Posted on by Nathan Riley

What an Organizer Might Do

As we search for an enterprising person to get the Freedom Democrats started, imagine what their job would be.

Already, with a readership of less than 200 persons, legalize.blog has been banned from X. When I try to use it, this message appears: “SUSPICIOUS LOGIN PREVENTED. We blocked an attempt to access your account because we weren’t sure it was really you.” Controversy is a tried-and-true way to gain attention and attract interested people.

But the most obvious task of the organizer of Freedom Democrats is finding the sex workers, porn stars, and drug users who like the idea and want to lend their support to its development. The key selling point is that people in the “life” are organizing and asking their fellow citizens to vote.

The obvious objective is to expand until we can affect elections and offer public leaders support and comfort if they adopt our ideas.

This initial effort doesn’t have to be rigid. It might work best to have the first group of invitees to act as hosts with the purpose of setting up a more permanent group of supporters. The organizer would lead a discussion of the best structure. Are we talking about directors or a list of prominent supporters? Shepherding these choices is one obvious task for the organizer.

Another chicken-and-the-egg issue is using the initial supporters to raise money.

The organizer must also work with lawyers to devise a structure that is simultaneously decentralized, democratic, and coherent. Using the weekly party format for organizing local groups is an excellent way to get started. This project, I think but do not know, would involve tricky legal questions. For example, should the party permit alcoholic drinks? Does that mean young people can’t come? Does that mean the organization can be sued for, for example, a drunk driving incident?

All of these questions give the organizer a chance to acquire specialized knowledge and meet thoughtful and creative people. This is a job that will help build a person’s reputation, even if the person already has years of organizing experience.

Drawing up a preliminary budget and scoping out the legal issues might well be an initial task. The people who are in the “life” will want to read a thoughtful proposal before lending their support. In turn, the reputation of the people we recruit will create access to initial donors. It’s another example of the chicken-and-egg dilemmas that the organizer will confront.

I am searching for a person who wants to be on the ground floor of this project. Contact Nathan Riley at legalize.blog

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is Trump Winning Elections?

On Wednesday (March 26), Donald Trump, as part of his blizzard of new ideas and executive orders, announced that all foreign cars will have a 25% tariff. Presumably the three American manufacturers should be happy.

Curious, I looked for the American automobile manufacturers’ reactions. After saying they support President Trump, American Automakers, the trade association for American automobile manufacturers, was unenthusiastic. First, they wanted a durable solution, and the dramatic announcement of a major market change didn’t sound durable.

There is no sign that foreign competition is the American manufacturers’ major concern. The companies wanted answers to questions that governments normally provide before, not after, a drastic policy change is announced. General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler) wanted to “avoid raising prices.” Making it probable that their problem was not foreign competition but that their cars were too expensive for American buyers. If the tariffs raised prices and consumers could not pay them, the number of cars made by these automakers would decline. This worry was accelerated by another Trump tariff on imported aluminum and steel. Making metals more expensive means car prices will increase. Normally, a government carefully weighs these issues before starting a new policy. If Trump had done that it was clear he never told U.S. automobile makers. In fact, the suspicion is that Trump, forever the showman, picked the 25% tariff because he liked the number and wanted to make a public impression. No good can come out of policy changes that are not backed by serious study.

Stock traders also worried. The price of Ford and General Motors stocks fell. The day before the tariffs Ford stock traded for $10.30; by Friday afternoon, two days after Trump’s announcement of the tariff, it was trading at $9.65. General Motors went from $52.59 at the close of Tuesday to $46.39 on Friday afternoon. Stellantis went from $12.40 down to $11.30.

In other words, the 25% tariff imposed on foreign cars did not bring good news. I’m not concerned about the automobile manufacturers’ stock prices, but I am curious whether these businesses really want Trump to be President. It is likely that the rich and powerful are nervously watching the President and wish he wasn’t there.

There is evidence that most people are turned off by the Donald. An election in Pennsylvania for its state senate flipped the district. A Republican local elected official, Josh Parsons, lost to a local Democratic mayor, James Malone. What was red turned blue in a district that overwhelmingly supported Trump.

Even the Trump administration is worried; they told Elise Stefanik from upstate New York she should stay in Congress. She will give up her chance to be the ambassador to the United Nations. Far from New York City, in upstate, the Republicans are the majority, but the administration was worried, and it decided to play it safe and keep her in the Republican majority.

Plainly, Trump is losing support, but the Republican in Pennsylvania lost by the narrowest of margins. The next test of Trump’s popularity occurs on April 1st. In Florida, there are two special elections for Congress caused by the resignation of Republican members of Congress. Matt Gaetz’s successor is being chosen, and Mike Waltz, who resigned to become one of Trump’s national security advisors, will have his successor chosen. In Wisconsin, millions of dollars are being spent in a statewide election, choosing a state supreme court judge. Brad Schimel, a conservative, is running against Susan Crawford, a liberal. The winner will decide if the state’s highest court has a liberal or conservative bent.

Clearly, one reason Trump is losing popularity is the aggressive behavior of Elon Musk. The Democrats are insisting their judge will stand up to Musk while Schimmel will do the rich man’s bidding.

We are just days away from an early read on Trump’s staying power. If the automobile manufacturers and Pennsylvania voters are changing their minds about Trump, this helps explains the decline in his polling numbers. On Tuesday April Fool’s Day we will find out if Trump’s bull-in-a-chinashop style will hurt him in the elections.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is Trump a Tyrant?

Trump is making everybody nervous. His latest proposal for a 30-day ceasefire threatens his plans to establish normal relations with Russia.

Russia will only accept a ceasefire if Ukraine demobilizes its armed forces. Putin won’t allow Ukraine to rearm during a ceasefire, and so far he is winning this war. At the same time, Putin would look really bad if he rejected this idea. So Trump is making everybody nervous. Is he destroying the progress he’s made towards normal relations with Russia? Or is he making nice to the vast majority in the United States who damn Russia for invading Ukraine?

His other claim to progress in foreign affairs is the ceasefire between Palestine and Israel continues. But everybody is worried that war will resume any week now. Given the intense hatred between Israel and Palestine, this tension will remain normal.

The two wars conducted when Joe Biden was President horrified me and made me an unenthusiastic Democrat. Trump is doing so badly that he is restoring my enthusiasm for the Democrats.

His attacks on DEI, a desirable Democratic program, have inescapable racist overtones and anti-LGBTQ messages. His promises to dismiss and humiliate women make Trump indefensible. To nobody’s surprise, the President makes rational discussion impossible.

Diversity is a necessary ingredient of Democracy. It makes the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian Americans members of the same community. In this sense, it serves the goal of inclusion—we should all get along. Equity offers all persons in the United States an opportunity to choose their own path.

Trump tears down computer sites offering applications for student loans, making it difficult, if not impossible, for families to pay for higher education. Computer information about filing a complaint is quelled.

It is absurd and embarrassing that in the 21st century the United States is closing its Department of Education. All governments have education offices, and the United States looks screwy to close its department.

Clear signals are being sent that it is okay to hire whites and create obstacles to blacks and Spanish-speaking people. Turning the Civil Rights gains of the 1960’s into partisan programs supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans is a sop to those who accept the weak arguments that blacks and Spanish-speaking people take jobs away from whites. The objective should be finding jobs for everybody.

It is foolish to blame diversity, equity, and inclusion for making wages fall behind rising prices. The public has to make this clear to the political leadership. Prosperity is not full employment; prosperity is full employment if wages keep up with prices.

Trump’s pleasure at squashing DEI programs is too often embarrassing. On March 7th, the Enola Gay was removed from the Defense Department’s website. The word “gay” is a no-no, and Defense Department Secretary Hegseth has banned it from its website. Unhappily, Enola Gay doesn’t mean two guys holding hands; it is the name of the airplane that dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Like the censors, who try to squelch sexual scenes, banning words leads to foolish embarrassment that makes, in this case, the Defense Department look stupid.

Add it all up, and Trump appears to be volunteering for the role of tyrant. He is tilting at programs that make free speech and divergent political views feasible. He gets furious when his order doesn’t happen. Most adults accept that they only get their way some of the time. It is unclear if Trump has accepted this reality.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

What Do I Get For My Taxes?

Ralph Nader is a sharp critic of the Democratic Party. For example, he believes the Party made a fatal mistake when they abandoned most states to the Republicans.

Like many critics, he thinks the D’s dug a hole when they devoted their efforts to impeaching and damning Trump. Sensible voters want to know, “What will you do for me?” Hating Trump does not answer this question.

Nonetheless, Nader remains pragmatic. “We’re sick of not having the government return the benefits of massive taxation to us.”

 “All we hear about is empire abroad. All we hear about is more military budgets.”

His attack on the Defense budget is widely shared among left voters. The attackers wish this agency was a giant piggybank that could pay for programs that voters will love, like the expensive proposition of providing healthcare for all. This view is untested in elections. No candidate besides Nader has pushed it, and when he ran he was damned as a spoiler: a vote for him was viewed as a vote for Republicans. Like most Americans, Nader believes the nation and the party is controlled by wealthy donors. Having good ideas for changing this dominance would be popular and improve Democratic chances.

Good advice, even from an unfriendly source, deserves serious consideration. His test: making the government return the benefits of massive taxation is realistic and a guide for supporting or rejecting Democratic policy ideas.

He clearly lowers the importance of helping the transgendered, people of color, women, and other groups. His criterion is good policy is universal. It can answer the question “What will it do for me?” Using this test, the Democrats top priority should be finding policies that bring benefits to every voter.

The most obvious example is ending the copays and the costs of medical insurance. It’s an ambitious idea, saying that a person seeing a doctor shouldn’t have to reach for their wallet will be expensive. It would require constant political support. European countries regularly limit their medical budgets to keep costs in line. Obviously, that restricts some medical care.

 Such a program may be impossible in the United States, given the opposition to taxation. Countries like Sweden devote 41.4% of their gross domestic product to taxes, in return for free college, free medical care, and comprehensive laws governing vacation time, hours of work. A degree of government supervision that would make most Americans apprehensive.

Nonetheless, Democrats should find ways to reduce the cost of medical care. It is a basic program that voters will greet with approval.

Their recent record is discouraging. Since 2023, Congress has passed laws to bring high-speed internet connections to rural areas and schools. The thought is there, but nothing happens. On January 6, 2025, the new Congress updated the laws and time will tell if the high speed connections are installed. The failure by the Democrats to translate the thought into deeds is a reason why rural states are red and backed Trump.

It should be easy to do. Democrats and Republicans favor the idea. It would be a real-life example to the question, “What do we get for our taxes?” Hopefully, these connections will finally go into effect.

Reviving the Democrats requires actual changes to people’s lives. It is one thing to see the need for improving infrastructure, but voters are clearly correct; they want to know what actually got built. Joe Biden made this a priority, but the Democrats never convinced the public that the construction made the United States better.

Nader’s test showing voters how high taxes improve their lives is pragmatic and sensible. Democrats should adopt this test. Surely, the voter who asks, “I pay all these taxes, what do I get?” deserves more than a pat on the back. He or she should actually see the benefits. Reviving the Democratic Party means doing things, not talking about them.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump’s negotiating style

On Friday, Trump’s high tariffs on Canada and Mexico were in effect. On Monday they were gone.

On Tuesday Trump said the Palestinians must leave Gaza, the most extreme demand of Netanyahu’s ultra nationalist coalition. The United States should take over Gaza, he added. Within hours, European and Arab States including Saudi Arabia and Egypt said no way.

Trump had to have been pleased. The most extreme Israeli proposal had been trounced and died without Trump leaving any fingerprints. Indeed, he roped in the most extreme supporters of Israel. The ones most likely to contribute to the Republican Party and most willing to call Democratic doves antisemites were happy. They were convinced that their President Donald Trump was a true friend of Israel, uncontaminated by wishy washy moderates.

The Arab’s rejection presumably was music to Trump’s ear: no American troops would go to West Asia. But Trump was the crazy man who wanted to use American power in Palestine. Democrats’ reaction is still taking shape. They and their friendly media accused Trump of being a mad man, exactly the image he wanted to project.

The other step Trump took offered Iran unspecified goodies if Tehran gave up atomic weapons. A proposal that presumably sits well with the Saudi Arabians. Trump reached this step without looking like a moderate. Netanyahu was neutralized. He was a major endorser of Trump and has damaged, if not destroyed, his relationship with Democrats. Trump’s headline grabbing proposal to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” is actually the opening gambit for the intricate negotiations that could lead to stability.

Bloomberg reported, “US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he’s willing to immediately start working on a new nuclear deal with Iran that allows the country to ‘peacefully grow and prosper,’ seemingly softening his stance on the Islamic Republic.”

In a matter of hours, Netanyahu’s visit had generated a proposal to reduce tension with Iran. An outcome from the first face-to-face meeting between the President and the Israeli leader that nobody predicted. Trump had gotten the better of Netanyahu. Democrats were left sputtering. They don’t support the removal of the Palestinians and consider Trump’s Riviera proposal outlandish. Accusations that usually have the effect of increasing Republican confidence in Trump and making it unlikely in the near future that Democrats will play a constructive role.

There is no mystery to Trump’s method: open with an idea that will be rejected and then move on. Putting Israel in a box might create a stunning success—a cease fire that lasts.

The Democrats project competence as opposed to Trump’s chaos, but they lack Trump’s showmanship. The voters are evenly divided but Democrats should not be fooled with the comforting belief that Trump is crazy and incompetent. It’s safe to say that eventually Democrats will make more specific, even damning, criticisms of Trump’s Middle East policies.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley

It Wasn’t The Left, It Was The Party

It may be normal politics to blame the left for failures committed by all the Democrats. But the D’s should spread their net much wider. It was not just the left that made the party appear hapless in 2024.

My roommate, a poet, recently returned from a variety show at a Brooklyn home. A friendly gathering where photographers displayed their work, poets shared their creations, singers jammed, and everyone left with a warm glow—transgendered, gay, lesbian, or whatever choice the guests preferred. Who wouldn’t say “they” if that was the preference of a guest at this gathering. The left will only make modest changes. They are not a majority of the Democratic party, but it would be nearly impossible for this party to become a majority without their support.

In his book “Where have all the Democrats gone” Ruy Teixeira stresses the importance of social gatherings to cement political loyalty. Labor unions offered events and gathering places for years. Union members and their families and friends assumed we are all Democrats. That social cohesion is gone, replaced by the NRA and its social events. The assumption among this working-class group is we are all Republicans.

This is one meaning of the thought that the Democrats have lost the working class. Adding to this gap is the change in union membership. Industrial workers form one group among union membership. Other strong unions represent schoolteachers, government employees, and healthcare workers. Groups who identify as middle-class.

The industrial workers understand that their employers, be they General Motors or U.S. Steel, face stiff competition from foreign companies. They have softened their adversarial posture, recognizing that protecting their industry from overseas competitors requires a different approach. Needless to add, they are thrilled that Donald Trump will erect tariffs to protect their jobs and keep their employers competitive.

Teixeira seeks a revival of Democratic social solidarity with the working class, and he places great faith in a rejuvenated labor movement. His efforts should be encouraged, but he certainly is off base if he relies on blaming the left for causing the D’s problems. The left is here and enjoying its variety shows. It thinks Trump is a buffoon or even dangerous.

My roommate looks stunning in the dresses he frequently wears. His friends and I lavish him with compliments. He will continue to display his creativity. It is improbable that Teixeira’s reproach will have an effect on their lives and preferences.

And it will certainly be true that Kamala Harris would enjoy herself at one of these variety show. The Republicans scored a direct hit with the tag line “Kamala is for ‘they/them.’ President Trump is for you.”

Teixeira worries that the Democratic National Committee will favor the Kamala Harrises, and the NRA will retain its hold on working class. He is absolutely correct that this is a critical question; the tactic he favors, blaming the left for the D’s decline, misses the mark.

It might be the right tactic but it is the wrong analysis.

Roosevelt’s party defeated itself.

From the moment D’s decided to impeach Trump in his first term, they became enamored with anti-Trump hostility. It backfired. Democratic hostility proved to many Americans that Trump will make a difference. According to the Dems, Trump would destroy democracy and the rule of law. In other words, the Dems hostility convinced many that Trump is a genuine change agent. So great was mainstream party leaders’ faith in the electoral appeal of civic virtue that they spent years on venomous attacks.

Attacks that amounted to endorsements for the millions who thought the nation was on the wrong track. Undoubtedly the Dems kept the party united, but they ignored the crucial question: what will the party do to make America better. Trump had an answer. The Dems proudly touted their programs that helped the poor while allowing the nation to be flooded with low-wage workers. Obviously, it did not address the question. As of now, the Democrats still have not projected a program that will generate wage inflation. While Trump devotes most of his time to this popular task.

It was the Dems’ failure to have a popular and unifying program that allowed the trans issue to become a hot-button election issue. Had the Dems something to offer in the way of policy the trans issue would have stayed in the background. The left did not push the issue to the forefront. It was the Republicans. They got away with it because the Dems offered no alternative that engaged the voter.

The Dems are still at Trump’s mercy. They must wait to see if high tariffs raise Americans’ standard of living. Shifting the blame to the left avoids criticizing other wings of the Democratic Party, but it could stifle policies that truly compete with Trump’s.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

The News is about Peace

Since this piece was first published, immediately after the ceasefire, several criticisms became obvious. John Measheimer stressed there can be no peace with Israel where the Jews dominate the Palestinians just as the whites dominated blacks in apartheid South Africa. Unless Trump’s special ambassador Steve Witkoff can breathe new life into the Abraham Accords, allowing Arab gulf states to finance Arab peacekeepers, Israel will be the sole country judging if Hamas is complying with the terms of the peace treaty. In this circumstance, it is widely expected that Israel will renew its attack on Hamas. With the release of the hostages, Hamas will have lost its trump card pressuring Israel to act peacefully. Whatever else is true, this ceasefire is at best only a beginning.   

Friday, January 17, 2025

Days before Trump officially becomes President peace has become the news story. If all the provisions of the agreement become effective war between Israel and Palestine might be over.

Antiwar analyst John Mearsheimer concluded that the proposed treaty preserves the close relationship between Hamas and the Palestinians.

Palestinians will be able to return to their homes and Israelis will leave Gaza. Hostages will be released, and some Palestinian prisoners will get out of jail.

Israel might be compelled to live with a Palestinian nation says Mearsheimer, a professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago, who believes the goal of a Greater Israel might be over if this treaty begins a real peace process.

Although negotiated by President Biden’s appointees many Democrats are conceding that Trump’s forceful backing was critical. Trump promised to end the Ukrainian war on day one, but actually he may started peace in the Middle East on day one. A task everyone thought would be much harder. It is a stunning challenge to the Democratic Party.

Presumably a lasting peace will require peacekeepers. Trump is not going to send U.S. troops. One possibility is using Egyptian soldiers financed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. In return Israel will establish normal relations with other Muslim nations.

Iran would be on the sidelines. As a Shia nation it doesn’t fit easily with the Sunni Muslims who border Israel. In other words, optimists believe this is a big deal that might give Trump a place in history.

Nothing is certain but in a matter of days peace has become possible and this has worked a revolution in the political dialogue.

Consider the impact on the religious fundamentalist Trump appointed Ambassador to Israel. Mike Huckabee will have the happy task of soothing relations between Israel, the U.S. and Palestine. He won’t be a cheerleader for Israeli aggression that was the widespread anxiety in December. Rather he will speak a common language with Israelis who justify their actions by citing the Bible’s Old Testament.

This is a shocking possibility. The Republican hope that Jews will switch parties. It might happen because the new President is more diplomatic than the Democrats.

Democrats have spent years condemning Trump as lawless and stupid. What happens if it was the Democrats who refused to listen and evaluate?

Posted on by Nathan Riley

The Time is Now for Freedom Democrats to Organize

Anyone can start a Freedom Democrat club in their neighborhood—just throw a party.

Do that again week after week. The basic organizing principle is getting people who party to unite, pool their votes, and let the politicians see the support from those of us who think it is no crime to get high. The radicals among us can damn politicians for forcing us to buy drugs illegally. It is far better to get drugs as safe as those that treat allergies, headaches, and fevers. These drugs are made under strict government supervision, their doses are disclosed, and the pills are uniform. Drugs made in the illegal market in back rooms are unreliable and often dangerous. This is discrimination—a denial of medical care—against drug users.

More than 100,000 people die of drug overdoses every year, and most often at least some of their drugs are made illegally. It is doubtful that we can bring drug overdoses down to zero, but we can certainly make it unusual and rare.

 Politicians supporting drug prohibition simply told users of oxy, “Stop!” It is a policy that is wildly improbable. It is true that these drugs are addictive for some people, and that means, as any teenager and the public knows, that the users won’t stop, no matter what the government says.

It was a fatal mistake, and the officials who are supposed to curb crime were actually creating a market for illegal drugs. That is how bad policy spread fentanyl across the nation. By being strict, officials were bolstering the market for illegal drugs. In the name of fighting crime, they were encouraging it.

The thoughtless condemnation of drugs, like its related criminalizing of sex workers and the constant threat of curbing pornography, are unpopular, but those of us who fight prohibition must publicly call for a new policy.

These are Freedom Democrats.

This is not a new policy. The prohibition against abortion killed women and made medical care illegal. In state after state, with women leading the way, doctors were allowed to care for their patients.

But when it comes to drug use, the government limits medical care. This must stop. It is up to the doctor and his/her patient to determine the best way to proceed. If a doctor and a patient want to continue drug use, the patient should have access to drugs manufactured by pharmaceutical companies. The ill effects of these medications will be smaller, and no one will be forced to go to dealers. The big losers will be the drug syndicates.

Politicians, with great hesitation, are slowly realizing this truth. Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota who is Kamala Harris’s running mate, mocks Republican’s misplaced severity. Governor Walz says, “Across our nation, we have been witnessing a full-on assault against hard-fought, hard-won freedoms and rights: the freedom to vote; the freedom to be safe from gun violence; the freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water ; the freedom to love who you love openly and with pride; and the freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government telling her what to do.”

Walz updates freedom with his charge that for Republicans freedom means the government has the freedom to enter the examination room, tell us what books to read, and stop teachers from candidly discussing American history.

The time is right for Freedom Democrats to organize, so throw a party every week. The people who love freedom will increase visibility and push Democrats to accept people as they are, not as some wish them to be.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Why We Need Freedom Democrats

A big issue in the presidential election is abortion. Democrats, quite correctly, want to keep the government from interfering with the patient. It’s up to the woman to reach the decision with her doctor. Should she choose, she can invite other persons to participate.

In this country, by custom and law, the mother must raise the child, and it is only fair that she also has the responsibility to weigh the pros and cons of motherhood.

This is a radical principle. It makes the individual consult a doctor before reaching a final decision. Before making that decision, the woman has sex, and we think it common sense that this decision doesn’t require a visit with the doctor. We don’t have to justify this privacy principle.

The problem is the Democratic Party doesn’t go far enough, and Democrats who believe in freedom need to stick together and persuade other Democrats that freedom works. If a guy or a gal says, “You want to fuck? That will cost you.” This contract should be private and legal. If you’re making love to your hand, it is only your decision about what pictures to watch. Don’t let false sympathy for the performers in porn allow you to bring government regulation into the pictures that get you hot when you masturbate.

Condoms prevent the spread of venereal disease, but history has shown that many men and women don’t use them; they are willing to take their chances about catching venereal disease. 20th century medicine stopped syphilis from being a lifetime ailment. Cures are available for other V.D.’s. However well intended, a requirement that sex workers use condoms is false sympathy because in truth going bareback almost never results in V.D. This is not the recommended health message, but it is factually accurate.

We can’t get rid of government, and we shouldn’t. Properly done, government does good things. In the case of condoms, a performer must have the right to say, “I want a raincoat.”  The maker of the porn must say, “Sure thing, no problem.” Once again, we are dealing with questions of freedom, privacy, and the right to choose. The X-rated industry is huge and poorly measured; $10 billion is a common guess for the total spending in a year.

These jobs don’t require a college diploma, a drug test, or a check of your police record. From this perspective, they are some of the most desirable jobs. Taking off your clothes and doing sex that a director selects is work that most people will not do. That is one of the undesirable parts of this job.

Freedom Democrats support porn and worry that diehard opponents of dirty pictures will be out to get porn. They will be endlessly creative in their efforts to make us suspicious and hostile toward pictures that the Romans put on their walls for decoration. Not everybody likes porn, but enough people do that they should be supporters.

Prostitution allows fat, old men to have sex with fine looking people. There is something perverse in saying, “This is wrong.” Shouldn’t older men, even widowers, be allowed to enjoy this pleasure? In a free society, the answer would be obvious. It seems reasonable to concede that turning this most intimate of acts into a business should provoke societal concern.

But it is difficult for sex workers to get good advice about separating their work from their love life. A sex worker or a john is going down a rocky road if he or she thinks that love is developing. A sex worker who had a hard life growing up can easily believe that life would be much easier if this person made him or her a partner. The benefit that a sex worker gains from going into another person’s fine home can include tidbits of knowledge. In fact it is fair to say the more willing the john is to talk, the greater the benefit from the visit.  The relationship doesn’t have to be full-time, and indeed it is more than likely that the sex worker and the john would be unhappy living together.

The right to choose should be guarded zealously in a free society. On this issue, the Democrats are likely to be on the side of the angels.  But when we move to sex work, porn, and drug use and apply similar principles, the Democrats need convincing.

This is the principal justification for creating the Freedom Democrats; they must convince other Democrats to respect private choice and freedom.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Biden and the Left

Why are left Democrats supporting Joe Biden?

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and AOC, the member of Congress from the Bronx and Queens, don’t want him to leave. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes it is “crazy” to think the Democrats can drop Biden and preserve their momentum in November.

On Instagram Live, she supported the President and thought an open convention would lead to trouble. She believes party leaders show a “lack of thought” on how to confront legal challenges associated with replacing the nominee.

She called it “disturbing” that wealthy donors and social media “groupthink” are driving the debate. It could bring charges that would weaken the support that Biden has from union members and older Americans.

Obviously, Sanders and AOC don’t think Biden is perfect, but they also know that in many areas the Democrats are accepting left ideas. The President’s power to appoint is also the power to set policy. Government agencies under Biden have opened policy debates that would die with a Trump presidency, and whose fate would become uncertain with a new presidential candidate.

The National Labor Relations Board is willing to listen to workers’ complaints about unfair practices from bosses. This is big plus for unions. The Federal Trade Commission has started anti-trust actions that will need years to resolve. A new President might go in a different direction. Even if that direction is a positive one, the change in policy would harm the initiatives started by the Federal Trade Commission.

For the first time, federal agencies are discussing caps on rent for landlords receiving government tax breaks. The agencies are considering a limit on rent increases for those corporations receiving the tax benefits. It’s the first time the federal government has considered an activist policy to curb rent hikes. Traditionally, that has been a local matter. A federal restriction would benefit millions of families.

It’s not just abortion where the Biden administration has done a good job. Rents, restrictions on the power of Google, and assisting unions trying to organize workers have benefited from Biden’s influence.

It is no wonder that AOC thinks that the involvement of big donors spells trouble that might harm these Biden programs. It is unlikely that big donors want to make life easier for union organizing or to have rent increases restricted. By focusing on Biden’s infirmities, they could be laying the groundwork to rejuvenate conservative Democrats.

Sanders and AOC are being prudent and perhaps clairvoyant, but elections are almost always laced with judgment calls, and 2024 is no different. We don’t know what November will bring.