How Legal Cannabis Sales Help the Poor

The District of Columbia voted to legalize possession and non-commercial sharing of cannabis in last week's election. That's good, but the more important part of the law is the authorization of the DC City Council to vote to legalize (and regulate) the sale of marijuana if it so chooses.

This further action is necessary for the people in DC who suffer most from the effects of the drug war: poor minorities.

In my latest at Rare, I explain how marijuana for sale is better for the poor than marijuana for free.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

On Mia Love and Tim Scott

After last week's elections of Rep. Mia Love in Utah and Sen. Tim Scott in South Carolina, the Republican Party faces both a new opportunity in their minority outreach efforts, and a choice.

Although Love and Scott are both black conservatives, they are not the same. While they both tout personal stories that highlight 'pull up from bootstraps' narratives, the differences between them are nether subtle nor meaningless.

If the GOP wants to feel better about its rhetoric toward the poor and minorities without actually addressing their past transgressions, they should embrace Mia Love. If they actually want to address their relationship with black Americans, they could do much worse than Tim Scott.

Neither approach will bring a tidal wave of black support to the Republican Party, but resentment politics repackaged and delivered by a black person is not the way to reach out.

You can read my latest at Rare on this topic here.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Libertarians: "Pay No Attention to the Man Who Won't Stand Behind the Voting Curtain"

I already have made my personal reasons for voting clear.

However, my friend, colleague, and sometimes-editor Aaron Ross Powell has an essay up today about the moral case against voting. I understand where he’s coming from, and I’ll even concede the philosophical argument he makes in it.

But government and the elections that shape it are practical matters, not philosophy, so I respectfully disagree with its broader message.

There is a practical reason to vote, particularly for libertarians as a—gasp!—collective. 

Representative government is responsive to social needs, norms, and change, albeit in a very limited way. Political parties evolve, and respond to those whom they feel most obligated. The math certainly justifies the individual’s decision not to vote, but collectively, voting is quite meaningful.

I don’t understand the libertarians—some of them among the most prominent in the nation—who insist on supporting presidential candidates like Mitt Romney because the alternative is so much worse. Even if that were so, it’s fundamentally absurd to dependably toe the party line in fear of the alternative and expect that party to become more libertarian at the same time.

The incentives for libertarian acquiescence to either party for fear of the other is a recipe for irrelevance.

I often vote for a libertarian not because I identify as a capital “L” libertarian—I don’t—but because I want to express my displeasure with both major parties and in a way that shows my preference for smaller government. 

Aaron writes:

If you cast a vote today, there’s a pretty high chance that in morally significant ways you’re acting just like those friends mugging the old man. You may think there are good reasons for doing this, that a world where you vote for violations of basic human dignity and autonomy will be more livable—happier, freer, wealthier, more equal—than one where you don’t. But you’re still party to countless immoralities. You’re still expressing approval as politicians fail to live up to basic moral standards—and as they do so in your name.

By paying taxes on everything that I buy, and the income that I make, I'm already a party to these governmental immoralities. In many ways, I'm sure my money has gone to all sorts of terrible things both through taxation and participation in the market economy. My freely given or relinquished dollar does not sanction everything the recipient of that dollar does with or without my dollar. 

Likewise, my marginal preference for one major candidate or another--or neither, as I'm primarily discussing here--expresses only a preference, not an endorsement. A vote in one election does not convey approval for everything that person does, and there are alternative means--writing, calling, petitioning, organizing--that can later influence the behavior of that recipient while in office. 

And the more voters I can sway holds a lot more weight than a bunch of libertarians who are sitting-out on philosophical principle.

Whether or not we’re in a “libertarian moment” right now means less to me than communicating that the major parties will not, in fact, get my vote until they start paying more attention to civil liberties and reforming our criminal justice system. 

By myself, it’s not saying much.

But in toss-up districts and states, enough people who vote libertarian can, by shifting the margin, change the outcome of an election. A party that is on the losing end of that would be wise to cater to libertarian issues in the future. 

Yet, like clockwork, the libertarian corner of the Internet is riddled with arguments against voting today and, of course, is most likely to be read by people who agree with them. Effectively, libertarians are taking themselves out of political consideration. 

Not my idea of effective policy change.

Philosophy has its place, as it informs our beliefs and ideals. However, removing yourself—and, more damning, those whom agree with you most—from the election process eliminates the largest incentive for politicians to care what you and those like you believe.

It shouldn't be this hard to explain to libertarians that incentives matter.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Change: Ur Doin It Wrong

No, I'm not talking about Obama.

Even in last night's anti-incumbent "bloodbath," House incumbents had an 87% survival rate, roughly. That anyone thinks last night was a radical shift in our government is a damning indictment of the intelligence of the electorate and demonstrates an expectation to protect our professional liars class.

And these people are scared of "corporate money"--what the hell is it going to do? Knock the incumbency rate down to 84%?

Gimme a break.

bellum medicamenti delenda est.

Just for Fun Friday

The Pair on These Two!

Ok, so I'm scanning through my reader today and come upon this about the recent Congressional ethics investigations and exonerations over at DiA:

"Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member's actions are being influenced by campaign contributions," the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said in a unanimous statement.

In 2008, the seven lawmakers the committee cleared of any wrongdoing had steered $112m in earmarks to clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying organisation. In that same year, they accepted a total of $350,000 in campaign contributions from those clients. The contributions, they maintained, had nothing to do with the earmarks. And a committee of their peers backed them up. To paraphrase Jon Stewart in another context: I don't think they're stupid. I think they think we're stupid.

By the tone of the people harping on the Citizens United decision which freed domestic corporations and groups from onerous and arbitrary limits in independent expenditures (read: their own political ads without direction from, permission of, and wholly separate from political candidates), you'd think the floodgates guarding our fragile democracy had finally been opened to corporate America. It turns out, however, corporate America just needed to go to the right Congressional offices:

The representatives in question are Democrats Norm Dicks, Marcy Kaptur, James Moran, and the late John Murtha, and Republicans Todd Tiahrt, Peter Visclosky, and Bill Young.

Not surprisingly, and as far as I can tell, the Republicans were all silent on Citizens United. (Indeed, my superficial search shows that two of them may have taken from the case's namesake organization.) And, to their credit, neither the late Jack "Corrupt for his Constituency" Murtha nor Norm Dicks had the cojones to openly criticize the Citizens United ruling. (And yes, Murtha was still alive when the decision came down.) The same restraint could not be shown by Reps. Marcy Kaptur and James Moran.

From Moran's Citizens United press release:

Today’s Supreme Court decision represents a monumental step backwards for American democracy and will allow corporations to drown out the voices of average Americans. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn precedent and allow corporations to spend unrestricted resources on political activities will undermine the public’s confidence that the government is acting in their best interest on issues such as the economy, health care and energy policy.

Not to be outdone in testicular grandiosity, the gentlewoman from Ohio's Ninth district introduced legislation to curb express displeasure with independent expenditures (Official Summary):

1/8/2009--Introduced.Expresses the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo because the decision failed to recognize:
(1) that the unlimited spending of large amounts of money on elections has a corrosive effect on the electoral process not simply because of direct transactions between those who give large amounts of money and candidates and elected officials but because the presence of unlimited amounts of money corrupts the process on a more fundamental level; and
(2) other legitimate state interests which justify limiting money in campaigns, including the need to preserve the integrity of our republican form of government, restore public confidence in government, and ensure all citizens a more equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

We need more outrageous hypocrites like Jim Moran and Marcy Kaptur as the standard bearers for restoring "public confidence in government" because we should have exactly much confidence in our government as we have in them. Clearly, direct quid pro quo bribery is much better for democracy than the warping influence and appearance of independent spending.

Just for Fun Friday

Sorry this is late. Been a busy day.

Gonna try and blog about the NFL playoffs tomorrow. Enjoy!

Cut the Taxes. Cut the Spending. Cut the Jesus.

So, what can we learn from the three two and a half electoral contests of note last night?

The gubernatorial victories for the GOP in Virginia and New Jersey showcased explicitly free market conservatism with a muted tinge of social conservatism. That, I think, is a good thing.

As for the NY-23 election, the Tea Partiers and talk radio yahoos put all their chips in against a Republican in favor of a guy whose first issue on his website is "Gay Marriage." He lost, and thus another Democrat holds a seat in the House. The nation's two newest governors-elect did have social conservative messages on their sites, but they certainly weren't highlighted and considerably down the list of priorities.

Lesson: Cut the taxes. Cut the spending. Cut the Jesus.

Jesus is all well and good for emulating his life and taking his lessons to heart. But until he starts feeding the unemployed with fishes and loaves, best leave him at home and at church on Sunday. Whether you think Jesus was just a wise man, a prophet, or the Savior of mankind, a politician he was not. Keep him in your heart, if that's your thing, but leave him out of politics.

The pundits will say what the Dems need to learn from yesterday and what it means to the president and health care and all that, but I think the Republicans should take heed as well. Last night's victors were decidedly not Huckabee and Palin Christian populists, yet all signs point to those two in leading the GOP in 2012.

Let's hope the Republicans get the message from yesterday too.

The Curse of Ron Paul's R3VOLUTION

Some people just don't know when to quit:

[Y]ou can bet Rep. Ron Paul will be running for the White House again, probably as a Republican. Not so much to actually win, mind you; RP runs to make a point about less government and foreign intervention.

Yes. I believe we've heard that before. We've also heard about how people who have worked for him in years past feel about the inherent criminality of D.C. residents and the "fleet-of-foot" hoodlums also known as black teens.

I believe Paul means well, honestly. But so many of his followers were as blind as they were loyal. Very much like the supporters of the man now occupying 1600 Pennsylvania, NW, the ultimate focus of the campaign was the man, not the message. Granted, when Paul spoke, it was more policy-oriented than mindless abstractions of "change"--but the result on his base was effectively the same: legions of starry-eyed, Kool-Aid swilling 20-somethings prating on about how the business of Washington has to change. Yawn.

Dr. Earmark, er, Dr. No cannot match the libertarian cred of better polished and more consistent candidates like Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and save the former's membership in the religion that believes in magic underpants*, no hint of racism from either one of them. They are younger, more articulate, and lack a cult of personality that is currently attached to everybody's favorite Texan goldbug.

*See Second Book of Nephi, Chap 5, v 14 & 20-22 in the book of Mormon

Ron Paul is too old, has too much baggage, and isn't a very compelling figure--despite what his wide-eyed followers would have you believe. (If you've never seen him debate or talk before, imagine a pipsqueak in middle school who likes to correct the teacher and combine that with a lovable grandpa that has recurring flashbacks to the days he was vibrant and relevant). It is time for him to step aside and let a younger generation of liberty-oriented individuals build on what he has been able to accomplish.

Only, in the future, let us not put the man before the message and remember: It's the liberty, stupid.

"Hate Crimes" Up Since Obama Victory

I'm annoyed when I have to read an English newspaper to read stuff like this:

Barack Obama’s election as America’s first black president has unleashed a wave of hate crimes across the nation, according to police and monitoring organisations.

Far from heralding a new age of tolerance, Mr Obama’s victory in the November 4 poll has highlighted the stubborn racism that lingers within some elements of American society as opponents pour their frustration into vandalism, harassment, threats and even physical attacks.

The article lists a number of crimes, but many of the instances don't exactly measure up to a reasonable standard of "hate crime." Of course all of these incidents are revolting, but some bigot writing "nigger" on a wall isn't worthy of federal law enforcement intervention, which is often the rhetorical reaction to so-called "hate crimes."

The Dems have been pushing to get tougher hate crimes legislation through but have thus far failed. It remains to be seen whether the hunkered-down Republicans in the Senate would be willing to stand-up to a new bill which will probably be making its way through the committees sooner rather than later--especially if incidents such as these continue to happen or, God forbid, escalate. I don't think the GOP is going to rediscover their federalist roots overnight and, I would guess, they will be unlikely to use the filibuster on such a sensitive issue--even though it would probably be the right thing to do.

Anti-lynching legislation made a lot of sense in the mid-20th century because, very often, lynchings had the tacit or even explicit support of local law enforcement officials. In spite of the still existent Good ol' Boy networks in police departments across the country, the notion of police collusion with lynch mobs is--happily--a thing of the past. Today, even in the most recent federal hate crime bill hearings on the Hill, local law enforcement was time and again proven sufficient in dealing with the vicious attacks on minorities. The guilty were caught and, quite rightly, punished severely. (Sitting in one of the pre-'Jena 6' hearings, I had trouble understanding why they were holding them to begin with, given that the perpetrators discussed were all caught and brought to justice.)

I don't take a definite position on enhanced local sentencing for "hate crimes"--I'm inclined to agree with it, provided they don't include mandatory minimums and the offenders clearly violate hate crimes laws. Problems arise, however, when these laws federalize assault charges and local governments rent-seek to get federal money to prosecute suspected hate crimes as prosecutors tack on a "hate crime" tag to a simple assault and battery cases.

For example, I would agree that a group of skinheads attacking a kid for being gay qualifies them for enhanced (local) sentencing. However, I would not condone upping a sentence for someone who got in a fight with a gay man at a bar just because he had used the term "fag" on previous occasions. If you can clearly tie the bigotry directly to the crime as the primary factor, then I'd be hard pressed to argue against it. Yet, very often, it's more a matter of fairness of application and trying to determine what someone had in mind, especially in rent-seeking situations as I described. The wider the door is opened for subjective assessments of motive that are tied to federal incentives, the greater the risk for abuse of the system and further injustice.

I was criticized on Culture 11 for being alarmist when I wrote that hate crimes could spike and bring federal intervention. As I said there, I hope they are right.

Now That I've Admitted to Crying to Thousands of Perfect Strangers...

Let me start off by saying it was an entirely new and somewhat bizarre experience having dozens of perfect strangers comment, criticize, and speculate as to why I cried at Obama's election--on several sites, no less. Some assumed I voted for him; others intimated that I would have had a different reaction if the person elected was a conservative; some expressed similar sentiments--and a lot of people said my reaction (and to a greater extent, the feeling of black people) is entirely overblown, if not shameful.

I'm going to leave for speculation my thoughts on all those topics. I can't very well address everyone's concerns or questions without dedicating the rest of this blog in perpetuity to making one moment make sense for everybody on the planet. However, I find it necessary to perhaps clear up one widely commented assumption that is simply not true: I am not moved by the Obama Administration and what it has in store for the nation.

I thought I had made it abundantly clear in my prefatory paragraph, but I can only guess that because I had a visceral reaction to an election, people assumed that emotion would then transfer to the resulting government put in place by that election. Not at all.

While I think Obama was marginally preferable to McCain overall, I fully expected the resulting presidency of either party to be largely a disappointment, if not an unmitigated disaster. What the vote on Tuesday said was something very positive about America, albeit with a complete and utter disregard for economics--though, neither nominee offered anything resembling economic sanity, admittedly. Basically, it was the election--not the presidency--that touched me.

So please, commenters on other blogs, stop assuming I'm an Obamaphile. Thanks.

Why I Voted

I have some friends who refused to vote today for one of two main reasons: 1) The economic "irrationality" of voting. 2) The principled opposition that a vote endorses the legitimacy of the offices, authority, and/or the inherently unfair rules by which most candidates are chosen.

Mathematically speaking, the first objection is a solid one. The second objection I don't really subscribe to, though I am somewhat sympathetic to it in theory.

What trumps these, however, is all-too-simple for me:



My great-grandfather was born to a slave. My grandfather was born in Meridian, Mississippi in 1883. My father in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1928. None of these men were born with the expectation of voting rights at any point in their lives. I am of the first familial generation that was granted that right by people who never lived to exercise it.

So, while my friends have their rights to deny themselves a right my our forebears fought, bled, and died for--I proudly exercised my right to vote today.

Call me sentimental.

A Laurel, and Hardy Handshake to Our New...

Sometimes, you just have to laugh at this shit:

So a canvasser goes to a woman’s door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she’s planning to vote for. She isn’t sure, has to ask her husband who she’s voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, “We’re votin’ for the n***er!”

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: “We’re voting for the n***er.”

Made me think of this gem from Blazing Saddles:


H/T: Amber Bryer-Wotte

Breaking News: ATF "Disrupts" Plot to Kill Obama; Scores of Black People

And the racists are mobilizing:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The ATF says it has broken up a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and shoot or decapitate 102 black people in a Tennessee murder spree.

In court records unsealed Monday, agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target an unnamed predominantly African-American high school by two neo-Nazi skinheads.

I don't know how competent these idiots were or how close they could have gotten, but I expect that more of the same is coming. The backlash against a black President may be both dramatic and bloody -- and not just for the (presumable) president.

Obviously, I don't think any violence will be widespread in the sense that states are going to secede again, but there are enough hate groups that may test the patience of the US security apparatus-- probably to the point that a Democratic majority Congress would go to extraordinary (and extra-constitutional) lengths to attempt to bring them under control. I certainly hope we won't have a spate of domestic terror cells, but I'd be lying if I said that it wasn't a small fear of mine.

Unconstitutional impediments to assembly, speech, and--of course--firearms, will only fuel the fire of the hate groups and perhaps cause them to grow, albeit to rather limited (thankfully) extent. The problem with this is not that terror-minded hate groups will be stopped before killing or otherwise harming people--I'm all for that. But perfectly legal yet marginal fringe groups might be targeted in anti-racist crackdowns just because some group of white boys with guns decides to name themselves "militia." It isn't as if the government doesn't already cast too wide of net for terror suspects. (You know, like the environmentalists who ended up on terror lists in Maryland.)

If and when that happens, the same Democrats and other liberals who are (correctly) arguing against domestic wiretapping and treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo may be calling for similar measures--at least as they apply to surveillance and suspicion-- to be used against our own citizens who may or may not be associated with domestic racial terror.

The problem with fighting for liberty is that often you're stuck protecting the rights of bastards. But being a bastard does not equate being a terrorist--even if you're a racist bastard with guns. I have a feeling that the political dynamics of the personal liberties debate may change once the targeted people under suspicion aren't named Khalid and Abdul, but rather Kenny and Cletus.

Let's hope we don't find out.

Hat tip: NJ Ray

For What It's Worth, I'm Sorry!!

No, this isn't me endorsing Obama. For varying reasons, not least of which is that I work at a 501(c)(3), I'm withholding public endorsement of any candidate. I'll expound on this later, but the point of this is, of course, humor.

Amen!

Radley, as usual, hits the nail on the head.

While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.

First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They've failed in staying true to their principals of limited government and free markets. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task — sending the nation to war. I could go on.

As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn't hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.

That's the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

Powell Endorses Obama

Yet another defection from the Republican ranks--and this one is a biggie:

WASHINGTON—Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president on Sunday morning as a candidate who was reaching out in a “more diverse and inclusive way across our society” and offering a “calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach” to the nation’s problems.

...

Mr. Powell’s endorsement exposed a fundamental policy rift in the fractious Republican party foreign policy establishment between the so-called pragmatists, a number of whom have come to view the Iraq war or its execution as a mistake, and a competing camp, the neoconservatives, whose thinking dominated President Bush’s first term and played a pivotal role in building the case for war.

Mr. Powell, who is of the pragmatist camp and has been critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war, was said by friends in recent months to be disturbed by some of the neoconservatives who have surrounded Mr. McCain as foreign policy advisers in his presidential campaign. The McCain campaign’s top foreign policy aide is Randy Scheunemann, who was a foreign policy adviser to former Senators Trent Lott and Bob Dole and who has longtime ties to neoconservatives. In 2002, Mr. Scheunemann was a founder of the hawkish Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraqi exile and Pentagon favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, who was viewed with suspicion and distaste at the State Department when Mr. Powell was secretary of state.

I was hoping someday for a Powell presidency, but his appearance before the UN selling the Iraq War pretty much killed that. It appears that throwing him under the bus like that has come back to haunt the GOP--as well it should.

The Republican party will undoubtedly react poorly to this, distancing themselves from Powell while not being too critical for fear of racism allegations. It's very possible some lower level operatives and emerging hacks will blame this on some sort of race thing, but it won't be official line. Regardless, however, I expect the party big-wigs to be personally--if only privately--offended as some sort of grand disloyalty. They are missing the larger point that not only McCain, but the larger GOP itself has lost its bearings and has offended a large number of us in the name of Christian populism.

Get Used to More of This

I've already documented cases of racism rearing its ugly head in this campaign, but as the election draws closer, it is predictably amplifying:



Oh wait, there's more:



And in my adopted home state, this loveliness (click on image for clarity):


It's people like this that make me fear for Obama's safety. I always thought that the first black president would have to be a Republican, and even then, he wouldn't be safe. I fear for my country.

Via Dave and Radley

Let Hypocrisy Reign

Via the Agitator.

Pick Your Poison

I am such a minority I’m nearly an anomaly: I am an undecided black voter. According to the ABCNews/Washington Post Poll from August 22, 95% of registered black voters have made up their minds—with 88% supporting Sen. Barack Obama.

Neither of the major party presidential candidates holds much appeal for me, but as a black man, there is an undeniably strong urge to vote for the first black president of the United States, in spite of my misgivings about his policies. While “Yes We Can” is nothing more than a catchphrase, Obama’s ascension to the presidency would demonstrate to black youths a tangible accomplishment of what they can do is hard to overstate.

I grew up in Fort Wayne, Indiana and went to the first magnet elementary school in the city. But, due to my family moving a few blocks out of the city school district, I was removed from the program and started a new school in the 4^th grade. My new school lagged far behind academically and was much less diverse. Whereas my old school had an array of ethnic, cultural, and religious students, my new school was dominated by two very distinct groups: white kids and black kids.

Up to that point of my life, my concept of race was virtually non-existent. That suddenly changed because race was a polarizing factor in my school and neighborhood. Looking back, the most poignant of many experiences was the one time a black classmate asked told me “Wow! You’re the smartest kid in the school!”

Not knowing the difference between education and intelligence, I shrugged and agreed.

And then he said, “And you’re black! That is so cool!”

Such an observation seems innocuous when taken out of context. But over time, I realized that this statement was indicative of how many black students—even by the age of nine—assume a position of (at least, intellectual) inferiority to their white peers. It doesn’t take a sociologist to realize that if a kid doesn’t think he’s as good as someone else—for reasons beyond his control—the odds of that kid succeeding are lessened dramatically.

A black president, while not a cure-all by any stretch of the imagination, could help alleviate the presumption of self-doubt.

But would the net gain in collective self-esteem really offset the potential economic costs of an Obama presidency?

Senator Obama’s views on trade are murky, at best. If he decides to enforce “environmental standards”—i.e., a tax via treaty—consumer prices will rise to the detriment of all, but specifically poorer, Americans. His pronouncements to tax “windfall” profits of oil companies will indeed raise gas prices, thus putting further economic burden on the poor. And for healthcare? Well, while his “voluntary” plan looks better than Hillary Clinton’s mandatory plan on its face (remember that the federal income tax is also “voluntary”)—the results of existing Medicaid-type programs are hardly exemplary and, indeed, sometimes tragic.

But it isn’t as if the alternative is any better. Senator John McCain is a graduate of a service academy, a decorated war veteran, a self-described “maverick,” and has an aggressive foreign policy—all of which, some think, make him qualified to be president. Yet, all the same could be said of George Armstrong Custer—and we all know how well that turned out.

So, I can pick a candidate that fills people—and specifically black people, my people—with a sense of pride as he simultaneously makes us poorer and less likely to overcome the substantial obstacles in the way; or I can pick one that may possibly send young people into bloody confrontations with the reemerging powers of the world at a cost of blood and treasure not yet calculable.

I think I’ll just flip a coin-- Heads: they win; Tails: we lose.