Posted on 04/18/2002 5:43:33 AM PDT by Commie Basher
Two weeks ago, I suggested that George Bush's presidency had turned out to be amazingly similar to what we had feared from Al Gore. The only major difference is that there's very little conservative opposition to Bush's expansion of government, while we could have expected fierce opposition to Gore.
The article provoked some angry reactions from people who said that only a fool could fail to notice all the good deeds George Bush has done.
The Bush agenda:
Not wanting to be a fool, I've compiled a list of the good things conservatives believe George Bush has achieved so far. Let's look at them:
He opposed the Kyoto agreement on global warming, while Al Gore supported it. But since the Senate had already rejected the treaty, it doesn't matter what the president thinks about it.
He's said he wants to cancel the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty so the U.S. can build a missile defense. All well and good. But he hasn't done anything to get America out of the treaty or to protect us from missile attack, beyond what Bill Clinton had already done. So far, it's just talk.
He hasn't signed a bill imposing new gun restrictions. But, then, Congress hasn't passed such a bill, so we don't know what he'll do when the test comes. But he's already proposed closing "loopholes" in the unconstitutional gun laws already on the books. And given the way he's embraced foreign aid, campaign-finance reform, federal health care and practically everything else, why should we assume he won't sign the next gun-control bill? (He signed many such bills in Texas.)
Bush and Gore make opposing public statements on abortion. But just as Bill Clinton did nothing to promote abortion, so George Bush has done nothing to reduce abortions.
On Social Security, Bush has talked about wanting to let you invest a teensy bit of what now goes down the Social Security drain. But he has sent no specific proposal to Congress. Even if Congress would turn it down, shouldn't Bush at least make the Democrats publicly oppose your right to invest your own earnings?
Al Gore probably wouldn't have pushed through a tax cut as Bush did. In my view, a tax cut without a spending cut means only that the monstrous burden of big government is being rearranged – not reduced. But since others may see the issue differently, this matter is at least debatable. However, even here Bush discarded some of the provisions he had labeled essential – such as tax relief for corporations.
Perhaps Al Gore wouldn't have handled the terrorist situation as Bush has. But we don't know what Gore would have done. Prior to Sept. 11, we didn't know how Bush would have handled such a crisis. In fact, he's already reversed some of his earlier promises – such as not imposing pro-American governments on foreign countries.
The scorecard:
In sum, George Bush seems very good on things that don't count – gun bills he hasn't had to veto, environmental treaties that won't be enacted anyway, talking about the ABM treaty or reforming Social Security while doing nothing about them.
But where something has actually happened – foreign aid, farm subsidies, education, health care, campaign-finance reform, corporate welfare, and much more – he's expanding government at a blinding pace, just as Al Gore probably would have done.
And I doubt that Gore would have signed a punitive tariff on foreign steel – which could trigger a terrible trade war and injure the economy.
Who's to blame?
Am I carping at George Bush?
No, I'm carping at the conservatives who would have been screaming bloody murder if Al Gore were president and had done exactly what George Bush has done.
Conservatives don't oppose Bush because he's a Republican. For most Democrats and Republicans, it's all just a game – "beat the other team, whatever it takes."
If all you want is a president who will say what you want to hear, George Bush is your man. But if you want a president who actually does something to make your life better and reduce the government to its constitutional limits, you're no better off with Bush than with Gore.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Raise your sights
They tell you that in politics you must compromise. But all the compromises have been in the direction of bigger and more oppressive government. There are never any compromises in our favor – producing smaller reductions than we might want.
If you don't ask for what you want – if you don't demand what you want as the price of your support – you shouldn't be surprised that you never get what you really want.
When are you going to raise your sights – and stop supporting those who are selling out your few remaining liberties?
HA! But that doesn't seem to matter to folks around here blindly and ignorantly towing the party line and licking boots whenever possible (MMMMMMMMM tasty!).
Is George Bush perfect? No. Is he as similar to Al Gore as this article pretends? No. I'll take the tax cut, the ban on abortion funding abroad, the movement toward a missile defense, and the resolute action in Afghanistan (if not yet in the Middle East). If Al Gore had stolen the election, things would be very much worse than they are now.
Plus, after watching the last campaign, I have problems thinking that the Libertarian Party is truly conservative on many issues. The impression I had was all talk and no action, and great emphasis on me, me, me.
No matter. I've been a registered Republican since 1987 (was an independent before that).
Have also been a dues-paying LP members for nearly as long.
I'm ready to re-register as Libertarian (which you can do in California), so my registration and dues match.
Bushies have long been saying they "don't need (fill in the blank) in the GOP," so I guess I won't be missed.
It's been demonstratively clear that people around here don't mind big government as long as it fits their view of government.
I think Mr. Browne is trying to win hearts and minds in this article. They are marginalized because most Americans don't agree with them. It's just that simple. So they make as much noise as possible, and try to convince people they are right. What would you do differently?
I agree. It will take years, and I will do all I can to change
the hearts and minds of all freedom loving Americans.
I am convinced that the return to constitutional government
will never happen as long as we continue to
elect republicans and democrats who refuse to honor
their oath.
"Around here" sadly, but very definitely, includes FR.
Tuor
They are also marginalized because the mainstream media doesn't give them much air time.
Tuor
I believe Libertarians are marginalized because most Americans are scared to death of what their lives would be like if they had the freedom and responsibility as stated in the constitution. This is the true reason I see little difference between the dems & the gops.
Take the ideas in the article and remove the names, present the ideas and principles to the Amreican people, and you'll see more agree with the LP.
The biggest problem is that that too many voters say one thing and vote another.
Even here, among 'enlightened' Freepers, we see people who'd rather vote for a winner who is wrong than risk losing by doing what is right.
Nothing good ever came from consistently doing the wrong thing.
Bingo! Support of big governemnt is a sign of the fear of responsibility that comes along with freedom.
Tuor
Simply put, Browne is wrong on this. The treaty has never been submitted to the Senate.
The Senate, on its own, passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution rejecting Kyoto by 95 - 0, or some such. But the treaty is still out there. Algore eventually would have submitted it for ratification.
My hat is off to Bush for having the intestinal fortitude to reject the whole idea.
Too late, Harry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.