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?
Perhaps not. But neither will the GOP. And at least the LP has these ideas about cutting government -- which cannot be said about the GOP.
I see what you're saying, but I disagree. The GOP base thinks of cutting the size and scope of government, but the non-politicos who are the GOP representation in the House and Senate don't. Well, they don't know how to fight. They think that politics is a debating club.
But the GOP base never insists that the elected officials do anything about cutting government. They may think about it, but when they get right down to it, they are happy to elect people who promise to grow government, so long as the politician has a GOP label.
Take GW for instance. Throughout his campaign, he promised to grow government. He never suggested he'd cut government. But the GOP base elected him anyway.
Anti-porn campaigners warn women that the possible dangers of sexual violence are too high a price to pay for freedom, whether it be freedom of expression in general or the specific right of women to explore their sexuality. We should cower once again in the "safety" of marriage rather than risk the fear of sexual assault, we are told. Pornography "gives men ideas", you know, and those ideas are of no use to women. Anyway, porn is just "pictures of women for men", and shows "no mutuality" - and you know, they are absolutely right about that, where the UK is concerned, because the existing censorship doesn't much allow you to show anything else.
How can you have mutuality if you can't show people together? How can you portray men sexually if you can't even show erections? Anti-porn "feminists" say this is an innate trait of pornography, but it certainly isn't a factor in the porn available in Europe and America, where plenty of porn shows mutuality, cocks, female sexual assertiveness and such. The much-deplored "imbalance" British women find in porn is an artifact of censorship, not of human sexual interest in sexual material. In other countries, women consume pornography; they don't do it here because there's nothing to buy."
From another site about why to vote libertarian:
"One of the few agreed-upon issues by Bush and Gore in this year's election is the problem of "smut" and "filth" on the internet. We must put sex and violence filters on computers in schools and libraries. We must shut down obscene web sites and prosecute their owners. We must do whatever is necessary to protect children from the dangers of online pornography.
Well, I say ba humbug and fiddlesticks to that! Bring on the smut!"
Another Libertarian group has a web page with links to such articles as "Tales from the Clit".
One Libertarian group runs a virtual prostitution museum.
There are more of these people than you can shake a stick at.
I know the official LP position does not praise porn. But a whole lot of people claiming to be Libertarians do. This damages the image of the entire movement.
By the way, I agree with the LP position on porn. My position is that maybe we should remember "Loose lips sink ships."
Go to the head of your class.
There is a Republican site claiming that all Republicans like to eat babies too.
No real libertarian ever promoted porn as a libertarian position.
Kevin Curry and Roscoe and CJ run the sites you mentioned.
Have faith. anything is possible. Just look at the news everyday. Shifting alliances and whole countries switching political and economic systems. And then there is the ...........
...Middle East, in particular that little speck of ground that everyone is fighting over..........ISRAEL.
We live in the end times, in this writer's opinion and we are in for the show of our lives.
God is in charge and I expect no letdown from Him.
CATO
And getting 0.01% percent of the vote is going to do that? Ha, I won't hold my breath waiting for the Libertarians (or any fringe party) to do anything.
Meanwhile....
Our government grows, takes more of our money and spends it to benefit themselves.
Perhaps working for change wihtin the party could work...
It hasn't so far....
Or are you in favor of bigger government, more taxes, and less freedom.
What would you suggest?
Libertarians (or any "fringe party") will make a difference when they attract a decent percentage of the vote (say 5% or more) and that difference is the difference in the election.
Ross Perot didn't even come close to getting elected President in 1992, but he forced both Democrats and Republicans to focus--against both parties' wishes--on the deficit and national debt.
It's not necessary to win...only to significantly place. The Socialists and Progressives didn't win (the Presidency, or many members of Congress) but they did get most of their agenda enacted.
Your comment that libertarians are terrorists in bad taste, and detract from what is otherwise a good point.
Republicans on the other hand, have done a wonderful job at reducing the size of government...
Like when they federalized airport security workers.
And expanded federal involvement in education.
And provided free prescription drugs for seniors.
And re-funded NEA and NEH after they were already dead.
And pushed that big fat socialist farm bill.
And extended government unemployment benefits....
Yeah, it's a good thing the GOP is on the job alright.
Otherwise government might be growing or something.
And what is the site address?
Wow...
Didja think that up all by yourself?
All buy yourself huh?
Too funny for words.
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.