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?
If Harry Browne were President, but Congress was the same as it is now, would things be any different?
Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be much popular demand for smaller government these days. It's going to take a massive change in the way Americans think about government before they demand leaders who are seriously committed to getting Leviathan back on its leash.
But it seems to me Libertarians could care less for their ideas and more for the notoriety of their party of getting elected, or at least hurting another party.
Hmmm...I belives that legislation like CFR, & the patriot act would have been passed regardless. The republicans show no interest in reducing the size & scope of government.
the Libertarian cause is not to support conservative republicans, but to drastically change the way our government operates by winning election to office.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
(Not that I agree with your assessment of emphasis.)
Incrementalism in all things is doomed to failure, because it concedes to the left principle. You cannot win a victory for constitutuional government by seeking a smaller, but non-zero dollar amount for an unconstitutional program. That is an argument over degree, not kind.
All I would like to see is one -- just a small one -- one victory for constitutional government, argued on constitutional principle. CFR would've been a great opportunity. Get the first, small victory on principle and all else becomes possible.
You are too correct, sir.
BUMP for a good article. Everyone should note that everythng that Harry pointed out has been pointed out by many (libertarian)freepers on this site as well.
Consider this hypothetical: your party has a lock on the house, a veto/filibuster proof majority in the senate, and the WH. In this situation, where will you place the blame when government continues to grow and your liberty shrinks?
"There is none more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free!" -- Johann W. von Goethe
Regards
J.R.
There are a few reasons for that.
Many of the positions in the platform don't make sense as single issues. An example would be open borders. Without complete elimination of the welfare state, and repeal of any laws not allowing individuals (not governments) to make choices about their property and associations, and a few other items, open borders would be idiocy.
Another is that libertarians tend to be idealists rather than pragmatists.
But Harry's article brings up a good point. Government is GROWING, not shrinking. That's bad.
"There are never any compromises in our favor – producing smaller reductions than we might want. "
This statement from the article belies your statement.
The LP was started in Colorado 31 years ago and apparently reached it's zenith with the successful takeover of the Leadville City Council. First order of business? "Hey DUDE! Roll one up and let's go climb a mountain!"
The most famous libertarian is Ron Paul, and he has been a Republican for some time now. I get his cookbook. I am a $upporter of his. But Harry Browne? LP needs to put him out to pasture. Why wait for the third strike?
They have some good ideas. Pro-Second Amendment, anti-tax, favor smaller gov. etc. But their ability to convince others is sorely lacking. Perhaps the liberty Caucus inside the Republican Party is the way to go? You know, take over the Republican P. from within? Hell, it worked for the Communists. I mean the look what they have done to the once proud Democrat Party!
Dream on, the only way for the Libertarian party to get national power is elect conservative candidates from the republican party.
or the result could be conservatives splitting off from the republican party who abandoned them.
But principles don't matter. Remember? All that matters is getting a Republican in the White House. Who cares if he acts as bad or worse than Gore? We just want to win. Win at any cost.
Or at least that was the GOP mantra during the election.
I don't think they even care what way it expands -- so long as "their team" is in charge.
freedom of choice
is what you got
freedom from choice
is what you want
As Browne points out, Republicans are willing to settle for nothing. All the "Compromises" seem to end up in leftists getting what they want and conservatives getting nothing.
Until conservatives are willing to demand that politicians give them what they want, they will never get anything.
Another way of putting it is that politicians should have to earn our support.
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.