983, democracy had returned to Argentina after eight dark years of authoritarian rule. Although few Argentines now recognise it, Margaret Thatcher is in part responsible for their liberation from the most brutal dictatorship the country has ever experienced, along with the 649 Argentines and 258 Britons who died in the conflict.

A Complex Figure

It is no surprise by now that Margaret Thatcher was a complex figure. While many on both Right and Left would argue that she was the embodiment of social conservatism, her actual positions on many issues are much more complex than that. Yes, she had a conservative predisposition on many ways –although we have already talked of her ironically radical break from the status quo–, but she also departed from traditionalism in many occasions. Perhaps the two most prominent examples of this complexity are her support for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in England and Wales in 1966, when she was one of the few Tories who voted for Labour’s Leo Abse’s bill along with her mentor and fellow Tory MP Keith Joseph, and her support for Liberal MP David Steel’s bill to legalise abortion in the same year. She would later explain these two votes in her 1995 memoirs titled “The Path to Power,” by saying that these reforms had to do with “cruel or unfair” provisions that required those two laws and that on those two issues she had been “strongly influenced by my own experience of other people’s suffering.”

Many gay rights campaigners have accused Mrs Thatcher of being a homophobe because of her government’s introduction of the so-called Section 28, a provision on the Local Government Act of 1988 which prohibited the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools, however, it did not create a criminal offence and thus no prosecution was ever brought under this provision. While there’s no doubt that this clause was illiberal and silly, there is no mention of it on Mrs Thatcher’s memoirs which indicates a lack of interest in the matter altogether. While it is true that she believed in the “traditional” (aka heterosexual) family, this was most likely a generational trait rather than a dislike of gay people. As it has been indicated by many people on her inner circle, there were no indications of prejudice on her attitudes towards openly gay colleagues. On the contrary, she appointed gay ministers and spent many of her last days in the company of her close friend and openly gay Conservative MP Conor Burns, who used to visit Mrs Thatcher almost every Sunday until her death this week. This is hardly the attitude of an ardent homophobe.

Moreover, Mrs Thatcher’s government was the first in the world to launch a national awareness campaign to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS and promote safe sex. This campaign was a model for other countries who later adopted similar strategies. So even when the traditionalist Right wants to portray Mrs Thatcher as the embodiment of “traditional moral values” and social conservatism, and the Left pretends to characterise her as an ardent homophobe, the truth is she was none of these. Mrs Thatcher’s biggest passion was her belief that all our freedoms depended on individual economic freedom and that was her main focus during her long political career.

One of the most intriguing facts about Mrs Thatcher’s transformational economic policies –a fact that those on the Left of the political spectrum are hesitant to recognise– is that the liberalisation of the economy they produced led to a liberalisation of society’s moral conventions. Whether she wanted it or not, her liberal economic revolution led to a more liberal society.

But there are more areas in which both Right and Left seem to portray a picture of Mrs Thatcher that is not quite accurate. She has been labelled an “anti-European,” yet Mrs Thatcher campaigned for Britain’s entrance to the European Community. She was a strong advocate of the European Single Market and viewed it not only as a way to promote free trade and economic freedom, but also as a tool against Communism. Mrs Thatcher became wary of the European Community when the idea of a closer political union began to arise. The same convictions that made her a fierce enemy of socialism at home led her to believe that Europe was heading towards something far beyond economic cooperation: a federal European super-state. As she would later say in her famous Bruges Speech, “we have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.” In summary, she was not anti-European, but anti-European federalism, which are two different things.

There is another issue which perfectly exemplifies Mrs Thatcher’s complexity and that may take many by surprise. It was Margaret Thatcher the first world leader to warn of the dangers of climate change at the end of the 1980s, when the topic was not even on the global agenda. Mrs Thatcher believed that climate change posed a danger to future generations and action was needed to reduce carbon emissions and avoid tragic consequences in the future. She also pushed for the global phase-out of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). So there was much more to Margaret Thatcher than free markets and individualism.

The Dark Spots

Like any leader before and after her, Margaret Thatcher had many flaws and she made plenty of mistakes, some of them hard to swallow from a liberal perspective. She initially opposed the re-unification of Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. She feared the influence that a reunited and mighty Germany would have on Europe. But she was not alone in her fears; the socialist French President Francois Mitterrand shared her feelings. History has showed that her fears of a reunited Germany were proven wrong –although no one can deny that her experience as a young girl living in a Britain under attack from Nazi Germany had something to do with these fears.

Mrs Thatcher’s refusal to adopt economic sanctions against South Africa in order to put pressure on the government to end with the tragedy of Apartheid is also questionable. Although it is not true that she supported Apartheid as many of her critics on the Left argued at the time –she saw it as morally unacceptable–, her opposition to sanctions was probably the wrong call. Mrs Thatcher believed that by thwarting commerce with the African country, no reform was going to take place, since only a free economy would create the conditions for the abolition of Apartheid. Even though she once called Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress a “terrorist organisation,” she later put pressure on South Africa’s government to release Mr Mandela from prison and lift the ban on the ANC. Mrs Thatcher would later meet with Mr Mandela and write in her memoirs that “South Africa was lucky to have a man of Mr Mandela’s stature at such a time.” Whether her refusal to support sanctions delayed –as her critics claim– or accelerated the abolition of Apartheid –as she believed– belongs to history’s judgement.

But perhaps the most troubling aspect about Mrs Thatcher was her close relationship with Chile’s dictator Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet had helped Britain during the Falklands War providing valuable intelligence and Thatcher never forgot that. Even when we can understand the feeling of gratitude toward a government that collaborated in such a difficult moment, her embrace of Pinochet’s figure is hard to defend. This will always be the darkest spot in Mrs Thatcher’s political life.

A Legacy That Will Live On

Love her or hate her, no one can deny the far-reaching influence Margaret Thatcher had at home and abroad. Rather than being just another conservative leader, she was a radical, revolutionary and transformational figure. She was a true pioneer: The first woman to lead a major Western democracy; the first leader to radically embrace the return to free-market, liberal capitalism; the first to champion large-scale privatisation; the first to see that the West ‘could do business’ with Gorbachev and bury Communism through strength, but also through dialogue. Was she a small-c conservative then? In some ways, yes, she was a conservative. But the changes she generated in Britain and around the world are anything but conservative. When giving a lecture in honour of Keith Joseph, her philosophical mentor and fellow MP, she said: “The kind of Conservatism which Keith Joseph and I favoured would be best described as 'liberal,' in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr Gladstone.” Whereas she departed from liberalism many times, the core of her philosophy –her passionate belief in the freedom of the individual over the power of the state– could not have been any more liberal. It is that core the one which inspired most of the revolutionary policies that came to be known as “Thatcherism.” The sole fact that her name gave birth to a new “-ism” speaks of Mrs Thatcher’s massive influence on the global stage.

There is no denying that the medicine she prescribed to Britain’s economic decadence of the 1970s was sometimes painful and harsh, but was there really any alternative? Would Britain have emerged from its long-term stagnation if not for Mrs Thatcher’s bold and radical policies? Few now question her decision to liberalise the economy and create a more competitive, entrepreneurial environment. History has proven that her recipe, while harsh, was the right call. Perhaps the most ironic fact of Thatcherism is that it helped the opposition even more than Mrs Thatcher’s own party. While the necessary “dirty” work to get the economy moving was done during Mrs Thatcher’s premiership, most of the benefits that Thatcherism generated in the long term –economic growth, low inflation, low unemployment– were enjoyed by Tony Blair’s New Labour. But someone had to do the hard work, and it was the self-reliant lady from Grantham who did it. Someone needed to say “there’s no turning back.”

After eleven and a half years of a remarkable premiership, the world saw a renewed Britain in a transformed world. Many will remember Mrs Thatcher for her divisiveness and confrontational style, but most will remember her courage and determination to do what no one had the courage to do but was needed at the time. Many Britons will always be grateful to her for returning a once lost sense of optimism about their country’s future. Millions of Eastern Europeans will always be grateful to her for fighting to achieve the liberation of half of Europe from the chains of Communist totalitarianism. Many will only see her flaws and mistakes, but many more will always remember her as a freedom fighter. There is no question which side we are on.

***

Maria Hutchings or Mike Thornton?

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:40:57 +0100

Our choice in Eastleigh

While we don’t tend to make endorsements on by-elections and other minor elections, we have decided to express our view regarding tomorrow’s Eastleigh by-election in the United Kingdom. Unlike other by-elections, this one could have a bigger impact on British politics, the future of the Liberal-Conservative Coalition and the future of both, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.

It is no surprise by now that we like the current Coalition Government and most of the policies it has implemented, which we consider to be rooted in centrist classical liberal principles. It is no surprise, also, our dislike of tribalists on both the Tory Right and the Lib Dem Left, who have attempted (albeit unsuccessfully so far) from day one to fracture and destroy the Lib-Con arrangement.

Before the Eastleigh candidates were selected by the Tories and the Lib Dems, we were unsure as to which candidate should get our support. On the one hand, we have a high regard for the Prime Minister and his courageous attempts to modernise the Tory Party –most notably his unflinching support for equal marriage despite strong opposition from half of his backbenchers. So we would like to see a victory for him at the electoral level to appease those on the Tory Right trying to destabilise his leadership within the party. On the other hand, we also have a deep appreciation for the Deputy Prime Minister and his efforts to move his party from the centre-left to the sensible centre of British politics, embracing more liberalism and less social democracy within his party and reclaiming the mantra of Gladstonian liberalism. Thus, an electoral victory for the party would appease those on the Lib Dem left who are increasingly uneasy about the coalition with the Conservatives and are thinking about replacing their leader before the next general election for a more Labour-friendly –and less liberal-friendly– figure.

While the initial situation made an endorsement almost impossible considering our eagerness to support both, David Cameron’s and Nick Clegg’s leaderships, the candidate selection made it a fairly easy task. We are disappointed at the selection of Maria Hutchings as the Conservative candidate. Ms Hutchings is at odds with the Prime Minister’s efforts to modernise the party. From a (classical) liberal perspective, she’s wrong on immigration, she’s wrong on equal marriage and she’s wrong on her isolationist approach to Europe. She does not stand for Cameron’s liberal Conservative brand but for the right-wing fringe of the Tory Party. While this may just be an electoral speech to fence off the UKIP challenge from the right, we cannot support a candidate with such an illiberal discourse. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats’ candidate, Mike Thornton, presents a far more persuasive and centrist approach to politics –one that is friendlier to centrist classical liberals.

Therefore, even though we don’t want to see Mr Cameron weakened by this by-election, we believe the people of Eastleigh would be better served in Parliament by a sensible voice like that of Mr Thornton. We urge Eastleigh voters to support the Liberal Democrat candidate tomorrow.

Dear Italians, give Berlusconi a slap in the face at the polling booth

Sat, 23 Feb 2013 04:53:45 +0100

Our endorsement for the Italian general election

Italians go to the polls on Sunday and Monday amidst a difficult economic scenario at home and in the Eurozone. While the reforms taken by current Prime Minister Mario Monti to sort out the country’s fiscal crisis have had a positive effect –although much remains to be done on that front–, he has failed to put together a broad coalition to win the election and has decided to pander to socially conservative segments of Italian society.

Mr Monti’s centrist coalition is being challenged by the centre-left Democratic Party, led by Pier Luigi Bersani, and by the right-wing People of Freedom coalition, led –once again– by former PM Silvio Berlusconi.

There’s no doubt in our minds that the worst possible result for Italy –and the Eurozone– would be a Berlusconi victory. During Berlusconi’s years as Primer Minister, the Italian economy stalled. Mr Berlusconi failed to govern in a fiscally responsible way and much of Italy’s current economic malaise could be attributed to his disastrous administrations. But economic incompetence is not the only area in which Mr Berlusconi failed miserably. His governments were plagued with corruption, authoritarianism and scandals that made Italy the laughing stock of Europe. He should be resoundingly rejected by Italian voters.

On the other side of the political spectrum, Mr Bersani’s centre-left Democratic Party and its allies offer some refreshing socially liberal proposals in a country that remains anchored in the past on many fronts –most notably on LGBT rights. On the economic front, however, we are concerned by Mr Bersani’s left-wing allies, which don’t seem to be ready to embrace the kind of reforms necessary to control the country’s fiscal crisis. All in all, we believe Mr Bersani is a centrist figure who will realize the country cannot afford uncontrolled spending and fiscal profligacy (as many on the left-wing of his coalition would like to see).

Another voice in this campaign has been comedian Beppe Grillo and his populist “Five Star Movement,” which is polling third (above Mr Monti’s coalition). Despite his strong poll numbers, we can’t take Mr Grillo’s movement seriously. Its populist themes are more in tone with a protest party than with a serious governing coalition, and populism is the last thing Italy needs right now (it has had an enough dose of it with Mr Berlusconi’s administrations).

So who deserves our vote of confidence? We believe the best result for Italy would be a centre-left/centrist government with Mr Bersani as Prime Minister and Mr Monti as finance minister. For this to happen, Mr Bersani’s coalition shouldn't get an overall majority, that way he would need Mr Monti’s allies to form a government (of course Mr Berlusconi should be relegated to a second place below the centre-left coalition too). Another acceptable scenario would be a centre-left majority government, although this would make less likely the implementation of the economic reform agenda Italy desperately needs. But still, this is a preferable outcome to a Berlusconi victory or a Berlusconi-led minority government.

In the end, we urge Italian voters to give Berlusconi a slap in the face at the polling booth once and for all. After years of incompetence and corruption, he surely deserves it.

Vote for an alternative vision

Sun, 17 Feb 2013 06:24:43 +0100

Ecuador Votes 2013

Ecuadorians go to the polls today to choose a president and members of the National Assembly. As is widely expected, President Rafael Correa appears all but certain to secure another term in office due to the opposition’s atomization and inability to coalesce around a single challenger. In spite of this fact, we urge those Ecuadorians who believe in freedom to reject Mr. Correa and vote for an opposition party.

During his 6 years in power, Mr. Correa has been able to reduce extreme poverty and has provided a dose of political stability in a country that had seen a succession of presidents and failed presidencies before he came to power. But these apparent accomplishments have come at the price of essential political, economic and social freedoms. Under Mr. Correa’s rule, the executive has greatly expanded its power and has undermined the separations of powers. Essential rights and freedoms for any liberal democracy like the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression have been under constant attack by the government and the president himself. Economic freedoms have been curtailed and the rule of law undermined –the best example of this being the modification of the country’s Constitution in 2007. In many ways, Mr. Correa’s policies and authoritarian style remind us of Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela. His administration has joined the Western Hemisphere’s authoritarian bloc composed of the dictatorship of Cuba, Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, Evo Morales’ Bolivia and, to a lesser extent, Cristina Kirchner’s Argentina.

While the reduction of poverty indices is an important outcome, nothing justifies the infringement upon basic individual freedoms and human rights. That’s why we believe Ecuadorians should reject Rafael Correa and vote for the opposition party that best suits their ideas. Why are we not making an explicit endorsement? Well, to be honest, none of the alternatives is very compelling. Mr. Correa’s strongest challenger according to most opinion polls is Guillermo Lasso from the newly formed center-right CREO coalition. Mr. Lasso, a businessman and former banker, proposes a return to a more market-friendly economic plan and respect for the rule of law. While we share his pro-market instincts, we are troubled by his involvement in previous administrations not precisely known by their adherence to liberal democratic principles. Moreover, his commitment to personal freedom is far from certain. All in all, and considering the other alternatives, if we had a vote in today’s election, we would probably –and reluctantly– cast it for Mr. Lasso’s CREO coalition.

In the end, we urge those Ecuadorians who believe in tolerance and respect for everyone’s rights and freedoms –whether they come from the center, the left or the right, to reject Mr. Correa’s authoritarianism and vote for an alternative vision. The future of Ecuador’s democracy depends on it.

Vote for moderation and peace. Reject Netanyahu and Bennett.

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:00:53 +0100

Our endorsement for the Israeli general election

Even when a Netanyahu victory and what’s worst, a possible far-right coalition with Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home party, seems all but guaranteed, we feel the need to encourage Israeli voters to reject the extremism and war-mongering that such a government would espouse. The future of Israel’s prosperous democracy is at stake and the viability of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in danger. Moreover, Mr. Netanyahu has proved to be ill-equipped to handle the crisis with Iran, and appears to lack a plan other than a military offensive.

But the fact that Mr. Netanyahu seems on route to victory tomorrow can be attributed to the irresponsibility of the centrist parties. They failed to provide a viable alternative to the Israeli electorate. Instead of leaving their differences aside, Labour, Kadima, HaTnuah and other centrist parties failed to reach an agreement to fight the election campaign together against the extremism of Netanyahu’s and Bennett’s agenda. Their inability to work together puts Israel’s and the region’s future at risk.

If we had a vote, we would give it to Tzipi Livni’s HaTnuah party. Ms. Livni was the only opposition figure who tried to unite the centrist parties in a coalition to defeat Netanyahu and the far right. The other centrist leaders rejected her idea. She should be supported by those Israelis who believe in liberty and peace.

We hope Israel continues to be a beacon of democracy and freedom in the Middle East and rejects the extremist agenda offered by Benjamin Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett.

We choose freedom and opportunity.

Sat, 03 Nov 2012 21:56:39 +0100

Our endorsement for U.S. president

Four years ago, America made history –once again– by electing its first African American president in the midst of a deep financial and confidence crisis. Four years later, an America still worried about its future and its pocket –although no longer in a deep crisis– goes to the polls to choose between two men with two very different visions for the country. We believe President Obama’s vision is far superior to that of his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

When Barack Obama took office four years ago, the United States was immersed in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression; the entire financial system was on the brink of collapse; the economy was losing an average of 800,000 jobs every month; the automobile industry, key to Midwestern states’ prosperity, was near collapse; surpluses had been turned into massive deficits and with them, the national debt had exploded. Besides this calamitous economic picture at home, America was immersed in two costly wars abroad, one in Afghanistan, which, in many ways, was a necessary war, and one in Iraq, which was totally irresponsible and whose main effect was to shatter America’s image abroad.

Where does America stand today? On the economic front, the Obama administration prevented the collapse of the financial system, the lifeblood of the economy; it pushed for economic stimulus, which was necessary under those circumstances (yes, even when we believe in small government, pragmatism and common sense come first); it saved the auto industry from collapse, another government bailout which was necessary under those circumstances. It should be noted that one of the center pieces of the president’s stimulus plan was a round of tax cuts for those who needed them the most: the middle class and small businesses. These measures helped stabilize the financial system and the economy, and moved America out of recession and into growth –although still sluggish for American standards. Instead of losing thousands of jobs as was the case when the president took office, the private sector is now adding thousands of new jobs every month. Yes, these numbers are still not enough to talk about a full recovery, but they put America in a much stronger position than most of the developed countries in the world right now.

On the foreign policy front, the president abandoned the irresponsible war adventurism that characterized his predecessor’s administration and embraced a realist –and pretty Reaganesque– approach. He promised to put an end to the tragic neoconservative Iraq adventure and he did (in a responsible and common-sense way). He promised to focus on Al-Qaeda and those who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and he did, disarticulating the terrorist organization and killing its main leaders, among them, Osama Bin Laden, something the previous “tough” Republican administration was unable to do in seven years. President Obama has kept a strong alliance with Israel and has imposed tough sanctions on Iran, which is the right course, but he has also put a break on the bellicose instincts of Israel’s current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, preventing yet another war in the Middle East. America’s image in the world has been restored after a disastrous Republican unilateralist policy that left the country isolated and despised around the world.

The president’s record on the domestic front has been pretty impressive: two experienced and non-ideological Supreme Court justices appointed; oil imports down and American oil and natural gas production up; renewable energy production increased; fuel-efficiency standards doubled; funding for stem cell research restored; “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed; the discriminatory “Defense of Marriage Act” no longer defended by the federal government in courts; anti-hate crimes legislation passed; equal pay for women passed.

But there have been many disappointments as well. Climate change legislation is one of them. Even though the president had Democratic super-majorities in Congress during his first two years in office, he failed to pass a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions. He and his party also failed to accomplish comprehensive immigration reform. And although his health care reform ended the scandal of more than 40 million Americans without health insurance in the world’s wealthiest country, it didn't do enough to increase efficiency and reduce skyrocketing health care costs. We are also disappointed that the president didn’t embrace the recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission to address America’s biggest long-term challenge: its massive national debt.

But unlike the caricature Republicans want to paint of him, Barack Obama has not been a partisan warrior. His record has been centrist and pragmatic. He challenged his party’s protectionist wing and did the right thing by signing into law free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. He challenged the teachers’ unions with his “Race to the Top” education reforms that implemented performance-based standards for teachers and promoted charter schools. And he has kept firm on Iran, explicitly saying that the United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, although without the typical warmongering that characterizes today’s Republicans.

But what about the next four years? Does the president really deserve a second term when America’s economy has not fully recovered and many Americans are still suffering? Has he made a case for being re-elected? We believe he has. His plan to continue investing in education and science is vital for the future of America’s competitiveness. His balanced approach to reduce the debt and balance the budget, which includes spending cuts and revenue increases, is far more persuasive than that of his opponent. With the economy now out of recession, if re-elected, Mr. Obama will have the chance to focus on America’s fiscal mess, and his proposals could actually pave the way for fiscal sanity, just like Bill Clinton did during the 1990s.

So what about the Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney? You could arguably think that, at a time when the biggest long-term challenge the country faces is its fiscal health, a former successful businessman would be the right person for the job. Well, not in this case. Mitt Romney may be a closeted moderate conservative, but his party’s extreme positions have pushed him so far to the right that it is hard to see how he could move back to the center if elected. Many have said that, once Mr. Romney is elected, he’ll abandon all the harsh rhetoric and policy proposals necessary to win the GOP nomination these days and will become the pragmatic Mitt of Massachusetts. We believe that simply won’t happen. Even if that’s his intention, his party won’t let him move to the center. Not even George W. Bush, who was revered by the GOP base, was able to push his only heretic policy proposal: comprehensive immigration reform. Imagine Mitt Romney, already distrusted by most conservatives and loved by no one, trying to push for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

That leads us to believe that a Romney presidency would be a remake of the Bush White House: irresponsible, budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthiest, unnecessary (and budget-busting) increases in military spending, a bellicose and unilateralist foreign policy, a weakened American image around the world, the appointment of extremely ideological Supreme Court justices, tax breaks for oil companies, the end of any hope of passing climate legislation, and a reversal of all the civil rights gains for women and for the LGBT community under this administration.

Even on the fiscal issue, a Romney presidency would be far less likely to reduce the deficit and the national debt. Mr. Romney has been unable to explain how cutting taxes across the board by 20% and increasing defense spending by the trillions would be reconcilable with deficit reduction and a path to reduce the national debt. But that shouldn’t be surprising. No serious economist can find a way to make that equation work. It’s simply not feasible.

When choosing a president, two things come to mind: policy and character. During the last four years, President Obama has put forward sensible policies that averted an economic collapse, improved America’s standing in the world, and put tolerance and inclusiveness at the center of the agenda. His policy proposals for the next four years offer a continuation of this path and the strong possibility of a new –and necessary– focus on fiscal sanity. Governor Romney’s policy proposals would go back to fiscal irresponsibility, military adventurism and social intolerance.

But if Mr. Obama has the upper hand on policy, he leads by miles on character. Even if you disagree with him, you can’t deny he’s a man of principle. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about Mr. Romney. When you have a candidate that has changed his positions on almost every possible issue on the political spectrum (from gay-rights supporter to social-right crusader; from pragmatic businessman to anti-tax warrior; from liberal to moderate to conservative to “severely conservative” to centrist back again), you really have to question whether that person has the character and integrity to aspire to the highest office of the land.

The choice on Tuesday couldn’t be clearer. Americans will choose between a vision of a country in which every individual who works hard has the opportunity and freedom to fulfill his or her potential, and a vision of a country in which privilege becomes more entrenched and where minorities are denied basic individual freedoms.

We know which vision we want for the future of America. We choose freedom over fear, opportunity over privilege. We choose Barack Obama over Mitt Romney.

* * *

See below our endorsements for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governorships and ballot initiatives.

U.S. Senate

Arizona: Richard Carmona (Democrat)

Florida: Sen. Bill Nelson (Democrat)

Maine: Angus King (Independent)

Massachusetts: Sen. Scott Brown (Republican)

Missouri: Sen. Claire McCaskill (Democrat)

Nebraska: Bob Kerrey (Democrat)

Virginia: Tim Kaine (Democrat)

U.S. House of Representatives

California – 36th congressional district: Mary Bono Mack (Republican)

Florida – 18th Congressional District: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Republican)

Illinois – 11th Congressional District: Judy Biggert (Republican)

Massachusetts – 6th Congressional District: Richard R. Tisei (Republican)

Minnesota – 6th Congressional District: Jim Graves (Democrat)

New York – 18th Congressional District: Nan Hayworth (Republican)

New York – 22nd Congressional District: Richard Hanna (Republican)

Utah – 4th Congressional District: Jim Matheson (Democrat)

Governor

Washington State: Jay Inslee (Democrat)

Ballot Initiatives

Arkansas:

Issue 5: Would authorize the use of medical marijuana in the state. Our vote: YES.

California:

Proposition 40: Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan (A “Yes” vote would maintain intact the work of the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission). Our vote: YES.

Colorado:

Amendment 64: Would legalize recreational use of marijuana with regulations. Our vote: YES.

Maine:

Question 1: Would overturn a ban on same-sex marriage in the state. Our vote: YES.

Maryland:

Question 6: Would legalize same-sex marriage. Our vote: YES.

Massachusetts:

Question 2: Would establish an "Act Relative to Death with Dignity". Our vote: YES.

Question 3: Would allow for the use of medical marijuana in the state. Our vote: YES.

Minnesota:

Amendment 1: Would ban same-sex marriage. Our vote: NO.

Ohio:

Issue 2: Would create an independent commission to draw legislative and congressional district maps. Our vote: YES.

Washington State:

Referendum 74: Would legalize same-sex marriage. Our vote: YES.

Initiative 502: Would legalize and regulate the sale of small amounts of marijuana to people 21 and older. Our vote: YES.

Initiative 1185: Would require either two-thirds legislative approval or a vote by the people in order to raise taxes. Our vote: NO.

* * *

An historic opportunity to bury fascism in the Americas

Sun, 07 Oct 2012 02:27:50 +0100

Our endorsement for the Venezuelan presidential election

Venezuelans go to the polls on Sunday to choose between six more years of ‘chavismo’ or a new beginning. After years of non-competitive presidential elections since Hugo Chávez came to power, this is the first time an opposition candidate has a real chance to defeat the South American autocrat and his authoritarian regime. Chávez’s challenger, Henrique Capriles Radonski, was selected as the presidential candidate of the Democratic Unity Roundtable (or MUD as its Spanish acronym) in a February primary. After years of division, opponents of the regime were finally able to put ideological differences aside and unite to defend what they all share in common: liberal democratic values, which have been constantly under attack by an authoritarian, illiberal regime prone to use fascist means to remain in power.

The MUD is a broad coalition that includes opposition parties from left, right and center, which, despite their differences, are united in their support for liberal democracy, the rule of law, human rights and individual freedom. The coalition’s program stresses the need to respect democratic institutions, preach tolerance and advance a centrist economic agenda that encourages private investment but also protects the safety net on which many Venezuelans depend. Mr. Capriles himself has said that his model would be the social democratic policies put in place by the Brazilian government, although he doesn’t hide his pro-enterprise instincts in a country that desperately needs them.

Under the Chávez regime, Venezuela has seen its inflation rate go through the roof, having now the highest inflation rate in the Western Hemisphere and one of the highest in the world. Besides this inflationary tax, which mostly affects those on lower incomes, the country is victim to constant blackouts due to a lack of investment in basic infrastructure and despite record oil prices during the last years. But the government’s ineffectiveness is not only seen on its handling of the economy. One of the major concerns most Venezuelans now have is the country’s record crime rate. Caracas, the country’s capital, has become one of the most dangerous cities in the world, and the government seems unable to contain the out-of-control crime wave.

Besides Chávez’s incompetence in handling the economy and crime, what really troubles those of us who believe in freedom is the regime’s constant violation of basic individual freedoms and human rights. Persecution of opposition leaders and dissident public employees (last week three opposition activists were killed by chavista sympathizers who shot them from a PDVSA –the state’s oil company– van); unlimited use of state resources for political propaganda, including daily interruptions of all broadcasts to transmit Chávez’s speeches; expropriations of private companies without compensation; currency controls; the use of the country’s Armed Forces as partisan armies; expropriation of critical media outlets and constant attacks on freedom of expression. And the list goes on and on. No believer in human rights and freedom, no matter what his or her ideology is, can support these fascist methods. Chavismo has long ceased to be a democratic participant in Venezuela. It has even ceased to be simply authoritarian to become fascist.

That’s why this election is so important, not only for Venezuela or the Americas, but for the entire world. It’s not about capitalism vs. socialism. It’s not about left vs. right. It’s not about market economics vs. social democracy. This is about something larger. It’s about freedom (whichever way you understand this term) vs. fascism. And there’s no doubt where we stand here. We will always defend freedom and human dignity no matter where the attack to them comes from, far left or far right. Fascism is fascism, and it’s time to stop it at the ballot box in Venezuela tomorrow. That’s why we support Henrique Capriles Radonski for president of Venezuela.

Old-guard authoritarianism, left-wing authoritarianism or moderate conservatism?

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:10:23 +0100

Our endorsement for Mexico’s presidential election

Mexico goes to the polls tomorrow to choose a new president. While none of the main candidates can be described as “liberal,” we believe that there is one option that, at least, would respect Mexico’s free democratic institutions. That option is Josefina Vázquez Mota, from the conservative National Action Party (PAN), which currently governs Mexico under President Felipe Calderón. Ms. Vázquez Mota is far from ideal and we disagree with her on many issues, but we trust she will respect all Mexicans, regardless of political affiliation and ideology.

Ms. Vázquez Mota’s main rival and leading candidate according to most polls is Enrique Peña Nieto, from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) which governed Mexico for decades before the PAN came to power in 2000. The PRI’s years in power were marked by authoritarianism and corruption and, despite the message that “the party has changed,” we are far from convinced by that argument. The PRI doesn’t really have an ideology or political philosophy –it has gone from left to right according to the circumstances–, but something’s certain: the PRI has never stood for the liberal values we believe in. The PRI has always used the power of the state to gain more and more power, allying itself to criminals and drug cartels.

The other main candidate fighting for the presidency of Mexico is Andrés Manuel López Obrador, from the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), who was President Calderón’s main contender six years ago. Mr. López Obrador is a typical exponent of Latin America’s authoritarian, left-wing nationalism. While he’s less radical than Hugo Chávez –at least in his discourse–, he would represent a dangerous turn to the hard left in Latin America’s second largest economy if elected.

In the end, we have three clear choices tomorrow: a return to the old-guard authoritarianism of the PRI, a dangerous turn to the hard left with the PRD, or a moderate conservative government under the PAN. We have no doubt what’s best for Mexico and for its free democratic institutions. If we had a vote in tomorrow’s election, it would go to Ms. Vázquez Mota and her National Action Party.

Stick with Boris, stick with the Lib-Cons

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:57:33 +0100

Our endorsements for Thursday’s London mayor and local elections in Britain

On Thursday, Londoners will go to the polls to choose a new mayor (or to re-elect the current occupant of City Hall). Judging by his record during the last four years –and taking into account that, in reality, this is a two-way contest–, we believe the Conservative Boris Johnson deserves another term as Mayor of London. Despite his sometimes mercurial personality, Mr Johnson has proved to be a good mayor. We believe he has the right ideas on tax, transport, business and the environment. He has demonstrated having an independent mind, defying his own party –and rightly so– on vital areas for London such as immigration.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the Labour Party chose, once again, a candidate whose proposals seem out of step with the reality of the country. Besides his questionable connections with extremists, Ken Livingstone’s plans for London are anti-business, anti-growth and reminiscent of Old Labour. We think Mr Livingstone’s time is up.

Finally, the minor parties offer a mixed package. On the one hand, the Liberal Democrats have selected in the figure of Brian Paddick a decent, competent man. He has put forward interesting proposals on crime and the environment but, unfortunately, his campaign hasn’t taken off. On the other hand, the Green Party is giving us another of their usual doses of delusion, proposing more taxes, more spending and more statism.

With this scenario in mind, if RealLibs had a vote on Thurday’s London mayoral election, we would split it between Mr Paddick –as our first preference– and Mr Johnson –as our second preference–, which effectively means endorsing Boris Johnson for a second term.

But Londoners are not the only ones who will be voting on Thurday. Across Britain, local elections are taking place the same day. For the local elections, we have decided to support two parties: the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. We believe the national Coalition Government has served Britain well since it came to power in 2010. After a few tough weeks for the government, we believe it would be good for the Coalition to have a reassuring result on Thusday. And that means voting Conservative in those councils in which the Lib Dems are usually third in preferences, and voting Lib Dem in those in which the Tories are generally third. In those councils in which the main battle is between Tories and Lib Dems, we support a vote for the Lib Dems (after all, they need it more than the Tories).

Finally, we support a “Yes” vote on the mayoral referendums which will be taking place in many cities across England to decide whether or not to have directly-elected mayors.

In the end, our main objective on Thursday is to have a good day for the national Coalition Government. This will be best served by voting for Boris in London and for Tories and Lib Dems across Britain.