www.JoeCobb.com

The Immoral Majority

By John Tierney

As usual, Republicans are hoping that righteous voters will come through for them on Election Day. But this year looks like the revenge of the sinners.

The sinners aren’t easy to count, since they don’t spend a lot of time doing grass-roots politicking. There is no Washington lobby for the Coalition of the Damned. They don’t like to confess their urges to pollsters. But there are enough of them, particularly in places where Republicans are struggling, to cast doubt on the party’s long-standing strategy.

Why did Republicans assume there was a Moral Majority? Where in the Bible does it say that the virtuous outnumber the wicked? When you define wickedness the way Republicans do, the numbers are daunting.

One of the G.O.P. Congress’s few achievements this year was a law to crack down on Internet gambling, an industry that counted eight million American customers last year — about four times the membership of the Christian Coalition. The new law hasn’t stopped the online gamblers from betting, but it will give them second thoughts about voting Republican.

The Republican war on marijuana — the chief priority of the current drug czar — isn’t playing any better in the heartland. More than 40 percent of people over the age of 12 have tried marijuana, and more than three-quarters of Americans support legalizing it for medical purposes. The White House and the Justice Department have had little luck in their attempts to stop states from legalizing medical marijuana, but they have succeeded in alienating voters.

These federal intrusions are especially scorned by independent voters in the Western states where Republicans have been losing ground, like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Montana. Western Democrats have been siphoning off libertarian voters by moderating their liberal views on issues like gun control, but Republicans have been driving libertarians away with their wars on vice and their jeremiads against gay marriage (and their attempt to regulate that from Washington, too).

Libertarian voters tend to get ignored by political strategists because they’re not easy to categorize or organize. They don’t congregate in churches or union halls; they don’t unite to push political agendas. Many don’t even call themselves libertarians, although they qualify because of their social liberalism and economic conservatism: they want the government out of their bedrooms as well as their wallets.

They distrust moral busybodies of both parties, and they may well be the most important bloc of swing voters this election, as David Boaz and David Kirby conclude in a new study for the Cato Institute. Analyzing a variety of voter surveys, they estimate that libertarians make up about 15 percent of voters — a bloc roughly comparable in size to liberals and to conservative Christians, and far bigger than blocs like NASCAR dads or soccer moms.

They’re especially prevalent in the West, where half a dozen states have legalized medical marijuana. When Californians approved one of the first medical marijuana laws, in 1996, drug warriors were so convinced it would lead to a catastrophic spike in illegal use by teenagers that they sponsored a study to document the damage. But there was no catastrophe: after the law, marijuana use by teenagers actually declined in California.

In the decade since, as the Marijuana Policy Project documented in a recent study, popular support for legalized medical marijuana has increased in California and in virtually every other state with a similar law. Last year it was favored by 78 percent of respondents in a Gallup poll.

Yet these realities still haven’t registered with Republicans in Washington. This year the White House drug czar, John Walters, and his minions have been out campaigning in Nevada, Colorado and South Dakota, which have marijuana initiatives on the ballot. The drug warriors are still sounding the discredited alarms about youths turning into potheads. Their fervor’s not surprising — they may even believe their own hype.

What’s surprising is the political stupidity of the meddling. Westerners, no matter what they think of marijuana, don’t appreciate sermons from federal officials on how to vote. In 2002, when the White House campaigned against another marijuana ballot initiative in Nevada, the state’s attorney general said it was “disturbing� to see the federal interference in a state election.

This year, with Republicans in so much trouble in the West, the missionaries from Washington aren’t doing them any favors. They need every sinner’s vote they can get.

John Tierney is a nationally syndicated columnist.
[New York Times, October 31, 2006]

Vote ‘YES’ on Propositions 101 and 207.
Vote ‘NO’ on all the other 17 proposals.

Vote ‘YES’ on these two:

101 – [Passed] This measure puts restrictions on local governments’ ability to raise property taxes while property values are going through the roof. If this measure passes, governments will only be able to raise property taxes by 2% over the previous year’s taxes on their own. Should the need arise for additional revenues, the government would have to hold an election and seek voter approval. Some are concerned that the cost of government naturally goes up with new residents moving in, but those costs are easily recouped by the taxes generated by new construction. Libertarians oppose all tax increases and support measures that have a real effect on limiting government’s ability to raise taxes.

207 – [Passed] This measure will create legislation that protects private property owners from having their property stripped away and handed to private interests or other non-public uses. It also protects property owners from regulatory takings when government zones people out of use of their property. Opponents of the measure claim that this goes too far and will allow people to collect money from the taxpayers every time a zoning law is tweaked because a person “might��? build a mall on their front yard. But property owners would not be able to collect damages for things they “might��? do in theory, rather they would have to show an actual diminution of the value of their land.

Vote ‘NO’ on these seventeen:

100 / 102 / 103 – [All passed] These three anti-immigrant measures are part of Rep. Russell Pearce’s (R-18, Mesa) dream to restore “Operation Wetback.��? 100 would deny bail to illegal aliens, despite the fact that Immigration & Customs Enforcement already puts holds on those they suspect to be here illegally. 102 denies punitive damages to illegal aliens, a total non-issue. Finally, 103 would make English the only language allowed to be spoken in official government business, a proposition that has twice before been found to violate the Constitution. Could Russell Pearce find nothing better to do with his time?

104 – [Passed] This would allow local governments to increase their debt ceiling by reorganizing the accounting rules. Currently, public safety, law enforcement, emergency services, and transportation costs can be paid in part through debt incurred by the local government, but that debt level cannot exceed 6%. If this measure passes, those categories of expenses can be included with those categories in the 20% debt ceiling. The obvious consequence of this is that the local governments will borrow more, and thus raise taxes more. The rational response would be to require local governments to trim the fat from their budgets.

105 / 106 – [Both Failed] State Trust Land questions are always fun because of the very nature of the beast. Vast swaths of undeveloped land are held in trust by the State to be sold to developers for the financial benefit of the public schools. This pits the teachers’ union and the ecofascists, two of our favorite left-wing groups, against each other. The longer this battle goes on, the longer the disunity between these two groups. In this election cycle, they seem to have swallowed a bitter pill in order to compromise and solve the question. Neither of these questions takes care of the issue; 105 is a big giveaway to developers and 106 is an environmental sellout as well.

107 – [Failed] The “protect marriage��? measure is pure anti-gay bigotry, and nothing more, but it would also strip away any domestic partner benefits unmarried couples enjoy, affecting heterosexual couples as well. See the discussion below, posted on October 22.

200 – [Failed] The “Arizona Voter Reward��? is simply ridiculous. Its sponsor, the increasingly silly Dr. Mark Osterloh, correctly pinpoints the symptom of the problem, that voter turnout is decreasing. But he misdiagnoses the cause, which has little to do with people needing a shot at a million dollars and has a lot more to do with dissatisfaction with the criminals, morons, and other unqualified individuals who continue to run for office from the Bipartisan Party.

201 / 206 – [201 passed; 206 failed] Both smoking initiatives are violations of the right of private property and the freedom to choose to smoke. 201 is so draconian that it spurred RJ Reynolds to sponsor 206 on behalf of bar owners who otherwise would be put out of business. A pragmatic voter can vote in favor of 206 to save the bar owners from certain demise, but the principled Libertarian vote must be no on both measures.

202 – [Passed] Increasing the minimum wage from $5.15/hr to $6.75/hr will have a benefit to those whose wages are increased. But it will have the obvious effect of reducing employment in minimum-wage jobs and cause a lot of “working poor��? to become “not working even poorer.��? The unions support this because their members will get a wage increase, and what do they care if non-members lose their jobs? Price fixing never works, and principle requires opposition to these kinds of government controls on the economy. See the discussion below, posted on October 25.

203 – [Passed] Raising cigarette taxes by $.80/pack in order to raise money for state-run child care programs is a classic taking from Peter to give to Paul. So much so, that even the Arizona Daily Star recognized the illegitimacy of scapegoating the smokers in this way.

204 – [Passed] The humane treatment of animals may be a noble wish, but it does not belong on our ballot.

205 – [Failed] Voting by mail is a pleasant convenience for some, but it is still a nascent program that is plagued by fraud. The time may come for this initiative in the future, but that time is not now.

300 – [Passed] We’re back to Russell Pearce’s bigotry. This measure would further limit illegal aliens’ eligibility for public programs. Ironically, this initiative works against 103, because how can people learn English if Pearce wants to kick them out of English classes? If the issue is about kicking people off the dole, let’s be uniform about it and not isolate people by what amounts to racism.

301 – [Passed] This measure would take methamphetamine users out of mandatory probation for drug users that the voters overwhelmingly supported in 1996 with what is still called Prop 200 in the criminal courts. Contrary to the language in the voter guide by the Arizona Legislative Council, probationers already face jail time when they screw up on probation. This initiative scapegoats meth users more than they deserve, and the effect of this measure would be to fill up our jails more and strip meth addicts of opportunities to get clean.

302 - [Failed] Would raise legislator pay. Just what we need to add to campaign welfare for these clowns is to give them more money for doing a shoddy job.

(Thanks to David Euchner, Tucson, for this analysis. For more detailed analysis, see the discussion [here] by Bennett Kalafut.)

B.A., The University of Chicago, 1966
M.B.A., Graduate School of Business,
University of Chicago, 1977
American Economic Association
National Association of Business Economists
(National Capital Chapter President 1986)

CAREER HIGHLIGHTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

* Extensive public speaking and writing experience; over 1,200 articles published.

* Served in the White House and U.S. State Dept. during the Reagan Administration.

* Nine years of senior legislative staff experience with the United States Congress managing federal budget, tax law, international trade, and regulatory issues.

* Adjunct Faculty member, Orange Coast College and Concordia University (retired May 2006).

* Seasoned executive with more than 26 years of experience in management:

Business, government, and non-profit foundations.
Supervised professional management teams, from 3 to 8 professionals including accounting, budgeting, auditing, and human resources functions.
Prepared and administered budgets of up to $14 million annually, for government and non-profit organizations as large as 120 employees.
Established computerized office systems and trained staff on software.

THE WHITE HOUSE & U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

1982 Deputy Director, White House Office of Policy Information
Staff director, responsible for preparation of briefing papers on immediate-news issues for senior White House staff, reporting to Assistant to the President and Domestic Policy Advisor Edwin L. Harper; ‘top-secret’ security clearance.

1982-83 Economic Advisor, U.S. Mission to the O.A.S., U.S. Department of State
Reporting to Ambassador J. William Middendorf, conducted research and prepared reports on U.S. trade policy with Latin America and the international financial situation with particular focus on Latin American debt; participated in preliminary Administration concept-discussions for NAFTA; ‘top-secret’ security clearance.

U.S. CONGRESS

1992-93 Chief Economist, Republican Policy Committee, U.S. Senate
Reporting to Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), responsible for publications, briefings, reports, and analyses of economic trends, statistics, and policy. Legislative responsibility for Senate floor consideration of bills reported from Senate Budget, Finance, and Banking Committees as well as Senators’ floor amendments and conference committee reports; ’secret’ security clearance.

1990-91 Staff Director, Congressional Joint Economic Committee
Reporting to Senator William V. Roth (R-DE), responsible for management, organization of Committee hearings, editing of research reports, and the preparation of Minority views for Joint Economic Committee 1991 Annual Report; ’secret’ security clearance.

1987-90 Senior Economist, Congressional Joint Economic Committee
Detailed to Senator Steve Symms (R-ID) to work with the Senate Finance Committee and Budget Committee on issues of taxation, trade, and fiscal policy; ’secret’ security clearance.

1985-87 Senior Economist, Congressional Joint Economic Committee
Reporting to Senator James Abdnor (R-SD), committee staff economist responsible for monetary theory and policy, international capital markets, and banking regulation; ’secret’ security clearance.

1983-85 Economist, Banking Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives
Reporting to Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), prepared research papers for use by the Committee, organized hearings, received constituents on behalf of members.

1983-85 Public Law 99-185, “Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985″
Conceived and drafted legislation to authorize the United States Mint to issue legal tender gold bullion coins as a permanent program of the U.S. Treasury. Gold had been prohibited in 1933. Repeal of prohibition met significant initial opposition, but this legislation ultimately won majority support due to my efforts.

RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS

1993-96 John M. Olin Senior Fellow,
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Authored or co-authored 12 Heritage Foundation papers, contributed chapters to 5 books, and published more than 50 op-ed articles. Testified before Congress on U.S. trade policy (5 times) and regulatory issues (3 times); provided policy advice upon request to many members of Congress and several hundred congressional staff members. Appeared on more than 100 radio and television programs as “expert guest” on the federal budget, taxes, government regulations, and the U.S. economy; interviewed by journalists regularly and cited or quoted in newspapers and magazines more than 400 times.

1991 Senior Fellow, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, Virginia
Served as Executive Director of the I.M.F. Assessment Project, in charge of research and monographs on the results and effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund with Third World and Eastern European countries; published in 1992 by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.

JOURNALISM

1966-68 Editor-in-Chief, New Individualist Review, University of Chicago, Illinois
Managing editor of an academic journal published by graduate students concerned with the economic and political ideas of classical liberalism (faculty advisors were Nobel laureates Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and George J. Stigler).

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

“Trade and the National Interest,” in Robert E. Freer, Jr., ed., Finding Our Roots, Facing Our Future; America in the 21st Century (Lanham, Md.: Madison Books, 1997), pp. 105-8.

Testimony before the Ways & Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, on unfair and counterproductive enforcement of United States antidumping trade laws, April 23, 1996.

“Why We Need the WTO,” Journal of Commerce, April 2, 1996. (Spoken remarks before the Ways & Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives.)

Testimony before the Ways & Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, on the World Trade Organization, March 13, 1996.

“U.S. Stalling on NAFTA Comes Down to Pleasing Unions,” op-ed distributed by Knight-Ridder Financial News Service, January 1996.

“Immigration,” in Issues ‘96: The Candidate’s Briefing Book (Washington: Heritage Foundation, 1996), chap. 11, pp. 333-57.

“The Caribbean Basin Trade Bill: Good Economic Policy and Good Neighbor Policy,” Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 430, October 12, 1995.

“The Embargo Imbroglio,” The World & I magazine, October 1995.

“The Economics of Good Intentions,” The Freeman, August 1995.

“The Economic Nationalism Ruse,” Journal of Commerce, August 2, 1995.

Testimony before the House of Representatives Commerce Committee proposing the U.S. Department of Commerce is an unnecessary agency with no significant impact on U.S. exports and with functions in other areas that are better performed in the private sector or by other federal agencies, July 24, 1995.

Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against the Clinton Administration’s proposed tariffs on Japanese luxury automobiles, June 13, 1995.

“Steel Warfare,” an op-ed debate against James Will, chairman of the specialty Steel Industry of North America, Valley News Dispatch (Tarentum, PA), May 7, 1995.

“Trade,” in The New Member’s Guide to the Issues (Washington: Heritage Foundation, 1994), chap. 19, pp. 125-30.

“Why the GATT Agreement is Good for the U.S.,” op-ed article syndicated by Scripps-Howard News Service, November 1994.

“A Q&A for the GATT Vote,” Heritage Foundation Talking Points, November 18, 1994. (This paper was cited and a paragraph was read aloud on national television by USTR Mickey Kantor, at a briefing for supporters and the media at the U.S. Treasury, November 18, 1994.)

“GATT Foes Weaken America,” Journal of Commerce, October 17, 1994.

“Why the WTO Poses No Threat to U.S. Sovereignty,” The World & I magazine, October 1994.

“The Real Threat to U.S. Sovereignty,” Heritage Lecture No. 497, August 1, 1994.

“The New GATT Agreement,” Regulation magazine, June 1994.

“How Special Interests want to Amend the Antidumping Laws,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 229, June 22, 1994.

“A Guide to the New GATT Agreement,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 985, May 25, 1994.

“Immigration,” in Issues ‘94: The Candidate’s Briefing Book (Washington: Heritage Foundation, 1994), chap. 12, pp. 239-54.

“NAFTA’s a Win-Win Deal for the U.S., Mexico,” Orange County Register, November 9, 1993.

“The Gold Standard and Fractional Reserve Banking,” in Bankers and Regulators (Irvington, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1993).

“Issues and Problems in Moving to an Independent Currency and Organizing a Commercial Banking System,” presented at an official conference, Vilnius, Lithuania, November 1990, and at Roskildes University Economics Institute, Riga, Latvia, December 1990.

“A General Theory of Government Monetary and Banking Regulation: What’s in it for the Government?,” a paper presented at a conference by the Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., 1989.

“Tradespeak,” Reason magazine, October 1988.
(The abuse of language and logic in the trade debate.)

“What Makes the Fed Tick?,” The Wall Street Journal, June 2, 1986.

“A Dubious Debt Doubt,” Reason magazine, August 1985. (Why the growing U.S. national debt cannot lead to inflation.)

“Why Do Monetary Economists Disagree?,” in Ernest P. Welker, ed., Monetary Theory: A Search for Common Ground (Great Barrington, Mass.: American Institute for Economic Research, 1985).

“Opportunity Costs and a Monetary Constitution,” a paper presented at the Center for the Study of Public Choice, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, February 15, 1984.

“Monetary Policy in an International Free Market,” in Competitive Money and Banking, Monograph 37 (Greenwich, CT: Committee for Monetary Research and Education, 1982).

The Income Tax Must Go! (Denver: Project Liberty, 1982). [link to book]

“Using the Free Market Price of Gold to Measure the Demand for Cash Balances,” Research Report 81CNC-01, U.S. Choice in Currency Commission, Washington, D.C., July 15, 1981.

“The Myth of the Stable Price Level,” The Freeman, October 1980.

The Gasoline Rationing Myth, Reprint Paper 14, International Institute for Economic Research, UCLA Department of Economics, June 1980.

“Conspiracy Economics,” The Freeman, December 1975 [Congressional Record, April 5, 1976].

“What You Should Know About Fiscal & Monetary Policy,” Reason magazine, May 1974.

“Emigration as an Alternative to the Draft,” New Individualist Review, Spring 1967.

There’s a lot of scientific evidence that higher minimum wage laws increase unemployment among unskilled workers, most of whom are teenagers living at home and spouses of better paid workers.

Why does anyone want to create more unemployment?   This is a “feel good” law.   People aren’t thinking about its actual effects.

The real reason this counterproductive, “feel good” law is pushed by labor unions is because union contracts have differential clauses, which say that higher seniority or pay grade workers must always have a specified differential of higher pay than those below.  So, mandate a higher legal minimum wage and you trigger those provisions and give pay raises to legal workers.

This kind of law DOES NOT cause “inflation,” nor even a higher CPI.  It causes a trade off between how a family budget is spent, paying a higher price for some services like fast food and buying less of other stuff to compensate, thus depressing prices over there.  And, of course, no employer/producer can merely “pass along” the costs of production.  Consumers reduce quantity demanded at higher prices, so employers have no choice except to reduce workforce when higher minimum wages are imposed.

But union leaders and “progressive” thinkers really don’t give a damn about weak and poor people anyway.  We know that.  Only Libertarians stand in the tradition that has lifted poor workers out of dung and early death, since the Industrial Revolution.  The conservatives and socialists have fought against industrial progress and social innovation at every turn.

Vote ‘NO’ in Arizona on November 7th against Proposition 202.

Hello, I’m Joe Cobb. I’m running for Congress in the 7th Congressional District, which covers part of the West Valley and stretches from Tucson to Yuma.

I’m representing the Libertarian Party, and I’m asking you to vote for me because our nation needs a new direction in politics.

If you vote for me, you will be voting for a candidate who will cut spending and taxes and cooperate with other congressmen to make our country a better place to live and raise children.

The Libertarian Party combines the best ideas from the two old political coalitions, economic freedom and personal freedom, and we offer you a chance to vote for a new direction for American politics.

The Democratic and Republican parties are sharply divided. Most of us don’t really agree with either one. The Libertarian Party is a third way. Libertarians believe the government should leave honest citizens alone. We would always support cutting taxes and cutting government spending, and we would end the war in Iraq.

Libertarians are not social conservatives. I am deeply offended at the way the Republican Party is going, in the direction of more and more laws and regulations that affect your personal life. Your personal life, in the privacy of your own home, should be nobody’s business but your own. Our Constitution was written with this kind of individual freedom in mind.

It makes me very sad that the Republican Party is no longer the party of Barry Goldwater, who was a proudly independent Arizonan. He was my first political hero, way back when I was just a boy. The Republican Party has rejected the libertarian spirit of Barry Goldwater and Arizona.

The Democratic Party always has been the party of big government, big spending, and more taxes. It’s dominated by labor unions and progressive special interest groups. You don’t want to vote for those guys, but you should vote, as an American, to protect our country and to protect your individual rights.

Many voters look at those two bad choices and just vote against the worse candidates. That’s a mistake. That is really wasting your vote.

I used to work for the United States Congress in Washington, DC, and I know how that game is played. In Congress, I would vote with the Republicans on economic issues, like tax cuts, where I agree with them. I would vote with the Democrats against the war in Iraq and on social issues, where I agree with them.

Let me give you some examples:

On the immigration question, the real issue is whether honest people willing to work should be allowed to come to America. I say, ‘Yes.’ America needs more workers. Immigration is how the Social Security bankruptcy will be avoided. But these new people should not come to the United States illegally. They should not be sneaking across the border, and dying in the desert.

The problem is an 80-year old quota system. It was created in the 1920s to make racial quotas for people from different countries. I think the quota system should be abolished. I would offer a legal green card to anyone who comes to the United States to work. At the same time, I would restrict all of our welfare programs, so new Americans would not be eligible for welfare benefits.

I support cutting taxes. When I worked for the U.S. Congress, we all knew the retirement of the Baby Boomers would become a crisis for the government. Medicare is already bankrupt and Social Security is going there fast. The Democrats want to raise taxes right now and the Republicans will do it when you’re not looking. They’re all afraid to tell you the truth.

But instead of trying to cut wasteful pork barrel spending to make money available for really important things, the news is full of stories about greedy Congressmen voting for special interest spending and taking bribes, sex scandals, and fighting with each other.

Don’t vote against any candidate. Vote for someone you want to vote for. You cannot send a message to Washington, DC, by voting against the Democrats or against the Republicans. Voting for the lesser of two evils sends no message about what is good.

If you vote for me, and for the Libertarian Party, your vote will count and it will be seen to count for something positive. It will count as a vote for lower taxes, for individual rights to privacy and private property, and it will make a difference.

Don’t waste your vote by voting for Democrats or Republicans. Vote for Libertarian candidates and make a difference.

[This speech was recorded by KTVK in Phoenix and KSMB in Tucson as a public service message and broadcast on television November 1-6, 2006, approximately two dozen times. KAET-PBS, Phoenix, also broadcast the message before the election. KSWT in Yuma broadcast a similar message, but without a teleprompter, it was more ad lib.]

Election Results: 3,746 votes (3.7%) out of 103,479 cast.

I believe in full equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals regardless of their sexual orientations or perceived gender identity or presentation.

I would call for the immediate repeal of federal and state Defense of Marriage Acts.

I would do away with the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, thus allowing our gay and lesbian service men and women to serve their country openly and proudly.

I oppose the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment and all state constitutional amendments seeking to define marriage as a bond between one man and one woman. I would do away with all special benefits and privileges granted to individuals on the basis of their marital status. I would like all state governments and localities to get out of the business of granting marriage licenses and allow people to enter into contractual relationships to order their lives as they see fit, but so long as the government continues to grant marriage licenses to heterosexual couples, I believe gay couples are entitled to the “equal protection” of the laws and should be allowed to obtain government issued marriage licenses as well.

I do not believe the government should require religious institutions to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their church doctrine.

I oppose all laws that discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered Americans and feel they deserve full equality under the law.

Vote ‘NO’ in Arizona on November 7 against Proposition 107.

[ Historical Note: Proposition 107 was defeated on November 7, 2006. ]

Rushing Off a Cliff

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant� in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.