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?
As if the Constitution gave us rights at all.
People can't seem to understand that the government belongs to us. We "hired" ourselves a government to do our bidding. Government isn't the source of rights for the people. People are the source of authority for the government.
It's a question of tactics. Telling the American people that the very first thing you're going to do if elected -- before even making your acceptance speech -- is to pardon all the druggies may be a wonderful way to make a statement about how bad the WOD is. But it's also a guaranteed way to make sure you never get to do anything more than make statements.
If we want to actually do anything about the WOD, or any of our other ideas, we have to get some people elected.
If the older generation actually loves liberty, they've got a d*mned funny way of showing it. In my experience, older people are fixated on securing 'socialist' benefits.
I'm not arguing that 'pardoning drug offenders' ought or ought not be the first act of a 'libertarian' government; I'm claiming that honesty on the drugs issue is the best way to earn the confidence of the rising generation.
As a sometime Libertarian candidate in Canada, I can assure you that many, many folks were open to truthful talk about drugs. Very few folks were interested in philosophical/historical issues concerning the political development of the modern Canadian state.
I've spent considerable time in the U.S.; I don't think Americans, especially the young, are much different than Canadians.
Slick accomplished much with a hostile Senate AND House.
IOW, .0003 = .03%
I just can't stand innumeracy.
Libertarians have proved they can ruin a Republicans chance for victory, i.e. John Ensign of NV in '96 ('98?) but look what we got instead of him?
My point is, if Libertarians were/are going to make their mark, they better change strategies. What they have done for past 31 years just hasn't cut it...
The RLC was formed in 1990. Maybe in time, like thinking individuals will rally together and overcome our MAJOR obstacle (the DNC) and work to restore the Second Amendment, cut taxes, reform taxes, reduce the bureaucracy, etc.etc.
If the older generation actually loves liberty, they've got a d*mned funny way of showing it. In my experience, older people are fixated on securing 'socialist' benefits.
Many of the older generation were a bunch of druggies themselves. They know how badly drugs can mess a person up. They want to "protect" the younger generation from that.
Plus, you've read FR. Whether it's because of our dumbed-down education system, or because of lack of basic intelligence, most Americans do not have any idea what's in the Constitution. They are ignorant of the most basic of Constitutional principles. They do not know the history of our country. They do not know anything about the philosophical underpinnings of our nation. Worse, they don't make any attempt to educate themselves.
Because of this, they are easily swayed by emotion. Our youth is no better educated. I don't know if there would be any better results with appealing to them.
I'm not arguing that 'pardoning drug offenders' ought or ought not be the first act of a 'libertarian' government; I'm claiming that honesty on the drugs issue is the best way to earn the confidence of the rising generation.
Unfortunately, Harry Browne made a point of saying that's what he'd do. Not just once, but virtually every time the man opened his mouth. The man has great ideas, but he almost never talks about anything other than the WOD. Because of that, most Americans perceive us as a one issue party.
As a sometime Libertarian candidate in Canada, I can assure you that many, many folks were open to truthful talk about drugs. Very few folks were interested in philosophical/historical issues concerning the political development of the modern Canadian state.
Many people will talk about it here too. But not as many as will listen to talk about cutting taxes or reducing federal regulation or just getting government out of our lives.
Again, it's a question of tactics. Which issues appeal to the most people. From the reaction I get from the people I talk to, the LP would be better off if it distanced itself from its reputation as the party of dopers and whores.
But either way, good luck in future elections.
I try not to think about that.
Unless it's October 2004, and Bush is polling neck-and-neck with some Dem. Then the GOP will be begging everyone (Libertarians, Buchananites, Constitution Party), to PLEASE come back, that THIS election is too important to lose, and to wait for 2008 to vote your principles.
Bush's momentary high poll numbers have given a false sense of confidence to the Bushies. So they feel safe purging the GOP of "druggies" and such.
That's a +
Then, you have the CFR cave and all the rest that the "wet panties for bush" crowd try so hard to spin.
Good luck to ALL of us in future elections! ;^)
FWIW, I don't think running separate 'Libertarian' candidates is the way to go, either.
I think the RLC has a much better prognosis than Harry Browne's claque. That doesn't mean libertarians should stop educating the public, however.
Is that why your disposition is so deb-like?
No it isn't. I wasn't trying to argue points, because (don't take this personally) opening up a debate when the thread is over-run with Browne fans is useless.
I've read Harry's articles, I've listened to him during interviews (both TV and radio), and I get tired of reading the same article over and over. To be honest, I didn't even read this article.
* GWB is a neocon, blah, blah, blah
* Republicans are are neocon/socialist, blah, blah, blah
* Drug war blah, blah, blah
* No foreign entanglements blah, blah, blah
* Conservatives are wrong, libertarians are right blah, blah, blah
Harry just sounds like a bitter, tired loser. He doesn't bring anything new to the table, it's just the same stuff, over and over. Even when he's right, it's just too easy to tune him out.
I think if the libertarian party/movement/cult is really serious about moving forward, they need another spokesman besides Harry. Anytime I've seen him speak, without fail, give him long enough and the topic always comes back to drugs. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong on the issue, the majority of Mom and Pops are just not ready to listen to it. As soon as he turns to that, remote controls all over the country are clicking away, with people muttering to themselves "what a nutjob".
Look this is longer than I wanted it to be, and I know you think I'm 100% wrong. But as far as him being a spokesman, it's not happening. And as far as the drug position, I don't think libertarians will be elected to higher office as long as it remains such a high campaign priority. Open a discussion after you get elected, because your party does have "some" legitimate points. But it scares away too many people that don't have the time to study the issue, and it will continue to be a non-starter with the general public.
Oh, goodie! It appears we Americans get to meddle in the politics and education of our Canadian neighbors, now. ;)
Broadcasting live RIGHT NOW! "Trueblackman" will be broadcasting his inaugural show on RadioFR! Tonight it's a FREEPFORALL! TBM will be discussing several current issues! Call in with your questions and topics!
Ronald Reagan did a great deal more with a hostile House. But then Ronnie ran on a "cut government" platform and W ran on a "grow government" platform.
Don't see where you get this. Many unconstitutional laws have been passed by a GOP House and a GOP President. The anti-free speech bill being one of them.
It wouldn't have been any different if the GOP controlled the Senate.
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.