Bill Richardson: The Best Civil Liberties Candidate for 2008
Monday July 30, 2007
Background: Bill Richardson's Positions on Key Civil Liberties Issues
After careful analysis of the platforms of all 18 major-party presidential candidates, I have come to an inescapable conclusion: From a civil liberties perspective, Bill Richardson should be the next President of the United States. No other candidate in the running, Democratic or Republican, comes close.
Bill Richardson addresses the concerns of the libertarian left as well as any viable Democratic candidate. He is pro-choice. He supports a national civil unions policy and an end to workplace discrimination against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals under Title VII standards. He supports a citizenship path for undocumented immigrants and a renewed commitment to the Geneva Conventions. This, in and of itself, is good but not remarkable.
What is remarkable is that he also addresses many of the concerns of the libertarian right. Often described as the NRA's favorite candidate, Richardson has a record on gun rights that most Republicans would envy. He has also taken on the property rights issues raised by Kelo v. New London more directly than most governors of either party can claim by establishing a task force, last year, with the specific goal of drafting statewide legislation to put an end to eminent domain abuse.
Richardson is not a perfect candidate. He supports those campaign finance reform initiatives that receive ubiquitous support among the Democratic candidates, initiatives that sometimes pose a threat to the First Amendment's free speech protections. He also supports retaining the death penalty in some cases.
But Richardson does not need to be a perfect candidate, because there's no perfect candidate with whom he can be compared.
And when I say that, I'm looking directly at you, Representative Paul, and at the legions of online supporters who have understandably but mistakenly described you as the only true civil libertarian in the race.
The trouble is that by 2007 standards, Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be much of a civil libertarian. Jefferson put his imprimatur on a Constitution that was unabashedly supportive of a white supremacist system of slavery, that denied women the right to vote, and that was written by and for a small group of European Americans, nearly all of them members of the aristocracy. Ron Paul, of course, would do none of these things himself--but he makes the same fundamental mistake Jefferson did by failing to carry his best ideas to their logical conclusion.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote (emphasis mine):
In 1964, the U.S. government recognized this dynamic developing in the South through the practice of segregation. Black Southerners, marginalized from the political and economic mainstream of life by the practice of segregation, were ruled over by white overlords. They had no say in their government, and their government did not protect their rights. Black Southerners did not live in Jefferson's vision of a liberal democracy. They lived under the rule of an unaccountable white oligarchy.
Congress helped to change this with two crucial pieces of legislation: The Voting Rights Act, which protected black citizens' access to the polls, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation in public accommodations.
Ron Paul opposes both of these pieces of legislation. He does so, I am sure, out of a legitimate concern for the rights of states and a sense that the government has simply gotten too large--but the purpose of our government is not to protect the rights of its states, nor is the purpose of our government to stay small. And when Congress passed those two crucial pieces of legislation, it advanced Jefferson's philosophy of government in a way that he might never have imagined possible.
We must never go back, no matter how nondiscriminatory our intentions, no matter how noble our motives. Ron Paul's concept of civil liberties without civil rights is worthy of our attention, but it should never be reflected in the policies of our White House. Not again.
More About Ron Paul:
In some ways Obama is a superior left-libertarian to Richardson, and in many other ways he is a better overall candidate, but he is not an effective right-libertarian. In contrast to Richardson's A from the National Rifle Association, Obama holds a far more troublesome F. He has not worked on the property rights issue in any formidable capacity, either. And his background on campaign finance reform is more extensive, and more problematic, than that of his opponent from New Mexico. It would be intellectually dishonest to describe Barack Obama as the best civil libertarian among the Democrats when a candidate like Richardson, who so effectively merges the libertarian impulses of the right and the left, is still in the race. Obama rates second on civil liberties, but it is not a close second.
Bill Richardson addresses the concerns of the libertarian left as well as any viable Democratic candidate. He is pro-choice. He supports a national civil unions policy and an end to workplace discrimination against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals under Title VII standards. He supports a citizenship path for undocumented immigrants and a renewed commitment to the Geneva Conventions. This, in and of itself, is good but not remarkable.
What is remarkable is that he also addresses many of the concerns of the libertarian right. Often described as the NRA's favorite candidate, Richardson has a record on gun rights that most Republicans would envy. He has also taken on the property rights issues raised by Kelo v. New London more directly than most governors of either party can claim by establishing a task force, last year, with the specific goal of drafting statewide legislation to put an end to eminent domain abuse.
Richardson is not a perfect candidate. He supports those campaign finance reform initiatives that receive ubiquitous support among the Democratic candidates, initiatives that sometimes pose a threat to the First Amendment's free speech protections. He also supports retaining the death penalty in some cases.
But Richardson does not need to be a perfect candidate, because there's no perfect candidate with whom he can be compared.
And when I say that, I'm looking directly at you, Representative Paul, and at the legions of online supporters who have understandably but mistakenly described you as the only true civil libertarian in the race.
Honorable Mention: Ron Paul
No candidate more fully embodies both the strengths and the limitations of the pure right-libertarian perspective than does Ron Paul, who believes in abolishing the federal government as we know it, thereby creating a country where there is more variation in local law. Under Paul's vision of the country, someone can live under an almost Canadian utopian liberalism in Vermont, or live in a tax-free right-wing paradise in adjacent New Hampshire. Paul's vision of the country energizes the imagination and brings to mind the original vision of the Founding Fathers, who had no doubt never imagined such a large and dominant federal government. His party has by and large laughed off his ideas when they should be engaging them, and the media has by and large been ignoring his candidacy when they should be studying it. We have a great deal to learn from Ron Paul--being, as he is, the only true Jeffersonian in Congress.The trouble is that by 2007 standards, Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be much of a civil libertarian. Jefferson put his imprimatur on a Constitution that was unabashedly supportive of a white supremacist system of slavery, that denied women the right to vote, and that was written by and for a small group of European Americans, nearly all of them members of the aristocracy. Ron Paul, of course, would do none of these things himself--but he makes the same fundamental mistake Jefferson did by failing to carry his best ideas to their logical conclusion.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote (emphasis mine):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it ...Jefferson expressed an idea that was radical in 1776 and that is still radical today: That the purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people. Period. It serves no other legitimate function. How does a government do this? By preventing other, more oppressive de facto governments--based on the rule of the strong over the weak--from developing. Without criminal codes and the means to enforce them, the people become little more than property to the person with the biggest muscles, the deadliest guns, the most money, the most goons. That person is a tyrant, and his subjects are citizens of a tyranny.
In 1964, the U.S. government recognized this dynamic developing in the South through the practice of segregation. Black Southerners, marginalized from the political and economic mainstream of life by the practice of segregation, were ruled over by white overlords. They had no say in their government, and their government did not protect their rights. Black Southerners did not live in Jefferson's vision of a liberal democracy. They lived under the rule of an unaccountable white oligarchy.
Congress helped to change this with two crucial pieces of legislation: The Voting Rights Act, which protected black citizens' access to the polls, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation in public accommodations.
Ron Paul opposes both of these pieces of legislation. He does so, I am sure, out of a legitimate concern for the rights of states and a sense that the government has simply gotten too large--but the purpose of our government is not to protect the rights of its states, nor is the purpose of our government to stay small. And when Congress passed those two crucial pieces of legislation, it advanced Jefferson's philosophy of government in a way that he might never have imagined possible.
We must never go back, no matter how nondiscriminatory our intentions, no matter how noble our motives. Ron Paul's concept of civil liberties without civil rights is worthy of our attention, but it should never be reflected in the policies of our White House. Not again.
More About Ron Paul:
Honorable Mention: Barack Obama
It is a study in opposites to move from Ron Paul, who understates the importance of civil rights, to Barack Obama, the best civil rights candidate in the race. Obama spent 11 years as a civil rights attorney and constitutional law professor; he has done grassroots organizing in low-income areas of Chicago; and he is a black man, which quite frankly does qualify him to understand the effects of racial disparities better than other candidates.In some ways Obama is a superior left-libertarian to Richardson, and in many other ways he is a better overall candidate, but he is not an effective right-libertarian. In contrast to Richardson's A from the National Rifle Association, Obama holds a far more troublesome F. He has not worked on the property rights issue in any formidable capacity, either. And his background on campaign finance reform is more extensive, and more problematic, than that of his opponent from New Mexico. It would be intellectually dishonest to describe Barack Obama as the best civil libertarian among the Democrats when a candidate like Richardson, who so effectively merges the libertarian impulses of the right and the left, is still in the race. Obama rates second on civil liberties, but it is not a close second.
Other Candidates
Here are my thoughts on some of the other candidates currently in the race:- Hillary Clinton: I remember Clinton as one of the most compelling advocates for the first Clinton administration's policy agenda, an impression that is reinforced by her decision to bring husband and ex-president Bill Clinton along on campaign stops. Trouble is that the Clinton administration's civil liberties agenda was pretty terrible in spots--much of what we blame on President Bush, from FISA violations to extraordinary rendition to the faith-based initiative to the unitary executive theory to anti-gay "sanctity of marriage" rhetoric, originated with Bill Clinton. So should we associate her with the first Clinton administration or not? It would be unfair to blame her for the policy decisions of her husband, but because she was in so many instances the first Clinton administration's public face, she has an obligation to explain why she will be a different president, and one hopes a better president, than Bill Clinton.
- John McCain: The civil libertarian who isn't. While he wins points for opposing the ludicrous Federal Marriage Amendment, he has largely caved on post-9/11 civil liberties issues. McCain also ranks poorly as a civil libertarian because he's a centrist in the opposite direction from Richardson--you would expect a Democrat to have perhaps co-authored the Senate's most comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation while holding a mere C+ from the NRA, but what do you get if you add those qualities to a Republican candidate who already supports a ban on abortion and wants to revise the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration?
- Dennis Kucinich: I love the ACLU and consider myself a proud member of the local chapter, but anyone who wants to argue that the organization leans left need only look at Kucinich to back up their point. With an astonishing 89% ACLU rating (by far the highest in the 2008 presidential race), this bold and freethinking candidate should be head and shoulders above the competition on civil liberties issues. So why is it that he has one of the worst First Amendment records in Congress--holding the distinction of being the only candidate in the Democratic fold to have followed in John McCain's footsteps by voting for both campaign finance reform and the flag desecration amendment?
Comments
I’m not sure that I’ve heard Ron Paul says that he opposes the 14th amendment. Ron Paul is not opposed to amendments to the constitution in general. In fact, being opposed to amendments in general would of course be unconstitutional. True, he opposes birthright citizenship established in the 14th amendment–a stance that by no means implies upholding Dred Scott, but I’ve heard him speak in favor of every other aspect of the 14th amendment. Specifically, his view that constitutional protection preserving the right to life, liberty, and property should be extended to all American citizens is central to his platform.
The Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sure did stop racism. Yep.
Racism is a crime of the heart, and as such legislation can’t touch it. Law abiding non-racist citizens are harmed, and racist citizens simply find new ways to be racist that the law doesn’t cover.
Racism flourished because laws were selectively enforced. Violence and other crimes against blacks went unpunished, while crimes committed by blacks were overly punished.
The real solution isn’t to force people not to be racist, it’s to get them to understand why they should not be. And it takes generations, but that is the only way to stop it thoroughly and permanantly.
And the thing about women; 100+ years ago, almost no women could vote. Nobody viewed it as a problem then; it wasn’t a flaw in the constitution it was what everyone thought at the time. No doubt, 100 years from now, some common activity or decision we see as routine will be considered barbaric.
Bill Richardson is a member of the CFR which soundly disqualifies him for being best on ANYTHING.
Not only that, he himself is a huge racist, because he belongs to and supports the racist group La Raza. That my friends, is the Latino KKK.
That ought to clear things up for anyone who thinks he is the best on civil liberties!
Tom,
You have indeed done an heavy analysis of the various candidates based on what you believe to be true and what you are personally looking for in a president. Thanks for your efforts. Any candidate who is either a CFR member or attorney should be immediately disqualified as a candidate and never be trusted. They are not motivated to serve the interests of the American people. With these people it’s all about power, money and control of the people. Just do a bit of searching for information about who and what the CFR is and you will know the truth.
Sadly, as much as I love Ron Paul and everything he stands for, I believe he will be in great danger (If it even looks like he is getting close to winning.) I believe that the very powerful of this world (globalist, banking interests, military complex, etc.) would never allow Ron Paul to carry out much (if any) of his agenda, even if they had to resort to murder to stop him. I will personally register and vote for Ron Paul because he is the first politician that I have ever heard speak the truth in my sixty+ years of life. I want my freedoms and property rights restored. Only a Ron Paul type candidate could make this dream of mine come true. I will vote for Ron Paul no whether the polls say Ron Paul has a chance or not. By the results of your on-line poll it looks like Ron Paul is doing quite well. I can only hope this translates into real votes at the polls. Ending, a candidate like Ron Paul only comes along once every hundred years or so. I hope that America doesn’t blow the chance to have such a fine and decent man leading this country.
Well spoken Don. Also good comments by Bill A and NH.
Mr Head I strongly urge you to reconsider your rankings. While I agree that Bill Richardson is much better than all the supposed “leading candidates” he still falls short of Ron Paul in nearly every category. Please do more research on Dr. Paul and reconsider.
Tom, a little more research please on Ron Paul. I have heard many, many hours of Ron Paul speak about the liberty’s of all people, no matter what color, religion, sexual preference and so forth. His position is to stop thinking in “groups” as you are. Every man, woman and unborn child should have all the same rights no matter what (as long as you are here legally) I think it wise that if you want to be here, that you must swear your allegiance to this country. Otherwise, if you end up with a large part of the population (like the 15 million or so we have now)it puts the country at great risk of keeping it’s sovereignty, hence the North American Union, brought to us by the CFR which you evidently endorse or are too ignorant to know about. You also missed a very, very important thing that Paul stands for and you will never ever hear another politician with the guts to face it. He doesn’t like the idea that back in 1913, the “PRIVATE CORPORATION” Federal Reserve which is no more Federal than Federal Express was entrusted with the power to coin money and regulate the value there of. So we have a private corporation that prints our money out of thin air, loans it to the government and expects them\us to pay interest on it. How absurd is this?
I am sorry, but your narrow point of view regarding freedom falls short. You seem to be more interested in Hispanic and gay rights then that of all Americans.
What some seem to miss is that what government has the power to do for us, it has the power to do to us. Other candidates may support so-called “civil liberties” but they don’t support the underlying principle of human liberties. Ron Paul at least understands this and whilst he and I (and many others) may not agree on abortion, homosexual relations, and etc. he does not advocate for the sort of power that can take those decisions away from individuals.
I’m not surprised at Ron Paul’s ACLU ratings, among others. The questionnaires taht they put out for candidates probe the willingness of the candidate to spend taxpayer money. I am 100% pro-choice, but by the Planned Parenthood questionnaire standard, I am only a “little pro-choice” because I would not spend taxpayer money to pay for abortions or other family planning (or any health for that matter.)
Bill Richardson has been a huge supporter of Latino rights above all others. He wants to give free medical care (at taxpayer expense) to illegal immigrants. Thereby depriving taxpaying citizens of their money and fair access to health care. He’s a member of radical Latino groups that say things that would make the KKK blush with envy. No thanks.
Ron Paul is the only one who has a spotless record on civil rights. I think trying to equate his position with Jefferson’s less noble sentiments is stretching it a bit. The only reason why he has a problem with the 14th amendment is because it allows birth right citizenship for children of illegals (it’s been mis-interpreted to allow this actually).
Finally, having someone like Obama harp on constantly about “Civil Rights” is just getting really old. I mean we’ve been discussing this issue for decades and the trillions spent to alleviate the “problem” haven’t done anything. Perhaps the problem is we’re trying too hard to solve it. Many in the civil rights movement don’t want it to end. It’s their gravy train and they need to keep playing the guilt card.
It’s a shame that so many of these groups continue to want to break people into groups and not recognize them as individuals. Group rights don’t work. Only recognizing the rights of individuals can end civil rights abuses and result in everyone being treated the same.
Bill Richardson would not legalize marijuana or any illegal drugs.
Prohibition is the worst mass violation of Americans liberty. 55,000 US citizens are in state and federal prisons right now for exclusibvely marijuana-related offences. Another 200,000 are in jails for other drug offences. Every year, 1.5 million more Americans are charged with a drug offence and their families lives are made miserable, and the courts and jails swell and many make a lucrative living as a jail guard, prosecutor, judge, sheriff, rehab worker, urine tester, bail bondsman, etc.
Bill Richardson is good on medical marijuana but has said he opposes any further repeal of prohibition. Ron Paul would repeal prohibition immediately, pardon and free non-violent drug offenders, end the Drug Czar’s office (whose budget Paul votes to rescind every year). This is such a fantastic and enormous difference in the lives of millions of Americans, Ron Paul is clearly the better of Richardson and Paul in regards the liberties of the individual and the power of the state to punish peaceful & honest activities.
Ron Paul would certainly rescind the indictment against me for my seed selling activities that Alberto Gonzales has me being extradited to the US federal court in Seattle for. This is one Canadian who would be much freer if Ron Paul were President. With Bill Richardson, I’d probably still languish in a US federal pen for my entire life for the crime of sending harmless cannabis seeds over an invisible line (The US border) to consenting US adult citizens.
From the bottom of my heart, Go Ron Paul for President!
You say that Bill Richardson is good on gun rights because he is endorsed by the NRA. The NRA supports sundry gun restriction laws. The NRA is just as much an enemy of gun rights as Micheal Moore. Also, how can anyone who endorses the horrible actions of the IRS who prefer to go after small businessmen and confiscate everything they own without due process be the “best” on civil liberties? He also supports the war on drugs which is institutionalized racism.
I would just like to know one thing: Thomas Jefferson didn’t want women to have the right to vote. Question: where in the Constitution or the Declaration is the right to vote spelled out or guaranteed?
As for women voting, when you ask elementary school teachers how many senators come from each state and their eyes glaze over, can you really have much confidence in their ability to make the right choice?
Aside to Jay Stang: Suffrage for women is guaranteed by the 19th amendment to the Constitution.
Like so many of the others who have posted here, it is my opinion that no other candidate approaches Ron Paul in his principled defense of civil liberties.
You state: “Black Southerners…had no say in their government, and their government did not protect their rights.”
It’s not simply that their government did not protect their rights. Jim Crow laws in Southern states actively denied those rights. They mandated racial discrimination by private businesses. Let us not pretend that, prior to federal civil rights legislation of the 1960’s, black Southerners were simply the victims of an absence of laws.
One candidate says we should look at all people equally and as individuals: The other want to break us up into groups based on skin color or sexual preference. Somehow, you reason that the former is worse on civil liberties?
Once candidate agrees that freedom to speak means freedom to spend – because speech unheard is the same as silence. The other wants to control speech with government regulations on who can say what and how loud. Your position is that the former is worse on civil liberties.
The death penalty (you mentioned that one).
One candidate wants to stop the war on drugs that accounts for 56% of our 3 million-prison population. The other would consider maybe scaling back the regulations on one drug in certain circumstances. Again, your conclusion is that the later is better on civil liberties?
Are you high?
Clearly Ron Paul is by far the best civil libertarian in the field. To say otherwise requires one to ignore the facts or redefine the meaning of the term.
You’re grasping at straws. You want so desperately to say something – anything negative about Ron Paul. And it shows!
It’s obvious to anybody with any intellect that George W. Bush no longer has any credibility with the vast majority of the American people. By continuing to pander to the delusions of a mindless minority of the gullible “religious right” the Bush administration and its supporters continue to diminish what little credibility they have left. The ideological, theological, and faith-based belief in government that they’ve promoted seems intelligently designed for fools, fanatics, and ignoramuses who won’t (or can’t) think for themselves and the flatulent phonies and bigots who lead them.
Some people feel that the quickest way to change the dishonest and defective policies promoted by this administration and its congressional supporters are to promptly impeach Bush and Cheney. This simplistic tactic ignores the realities of our political system. Neither the political will nor enough votes are currently available in the Senate and House to impeach Bush and Cheney - and they’re just the most visible part of a herd of self-serving oligarchs, autocrats, and hypocrites undermining our democracy.
Shouldn’t the first priority of a newly enlightened Congress be to establish a public financing system for all elections that would substantially reduce — if not eliminate — the corruption that comes from reliance on the legalized bribery called campaign contributions? All the politicians who have been bought and paid for can then be removed from office – but only if we all provide constant oversight, can see through the media’s superficial images and distractions, and are smart enough to understand what meaningful and substantive representation is all about.
It’s a waste of time and effort focusing on impeachment now. Congress has many vital matters that must be effectively resolved first. If Congress acts responsibly, they’ll show that they’re not owned by selfish special interests by providing meaningful legislation that resolves our real needs. Proceedings against Bush, Cheney, and anyone else who has been undermining our democracy can wait until after the next election.
Once the garbage has been thrown out and congressional reliance on special interest financing is eliminated we can get a comprehensive tax based national health care system administered by professional career public servants without political interference. A comprehensive energy independence program that creates new jobs, restores our environment, and frees our economy from the foreign military entanglements promoted by energy, military equipment, and financial interests should come next.
Ultimately, all government policies and services must be developed and administered pragmatically without ideologically partisan political interference. After showing some initiative, and enacting substantive legislation that fully serves the best interests of the majority of the American people, Congress can gather the evidence necessary to send corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and the selfish special interests that have been subverting our freedoms to jail. Obviously, this includes Bush and Cheney.
Everyone must understand that meaningful oversight of government requires continuous unassisted human reason and critical thinking rather than any irrational adherence to faith, ideology, and tradition. This will only happen if we all reorder our priorities and always use our brains instead of our passions – particularly when we vote.
PS: Any failure to respond indicates that you’re not thinking.
Tom Head, you would do well to read The Law, by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850): a French economist, statesman, and author.
Mr. Head seems to think himself wiser than Ron Paul or Thomas Jefferson, because Mr. Head can find more and better things for the Law (government) to do than those wise statesmen. Bastiat shows us how the expansion of the Law to more than its proper purpose perverts government: “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”
Zac’s comment about “…56% of our 3 million-prison population…” is an example of what will happen when the government is not kept within its limited functions.
Ron Paul has as much concern about the abuse of black citizen’s rights as Mr. Head does. Ron Paul would, however, be as concerned about any abuse by the government of other people’s rights as a result of government measures to correct the first problem.
All our liberties, property and lives are put at risk by politicians seizing on some problem to justify coercive measure to fix it (i.e. War on Drugs, War on Terror, etc.).
Mr. Head, you would do well consider that the true protectors of civil and all liberties are the people who want government strictly limited.
All, the politicians I have observed during my lifetime, except Ron Paul, are just itching expand the power of government at every utterance of, “There aught to be a law….”
Does anyone have information on what is going on with the KKK in southern indiana. I understand there are two cases currently pending in the Southern District of Indiana in which City of Bloomington officials (on down from Mayor Mark Kruzan) have conspired with KKK interests (including attorney William J. Beggs of the firm Bunger & Robertson) to drive the businesses of two prominent Jewish landowners out of town. See the cases involving Barbara Leonard and Seth Patinkin (07-cv-00482).
NONE of the candidates, not even Ron Paul, really stand for civil liberties. All except Paul advocate maintaining the theft (sorry, taxes) system. But even Paul support the forcible deportation of ‘illegal’ immigrant.
BTW, could you add a ‘nobody’ option to the poll.
why are all these people americans. i would think that americans rank quite low for respecting civil liberties. who can come up with a real list here? i have heard finland has some of the best civil liberties.