Just another stone in the bucket:
The Republican promise of smaller, less-intrusive government is getting harder and harder to believe. Especially when a more plausible plot line is unfolding every day: that the GOP has put aside the ideals of Reagan and Goldwater in order to pursue a political strategy based on big spending.
It’s not always easy to see how radically Bush has transformed the GOP — from Reagan’s admonition that “government is the problem” to Dubya’s own assertion that “when somebody hurts, government has got to move.” But it’s a real transformation — and an expensive one.
I have never been a big fan of GW Bush’s domestic policies, although the primary complaint from the loyal oppo has generally been along the lines that he isn’t a big enough spender/regulator. Still, the refrain that “But Kerry would have been worse” is starting to wear a little thin.
Between the Rovian big spenders and the prudish blue-noses pushing their own nanny state, the Republican Party’s status as a better home for libertarians than the Democrats is getting more and more dubious. Truly, libertarians are being cast into the wilderness, with their only company a smattering of gibbering anchorite “true believers” and associated hucksters. Why, its getting almost as bad in the US as it seems to be in Britain!
Now you know how Objectivists feel about the Libertarian Party!
*Still, the refrain that “But Kerry would have been worse” is starting to wear a little thin.*
I don’t think anyone has been able to credibly make that argument for quite a while. The opposite is true, it’s much easier to argue that spending would be far less under a Democratic administration offset by a Republican congress.
Last week the House passed a bill The Real ID Act” that would essentially “Federalize” state drivers licenses. Tomorrow the Senate will vote, and most assuredly pass it. They must have realized how popular this bill would be, which would explain why they had to bury it in another bill the provides more money for troops in Iraq and tsunami victims.
This is a Republican brain child, but the Democrats put up nary a fight. When both parties vote something in so easily… it generally means it’s something to be feared…
I’m with you. (A classical liberal in Romania, of all people) Tiny government rules! 😉 Monopoly on the initiation of force and contracts enforcement… am I in?
Hello Gabriel, wellcome to the club. Tell us more about Romania, please.
This stuff really burns me. What in the world are we freedom minded individualists supposed to do? Any suggestions? Somehow or another this has to be dealt with, but libertarians seem too individualist to band together to combat it. It’s starting to sound like we are long overdue for another violent revolution.
Libertarianism precludes the initiation of force, but not the response of force to the initiation of force.
I completely fail to understand how anyone could possibly have thought Dubya would reduce the size of government. This post is a joke yes?
Trackback is still broken so I’ll blogwhore.
Always vote for the other guy.
The idea that after Sept.11 what Bush should have been concerned with is slashing the size of the government is why Libertarianism is a fringe ideology that few take seriously. I was a militant ‘no initiation of force’ libertarian for many years. The events of Sept.11 and since have excorcised whatever shred of libertarian leanings I had left.
I still want less federal/central government, but its just not as high a priority as other concerns. And it should not come at the expense of traditional morality or the destruction of my homeland through mass immigration.
Federalism needn’t be a bad thing, even for a libertarian, as long as its powers are limited and members of the federation have sufficient free rein. For example, the thing I hate most about the EU constitutional treaty is the repetition of the word “harmonisation”. Closer cooperation is cool, forcing everyone to lead a similar life is not.
Bernie, you will note that I have long been unhappy with W’s domestic policy, because he has never felt any affinity for reducing government. What interested me in this article were some of the bullet points about how bad he has been on this front, but even more the speculation about the Repubs have pretty much totally jettisoned as an ideological matter any allegiance to the ideals of smaller government.
And yes, Kerry would have been worse on spending and the growth of government. His, and the rest of the Dems, only complaints about Bush was that he wouldn’t raise taxes and wouldn’t spend even more.
Shawn, you have been deceived and led astray by a very clever politician/media campaign to divert our attentions to so-called more important things than freedom. I STILL prefer my freedom to my security, recogizing that if I don’t I will have neither.
I understand that some provisions of the bill will be a real godsend to identity thieves. It may pass and get signed. At the same time people are getting more and more angry about identity theft, so the law may not last long. Does this count as a concern about security or about liberty then?
“Shawn, you have been deceived and led astray by a very clever politician/media campaign to divert our attentions to so-called more important things than freedom.”
Sure. The terrorist attacks on Sept.11 were a masterful deception created by the all-powerful neoconservative-zionist global illuminati in their dastardly campaign to become masters of the universe.
Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
When all else fails, blame the Mexicans.
– Josh
Sure. The terrorist attacks on Sept.11 were a masterful deception created by the all-powerful neoconservative-zionist global illuminati in their dastardly campaign to become masters of the universe.
Shawn, do you reject the notion that governments use awful events such as 9/11 as excuses for power grabs and massive extensions of their authority? It’s what they do. It’s what they always do. War has always been the means by which governments grow. If you have something like the “war on Terror” which by definition will never end, that is something any power hungry government machine will relish. Any power grab can be defended by saying it’s needed for the war effort. Anyone who disagrees is not a patriot. Think about it. For any government bureaucracy something like 9/11 is like getting 6 numbers in the lottery.
Thank you John K. You saved me some typing time.