One possible albeit unlikely scenario, courtesy of the NY Times delegate calculator. Though it remains to be seen how the race will play out, tomorrow will yield significant results.

Texans voted along with 11 other states during the Super Tuesday primary elections on March 1. For the Republicans, Ted Cruz won Texas and many Plains States, whereas Donald Trump took most of the South and Northeast. Hillary Clinton won a majority of states for the Democrats, but Bernie Sanders took a respectable amount as well. Looking at the current delegate count, Clinton has a large lead, and while Sanders’s campaign is unprecedented for an openly socialist candidate, Clinton looks like a solid favorite to win the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side, while Trump has the lead, Cruz has a strong second place, buoyed by a 17-point win in Texas over Trump.

I have seen reactions to these results over time from millennials on social media and in person. On the left, many support Sanders, while on the right, there is more ambivalence, especially following the suspension of Rand Paul’s candidacy after a fifth-place Iowa showing. But both sides ultimately express concern over our country’s direction. Millennials are looking for solutions to issues like student debt, a weak job market, and social issues like climate change and access to women’s health facilities. Of the leading candidates, Clinton and Trump have largely failed to garner support from voters in the 18-29 age group, and Ted Cruz has only gained reluctant support from former Rand supporters. Polling reflects this, even going as far as a 70 percentage point gap for Sanders over Clinton among voters under 30.

While Sanders may be able to galvanize younger voters on the left, younger voters who support limited government in economic affairs have fewer options. The focus on free tuition to alleviate massive student debt and a high minimum wage have gained the support of college students, recent graduates, and low-income youth struggling to secure a well-paying job. His campaign is unique in the focus on millennial voters. Yet the same demographic that has been the focus of Sanders this election cycle also supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, despite the many differences between the two candidates. Paul was even able to garner 48% of the youth vote in Iowa in 2012, as well as pluralities of those making less than $50K a year despite opposing most wealth redistribution programs.

But how could two candidates who are seemingly polar opposites attract the same demographics? Some point to similarities in social issues like drug legalization where millennials tend to be supportive. Others point to the fact that they are often deemed “outsiders,” although both were in Congress for several decades (and Sanders still is). Ultimately, both oppose the status quo that left Millennials with a bill in the form of a $19 trillion national debt as well as a poor job market and skyrocketing student debt. Millennials are looking for major changes, and Sanders is making this promise just as Paul did, even if their policy stances are widely different.

Looking towards the 2016 race, results in the week following the primary in Texas show Sanders with a surprise win in Michigan despite polling 20 points under, a huge boost for his campaign but one that is unlikely to result in Sanders being able to gain more delegates overall than Clinton. Trump is also leading by a wide margin, with Cruz winning some states and John Kasich finishing near Cruz for second in Michigan. Trump and Clinton are also expected to do well tomorrow, March 15, where voting is being held in five states, including the home states of Marco Rubio (Florida) and John Kasich (Ohio). If they lose their home states, they are effectively out of the race, and the best they could hope for is a vice presidential slot.

Ultimately, it’s looking like it will come down to a Trump vs. Clinton matchup in the 2016 general election. Neither are the favorite of millennials, so both sides will have to work hard to attract their support. How each candidate will do it remains to be seen.

http://www.texasmillennialinstitute.org/after-super-tuesday-whats-next/

2016 marks an increasingly divisive year in the realm of electoral politics. The candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have energized their respective parties, with Trump only recently losing his significant lead, and Sanders offering a strong challenge to Clinton.

I have written previously about the candidacy of Donald Trump and how it reflects on a large portion of Republican voters who are enthusiastic about his bigoted proposals to ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States and similarly restricting Mexican immigration with a wall rivaling the Great Wall of China.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is rallying the far left in a way not seen since at least the time of George McGovern, who lost in a landslide to Richard Nixon after gaining the Democratic nomination. The question of how Sanders fares in this election is yet to be seen, but the enthusiasm he has already generated merits an examination of his views in a similar fashion to how I examined Trump’s in my previous column.

Sanders, a U.S. Senator from Vermont, has a longstanding reputation as a maverick leader, running as an independent in his mayoral race of Burlington, VT, followed by his U.S. House and Senate campaigns. In addition to not holding any party affiliation, he openly declares himself a socialist, specifically a “democratic socialist.” This term has become increasingly common in recent months, as he has frequently used the term on the campaign trail to describe his set of beliefs. But what does this term really mean?

The answer is quite different than what Sanders himself believes. Due to an evolution in the term, socialism is no longer associated with the Soviet Union, but instead with the Nordic states that many progressive millennials in the United States view as a preferable economic model to the current one in America. What Sanders in fact advocates is social democracy, a term that looks similar to democratic socialism but is in fact quite different, as social democracy is a form of capitalism, not socialism. Sanders is content with labeling himself as a socialist despite his desire to use the state to assist capitalism’s growth and stability, rather than usher in an actual socialist revolution.

The importance of this distinction is evident when one considers both the political and economic structures of a given nation. In the political realm, the government can be heavily involved in the market, not at all, or somewhere in between. In the economic realm, production can be largely controlled by a handful of major corporations, by small business owners, by workers, or some combination of these. Sanders’s proposal is to have the government intervene in the market to a high extent and to have the means of production remain largely in the hands of major corporations. He would enforce a high tax rate on these corporations in a misguided attempt at mitigating the inevitable increase in income inequality, a reality that has been particularly evident in the past three decades.

Using an analogy I made in my previous Trump article, this would be analogous to trimming a weed rather than removing it at the roots. Without the ability of workers to control the means of production for themselves, the working class will be unable to get ahead regardless of the good intentions of the state. Thus, the problem is not a lack of government, but an economic system that makes it impossible for most to get ahead.

The reason for this is without worker control, workers will receive less than their fair share for their output, while owners and executives will usurp more than their fair share, or surplus value, from these workers. Redistribution of this capital by the government only serves to remove any incentive for firms to hire more workers, increasing unemployment and negating any benefits that the policy was intended to provide. Worker control avoids the need for the government to arbitrarily reallocate money. Instead, a free market can operate independently of government, without the risk of income inequality spiraling into the collapse that Karl Marx infamously predicted. Goods and services can be exchanged freely and the lack of an owning class means that redistribution through welfare and other government policies is unnecessary. Workers will have full control of capital without dependence on the state or big banks, as they will be a part of employee-owned businesses and can use mutual credit when necessary for the growth of the business.

Before voters get too excited for Bernie Sanders’s candidacy, they should take the time to understand the ramifications of his policy stances and what the results will be in practice. Like Trump supporters, fans of Sanders have legitimate grievances, but often misdirect their anger towards counterproductive ideas rather than solutions that provide permanent and effective benefits for all. Instead of viewing the government as a universal problem solver of economic calamities, Bernie supporters should continue to learn about what socialism is and strive to find ways to reduce structural economic inequality without expanding a government that will only serve to reinforce the Wall Street financial system that they so despise.

http://www.texasmillennialinstitute.org/1121-2/

It wouldn’t be a stretch to consider the 2016 election cycle as being defined by Donald Trump. The real estate mogul has consistently stolen the spotlight from candidates of both parties during the election season thus far, and it doesn’t seem to be ending anytime soon. With racially charged remarks like calling some Mexicans “rapists” and calling for a temporary halt to Muslim immigration regardless of origin, many voters from both sides are condemning his words. While his remarks are certainly deplorable, the fact that his poll numbers are around the 40% mark means that he is simply doing his job as a politician: getting elected. The fact that his poll numbers are so high despite these remarks are an indictment of the public, not of Trump.

This is demonstrated by a recent poll in which 65% of likely Republican voters back Trump’s proposal to temporarily suspend Muslim immigration into the United States. Looking at that kind of majority, Trump’s statement makes perfect political sense. Thus, the outrage should not be at him, but at the Republican voting base who share these sentiments, in addition to some working-class Democrats who could swing to Trump much as Reagan Democrats did in 1980.

My views of Trump have been shaped considerably by another presidential contender. During spring break in 2010, I had the privilege of meeting Rand Paul with a group of pro-liberty youth. In a Q&A session, I asked him why he opposed cutting defense spending, a statement he had recently made at the time. He replied that he would support cutting the rest of the budget to reduce spending, but leave defense spending the same. A few months later, however, he reversed this position and said he would support cutting defense spending. The difference was in the first case, he was in a Republican primary, whereas in the second he was in a general election where he was not forced to the political right.

Likewise, Trump’s historical policy stances suggest that he does not actually believe all of what he says. While he continues to remain to the left of the Republican Party on some issues, most notably single-payer health care and cutting taxes on the rich, he has changed some of his stances to garner support from the Republican base, such as on abortion.

There has been speculation that Trump is simply running to help Hillary Clinton become the nominee. This idea is justified based on Trump’s past, where he has contributed to Democrats and even had the Clintons at his wedding. Many also believe that his outlandish statements are meant to embarrass the GOP. If this was the case, his poll numbers should be low, reflecting the shunning of Trump by the Republican electorate. Yet just the opposite has happened.

The notion that Trump might become a force in the Republican Party explains Ted Cruz’s reluctance to attack him, and the two have been alternating for the lead in recent Iowa polls. While other candidates like Scott Walker have seen their poll numbers plummet after attacking Trump, Cruz’s warmer approach to Trump has helped him stay competitive. Even with Cruz’s recent surge in the polls and remarks against Trump at a fundraiser, the two remained cordial at the final GOP debate. Trump also reiterated at that debate that Cruz would be his VP pick, which could attract Cruz supporters and even make Trump more palatable to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party with Cruz’s “libertarian” bona fides.

Those who are outraged about Trump, whether they are Democrats who oppose his bigoted rhetoric, or Republicans who see him as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a boon to Hillary Clinton, will be wise to heed the words of George Carlin. In his monologue The American Public, he observed, “If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders.” He followed it up with the dry quip, “The public sucks.” Perhaps Trump’s popularity is proof of both.

As a result, it’s not Trump and other politicians that we should be outraged at, but ourselves. Just as one must remove the roots of weeds in order to prevent them from growing back, one must also instill in others a sense of respect for the liberties of all, regardless of race, religion, or other common identity. This bigotry among the public is the root that allows the weeds of bad elected officials to grow. As millennials, it’s on us to focus on the roots that will lead to the growth of a better America.

In my November 2nd blog post, I wrote about how Texas is attempting to defund Planned Parenthood in response to a number of videos by an anti-abortion group. While officials cite the alleged legal violations in the videos as justification, the actual result is a reduction in women’s health care that leaves many women unable to access a number of services without traveling long distances.

Another story outside of the state features noticeable parallels, but from the opposite end of the political spectrum. In San Francisco, the last remaining gun shop in the city, High Bridge Arms, was pressured out of business by burdensome regulations in the name of public safety. This time, instead of ultrasounds, waiting periods, and other forms of legally mandated shaming, San Francisco required gun stores to record firearms sales on video and give the city police weekly updates on ammunition sales. Due to the shop’s concerns about the city invading the privacy of customers, High Bridge Arms closed at the end of October. General manager Steven Alcairo was quoted as saying, “Just the idea of giving that information willingly to the police department, for no real reason, seemed very unreasonable to me.” He also stated that the shop complied with all state and federal reporting requirements.

But perhaps unlike Texas, the sponsor of the law, Supervisor Mark Farrell, wasn’t coy about his intent on shutting down the last remaining gun store, in contrast to Texas politicians who attempt to hide behind the rationale of public safety. “From my perspective, if the last gun store in San Francisco wants to close its doors because of my legislation, so be it,” he said. “This store sold over 1,000 guns each year. I would much rather have a preschool or coffee store in the neighborhood than a gun shop.” Looking at the shop from the outside, it doesn’t seem like an opportune location for a preschool, and I doubt there’s a shortage of coffee shops in San Francisco either.

High Bridge Arms, a San Francisco gun shop opened by Olympic pistol shooter Bob Chow in 1952, closed its doors in October, leaving the city with no gun shops.

High Bridge Arms, a San Francisco gun shop opened by Olympic pistol shooter Bob Chow in 1952, closed its doors in October, leaving the city with no gun shops.

These two stories illustrate the consequences of government disallowing citizens from purchasing the goods and services of their choice. For all the talk of “preserving the life of the unborn” or “reducing violent crime,” neither Texas nor California will accomplish these goals through the State. Instead, abortion can be reduced by increased access to family planning services that Planned Parenthood and other providers offer. Gun violence can be reduced by increased economic opportunity for the lower class and reducing reincarceration rates, among other things. But neither require the State to intervene, and indeed benefit from its absence.

Holding consistent beliefs about personal liberties will end the tensions perpetuated by the two-party system. One of the comments in the San Francisco gun shop article linked above remarked that “You won’t hear these guys whining about Planned Parenthood Clinics being run out of business” and “they bitch about a woman’s right to choose, but a man’s (or woman’s) right to own a killing machine like an AK 47 is a ‘right’ that must be protected. Really?” This is a common line of thought among many on the left, who believe that those who oppose gun control also oppose a woman’s right to choose. Instead, it is fully possible to support freedom in both instances. This is an important point for both major political parties, as Republicans can appeal to women and Democrats to gun owners who vote for the other party because of these issues.

Before its closing, High Bridge Arms featured a Texas flag above the cash register. Let’s hold our politicians here in Texas accountable, so that Planned Parenthood won’t have California flags in their clinics.

From the timing of the letter, it is obviously motivated by these videos. As a CNN article notes, however, these videos are misleading in several ways. The first is that several portions of the video, including an image that purported to show an aborted fetus from a Planned Parenthood clinic, was actually a stillborn baby whose photo was taken from the Internet. Another video clip of an aborted fetus was stock footage and likely was not taken at a Planned Parenthood facility. The video’s creator defended it, saying that these were representations of what the fetuses would look like, not the actual ones in question. Nonetheless, it is a disingenuous use of the media, with the mother of the stillborn saying that she was not notified of the image being used in the documentary.

The documentary also spent considerable time showing “negotiations” for prices on fetal tissue, when these were merely estimates for what the reimbursement costs would be. Since providers cannot profit from these transactions, any prices must not exceed the cost of obtaining the material. The creator of the video even asked one Planned Parenthood representative to not “lowball” the price, in order to get a higher figure that may appear to be illegal. Due to the emphasis of these prices by the filmmakers, Planned Parenthood announced they will not take any payment for the tissues, even if they are legal compensatory payments. This had the unintended effect of serving as confirmation in the eyes of the filmmakers and other pro-life activists that Planned Parenthood was in fact breaking the law.

Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood have been attempted since the early 1980s, and nearly caused a federal government shutdown in 2011. While this may bolster the image of certain politicians in the eyes of social conservatives, it is utterly irresponsible to waste Congressional time and risk the shutdown of the federal government over an organization that provides healthcare services to low-income women and other groups who benefit from these services. By continuing to argue over such issues, many Republicans not only waste time that could be spent on important issues, but alienate a large group of voters, many of whom are compelled to identify as Democrats because of these issues.

Fortunately, similar efforts in Louisiana have been quickly halted due to a court order. As Medicaid is funded primarily by the federal government, there is little that Texas can do in the long term as it would have to prove that Planned Parenthood was breaking the law to ultimately defund it. Texas receives $17 billion from the feds each year for Medicaid, so it would be a mistake to push the issue too far – in fact, $40 million has already been lost due to political grandstanding with Planned Parenthood. The state shouldn’t continue to shoot itself in the foot.

The debacle has also inspired some parodies of Planned Parenthood supporters, like this video from Freedom Toons. It makes light of ad-hominem attacks that supporters stereotypically make, and asks why the organization should receive federal funding, regardless of one’s position on abortion. The most obvious and common response is that the federal funding does not go to abortion. In addition to this, the organization primarily supports low-income women who could not afford many procedures out-of-pocket, and many other organizations receive similar levels of funding.

I’ve personally come to know people who benefit from Planned Parenthood’s services, one of whom is a man and another who is female and says that she wouldn’t be alive without it. By being exposed to these perspectives, the issue becomes personal and not just another hot-button political topic. That’s why I’m proud to stand with Planned Parenthood and support the continued support of the organization by Medicaid.

Elaborating on the “nastiest places” to which he traveled, he noted how each country he visited was “fraudulently dressed up, in their enveloping propaganda, as something entirely different, and benign. What those years bred in me, more than anything else, was an abiding revulsion for ideology, in all its guises.” After forty years of exposure to authoritarianism, Burns developed a first-hand understanding of how propaganda and ideology can make even intelligent citizens loyal to an oppressive regime.

Pondering those four decades, Burns stated further that his “experience has been that when it suits the ends of power, ideology can be invoked to prove that 2+2=5, or 3, or any other number that suits the state, and to demand that all embrace the madness.” Closely coinciding with ideology is state oppression, as the former was needed to maintain the stability of the latter.

When demanding that “all embrace the madness,” the intelligentsia were not excluded from all citizens. Remembering some of his interviews, he remarked,

“It is a truly frightening thing to interview a top-ranked nuclear scientist, or a distinguished brain surgeon, or a concert pianist, as I did in China under the sway of Mao, and to hear them, as ideological outcasts, justify with utter conviction the brutalities inflicted on them by their ideology-crazed persecutors – crushed fingers, smashed heads, broken marriages, vilification by their own families.”

From historical examples, such as Wernher von Braun’s work with rockets in Nazi Germany, to more recent examples Burns experienced firsthand such as  Mao’s China in the 1970s and apartheid South Africa in the early 1990s, it goes to show that even the brightest minds are not exempt from the effects of oppressive regimes.

However, these most oppressive regimes do not possess a monopoly on harmful ideology. Burns noted that such ideologies carry over to the Left/Right dichotomy that dominates American politics. He identified the “Widespread propensity…for people who lack the excuse of brutal duress that is a constant in the totalitarian world to fall sway to the formulaic ‘isms’ of left and right…that excuse, and indeed smother, free thinking.” Compared to the aforementioned examples of China and South Africa, the oppression of the Left and Right wings are scarcely different from one another, and merely give American politics the illusion of being simply a matter of good versus evil.

Indeed, free thinking is squandered by the two-party system in America. Instead of unique perspectives, political arguments often boil down to one talking point or another on each issue. The most relevant example for libertarians today is the issue of gay marriage, where most libertarians would disagree with the mainstream Left as well as the mainstream Right. While the Left argues for state-issued marriage licenses for both gay and straight couples, and the Right argues for heterosexual marriage only, while libertarians insist that government disassociate itself from interference in marriage altogether. In this case, libertarians benefit from having a different view, but the average person often feels the need to pigeon-hole themselves into one camp or the other. Although this is perhaps the most obvious example, almost every issue suffers from a lack of intelligent debate when its complexities are oversimplified into simple dichotomies.

Burns does not fit the libertarian stereotype of a “rich white college kid” that many detractors use to dismiss libertarian arguments. In fact, he doesn’t even explicitly profess any libertarian affiliations. Rather than coming to his beliefs through books, speakers, or some other traditional route, Burns reached pro-liberty conclusions through four decades of on-the-ground exposure to authoritarianism as a journalist.

Burns’ motivation to write his final article about ideology stemmed from an inspirational quote he heard a decade earlier while he was in Italy. Burns was in the audience of a speaking event with a number of people from a smorgasbord of respected professions to listen to a writer named Tiziano Terzani, who was suffering from terminal cancer. Like Burns, Terzani travelled often, and was a journalist with a 40-year career with the German magazine, Der Speigel. During his speech, Terzani remarked, “Never forget: It’s not how far you’ve traveled, it’s what you’ve brought back.” This comment resonated with Burns, as he was also retiring from a similar career during which he had been to many of the same places as Terzani, and even shared an oncologist with him in the 1990s. According to Burns, the most significant thing he brought back was his “abiding revulsion for ideology” and the ways it makes citizens of all beliefs and levels of intelligence blindly accept the professions of state leadership.

While Burns is retiring, many in the liberty movement are graduating or finishing a year of school. It is up to us, the youth of the liberty movement, to carry forward what the previous generations have brought back. Foremost among these things is a reverence for liberty that will turn the places that Burns and Terzani visited into places where tyranny ceases and liberty flourishes. These will be the things we carry forward.

http://old.studentsforliberty.org/blog/2015/06/02/the-things-we-carry-forward/

With the deal, China will develop a modern version of the “silk road” across Asia that will improve trade with Pakistan and many other countries in the Middle East and Europe through a connection to the Indian Ocean. By having direct access to the Indian Ocean, China can avoid pirate-laden Southeast Asia waters and dramatically reduce the distance that ships need to move to get to other ports in the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Pakistan will also improve relations with China, improve its economy, and reduce the now-frequent occurrence of power blackouts.

With this deal, China will spend more in Pakistan than the United States. Furthermore, while China is investing in the Pakistani economy and creating win-win solutions to economic and security issues, since 2002 the United States has allocated two-thirds of its $31 billion in foreign aid to Pakistan towards the “war on terror.” Along with the “containment policy” that the United States uses to mitigate China’s influence in Asia, the preoccupation of the US with security issues in conjunction with its increased use of drones in Pakistan under President Obama goes to show that while China sees Pakistan as a partner, the United States merely sees it as a problem.

While United States policy towards Pakistan is well-known and often justly criticized by most libertarians, the China-Pakistani relationship is often overlooked. China’s rising status as a global superpower elevates it to the same league as the United States, and Pakistan’s geopolitical relevance as a neighbor of China and a major player in Indian Ocean trade makes the deal between the two countries critical. Considering the fact that both countries have nuclear weapons, it is an important bilateral relationship both economically and politically that will continue to grow in the coming years.

While China should be praised for not getting bogged down in the endless wars that the United States has waged, its investment in Pakistan is an important point of consideration for libertarians. Although $46 billion is a manageable sum to invest for the most populous country in the world, the same cannot necessarily be said for its private sector. Like the Interstate highway system or other public transportation programs in the United States, major investments are considered by many to be in the sole realm of governments with tens of billions of dollars at their disposal.

Yet this does not always have to be the case. In this instance, major Chinese banks, including the China Development Bank and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd., will invest in the project alongside the government. Chinese power companies are also investing in Pakistani energy production. Even in a country run by the Communist Party, some private investment is nonetheless a part of this major project.

Of course, it would be optimal to go a step further and take the government out of the equation entirely. Instead of a few people at the top deciding what happens to tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue, private investors could determine the direction their money goes with more incentives for success. Government officials have much less to lose politically from a failed project than investors have to lose economically.

The main objection from supporters of government investment is that the private sector, particularly in China, couldn’t come up with the funds. But what is there to stop the aforementioned banks, energy companies, and other infrastructure developers from working together on a project of this scope? By expanding access to markets as has already been done in Hong Kong and Shanghai, the Chinese government can allow its private sector to flourish and its economy to become a world leader in international development and trade.

http://old.studentsforliberty.org/blog/2015/05/25/the-new-china-pakistan-economic-corridor/#more-47510

Raised in Singapore during the Great Depression and World War II, Yew witnessed the Japanese invasion that coincided with the attack on Pearl Harbor and the submission of British troops to Japanese prison camps. The latter opened Yew’s eyes to the failures of colonialism and ignited his passion for independence. After World War II, Singapore fell back under British rule. With a mixed Chinese, Malaysian, Indian, and other primarily Asian population, Singapore was a melting pot with frequent ethnic conflict. After attending law school at Cambridge in 1950, Yew returned to a Singapore that was plagued with high unemployment and inflation. With China under Mao Zedong nearby, authoritarian socialism carried wide appeal in Singapore.

However, Yew wanted to prevent Maoist socialism from spreading to Singapore. Through his own People’s Action Party (PAP), Singapore eventually became an independent country under his tutelage. His obsession with cleanliness resulted in the clearing of slums and rivers, the elimination of food vendors from sidewalks, and even the penalization of those who spat on the ground. This focus on making his country presentable and accessible to foreign investment was effective, attracting investments from prominent U.S. tech firms and causing Singapore’s GDP to skyrocket by a tenfold margin from 1965 to 1980.

Although a strong proponent of economic liberty, Yew has been criticized by many for his self-proclaimed “nanny state” policies. He went as far as to say, “If Singapore is a nanny state, then I am proud to have fostered one,” a remark he justified by saying, “I always tried to be correct, not politically correct.” In response to censorship of and requiring a license for newspaper vendors, Yew asserted, “Freedom of the news media must be subordinated to the overriding needs of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.”

This combination of economic liberalization with suppression of civil liberties was emulated by major world leaders like Deng Ziaopeng, the then-Vice-Premier of China. He met with Yew in order to better work with small Southeast Asian nations in containing the Soviet Union. Yew, however, remarked that many Asian nations feared the “China dragon” more than the “Russian bear.” Taken aback, Deng asked Yew what he wanted of China, which surprised Yew as the leader of a much smaller country. As a result of the talks, relations improved and China emulated many of Yew’s reforms, which are seen to this day. China has had impressive GDP growth during the 21st century and has slowly liberalized its economy from the Mao era, even as many of the civil liberties restrictions remain in place.

Also at odds with most libertarians, and rare for most non-American world leaders, Yew supported an American military presence in Asia as a deterrent against aggression. He permitted U.S. warships to dock in Singapore, supporting the global presence of the U.S. military. He stated that the Vietnam War contained Communism by preventing it from spreading to nearby countries like Thailand and Laos, which provided these other countries in the area with time to develop capitalist economies and ward off Soviet influence.

While his positions on civil liberties and military intervention are disappointing from a libertarian perspective, his turnaround of Singapore turned a once-trivial and miniature slice of land in Southeast Asia into one of the world’s most important cities for business and trade. His inspiration of economic liberalization in China has helped a country of over a billion move away from stagnation and poverty, and his influence will continue for years to come.

Libertarians often discuss theories and accomplishments by major figures who themselves identify as libertarian, such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and others. Yet there are many ideas and achievements that have been conceived and realized by non-libertarians that nonetheless deserve praise from libertarians.

An earlier article I wrote about George Carlin noted that he once described libertarianism as “pretentious,” yet his monologues reached an audience of millions and enabled them to rethink their views on many issues, often times in a pro-liberty direction. I noted that he was an “unlikely hero for liberty” as he brilliantly intertwined political commentary and comedy at a time when it had almost never been done before.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev is another non-libertarian figure who epitomizes this phrase, as well. Gorbachev was the leader of the Soviet Union during the 1980s, in a tenure that closely coincided with that of Ronald Reagan. While Reagan is regarded by many on the Right as a proponent of freedom, Gorbachev is much lesser-known in most Western countries. Considering the violent formation of the Soviet Union during the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the oppressive rule of Josef Stalin, it seems unlikely that a man who had been a member of the Communist Party since 1950 could make significant strides towards liberty. Yet, that is exactly what Gorbachev did in his tenure as leader of the Soviet Union.

A member of the Communist Party since the Stalin era and proponent of state socialism, Gorbachev was also a man who unwittingly realized that reforms were needed in a pro-liberty direction for the economic stability of Russia and Eastern Europe, so he worked to ensure increased freedom and opportunity for hundreds of millions of people throughout the East. Gorbachev’s actions and remarks were not libertarian in many instances, but his signature accomplishment of almost single-handedly ending one of the world’s most oppressive regimes is something that deserves high praise from all who believe in liberty.

To be sure, he was not a major proponent of the market. In remarks to leaders of Eastern European countries, he said:

Many of you see the solution to your problems in resorting to market mechanisms in place of direct planning. Some of you look at the market as a lifesaver for your economies. But, comrades, you should not think about lifesavers but about the ship, and the ship is socialism.

However, just two years later, in 1987, he passed the Law on Cooperatives which allowed private enterprise while designating a fair share of capital to workers through worker ownership of the company. This fit into his Perestroika (Russian for restructuring) policy which was an effort to boost the Soviet economy. In addition to economic reform, he promoted democratization, allowing for multi-party elections and the election of non-Communist Party members to high offices; and increased freedom of speech.

Gorbachev’s accomplishments weren’t limited to his tenure as the leader of the Soviet Union, however. He also opposed U.S. military intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999 and Iraq in 2003. In his native Russia, he has criticized current Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that, “all power is in the hands of the executive branch, the president.” His criticism of concentrated power and foreign intervention is remarkable for a leader who continued a war in Afghanistan for several years and at times increased his own power. Yet it is commendable as an example of an informed stance from someone who has led a world power himself.