Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

Libertarian candidates jump into races to unseat King, Poliquin – Bangor Daily News

The list of candidates for Congress on Maines 2018 ballot continues to grow, including some from a new political party in Maine: The Libertarian Party.

Chris Lyons of Brunswick has announced he has launched a campaign to oust fellow Brunswickian Angus King, an independent, from the U.S. Senate. Farther north, Brian Kresge of Winterport has launched his own bid as a Libertarian against 2nd Congressional District Rep. Bruce Poliquin, a Republican.

Both are leaving the starting gates with similar messages: that Republicans and Democrats in Washington and at the state level have failed to lead and govern. And both are starting a considerably steep uphill slog as fourth-party candidates taking on established incumbents.

Call the prospect of a Libertarian candidate being elected a long shot, but thats also what was said about the party gaining official status in Maine in 2015 and 2016 as supporters sought to register the 5,000 voters they needed take the first step.

The Secretary of States office rejected some of the signatures in January 2016, spurring the Libertarian Party of Maine Inc. to sue. That lawsuit went on for months, resulting in a federal judge first ruling against the partys bid to be a party and then reversing his decision on appeal a month later. That allowed the libertarians to collect the additional registrants they needed and propelled their contention that Maines process for creating a new political party is unconstitutionally rigid.

Being an official political party in Maine affords candidates from that party a much easier path to the ballot, setting up a simple registration system in place of a more formidable petition-based system. The partys efforts are not over. It has to sent at least 10,000 registered Libertarians to the polls in November 2018, according to new legislation enacted this year.

Lyons, who is a contractor by trade, ran a write-in campaign against U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in 2014. He has yet to file for his 2018 candidacy against King with the Federal Election Commission but has already launched a series of campaign events. He said he is in the race to win it and that converting independents or voters enrolled in major parties is easy.

One thing Ive learned in the past couple of years is that it isnt so much that people become a Libertarian, he said during an interview on Wednesday. They simply realize they are one. Ive heard this time and time again.

Kresge, a senior software developer for RKL eSolutions LLD of Pennsylvania and Army veteran, said his priority as a candidate and congressman is to advocate for smaller, more effective government, which is at the core of the Libertarian ideology. Kresge also has not filed yet with the Federal Election Commission.

The Libertarian Party is here and is serious about representing your interests, Kresge said in a written statement on Wednesday.

The candidate lineups against King and Poliquin are still developing. So far, only Republican state Sen. Eric Brakey has jumped into the race against King.

This item was originally published in Daily Brief, a free political newsletter distributed Monday through Friday by the Bangor Daily News to inform dialogue about Maine politics and government. To read more of todays Daily Brief, click here. To have the Daily Brief delivered daily to your inbox, click here.

Originally posted here:
Libertarian candidates jump into races to unseat King, Poliquin - Bangor Daily News

Welcome Back to 1950, America The Lowdown on Liberty – Being Libertarian

George Santayana once said, Those who cannot remember the past are bound to repeat it, which cuts particularly deep this week for those who have been keeping up with the news. In America, communism is in on college campuses, the media is actively attempting to push us into a cold possibly hot war with Russia, and now we are contemplating whether or not a repeat of the Korean War is worth it. Its official, weve been thrown back to 1950 at least politically.

Its amazing how many people, given the overwhelming abundance of historical evidence against their case, will try to operate as if we havent dealt with our current predicaments before.

Libertarians have become rather well-versed with this line of reasoning, from the responses you get anytime you ask a collectivist where their theories have worked. That wasnt real [insert failed ideology]! theyll say, as they attempt to convince you to try some old-fashioned theory dressed up in a revamped, modern-day term. In 2016, for example, we had a self-described democratic socialist almost win the Democratic Partys nomination, if it wasnt for the party eating its own. Seeing students in America embrace a broken system with messianic zeal reveals just how blatant our regard for historical evidence has become.

And its the same story when you ask Republicans as well; just mention foreign policy. No matter which failed attempt at regime change you bring up, the neo-cons always seem to be convinced that this time will be different. Never mind the fact that when pressured into explaining why, the best response youll get will be Make America great again.

Whos to blame for this lack of basic historical knowledge though?

Is it our public education system, with their appalling literacy rates and test scores? Or perhaps its our media outlets, who openly claim its their job to scare people to death in order to push the narrative they want imposed. They successfully polarized both sides so extensively in the last election that our political sphere looks more like the 1850s than the 1950s in that respect.

In actuality, its all our faults, though. Anyone with an internet connection has the ability to learn history, yet the overwhelming majority do not.

Now, if you observe American politics through any sort of objective lens, it would appear as though George Orwells predictions have come true. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength was the mantra of the Party in the dystopian novel, 1984. Nowadays, Republicans are claiming to achieve peace from war; Democrats are espousing policies that say freedom will bring slavery; and everywhere, you see ignorance on both sides being rewarded as strength. Weve all heard the #FakeNews accusations being used on both sides. You mustnt let those other people tell you lies they like to say as the majority of Americans eat up the propaganda, leaving those of us who study history left to look on in horror.

Unless were willing to admit that some of the decisions made in the past were, in fact, mistakes, well sentence ourselves to suffer more loss of life in vain. Regardless of affiliation, lets allow ourselves to examine and consider the events of the past as they relate to our current situations. Because remembering history is crucial in making the correct political choices today. We may not be able to undo our mistakes, but we can certainly learn from them.

Lets embrace our history and stop pretending that any hot war, whether it be North Korea, Russia, or any of the superfluity of countries weve been involved in militarily the past 15 years will ever result in an improvement by any measurable account. Lets stop acting like more freedom for the individual in society will result in slavery for the rest of us. And for the love of God, lets recognize that collectivist attempts at egalitarianism never bear the results that they were supposed to on paper. This way we can spare our children from having to find themselves being thrown back into the political nightmare that 2017 has been fifty years from now. Lets get our act together, America.

Featured image: Encyclopdia Britannica

This post was written by Thomas J. Eckert.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Thomas J. Eckert is college grad with an interest in politics. He studies economics and history and writes in his spare time on political and economic current events.

Like Loading...

See the original post:
Welcome Back to 1950, America The Lowdown on Liberty - Being Libertarian

The Google Memo Exposes a Libertarian Blindspot When It Comes To Power – Reason (blog)

HotAir.com[This piece has been edited to correct Peter Singer's ideological orientation. Explanation at end of article.]

The "Google Memo" (read it here) raises at least two big questions from a specifically libertarian perspective: When does an employer have a right to fire an employee and how do social pressures work to shut down speech that makes powerful people uncomfortable?

The answer to the first question is pretty clear-cut, at least when talking about an at-will employee: Google (and other employers) should and do have extremely broad rights to fire any worker at any time. Exceptions rightly exist (and depending on the state one lives in, there may be fewer or more legal exceptions recognized by the courts) but they are narrow. Critics fear that at-will employment will result in chronic job instability, but no firm thrives over time by firing its workers on a regular basis and without good reasons (at-will employment also gives workers the not-insignificant ability to leave a situation without having to explain themselves or negotiate out of contractual obligations). The vast majority of Americans have never signed an employment contract (in nearly three decades of adult work, I know I never have) and are not the worse off for it.

Shortly before the memo's author was fired, Google's vice president of diversity, integrity, and governance wrote

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we'll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, "Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. 'Nuff said."

You might think that such values would have meant that James Damore, who penned the memo, might have been lauded for raising the issues he did, if not necessarily the way he did. Just earlier this year, at a shareholder meeting of Google's parent corporation Alphabet, chairman Eric Schmidt told an audience, "The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking."

But whether you agree with Google's specific decision in this case, there should be no question that it has the right to fire people. If a company does that consistently for arbitrary and unconvincing reasons (ranging from enforcing ideological consistency in non-ideological organizations to erratic management to whatever), it will have huge trouble attracting and keeping talent. But in a free society, every company should have the right to put itself out fo business through bad management practices.

James Damore says that his most-recent performance review at Google rated him as "superb, which is the top few percentile" at the company. Supporters of the firing say that nobody at the company would want to work with a person who publicly questioned the announced demographic diversity goals at Google, a fact belied by reports that "over half" of Google employees don't think he should have been let go. If his firing causes more morale problems than it solves, that's Google's problem and it shouldn't erode confidence in the system of at-will employment.

The second question raised by the Google Memodubbed "an anti-diversity screed" by Gizmodo, the site that posted it in its entirety apparently without reading itis a more-complicated and interesting topic from a libertarian point of view.

Damore titled his memo "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," and management's quick response to it underscores his titular implication, which is that political correctness has in many ways stymied any sort of good-faith conversation about issues touching on race, class, gender, and other highly charged topics. If libertarians instinctively only think about state power as worthy of critique, such a myopic perspective misses all the ways in which power asserts itself in society. As linguist Steven Pinker tweeted in response to Damore's firing, Google's hair-trigger response actually gives the supporters of President Donald Trump a juicy talking point in their war against the tyrannical ideological orthodoxy that Trump specifically said he was running against. From Pinker:

The situation is compounded by the fact that Damore's text is not in any sense the screed or rant that detractors call it. In fact, it starts with the statement, "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes" and continues

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.

The result is a discussion of possible causes, including genetic and cultural influences, for why Google's attempt to hire more women and minorities is going so badly despite massive and ongoing efforts to change that. I suspect that the real problem with the essay's logic (as opposed to, say, Damore's personality and reputation within Google, of which I know nothing) is calling attention to the costs and effectiveness of diversity programs along with their benefits, which are simply taken for granted. Additionally, he makes a plea for ideological diversity, which never turns out well in most places that say they value "diversity":

I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

At Quillette, a website whose editor says suffered a denial-of-service attack after publishing stories critical of Google's actions, Rutgers psychologist Lee Jussim writes:

The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. Its main points are that: 1. Neither the left nor the right gets diversity completely right; 2. The social science evidence on implicit and explicit bias has been wildly oversold and is far weaker than most people seem to realize; 3. Google has, perhaps unintentionally, created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot and instituted authoritarian policies of reverse discrimination; 4. The policies and atmosphere systematically ignore biological, cognitive, educational, and social science research on the nature and sources of individual and group differences....

This essay may not get everything 100% right, but it is certainly not a rant. And it stands in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky modern slurs.

That last point is indisputable, as the more charitable negative assessments of Damore include only calling him a "shitball" and the like. And of course, the near-immediate firing of Damore, thus at least superficially proving his large point that Google's commitment to "freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking" is a joke.

Even self-described Marxists leftists [*: see below] such as Princeton philosopher Peter Singer have criticized Google for its actions:

On an issue that matters, Damore put forward a view that has reasonable scientific support, and on which it is important to know what the facts are. Why then was he fired?

Again, from a libertarian point of view, one traditional response to Singer's question would be: Who cares, it's none of our business what a private entity does because libertarianism is ultimately about relations between individuals and the state, not individuals and voluntary associations they make, including employment.

The Google Memo controversy reveals the limitations of such narrow or "thin" libertarianism. Political correctnesswhich is both the enforcement of an orthodox set of beliefs and the legitimization of any criticism of those beliefsis an attitude that is hardly limited only to state capitols, state agencies, and state universities. It exists everywhere in our lives and should be battled wherever we encounter it since it undermines free-thinking and free expression, the very hallmarks of a libertarian society. We have not just a right to criticize the actions of private actors but arguably a responsibility to do so, even if there is no public policy change being called for (Google should be allowed to fire whomever it wants, though its grounds for doing so are fair game for public discussion). Libertarianism is ultimately grounded not in anything like knowable, objective, scientific truths, but in epistemological humility built on (per Hayek and other unacknowledged postmodernists) a recognition of the limits of human understanding and that centralization of power leads to bad results. That is, because we don't know objective truths, we need to have an open exchange of ideas and innovation that allows us to gain more knowledge and understanding even if we never quite get to truth with a capital T. At the same time, we need to allow as many "experiments in living" (to use John Stuart Mill's phrase) as possible both out of respect for others' right to choose the life they want and to gain more knowledge of what works and what doesn't. Political correctness is not simply an attack a given set of current beliefs, it is an attack on the process by which we become smarter and more humane. That's exactly why it's so pernicious and destructive.

With that in mind, here's Penn Jillette in 2011 talking about why he's a libertarian. It's a provocative and persuasive argument, I think:

[*] Correction: I originally mistakenly tagged philosopher Peter Singer as a "self-described Marxist," which is wrong. Indeed, in 2000, as editor in chief of Reason magazine, I ran an interview of Singer to discuss his new book, A Darwinian Left, which argued explicitly that progressives must replace Marx with Darwin at the center of their worldview if they wanted to remain a viable force in political debates. I regret the error. Read the interview, conducted by Ronald Bailey, here.

Go here to read the rest:
The Google Memo Exposes a Libertarian Blindspot When It Comes To Power - Reason (blog)

Libertarian Party Of Indiana Expands Leadership To Several More Counties – WBIW.com

WBIWNewslocal

Libertarian Party Of Indiana Expands Leadership To Several More Counties

Updated August 11, 2017 5:27 AM|Filed under: Politics

(UNDATED) - The Libertarian Party of Indiana announces the installment of new leaders in several counties across the state. This continues the pattern of growth for the LPIN, even in an off-cycle year for elections.

LPIN State Chair Tim Maguire stated that the Party has installed new County Chairs in Jackson, Knox and Hendricks counties. Those roles have been filled by Erin Meadors, Micah Haynes and Eric Knipe respectively.

"We're continuing to experience a surge in activity all around the state," said Maguire. "After the 2016 election, we never saw new interest in the Libertarian Party dwindle. Through that desire for liberty from our citizens, we have been able to identify the excitement found in these new leaders. They are just a small portion of the former Republicans and Democrats that have realized that the old parties don't represent us anymore."

Micah Haynes, the new chair of the Knox County LP, can be reached via email at micahcoyhaynes@gmail.com or by phone at tel: (469) 600-1821. The Knox County LP can be found on Facebook at http://facebook.com/KnoxCountyLP.

Eric Knipe, the new chair of the Hendricks County LP, can be reached via email at eric@ericknipe.com or by phone at tel: (317) 456-2297. The Hendricks County LP can be found on Facebook at http://facebook.com/hendrickslp.

Erin Meadors, the new chair of the Jackson County LP, can be reached via email at erinmpyle@gmail.com or by phone at tel: (812) 271-1500. The Jackson County LP can be found on Facebook at http://facebook.com/groups/165783433853863.

The first half of 2017 saw the expansion of Libertarian leadership in Carroll, Morgan, Montgomery and Jasper Counties.

Maguire went on to say that, "the Libertarian Party of Indiana is always looking for people interested in helping spread liberty by taking leadership roles in their community. I encourage anyone looking for a way to participate to reach out to me. We are excited about the possibility of working together with you."

Have a question or comment about a news story? Send it to comments@wbiw.com

Read more from the original source:
Libertarian Party Of Indiana Expands Leadership To Several More Counties - WBIW.com

Lee Fang on How a Little-Known US Libertarian Think Tank Is Remaking Latin American Politics – Democracy Now!

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman. A new investigation published by The Intercept exposes how a libertarian think tank called the Atlas Network is remaking Latin American politics with the help of powerful conservative institutions and funders in the United States, some of whom you may recognize, like the Koch brothers. This is part of a promotional video released by the Atlas Network.

ATLAS NETWORK VIDEO: Welcome to the Atlas Network. Were your connection to a network of freedom champions across the United States and around the world in more than 80 countries. Atlas freedom champions are knocking down barriers to wealth creation, fighting corruption and fostering free enterprise by reducing the role of government and protecting individual liberty. While politicians operate within the confines of what they consider politically possible, Atlas and our global partners think its more cost-effective in the long term to change what is considered politically possible.

AMY GOODMAN: The Intercept reports the Atlas Network is behind dozens of prominent groups that have supported right-wing forces in the antigovernment movement in Venezuela, as well as those that ousted Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.

For more, were joined by The Intercepts investigative reporter Lee Fang, who covers the intersection of money and politics, his new piece headlined "Sphere of Influence: How American Libertarians Are Remaking Latin American Politics."

Lee, welcome back to Democracy Now! Explain how you discovered what the Atlas Network was and what it is doing.

LEE FANG: Amy, thank you so much for having me.

This is kind of the very first look at the Atlas Network and its history from a critical perspective. This is a relatively obscure think tank and foundation in Washington, D.C., but its played an incredibly prominent role in taking the successful conservative strategies to push a hard-right libertarian policy agendayou know, ideas like cutting taxes for the rich, privatizing industry and privatizing pension programs, deregulation and attacks on labor unionsand taking the model of, you know, groups like the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute or the more local think tanks that weve seen proliferate around the Midwest, and teaching libertarian activists and business leaders all over the world to duplicate the American model in their home countries, you know, flying out localforeign leaders to Washington, D.C., to teach them management techniques, fundraising techniques, modern communication strategy, including even creating very clever YouTube videos to make these ideas go viral. And theyve played kind of a quiet role in reshaping the politics in countries all across the countryor, all across the world. But theyve had a special focus in Latin America, and were seeing their efforts really pay a large dividend with the political changes that are going on all across Central and South America.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain its title, the Atlas Network.

LEE FANG: Yeah. I think the Atlas Network is pretty clear tip of the hat to Ayn Rand. The current president of the Atlas Network, Alex Chafuen, grew up in Argentina. He was kind of in a family that was part of the Argentine elite, and kind of grew up in the turmoil of the '60s and 70s with multiple military coups and, you know, incredible violence towards leftists and perceived leftists. And Alex Chafuen was a devotee of Ayn Rand. He's still the president of Atlas Network today. And, you know, this is a group thats worked very closely with a small network of libertarian economists, folks like F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, to basically push back and win the war of ideas. And, you know, the model that theyve kind of set up in the United States is very well known, but what hasnt really been reported is how theyve translated these libertarian textbooks, but also exported the political strategies, that have put these policies in place in the United States, to other countries.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to go to Brazil, one of the places youve mentioned theyve been involved, to the former President Dilma Rousseff, comments she made last year after the Brazilian Senate voted to impeach her.

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] Theyve just overthrown the first woman elected president of Brazil, without there being any constitutional justification for this impeachment. But the coup was not just carried out against me and my party or the allied parties who support me today. This was just the beginning. The coup is going to strike, without distinction, every progressive and democratic political organization.

AMY GOODMAN: So that was the ousted Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Talk about the significance of what she said and how you think the Atlas Network was involved.

LEE FANG: We cant point to one single factor that led to the downfall of Dilma, but what I can say is that the Atlas Network has made a special effort to develop their think tank and kind of independent institute model in Brazil, so that the Atlas Network has over a dozen separate entities as part of their partner affiliates in Brazil, each organization kind of working using its own strategies but with the same goal. And the goal recently has been the impeachment and downfall of Dilma and her Workers Party. So, you know, one organization thats in the Atlas Network in Brazil is the Students for Liberty youth group that organized these mass demonstrations focusing anger at Dilma. There are Heritage Foundation-style think tanks that develop policy papers and host media pundits, who have, you know, gone out into the media and try to channel public outrage at Dilma. They develop YouTube videos, which have been very effective in spreading kind of viral political attacks against Dilma. Theres a religious institute thats an affiliate of the Acton Institute, which is affiliated with Betsy DeVos, now the education secretary. But theyve created an affiliate of that think tank in Brazil, that makes kind of a theological argument for hard-right economic policies.

So, you know, theres a network effect here, where the recent downturn in the Brazilian economy, these recent corruptions scandals have presented an opportunity. And the Atlas Networkand this is what theyve told metheyve taken the kind of political and economic crisis and seized it and used it as an opportunity to focus anger at Dilma and to push their very narrow set of economic ideas, you know, ideas that were popular in the United States in the early '90syou know, privatizing prisons, privatizing the education system. They're using the political crisis in Brazil to now push this very narrow set of, you know, once very unpopular ideas and push them to the forefront by taking advantage of this crisis that, in part, that theyve helped orchestrate.

AMY GOODMAN: Lets go to Venezuela. I want to go back a few years, toI think this was 2014, to the Venezuelan opposition figure Mara Corina Machado thanking the Atlas Network.

MARA CORINA MACHADO: Thank you to the Atlas Network, to all freedom fighters and democrats around the world for your support and inspiration. The well-funded silence of international complicity is overpowered by your voices of encouragement. Although the regime will not let me be there in person, through this means, I want to assure you that we Venezuelans remain firm in our quest to tear down the walls of oppression.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the Venezuelan opposition figure Mara Corina Machado thanking the Atlas Network. Lee Fang?

LEE FANG: Right. Well, you know, Venezuela is another country where this model has been applied, for a very long time. The Atlas Network works with a number of different think tanks in Venezuela to criticize, first, you know, the Hugo Chvez government, now the Maduro government. And again, you know, theres an unrelated crisis. You know, the Maduro government has suffered from a dependence on oil, and oil prices are low. There are a number of other corruption scandals and other kind of problems with managing the country. Well, the Atlas Network has seized upon this opportunity to push antigovernment protest. The leader we just heard from is affiliated with one of these Atlas think tanks, CEDICE, which is in Caracas. Its been there for a very long time. Its been funded by the Atlas Network.

And one of the other revelations in our piece today is basically that, you know, the Atlas Network talks about how any government funding is illegitimate, that foreign aid is basically a bribe, and theyre against foreign aid. At the same time, Atlas Network think tanks all over the world, including in Brazil, including in Venezuela, and in other countries, have relied on U.S. government money. The State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a government-funded think tank thats funded by taxpayer dollars, has quietly financed think tanks and Atlas affiliates in Venezuela and many of these other countries. And I think the simple reason is they hope that the Atlas Network helps to push American-friendly governments, that they help transform the politics of the developing world to be more friendly to American foreign policy aims. But it is kind of an interesting irony or hypocrisy that this libertarian think tank network has relied for a very long time on U.S. government money.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I wanted to take Venezuela to the current day. This is CIA Director Mike Pompeo talking about Venezuela just last month at the Aspen Institute.

MIKE POMPEO: Any time you have a country ofas large and with the economic capacity of a country like Venezuela, America has a deep interest in making sure that it is stable and as democratic as possible. And so, were working hard to do that. Im always careful when we talk about South and Central America and the CIA. Theres a lot of stories. So, I want to be careful with what I say. But, suffice to say, wewe are very hopeful that there can be a transition in Venezuela. And wethe CIA is doing its best to understand the dynamic there, so that we can communicate to our State Department and to others, the Colombians. I was just down in Mexico City and in Bogot, week before last, talking about this very issue, trying to help them understand the things they might do so that they can get a better outcome for their part of the world and our part of the world.

AMY GOODMAN: So, this is very ominous, Lee Fang. This the current CIA director, Mike Pompeo, talking about Venezuela at the Aspen Institute, working very hard, he said, on Venezuela. What exactly that means? And that leads to my question about how does the Atlas Networks machinations in Latin America compare with those of the CIA, or dovetail with themCIA, multinational corporations, etc., now and in the past.

LEE FANG: Yeah, thats a very interesting dynamic, you know, and we know some of the answers to that question thanks to the work of a number of journalists who have filed Freedom of Information Act requests in the past, also the diplomatic cables that were released by the whistleblower Chelsea Manning. If you take a look at those files, you see, at least historicallyyou know, we dont know whats going on today in 2017, but we do know historically that U.S. diplomats have leaned on the Atlas think tank network to set up meetings with opposition groups, to coordinate with protests against governments that we have an adversarial relationship with.

Venezuela is another great example of this. From FOIA documents, we see that, going back to, you know, the late '90s, just after Hugo Chvez'sHugo Chvez came to power, the State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy started providing large amounts of money to the Atlas think tank network in Venezuela to orchestrate protest movements, to criticize his government, to try to delegitimize his government. In fact, when there was the kind of brief 2002 coup, that brought Hugo Chvez from power for, you know, not a very long period, but there was an attempt, and we see from these documents that the Atlas think tanks sprung into actions to try to legitimize the new coup government. There was the Carmona Decree, this kind of document that saidyou know, from business leaders in Venezuela, saying, "Hugo Chvez has gone, and wed like to move on and have a new government." We see from this cache of documents that they are working hand in glove with the U.S. government, that these libertarian leaders, that had been trained in the United States and funded by the Atlas Network and from the U.S. government, were part of a larger strategy to bring down the Chvez government.

Now, we dont know exactly whats going on now, but we know from the diplomatic cables from Chelsea Manning that after that period, there were repeated attempts to orchestrate large antigovernment protests, to channel anger at the Chvez government and to hope for a similar situation where the opposition would be strong enough to bring the government down. So, I think its very likely that a similar strategy is playing out right now with the crisis in Venezuela. And indeed, we see the CEDICE and other Atlas-backed think tanks in Venezuela promoting the opposition.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk more about who is behind the Atlas Network and the money behind it.

LEE FANG: Well, you know, the history of the Atlas Network is very interesting. You know, this kind of goes back to the postwar period in both the U.K. and the U.S. There was a big kind of debate within the big business community: How to push back against the postwar welfare state? You know, in the U.K., they were nationalizing the healthcare system, creating the NHS. The U.S., the New Deal was still going on, you know, big spending on infrastructure and social welfare and the GI Bill. And there was the discussion: How do you push back against these ideas? And they struggled with the problem of credibility. Any time you try to call for economic libertarian ideas of cutting taxes for the rich or, you know, cutting welfare, it was looked at as an idea that simply benefited the upper crust.

So, you know, working with economists like F.A. Hayek and others, a British businessman created what we now call, you know, the conservative think tank. The Institute of Economic Affairs was the model, developed in London, that could do a rapid response kind of media pushback that provided an academic veneer to these, at the time, very fringe ideas. That was, you know, very successful in pushing and promoting the Margaret Thatcher revolution in the late 70s. Similar strategies were applied in the U.S. and created the Heritage Foundation model. The founder of the first of these types of think tanks, Antony Fisher, this British businessman, saw the incredible success in taking these once-fringe ideas, these hard-right economic libertarian ideas, and the think tank model, and he came to the conclusion that, you know, it should be duplicated in every country all around the world, that there should be a global revolution using these type of methods that have been honed in the U.S. and the U.K.

And big business chipped in very quickly. You know, companies like Pfizer, Shell, General Electric, they started providing a lot of money secretly to these think tanks. And they were hoping that, you know, they would receive tax cuts and deregulation, not just in the U.S. and U.K., but in other countries where they do business. So, it was always kind of a close partnership between these libertarian ideologues and these big business interests that hope to benefit from these policies.

So, Antony Fisher eventually passed away in the '80s, and he gave the reins to Alex Chafuen, the Argentine American who's still the president of the group today and has really been successful in exporting this model. You know, as you mentioned earlier and that clip mentioned, Atlas is active in now almost a hundred different countries. Theyre very prominent in Latin America, but they also play an influential role in Europe and in Asia and other parts of the developing world.

AMY GOODMAN: Lee Fang, talk about your conversation with Fernando Schler. Describe who he is and his role in undermining organized labor.

LEE FANG: Yeah, you know, this is thethat was a very interesting conversation. I went to Buenos Aires to attend an Atlas conference kind of focused on their Latin American efforts. And Schler basically made the argument that, you know, they got lucky with the Dilma impeachment. You know, this was kind ofthe stars aligned in terms of the economic situation and the political climate. But there is a long way to go to implement his kind of radical libertarian agendayou know, a lot of the ideas, like privatizing prisons or the education system, arent popular in Braziland that they would need to kind of change the fundamental institutions in Brazil for long-term policy change. And, you know, he pointed to the U.S. You know, in the U.S., there are large foundations that provide money for these strategies.

But also we talked a little bit about the role of labor unions. And, you know, the Atlas Network has studied the strategy used in the Midwest in the U.S., in places like Michigan and Wisconsin, where Scott Walker pushed through really radical attacks on labor unions, you know, pushing right-to-work laws, taking away or weakening collective bargaining rights for public sector workers, hoping to basically change the balance of power in that state, saying that, you know, their main ideological and political opponents are labor unions, so our first attack should be against labor unions. Schler, in Brazil, made a similar argument, saying that, you know, for long-term political change, he hopes to weaken Brazils labor unions, because labor unions are the greatest obstacle to their reform.

And whats interesting here is that Atlas Network has facilitated an exchange of ideas. The same kind of small think tanks in Wisconsin and Michigan and other states that pushed these labor reforms or labor changes have been brought in to teach the Atlas Network how to duplicate that model, how to outmaneuver the left, how to produce these slick videos and policy papers that delegitimize labor unions. And, you know, with this exchange of ideas, Brazilian think tank leaders and student protest leaders are being flown to D.C. and taught these very techniques.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about Sebastian Gorka, deputy assistant to the president. Now, last weekend, the Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington, Minnesota, was bombed, and the Minnesota governor condemned it as terrorism. President Trump has yet to condemn this attack. Interestingly, the deputy assistant to the president, Sebastian Gorka, went on television and suggested that the Minnesota mosque bombing was a "false flag" attack. Gorka was speaking on MSNBC.

SEBASTIAN GORKA: Theres a great rule: All initial reports are false. You have to check them. You have to find out who the perpetrators are. Weve had a series of crimes committed, alleged hate crimes, by right-wing individuals in the last six months, that turned out to actually have been propagated by the left. So lets wait and see. Lets allow the local authorities to provide their assessment, and then the White House will make its comments.

AMY GOODMAN: The Jewish newspaper The Forward reports Gorka has links to a Hungarian far-right, Nazi-allied group and supported an anti-Semitic and racist paramilitary militia in Hungary while he served as a Hungarian politician. Talk about Sebastian Gorka and the Atlas Network, Lee Fang.

LEE FANG: Yeah, the Atlas Network has incredible connections to the Trump administration. Sebastian Gorka, this very anti-Muslim pundit, hes, you know, been active with a number of conservative websites and kind of just suddenly sprung to power by being appointed to this very senior White House role. He once managed a small Atlas think tank in Hungary.

But thats just one of many different examples. Mike Pence has attended Atlas Network events and spoken highly of the group. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has served on several boards along with Atlas Network President Alex Chafuen. And, you know, the Acton Institute, this think tank thats heavily backed by DeVos, now has affiliates all over the world as part of the Atlas Network, including in Brazil.

And, you know, I think one of the most salient and interesting examples of the Trump administration connections to this Atlas Network is that the National Endowment for Democracy, this government-chartered foundation thats kind of an arm of American soft power abroad, that provides extensive financing to the Atlas Network think tanks all over the world, including in Venezuela and other places, after Trump was elected president, an Atlas Network economist and fellow, Judy Shelton, was elevated to be the chairperson of the National Endowment for Democracy. So now you have many Atlas Network think tank leaders or fellow travelers in senior positions in the administration, but also an Atlas Network employee helping to manage the U.S. foreign policy arm thats financing the Atlas Network all across the world.

AMY GOODMAN: And as were talking about Sebastian Gorka, in addition to the other roles hes played, he was an editor for thefor national security affairs for Breitbart News, which, of course, another key White House figure, Steve Bannon, was the head of.

LEE FANG: Thats right. Sebastian Gorka has, you know, really operated on the fringes. You know, hes been a figure on talk radio, on some of these very conspiracy-laden, anti-Muslim websites. But, yes, hes been on Breitbart for a very long time, editing pieces, advancing very ugly anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. So its incredible to see a figure like him, whos really operated on the fringes of American society, elevated to such a prominent role in the White House.

In terms of influencing the debate, you know, these arent just policy arguments that theyre making. The so-called Breitbart of Braziltheres a pundit named Rodrigo Constantino. He kind of uses very acidic, conspiracy-laden arguments to try to delegitimize the left, basically saying that, you know, even the World Cup logo, the use of the color red, is a conspiracy to advance communism. You know, he makes all kinds of arguments, you know, some of them similar to the Cadillac welfare queen argument that were familiar with in the U.S. Hes popularized these attacks on social welfare programs in Brazil. Hes actually backed by an Atlas think tank, the Instituto Liberal, in Brazil, and affiliated with a second one, as well. So, you know, the Atlas Network is not only managing the protests on the street and the policy proposals, but theyre also introducing the Breitbart-style commentary and media figures in countries like Brazil.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us who James OKeefe is, the conservative political activist, and how he fits into this picture.

LEE FANG: Well, as part of the Atlas Network exchange of ideas and management training seminars, you know, they frequently fly conservative leaders to Washington, D.C., and to teach them in the latest in communications technology and management techniques for running a successful political operation and think tank. They also bring in conservative kind of tacticians and leaders to teach about their tactics and methods. So, you know, they brought in Grover Norquist, the antitax activist whos played a very prominent role in tax debates in the United States. Theyve brought in the folks who were involved in pushing the Scott Walker reforms in Wisconsin.

And theyve also brought in people like James OKeefe. James OKeefe is a kind of internet and online provocateur. He teaches young conservatives to go undercover and to go to different left-leaning organizations, you know, places that help register poor people to vote, to Planned Parenthood, to other organizations that are affiliated with the Democratic Party or with the center-left. And he has these individuals engage in undercover videos, and, in some cases, has edited these videos to disparage the victims of these videos or to makein other cases, to make thesethe targets of his films look foolish or perhaps like theyre breaking the law. And, you know, hes played a very prominent role in recent political debates. He helped kind of destroy the organization ACORN, which is a local community organizing group. Well, you know, hes given seminars, as well, to the Atlas Network, to teach them his methods. So, you know, we might be seeing those type of strategies in Brazil or Venezuela or elsewhere.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Lee Fang, what were you most surprised in your research into the Atlas Network? And have they responded to your piece?

LEE FANG: I do not know if they have responded publicly. You know, I interviewed quite a few number of Atlas Network people for the piece.

The most surprising part of this was finding aboutfinding out about the extensive U.S. government financing for this network, especially given their antigovernment rhetoric. You know, I went to Buenos Aires, I went to New York, Las Vegas and Honduras, to speak to different Atlas Network leaders. But I also went to the Hoover Institute archives at Stanford University and went into the personal papers of Antony Fisher, the original founder of the first of these style think tanks, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and the original founder of the Atlas Network. And, you know, the government financing comes from the very beginnings of this group. You know, Atlas Network was originally technically founded in 1981. As early as 1982, I found letters from Antony Fisher writing to Reagan administration officials, asking for government money. So, I thought that was probably the most interesting revelation in all of this.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Lee Fang, I want to thank you very much for being with us, author of the piece for The Intercept, "Sphere of Influence: How American Libertarians Are Remaking Latin American Politics." This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. To see other interviews with Lee Fang, go to democracynow.org. Im Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.

Original post:
Lee Fang on How a Little-Known US Libertarian Think Tank Is Remaking Latin American Politics - Democracy Now!