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?
Why would anyone want to? Kinda like buying a bankrupt company.
You’d just rather keep taking your potshots at the GOP, suck away some votes from good conservative candidates and maintain your status as a marginal party. You can only count your victories by how many democrats your help elect.
I won't argue as to what that state might be. But nevertheless, you should reread my #107 and think about the difference between .0003 as a ratio, and .0003 as a percentage.
To someone NOT in 'your state', it's the difference between, say, 3 in 10,000 and 3 in 1,000,000.
I'll give no more instruction in arithmetic.
Many a company has been taken over when on the verge of bankruptcy and built into something great. The LP has great potential, it's just that the current leadership doesn't know how to use it.
I was happy that last year on Dennis Praeger's show he asked people to work hard to elect 30 more Republicans so they'd have a working majority to combat the Democrats.
Unlike leftists, it seems that no two conservatives agree on every issue, but fortunately most are smart enough to see the bigger picture for the sake of the country.
Look, when the GOP stops behaving like big government facists, I'll stop taking pot shots. The government has seen some of it's largest expansions under the "conservative" watch. When I see the GOP begin acting like a Constittuoinal form of government matters, then I'll stop taking pot shots.
You can only count your victories by how many democrats your help elect.
It's like I said. I'm not too terribly concerned as long as niether GOP nor the Dems has a majority. Stalemate is nice. Because passed legislation by either party is going to result in bigger government. As long as you guys spend all your time bickering and no time getting anything done that means government is not expanding. Suits me fine in the absence of people who really care about the a Constitutional form of governemnt in Congress.
You have just summed up in this sentence my main argument against Libertarians. And, let me say this; though I have been flamed crispy by them here for my criticism for Libertarians leading with the drug issue, my stance is not necessarily against Libertarian philosophy overall.
To me, the drug issue for a political party is akin to a boxer leading with his chin. He won't last past the third round with those tactics. To wit, Libertarians as a party chose the one issue to hang their hat on that made it so easy for others to vilify them.
A redefinition of Libertarians is needed. Or, a disband and restart. For success, they must rid themselves of the image of "The Party of Drugs."
Now, before anyone fuels up the flamethrowers, let's rap a bit. Boldface so this is made clear about me once and for all: I am NOT against the principles behind the legalization of narcotics as the so-called WOD has granted massive powers to the federal government that the Constitution does not grant to it. However, are there other ways to achieve the destruction of the WOD without necessarily harping on drug-legalization? I believe that there are. For instance, the so-called WOD has given the feds unfettered monitoring of people's financial transactions (as if the IRS isn't enough all by itself!). It has granted tyrannical police powers to the state. It often violates IV Amendment protections, i.e., "no-knock-raids." And there's a plethora of other abuses by this so-called WOD, but since the audience here knows all about them, you get the idea of what I'm saying.
Why not go after these abuses as an initial attack on the flanks of the WOD? Some might argue that you cannot attack these abuses without going after drug-legalization. That's not the case at all. For one, going after these abuses individually strips opponents of the weapon of labeling the initiatives as "pro-drug."
Both Libertarians and Republicans are guilty of not attempting to influence policies at the state level. If state representatives are elected who push these initiatives, it stands to reason that federal representatives of the States are more easily elected to change these policies at the federal level. In short, we are going after all that we desire the wrong way. Attacking the leviathan at the federal level is monumentally difficult and darned-near impossible. The building of any house begins with the foundation. I've never seen a house being built that completed the roof before it poured the concrete for the foundation. It makes no sense.
And this is what must be done by both Libertarians and Republicans (and sundry other conservative third-parties).
So, in conclusion, my critiques are more of tactics than of "principle." I've said it and will continue to say that "principle" means nothing if you aren't elected. Faith without works is dead, and principle without power is equally dead.
Agitate. Legislate. Litigate. Defeat the Left, and I don't care what you call yourselves. Just defeat the Left.
News flash to you only. The rest of the world already figured out that my screen name is the same as his name was. The reasons I picked that name are in my profile.
You have nerve as an imposter defiling the name of a great man and with YOUR opinion. Shame on you.
I think you need a reality check. Did you take your medication today?
You don't honor him, you cause him to turn over in his grave.
My intention was not to honor him or dishonor him, only to bring his ideas to the mind of slow thinkers like you. A waste of time. PS,,he isn't moving in his grave, his bones are static. Like your brain, he is dead.
Don't forget whores. When they're not yammering on about drugs, they're going on ad nauseum about how prostitution is a victimless crime. Or they are giving speeches in praise of pornography.
They have some great ideas that would have tremendous popularity with the electrorate, but you have to work hard to find that out.
As you suggest, the best thing for the LP to do would be to attack these issues from the periphery. Attack the WOD by attacking the laws that have come from it. Attack all unconstitutional laws and show how they give the government too much power over us. Never even mention drugs.
Unless the LP adopts a course like that you outlined, it will never actually accomplish anything on a national scale.
You on it, doggone it, Top! Just enough, that's all.
I call this "political guerilla warfare." I put a copyright on that phrase, but other "Right-minded" people may use it. ;-)
You would need to resurrect the real TJ in order to get HIS OPINION.
Until you change your name to JesusChrist and raise the real Jefferson from the grave, we will never know the REAL JEFFERSON VIEWS. Jefferson would have to take today’s world in before he could render an opinion. THAT ISN"T GOING TO HAPPEN!
Please name the libertarians who ever gave a speach praising pornography. If you cannot, please withdraw your slander.
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.