However, before the Party loosens its tie and begins to party, it should be careful not to misinterpret the significance of this shifting support. It would be extremely naïve to think that the American public is suddenly voting Republican because of a drastic change in ideology. Instead, the Party has temporarily won over independent voters because of dissatisfaction with failed Democratic policies. In simpler terms, Americans are beginning to support Republicans not because they are Republicans but rather because they are not Democrats. This shift of support to the minority party because of the failures of the majority party has been a common theme in recent politics. In nearly every election cycle, the moderate American voter will vote for the minority party simply because that party is not in power (I’ll call it the “Not Theory”). Republican George W. Bush was elected president in 2000 largely because he was perceived as not being an immoral Democrat who would dare commit adultery in the White House. The Democrats took Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 because they were seen as not being warmongering, blindly patriotic Republicans. One only has to look at the political parties of American presidents over the last quarter-century (with the exception of George H.W. Bush) to see the Not Theory manifested. Thus, like a pendulum, control of national politics continually oscillates back and forth between the two parties while America’s problems continue to become worse and worse.

If the GOP wants to end this circular cycle and maintain a more secure position of power that won’t be easily usurped come the next election, it must center itself around conservative ideology instead of the superficial fact that it is not the Democratic Party. It must return to the days when theorists like Barry Goldwater and William Buckley were on the reading list of every self respecting conservative, instead of Going Rogue by Sarah Palin. It must return to the days when policy was rooted in the political philosophy of limited governance, such as the Ronald Regan presidency, instead of the emotional appeal of hunting terrorists and weapons of mass destruction that do not even exist, as seen through the George W. Bush presidency. If the Party embraces its sensible past and rejects its nonsensical present, it is guaranteed a more permanent position in power because it will have tapped into the biggest unclaimed reserve of voters: the libertarians.

That’s right, I said it. The libertarians are the key to a successful future for the GOP. You may call me just another Ron Paul crazy, but I know for a fact that if the Party wins over the hearts of the libertarians, it will subsequently win over the hearts of the larger American public. That’s because I’ve seen firsthand the libertarian disillusionment with the Republican Party. As the president of Students for Liberty at Cal, I constantly see disenchanted conservatives wander to our club like lost sheep trying to find shelter. They are fed up with supporting a party that claims to promote peace yet supports endless wars overseas. They are fed up with supporting a party that claims to stand for restoring freedom and responsibility to the individual yet strips these freedoms away through bans on gay marriage, failed drug wars, and government censorship. They refuse to support the Republican Party, the party that strips away the individual’s natural right to liberty and has the nerve to claim it is doing it to promote freedom.

Now, I am not saying that the Republican Party should become the Libertarian Party. Moving too far in the libertarian direction will isolate more voters than it attracts. However, if it wants to end the eternal cycle of party shifting, it must abandon the blame train and start standing up for conservative values. Remember that Ron Paul raised more money in individual donations than any other Republican candidate in his 2008 primary campaign. His newest book, End The Fed, was a New York Times bestseller for several consecutive weeks. There is a huge untapped resource of libertarian voters who refuse to vote for the Party because of its failures. I know because I am one of them. Until the Republican Party wakes up and smells the sweet aroma of liberty, nothing much will change in national politics. After all, it was President Ronald Regan who once said, “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

Students for Liberty traces its origins back to my first semester at Cal. In January 2009, I entered Cal as a bright-eyed spring-admit freshman. However, as I strolled around Sproul looking for a good club to join, I was disappointed at the lack of a libertarian group on campus. After making friends with Ashok Krishna, the current vice president of the club, we realized that it was our destiny to fill in the void. When a graduate student acquaintance of ours, John Wyrwas, told us he was also considering starting a freedom oriented club, we jumped on board. And thus, Students for Liberty came to life.

So what exactly is Students for Liberty? We are a non-partisan political group dedicated to promoting the ideas of limited government, free markets, sound money, non-intervention, and maximum individual liberty to campus and the surrounding community. We do not have any official affiliation with any political party, special interest group, or school of thought. We are rather a group of freethinking individuals who are dedicated to the cause of limited government. Although most members of the club identify themselves as libertarian, we welcome anyone who believes in restoring freedom to the people.

I am happy to say that our first semester has been a great success. We held regular meetings every Wednesday where we discussed current issues, usually ending in a social trip to Top Dog (Berkeley’s most politically sensible food joint). We tabled on Sproul at least two times every week, often engaging in political or philosophical debate, which sometimes even drew a crowd. We had three different speakers come to lecture during this semester. Professor Mark Brady of San Jose State University gave a talk entitled “Why Be a Libertarian?” in which he discussed why freedom is the most logical political philosophy. Dr. Michael Edelstein, clinical psychologist and author of the award-winning book Three Minute Therapy, gave a lecture entitled “How to Stay Happy in a Statist World” in which he discussed techniques to stay sane in an insane world. Lastly, Anthony Gregory, editor in-chief of Campaign for Liberty (Dr. Ron Paul’s official advocacy group), spoke to the club about business cycles and the Federal Reserve. We also had a debate with Berkeley College Republicans on drug and prostitution policy. The Daily Californian also asked for our club’s perspective on healthcare, which resulted in an op-ed being published. In short, we had a very busy and very exciting semester, and our plans for next spring are just as action-packed.

Next semester, we plan to target some bigger name speakers to come speak to the club. Patri Friedman, the grandson of respected economist Milton Friedman, has confirmed that he would like to speak to the club about the Seasteading Institute that he works for. Kevin Takanaga, Chairman of California’s Libertarian Party, has expressed interest in giving a talk to the club. Lastly, John Dennis, Republican candidate for San Francisco’s congressional district has also expressed interest in speaking to the club, possibly in a joint event with Berkeley College Republicans. Next semester, the club also plans to hold several debates against various political clubs on campus, maybe with Cal Berkeley Democrats or one of the many socialist organizations. We are also considering holding a legalize marijuana rally on Sproul Plaza. It is going to be a very exciting spring!

One would not think that a libertarian club on an infamously liberal campus would be very successful. Well, I am proud to say that the movement for freedom is alive and well in Berkeley. From my experience of tabling on Sproul Plaza, I have seen in the faces of people who come up to our table their apathy with the current political system and their yearning for freedom. Indeed, the fight for greater liberty is alive in Berkeley, and our club plans to be on the front lines.

California’s state legislature has taken notice of this outrage. Efforts have been made to decrease the UC’s autonomy, to try to make our “public” institution act more publically. State Senator Leeland Yee of San Francisco has headed these efforts by introducing SCA 21, a bill that would give power to our state’s legislature to pass statutes affecting the university. Senator Yee argues that this proposed public oversight is similar to that of the California State University (CSU) system and will keep the UC’s student fees down while maintaining its sterling reputation.

But is more public oversight really a good thing? Undoubtedly the regents have made rather poor decisions recently with giving some executives higher incomes than the president of the United States, especially in a time of financial crisis. However, is eliminating the regents’ autonomy an apt punishment for their actions, or will it in turn end up punishing the students of the university?

Before our state legislature makes any rash decisions, it should step back and analyze the situation more closely. First and foremost, the University of California in its present state is a top-rate collective of colleges. Our school, Berkeley, is presently the #21 top university in the country according to U.S. News & World Report, outranking well-known private schools like Georgetown University and New York University, as well as being the top public school on the list. Similarly, UCLA is #23, outranking its private rival school, University of Southern California. Additionally, the UC’s sites at San Diego, Davis, Irvine, and Santa Barbara all make the Report’s top hundred list, qualifying them as Tier 1 institutions. The UC is the educational pride of California, as well as the finest public collective of colleges in the nation. This superlative institution has been functioning under autonomous control from the state legislature since 1952 and has greatly increased in prestige over its 57-year run of independence.

So why exactly should the university have more public oversight? Why suddenly change a system that has been run more or less acceptably for over a half of a century? Why hand the controls of the UC to politicians who cannot even balance our state’s budget? Senator Yee argues, “Only five other public universities in the country have a similar status, with UC receiving the greatest level of autonomy. This completely outdated model results in the regents thinking they are above the law.” Although the senator’s statement regarding the five other privately-functioning public universities is true, what he fails to mention is that this group of five includes the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, and the University of Michigan, each of which are top-tier schools ranked in the Report’s top 50 best universities.

Under SCA 21, the UC would function very similarly to the CSU system. California’s state legislature would have power to pass statutes affecting the university. However, as Berkeley Graduate School of Education professor W. North Grubb, who specializes in studying higher education, told the Daily Californian, it is unfair to treat these two separate systems equally. “[The University of California] is not really a public institution in the sense that all of its money comes from the public.” In fact, only $3.25 billion of the university’s $19.6 billion budget is public funding. That’s roughly 16.5%, far less than a quarter. “I acknowledge the university’s failure,” he said, “[But the amendment] will create an additional level of bureaucracy, slowing down the nimbleness the UC system needs in order to respond to those concerns.”

Not only is it simply unfair to treat the two different systems equally, but it is not academically wise either. The prestige that the UC carries could very well be at risk if it were to be treated like a CSU. Although the CSU is a respectable collective of universities, we must face the fact that none of the CSU’s 22 schools are ranked as “top-tier” according to the Report. In fact, they are not even ranked as “second tier” or “third tier.” Additionally, the Department of Education ranks California’s pre-college education system as the third worst of all 50 states. We must remember these two education systems of our state function with a high degree of public oversight. Unfortunately, there is a direct correlation between the quality of each education institution and its amount of public oversight: the more oversight each institution has, the poorer its quality. The UC has the least oversight, and also happens to be more prestigious. Our state’s pre-college institutions have the most amount of oversight, and they’re quality is extremely substandard. It is an indubitable historical fact that private educational institutions tend to function more efficiently than public ones (i.e., the schools of the Ivy League). Similarly, privately-functioning public institutions (like the UC) act more efficiently than publically functioning counterparts (like the CSU). Thus, placing the UC at the level of oversight the CSU has could deflate its reputation so severely that the two institutions would become indistinguishable. We would no longer have the best public university system in the world.
It is very easy to get caught up in populist rage when an injustice arises. But before we shout with the masses for public oversight and government takeover, we must step back and analyze the situation closely. In the case of the UC, it is very doubtful that a system that has run efficiently for 57 years will function as well under control of politicians who cannot balance a state’s budget.

Instead of unjust (and unwise) demand for a government takeover of a top-tier university system, we should focus our attention on a just demand for a fair payroll for UC executives.

In fact, the parallels between the plot of the twentieth century philosopher’s magnum opus and our current recession are so shockingly similar that there has been a great surge in interest in the book recently. Thus far in 2009, sales of the book have tripled compared to the previous year, far surpassing 2008’s total of 200,000 copies sold. Fans of Rand’s 1,200-page epic have described the book as “eye-opening” and “life changing.” This chilling, yet inspiring, look at the future ahead has been ranked as the second most influential book of the modern era (behind only the Bible). In fact, in January of this year, Wall Street Journal columnist Stephen Moore wrote, “If only Atlas were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration, I’m confident that we’d get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.”

So, does the book live up to its hype? Or is it merely gibberish, the nonsense of a cult leader preaching the sham of a philosophy she calls “Objectivism” (as her critics claim)? After reading the novel, I opine that Atlas Shrugged is indeed as great as its sensation has painted it to be.

First, on a surface level, the novel is simply fun. The book captures the reader with its thrilling plot. The protagonist, Dagny Taggart, is a proud industrialist in a time when such types are politically hated. She considers herself to be one of the few sane people left in a growingly insane world. As the operating vice president of Taggart Transcontinental, the premier railroad of the book’s fictive world, she struggles to keep her trains running as dozens of her customers, the industrialists of the world, mysteriously disappear without a trace. Anxious by the vanishings of her professional colleagues and close friends, Dagny sets out to search for the cause of these disappearances, and to find an answer to the question that people mindlessly mutter every day in despair: “Who is John Galt?” These mysteries had me turning the pages faster than Obama spends non-existent money (oh, and Atlas Shrugged has that too). Even better, the resolutions to the book’s enigmas are as intriguing as the buildup to them.

However, the book’s real strength is its underlying philosophy and the clarity and ardor with which she defends it. Rand successfully lays out her philosophy in such a rational manner that it is very hard to intelligently disagree with by the end. Specifically in the chapter “This is John Galt Speaking,” Rand’s character John Galt (who is the manifestation of Objectivism) beautifully explains Rand’s philosophy in such an eloquent and logically airtight manner that it leaves the reader in awe. Galt explains that the fundamental truth of his philosophy is that “existence exists”, and that “A is A” (things that exist have real, objective identities, hence the name Objectivism). From this, Galt explains the cardinal virtues of Objectivism, foremost among them being rationality.

Rand set herself apart from philosophers and ethicists by asking, “Why does man need morality, anyway?” Her answer: “not to suffer and die” (as most other philosophies assert), but “to enjoy yourself and live”. Since mankind’s standard of value is life, actions that advance man’s life are morally good, whereas actions that cripple or destroy it are morally evil. Galt’s speech is impeccable philosophically and logically; any student of reason would smile.

Those unfamiliar with Objectivism may find its conclusion that man’s highest moral purpose is to live solely for himself is a bit of a stretch if not downright wrong. However, Atlas Shrugged soundly explains this idea in such a rational manner that by the end of reading the novel it is hard not to take the central oath of Objectivism as written in the book: “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Editor’s Note: Berkeley has a strong Objectivist presence on campus. Their club regularly meets to discuss philosophy and ethics, and periodically hosts guest speakers for the student body.

Oddly, the polarization of the annual A.S.U.C. election season is attributable in large part to national politics. Parties like CalSERVE and Defend Affirmative Action Party (DAAP) campaigned this year to help fight global warming, end racial discrimination, and support affirmative action. (Even the slightly more reasonable Student Action candidates promised “green” incentives.) Each one of their platform legs can be analyzed and debated; however, the greater problem with the two parties’ platforms is not their stances but rather their attempts at bringing national political issues to a campus with its own separate problems.

As Bears, we are all proud of our world-class status, but we must face the fact that our university is a small speck on the national radar. Cal cannot save the Middle East. Ultimately, the Middle East must save itself. Likewise, the Middle East cannot save Cal – or even the save-worthy A.S.U.C., for that matter. The same parties that put national politicking before cutting spending, a balanced budget, and saving students money, are all too often consumed by partisan divide on these issues instead of focusing on the real problems that our A.S.U.C. faces.

Sadly, this is by no means something new. Recall that in 2003 the A.S.U.C. was caught donating tens of thousands of dollars to campaign against a California proposition, some of which were allegedly compulsory student funds.

Just this March, the A.S.U.C. spent $20,000 on a recall election of then-Senator John Moghtader, a pro-Israel supporter, who was accused of brawling with pro-Palestinian students after an event last November. Despite the hearsay evidence (later revealed as lies), CalSERVE members largely supported the recall. In fact, The Daily Californian revealed in March that A.S.U.C. President Roxanne Winston overstepped her powers by secretly supporting Students for Justice in Palestine and greatly expediting the recall process.

These debacles are paradigm examples of what happens when national politics are unnecessarily brought into the A.S.U.C. Instead of spending $20,000 on funding programs for worthy student organizations, or improving facilities, the A.S.U.C. was all too ready to waste the money on a politically-charged witch hunt that was later factually proven to be as such.

More recently, on April 14, the A.S.U.C. Store Operations Board voted down a lease agreement with Panda Express that would bring the food chain to the A.S.U.C. Mall, citing the progressive protests against the potential deal. This lease agreement was, according to estimates given in The Daily Californian, an opportunity for the organization to get out of its $200,000 deficit. Panda Express would have given the A.S.U.C. $47,500 in rent and approximately $100,000-$200,000 of revenue each year. This potential deal was the student government’s opportunity to pull itself up by its bootstraps and continue as a financially sound institution. Instead, by engaging in the national debate over the “eco-friendliness” of Panda’s products (which, interestingly, have been rated by several publications as “America’s Healthiest Fast Food Choice”) the A.S.U.C. is back at square one, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and no plans to eliminate the deficit.

Parties like CalSERVE and DAAP are not as progressive as they claim to be. By caring more about promoting fringe-left policies and less about the financial stability and autonomy of the A.S.U.C., these parties do a disservice to their constituents.
The federal government is established to deal with federal issues, the state government to deal with state issues, and student governments to deal with student issues. Any mixing of these institutions’ goals is improper and futile – in short, a waste of time. Even Berkeley’s Free Speech Movement dealt with a campus issue.

With the modern financial crisis in its beginning stages and major budget cuts already in progress, now is an especially good time to focus instead on our own expenses and our own liberties – and maybe those of our struggling student government.