Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Progressive Insurance
Why libertarianism matters more than ever in Obama's America
Does the election of Barack Obama represent the triumph of progressivism and the end of libertarianism? Many on the left seem to think so. Obama's victory, argued blogger Matthew Yglesias, represents a "resounding victory for progressive ideals." The "old assumptions of free-market fundamentalism," declared The New Yorker's George Packer, "have, like a charlatan's incantations, failed to work."
But what the current vogue for the term progressive fails to acknowledge is that the original progressives embraced the worst abuses of state power in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Libertarians, by contrast, stood as consistent defenders of individual liberty in all spheres of human life.
Consider the Jim Crow South. As historian David Southern has written, disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, and lynching all "went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism." Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court decision that enshrined the doctrine of "separate but equal" and serves as perhaps the most potent symbol of the Jim Crow regime, dealt with a Louisiana law forbidding railroads from selling first-class tickets to black customers. That's not the free market making life worse. It's the government.
Moreover, as economist Tim Leonard points out, progressives believed in a "powerful, centralized state, conceiving of government as the best means for promoting the social good," a belief that directly contributed to the widespread progressive support for eugenics, racial collectivism, and various coercive "reforms." Progressive darling Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, held notoriously racist and imperialist views, including the notion of "race suicide," which held that the white race faced the risk of being out bred by its "little brown brothers." He also believed that the 15th Amendment should never have been ratified since the black race, in his words, was "two hundred thousand years behind" the white.
In opposition to all that stood libertarians like Moorfield Storey, the great lawyer and activist who helped found both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Anti-Imperialist League. A proponent of the gold standard and laissez-faire economics, Storey argued and won the NAACP's first victory before the Supreme Court, a 1917 decision that relied on a defense of property rights to squash a residential segregation law.
The New Deal-era saw some heroic resistors as well. Among them was Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland, one of the "Four Horsemen of Reaction" (along with Justices James McReynolds, Pierce Butler, and Wiliam Van Devanter), so named for reliably voting against New Deal regulations. An advocate of property rights and liberty of contract, Sutherland was also an outspoken defender of women's rights who, as a U.S. Senator from Utah, introduced legislation that became the 19th Amendment.
In his majority opinion in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), one of the precedents later overturned by the New Deal Court, Sutherland struck down Washington, D.C.'s minimum wage law for women, arguing that it violated their liberty of contract under the 14th Amendment. As historian Jim Powell observed, this law had thrown numerous women out of work, including elevator operator Willie Lyons, one of the figures in the case, who was promptly fired and replaced by a man willing to work at her old wage. In his majority opinion, Sutherland denounced the law for encouraging such perverse consequences. "Surely the good of society as a whole," Sutherland wrote, "cannot be better served than by the preservation against arbitrary restraint of the liberties of its constituent members."
Sutherland's most famous vote, however, arguably came without comment in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the 1935 decision that struck down the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which at that point was the centerpiece of the New Deal. Specifically, NRA price controls and other "codes of fair competition" had made it illegal for the Schechter brothers, who maintained a small Kosher slaughterhouse in New York, to set their own prices and let their customers pick out their own chickens. (Similarly, dry cleaner Jacob Maged would spend three months in jail in 1934 for charging 35 cents to press a suit, rather than the NRA-mandated 40 cents.)
"Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies," Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes held for the unanimous Court. "But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional powers." The NRA was finished.
But Roosevelt, who denounced the ruling for its "horse and buggy definition of interstate commerce," would have the last laugh. Two years later (two months after FDR threatened to "pack" it with more sympathetic justices, in fact) the Court overruled Sutherland's Adkins decision to uphold another minimum wage law for women, arguing this time that the state had a duty to "preserve the strength and vigor of the race" by protecting current and future mothers—a line that hasn't exactly sat well with feminist legal scholars. As historian William E. Leuchtenburg put it, "the Court was now stating that local and national governments had a whole range of powers that this same tribunal had been saying for the past two years that these governments did not have."
From that point on, the Supreme Court proved ready and willing to defer to FDR's vision for the country. Which might sound great to today's progressives, until they recall that FDR ordered the wartime internment of Japanese Americans, an executive action that the pliant Supreme Court upheld in Korematsu v. United States (1944). Sutherland, who died in 1942, at least did what he could to oppose the Rooseveltian juggernaut.
Indeed, as Sutherland and Storey's careers demonstrate, libertarian ideas have long served as a crucial check against the illiberal impulses of progressive majorities. The Jacob Weisbergs of the world notwithstanding, libertarianism matters now more than ever.
Damon W. Root is an associate editor of reason.
Seward|11.12.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Damon W. Root,
An example
from 19th century British history of true liberals vs. those who
oppose liberalism.
|11.12.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Start mattering now, dudes, before it's too late:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/hopeful-signs-on-health-care/
"But now Max Baucus - Max Baucus! - is leading the charge on a
health care plan that, at least at first read, is more like Hillary
Clinton's than Barack Obama's; that is, it looks like an attempt at
full universality. (The word I hear, by the way, is that Obama's
opposition to mandates was tactical politics, not conviction - so
he may well be prepared to do the right thing now that the election
is won.)"
|11.12.08 @ 3:19PM|#
I see no silver lining. We are doomed and that's all there is to it. Sure libertarianism matters more now than ever. It matters because we're all about to get fucked by the progressives. And when we're all good and fucked, the country will simply turn towards whatever fucking fuckers are calling themselves conservatives, who will by then be back to preaching the libertarian line so they can fuck us again once in power. We're still living with the shackles of the New Deal and Great society, even if they've been loosened a bit. But we haven't even begun to feel the pain of the coming Obamanation.
Alan Vanneman|11.12.08 @ 3:28PM|#
The recent market disasters, combined with Obama's election,
seems to have driven Reason mad. How about investigating ways to
preserve free markets in light of the recent two-by-four upside the
head evidence that they can fail in a catastrophic manner instead
of desperately blackguarding the New Deal, which, as I recall,
ended about 70 years ago?
I half-expect to see Reason to start running articles explaining
that you don't have to pay taxes because script that isn't
convertible into gold isn't "currency" and thus no one in the U.S.
has any income, or that the War Between the States was about
states' rights rather than slavery and that the South had a right
to secede.* Sad, sad, sad.
*And that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments aren't part of the
Constitution because they weren't approved by three-fourths of the
states.
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 3:32PM|#
How about investigating ways to preserve free markets in
light of the recent two-by-four upside the head evidence that they
can fail in a catastrophic manner . . .
The recent failing are in no way related to "free markets", because
the current system in the US is highly regulated where the
regulations have been scripted by the highest bidder.
Citizen Nothing|11.12.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Wasn't Vanneman blathering earlier about how much better off we
are now than before the death of disco?
Oh, wait. That was me.
|11.12.08 @ 3:36PM|#
How about investigating ways to preserve free markets in light of the recent two-by-four upside the head evidence that they can fail in a catastrophic manner instead of desperately blackguarding the New Deal, which, as I recall, ended about 70 years ago? [italics added]
NEW DEAL LEGISLATION REPEALED!
Funny, I missed that headline. Let me go check a pay-stub. ...
Nope, FICA still takes out a hunk of cash every week.
|11.12.08 @ 3:38PM|#
How about investigating ways to preserve free markets in
light of the recent two-by-four upside the head evidence that they
can fail in a catastrophic manner
Vanneman, you should really stick to reviewing Free Willy
if you think the markets are actually free.
Brian Sorgatz|11.12.08 @ 3:42PM|#
The recent market disasters, combined with Obama's election,
seems to have driven Reason mad. How about investigating ways to
preserve free markets in light of the recent two-by-four upside the
head evidence that they can fail in a catastrophic manner . .
.
The recent failing are in no way related to "free markets",
because the current system in the US is highly regulated where the
regulations have been scripted by the highest bidder.
Alan Vanneman,
Before accusing people of madness, please listen to them carefully.
Reason has been saying just that all along.
|11.12.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Er, Alan, you might have noticed that the recent failures
happened with all New Deal policies in place, and that the proposed
solutions look an awful lot like a New New Deal. I think its
perfectly relevant to examine whether the Old New Deal actually
helped with the financial crisis of the '30s, in evaluating whether
the New New Deal will help with the financial crisis of the
'00s.
I wouldn't confuse the need for libertarianism
more than ever with the idea that it will matter
more than ever. I suspect it will matter not at all, in the sense
of making a difference in our current lunge toward a bigger, more
intrusive state.
|11.12.08 @ 3:43PM|#
I agree with Alan.
Obama is no FDR. If you actually listen to him, the most striking
thing about him, beyond all of the bullshit, is the befundled
perplexity about the economy. He doesn't know what to do. He
doesn't have a plan beyond giving away goodies to his supporters,
which isn't a plan. He can't come up with a new deal where the
government tells people what chickens they could buy. The country
would revolt.
The conservative doomsayers all pointed to how Obama could do all
this crazy stuff because unlike FDR, there already is a big
government in place for him to start making mischief. Actually, the
opposite is true. The big government hems in Obama's options. When
FDR took over none of this stuff had ever been tried. There was
tons places to go and new programs to try. Now, the government is
20% of the economy and is doing nearly everything you can imagine.
All of the obvious sollutions have been tried before and failed or
already are being tried.
The best thing Libertarians can do is to let Obama flail around and
keep arguing for the free market.
|11.12.08 @ 3:47PM|#
John, I have to disagree:
All of the obvious sollutions have been tried before and failed
or already are being tried.
That is no bar to saying that we just need to do them more and
bigger. In fact, that is the traditional response to a failed
government program of any kind.
alan|11.12.08 @ 3:52PM|#
R C Dean | November 12, 2008, 3:47pm | #
John, I have to disagree:
All of the obvious sollutions have been tried before and failed or
already are being tried.
That is no bar to saying that we just need to do them more and
bigger. In fact, that is the traditional response to a failed
government program of any kind.
In fact, as insane as it is on the face of it, Krugman has made the
argument recently that the New Deal failed because it did not go
far enough.
|11.12.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Obama is no FDR
For the sake of my Japanese-American friends, I certainly hope
not.
-jcr
|11.12.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Krugman has made the argument recently that the New Deal
failed because it did not go far enough.
Krugman is trying like hell to be a latter-day Keynes. He'll say
anything that promotes the concentration of power, no matter how
asinine it is.
-jcr
|11.12.08 @ 3:55PM|#
"That is no bar to saying that we just need to do them more and
bigger. In fact, that is the traditional response to a failed
government program of any kind."
But they can only get so big. At some point you just can't pay for
them anymore. We are seeing that right now with the bailouts. We
are going to bailout a few industries and then quickly run out of
money and get out of the bailout business.
As far as regulations go, what exactly could we pass short of
mandatory ritualized suicide for failed exectutives that would be
worse than SARBOX? Further, many of the really strong regulatory
controls, things like carbon controls and the like, even their
proponents admit will cost a lot of money to impliment. Those types
of things are luxuries of a growing economy, not what you can do
during a recession.
You can hand out welfare to the unemployed, but we already have a
pretty generous welfare state. If you get past the nuts and look at
the serious people in the Democratic Party, I don't think they know
what to do now either. They know they can't raise taxes or
impliment a bunch of crazy enviro regulations during a recession.
They also know we are at war and running a huge deficit. Their
options are very limited. Good luck explaining that to their wacky
supporters, but that is reality. They are in a hell of a bind.
alan|11.12.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Krugman is trying like hell to be a latter-day Keynes. He'll
say anything that promotes the concentration of power, no matter
how asinine it is.
-jcr
Which begs the question of how far the plump little butterball
wants to take the US economy in a state directed direction. Would
pre-deregulation India suffice?
|11.12.08 @ 3:57PM|#
RCD, every govt program is both enough of a success to show the govt deserves more money and power, and enough of a failure to show the govt needs more money and power.
John McCain|11.12.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Obama is no FDR
Senator, I served with FDR, I knew FDR, FDR was a friend of mine.
Senator, you're no FDR.
|11.12.08 @ 4:02PM|#
"Would pre-deregulation India suffice?"
That is about what it would take. Good luck winning elections after
you do that. Most people are not old enough to remember how bad the
1970s really were. Hell, Reason is always waxing poetic about how
great it was and how Ford was an under rated President. The 70s
were terrible. The best way to turn people against big government
is to give them a dose of it, a real dose, nut just a buch of pork
spending and defense bills.
Andy|11.12.08 @ 4:04PM|#
The only way I see libertarianism mattering is how it can now
test the conviction of liberals who screamed about torture, wars of
choice, executive power, on and on. Their guy is in the White
House, will they keep the same views?
Obviously the conservatives failed this test, if libertarians push
their way (back) into the GOP and actually keep some influence,
that would also give them relevence.
|11.12.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Would pre-deregulation India suffice?
For Krugman? I think he wouldn't be happy until we were living like
Cubans and listening to Obama lectures for five hours a day.
-jcr
|11.12.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Ford was an under rated President
Ah, those were the days. Remember how inflation just went away
because we all put on "WIN" buttons?
It wasn't until many years later that I realized just how much of a
mediocrity Jerry Ford really was.
-jcr
|11.12.08 @ 4:11PM|#
We are going to bailout a few industries and then quickly
run out of money and get out of the bailout business.
Well, we've long since run out of money, but the feds are still in
the bailout business. The question is just how much longer the
freshly inflated dollars will be of any use to the bailout
recipients.
-jcr
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 4:15PM|#
There was a great political analysis on a comedy/variety show
back then that explained how we nominate candidates for
president.
The analyst started with a blank sheet of paper then wrote down the
population of the US. He then proceeded to subtract the number of
women, blacks, latinos, etc, etc, etc.
The conclusion was you get down to two white men: a peanut farmer
and a guy the used to play football without a helmet.
|11.12.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Presidents in my lifetime performances in office.
1) Eisenhower
6) Kennedy
8) LBJ
9) Nixon
4) Ford
7) Carter
2) (tie) Reagan
5) Bush I
2) (tie) Clinton
10) Bush II
Maybe I should swap Kennedy and Bush I. Either way, Ford stacks up
fairly well among the competition.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 4:51PM|#
It is hard to judge Kennedy since he was in such a short time,
but I mostly agree with your rankings J Sub.
It is sad that Clinton and Reagan are tied for second.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 4:56PM|#
John--
The best strategy for him is to do little stuff that costs little
or no money and wait out the recession.
|11.12.08 @ 4:58PM|#
J Sub D,
Kennedy came the closest to getting the country in World War III.
His attorney general also routinely used FBI wiretaps against
political opponents. He was embarassed by the March on Washington
and did little to actually help the civil rights movement.
You bitch and moan about Bush, and then you put Kennedy who did
things Bush never dreamed of doing number 2?
You put LBJ and Nixon above Reagan? LBJ and Nixon both used the
national security and intelligence communities for political
purposes and actively spied and tried to blackmail their political
opponents.
Do you give a shit about civil liberties or just like to bitch
about whoever is in office? No one who cares anything about the
abuse of the power of the Presidency could rank Kennedy, LBJ and
Nixon that high on any list.
kinnath\'s dad|11.12.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Nixon, the only man that when talking out of both sides of his mouth was lieing out of both sides of his mouth.
|11.12.08 @ 5:01PM|#
After all the whining you have done over the last few years J
Sub D, you should be ashamed of yourself for not rating LBJ and
Nixon lower. Read the history books for God's sake. Lying us into a
war? Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? It was totally fake
and made up by Johnson to get us into Vietnam. Oh by the way 50+
thousand Americans died in Vietnam. It was Iraq times 10.
Do you hold Democrats accountable for anything?
BDB|11.12.08 @ 5:01PM|#
John--
The order he has them placed in from top to bottom is
chronological. The numbers next to him are the ratings. Eisenhower
is number 1, Clinton and Reagan tied for second, etc.
Hogan|11.12.08 @ 5:02PM|#
john - i think he listed them in chronological order and then gave numbers next to them for the rankings. i pretty much agree, though i think i would shuffle them around a little at the bottom.
|11.12.08 @ 5:02PM|#
I take that back. You put them in chronological order. i thought you had Kennedy and LBJ two and three.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Carter, while sucking on a lot of things, did roll back the Johnson/Nixon abuses if nothing else.
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Actual lede from Time magazine during the Carter years:
More Mush from the Wimp
|11.12.08 @ 5:06PM|#
J Sub D,
You are idiot if you would not put Nixon last. He abused the Intel
and LE communities in ways Bush never dreamed of. He also
instituted wage and price controls and created the EPA. He was big
government personified in a much more fundemental way than Bush. He
also abused the governmental powers in much more profound and
dangerous ways than Bush ever did. Show me where Bush ever used the
CIA to gather information on Democrats in hopes of black mailing
them, and then maybe I will agree with you.
As I explained above, LBJ and Kennedy were much worse on civil
liberties than Bush. They also created the great society and were
just as bad or worse about spending. They got us into Vietnam and
Kennedy almost destroyed the world during the Cuban missile
crisis.
You only think Bush is 10 because you don't fully understand what
Nixon, LBJ and Kennedy actually did.
|11.12.08 @ 5:08PM|#
One other thing J Sub D,
Before you start whining about GUITMO and water boarding, go back
and read about US SOGs in Vietnam and how they treated detainees
and how they fought over there. Bush really has played by the
Marquis of Queensberry Rules compared to past wars.
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 5:09PM|#
I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Nixon because he pulled out of Vietnam when I was 17. However, it is a very, very small spot.
|11.12.08 @ 5:12PM|#
"Is Bush the next Harry Truman, John?"
Domesticlly no. But as far as foreign policy, he will be
rehabilitated to a large degree as the Dems find that they have to
do many of the same things he has done and continue many of his
policies. Mark my words in two three years Democrats will be saying
with a straight face "no one ever said Bush wasn't good on the war
on terror."
Pac|11.12.08 @ 5:15PM|#
It sounds like Reason is jumping on the Republican bandwagon in
terms of calling Obama a socialist. I do expect to see new
regulations and a strengthening of new deal safety nets with Obama,
maybe even bailouts for the debt strapped working poor to middle
class. Hell, i think he may succeed in passing some form of
universal healthcare. In essence, i expect him to head eurowards in
regards to social policy.
Sadly, i can't hyped up scared or mad by this.
Why?
American Express became a bank this week, or was it last week. This
type of corporatist garbage, regulations controlled by and for
corporations, and now with the bailouts is what has been passing
for free markets for quite some time.
To cry about "socialist Obama", and the unholiest of
nightmares....GASP...European style healthcare, sounds pathetic,
and a bit disingenuous.
Oh i forgot, Reason doesn't think anything is wrong with the
economy, we're all whiners.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 5:17PM|#
"Oh i forgot, Reason doesn't think anything is wrong with the
economy, we're all whiners."
I wouldn't call us "whiners" but saying this is the worst crisis
since 1932 is ridiculous hyperbole. I'm really sick of hearing
that. This is like 1991, not 1933 or even 1982.
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Ah the Carter Years. I have fond memories . . .
10% inflation, 10% unemployment, 12% mortage interest rates, and
Dan Akroyd talking down a drug overdose victim . . . .
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Kinnath, you first
Got one already. Wife, kids, grandkids, good job, the whole
works.
And I don't misrepresent what the reason staff say or any other
person that posts here.
Pac|11.12.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Where do i misrepresent?
I gave a calm opinion about what i think Obama will do, about the
reactions to what he might possibly do, and Reason's commentary
about the said economic situation thus far.
I don't think i misrepresented a thing. But you're welcome to your
opinion. if you'd rather talk about my life, i think i'll pass.
|11.12.08 @ 5:38PM|#
John, now that you got my complicated ranking system figgered
out, yes I easily put Bush below Nixon. We got out of 'Nam and
opened up China to the west during Nixon's terms in office.
Tell me about Bush IIs and his successes.
NCLB?
Medicare presription drug benefit?
Iraq?
Bailouts, bailouts and more bailouts?
Raiding medical MJ clinics?
Gitmo? (at least Nixon tried to hide his illegalities)
Name one fucking thing the Bush II administration has
accomplished that you find laudable.
|11.12.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Given that about 67% of young voters went for Obama, the chance that "voting with your heart" will be replaced by "voting with your brain" is pretty poor. To these 67%, government doing a lot more - heck it is only 20% of the economy, why not 40% - sounds like a plan. Those who can't remember history,,,,etc.
egosumabbas|11.12.08 @ 5:43PM|#
The editors at Reason are having buyer's remorse over Obama already? Where were they 6 months or even a year ago, trying to keep "progressives" out of office?
|11.12.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Katrina?
Signing statements?
Patriot Act?
C'mon, one fucking accomplishment from the current
administration that you'd put on a resume.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 5:44PM|#
J sub D you're going to get a long rant from John now on how the Iraq War was the best thing since sliced bread.
Pac|11.12.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Jsub D
OH, I know, making Socialism look good.
Oh wait, wrong answer
I'm going to look for that chorus of Doomsayers, see if they need a
new buddy.
|11.12.08 @ 5:46PM|#
I don't think feeling that Obama may have socialist leanings is
entirely a Republican monopoly. And I have no idea why Amex
becoming a BHC is a problem.
There's something wrong with the economy all right, and too much
government intervention is a big part of the problem.
J sub D,
Not to wade into this, but I suspect that Bush may get some credit
if Iraq works out. And it may. I still oppose the intervention and
oppose the idea of playing games in the Middle East in general, but
there it is. The cost and the domestic problems that arose from the
WOT are a whole 'nuther issue, of course.
Oh, and he might look better if we suffer more domestic terrorist
attacks during the Obama administration, though I think that would
just be happenstance, not a cause-and-effect situation. But history
is silly in handing out warm fuzzies and cold pricklies.
Bush sucks, by the way. Thought I should say that.
|11.12.08 @ 5:47PM|#
I just realized that Obama-nation sounds almost exactly like "Abmonination". Thought I would mention that.
egosumabbas|11.12.08 @ 5:49PM|#
"Name one fucking thing the Bush II administration has
accomplished that you find laudable."
Opened up offshore drilling? Reduced taxes? He also vetoed a bunch
of spending bills (though that's totally negated by the bailout).
Not saying he was a good president, just it's a little ignorant to
say he done absolutely no good.
|11.12.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Not to wade into this, but I suspect that Bush may get some
credit if Iraq works out. And it may.
Wanna bet? A demoratic republic with respect for basic human rights
one year after the US pulls out and you win.
Loser has to read lonewacko's links and report on them for a
month.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 5:52PM|#
At best, Iraq will end up like present day Lebanon after we pull out. At worst, Yugoslavia circa 1992.
|11.12.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Opened up offshore drilling?
Seen any of those platforms getting built?
Reduced taxes?
Without a reduction in spending all he's done is make the young pay
later.
He also vetoed a bunch of spending bills (though that's totally
negated by the bailout).
When the GOP controlled congress (75% of his presidency), how many
spending bills did GWB veto? I'll give you a hint, the number was
less than one.
|11.12.08 @ 5:58PM|#
J sub D,
Your terms are too fearsome. . .I must decline.
I'm not sure what I expect in Iraq. I think things will remain
reasonably stable after we leave, but for how long, well, that's
the $2 trillion question. If oil stays low, that could create more
trouble.
Here's a mostly unrelated question: Which country(ies) will Obama
invade and/or attack? None is not an acceptable answer, because
he'll do it. They all do it.
|11.12.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Actually our resident blue teamer joe would, if he were here, point out that the Bush IIs handling of sub-saharan Africa is a plus.
Pac|11.12.08 @ 5:59PM|#
Wow Pro, don't see a problem. Maybe because they wouldn't have
done it if not for the bailout loans, but i guess there's no
problem there either. I wonder who will be next?
This site has gotten pretty weird since the whole economic
shenanigans started.
Except for their commentary on the drug war and various civil
liberties this place looks a lot like townhall.com
Reason sucks
|11.12.08 @ 6:00PM|#
"Which country(ies) will Obama invade and/or attack?"
Sudan.
The only question is when the troops leave Iraq, will they get some
R&R before be welcomed as liberators in Darfur?
BakedPenguin|11.12.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Carter had airline deregulation, naming Volcker to the Fed,
ending the draft, and ending the laws against home beermaking to
his credit. Had he legalized marijuana like he threatened to, he'd
probably be in my top ten. As it is, he's mediocre, but mediocre is
better than most presidents the last forty or fifty years.
OH, I know, making Socialism look good.
Not really, since according to someone who'd know,
Bush is a socialist.
|11.12.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Pac,
I think the bailout was stupid and think we should've allowed the
dumber banks and financial services firms to fail. How's that?
BDB|11.12.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Clinton did NAFTA, welfare reform, balanced the budget, and got a minimal number of soldiers killed in the hare-brained foreign interventions he DID carry out.
|11.12.08 @ 6:06PM|#
C'mon, one fucking accomplishment from the current
administration that you'd put on a resume.
Ummmmmm.....
.
.
.
.
.
He fucked the country over more than the previous 4 presidents
combined?
|11.12.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Clinton did NAFTA.
NAFTA was negotiated by Bush I. Clinton made some largely
irrelevant mods to it to placate some of his supporters and then
wisely got it approved. Botrh of them deserve credit for it.
|11.12.08 @ 6:18PM|#
I can't think of a single thing Bush has done domestically that
I would count as a major accomplishment except the tax cut, and
even that gets vitiated by his total lack of spending
restraint.
On the overseas front, the initial Afghan campaign was a success,
although that's been allowed to slide, and I think its fair that
Iraq has turned into a success (although some would refuse to count
it at all on the basis that we should have just left the Iraqis to
plot, or rot, depending on their station).
Any major trade deals, maybe? Congress killed the Colombian deal,
so maybe he gets partial credit for getting it as far as he
could?
Pretty thin, but I have been frustrated with Bush domestically
since, oh, about the time the Patriot Act showed up. Or that
prescription drug benefit. Whichever was first.
|11.12.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Make no mistake--the only accomplishments of Clinton were those he made when he decided jumping on the Contract with America bandwagon to get reelected was more important than being a Democrat. He also was obsessed with that whole legacy thing, which meant that doing something was critical to him, even if that something went counter to, well, the wishes of all of the people who voted for him.
|11.12.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Oh, I have one. Well, sort of. I do give Mighty Joe Bush credit for attempting to reform Social Security. He was betrayed and murdered in that effort by his own party, but it was one good thing he tried to do.
SIV|11.12.08 @ 6:54PM|#
Carter had airline deregulation, naming Volcker to the Fed,
ending the draft, and ending the laws against home
beermaking to his credit.
Hold on there BP !
Nixon ended the draft and Selective Service.
Jimmy Carter revived SS and reinstituted draft
registration
Apologies for the bold but I don't want anyone thinking you are
correct.
|11.12.08 @ 6:56PM|#
Quick questions, J Sub D:
1) In what way did the initial Afghanistan campaign rank as a
success? Tangentially, at what point did the initial campaign give
way to the the current quagmire, and did that impact on the initial
campaign's success? In what way?
2) In what way has Iraq turned into a success? Have we found those
WMDs? Are we safer from terror?
|11.12.08 @ 6:57PM|#
Oh, I have one. Well, sort of. I do give Mighty Joe Bush
credit for attempting to reform Social Security. He was betrayed
and murdered in that effort by his own party, but it was one good
thing he tried to do.
Do failed attempts count? The attempt to repair a broken system,
commonly referred to the third rail of American politics, deserves
some acknowlegement for bravery I guess.
SIV|11.12.08 @ 7:00PM|#
Actually I should be crediting Gerald Ford.
I didn't realize he had this accomplishment:
On March 29, 1975, President Gerald Ford signed Proclamation
4360, Terminating Registration Procedures Under Military Selective
Service Act, eliminating the registration requirement for all 18-25
year old male citizens. Then on July 2, 1980, President Jimmy
Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military
Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective
Service registration requirement for all 18-26 year old male
citizens born on or after January 1, 1960. Only men born between
March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959, were completely exempt from
Selective Service registration.
|11.12.08 @ 7:04PM|#
Clinton "balanced the budget" by slashing military spending so that when Dubya went on his harebrained escapade, our soldiers were unprepared. Yep, that sure is a check in his plus column...
|11.12.08 @ 7:04PM|#
List of Bush horror stories ... roughly in the order of
importance I place them
Gitmo
Wall Street Bailout
Abu Ghraib
Iraq
Farm Subsidies (amoung other subsidies)
Steel Tariffs (among other protectionist measures)
Budget Deficits (and general financial prolifigacy)
Prescription Drug Benefit
Stem cells
Katrina
Wiretapping
Gay Marriage
That runs the gamut of issues from foreign policy, to civil
liberties, to economics.
I don't think there's a single fucking thing on which Bush has
aligned himself with libertarianism.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 7:07PM|#
"Clinton "balanced the budget" by slashing military
spending"
Bush I started that bi-partisan process. "Peace dividend" and
whatnot. None other than Dick Cheney started proposing those cuts
as Secretary of Defense!
|11.12.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Quick questions, J Sub D:
1) In what way did the initial Afghanistan campaign rank as a
success? Tangentially, at what point did the initial campaign give
way to the the current quagmire, and did that impact on the initial
campaign's success? In what way?
2) In what way has Iraq turned into a success? Have we found those
WMDs? Are we safer from terror?
Err, that weren't me, but what the hey, I'll take a stab at
it.
1) We got the taliban removed from power and held elections (if
that really matters in Afghanistan). We underewstimated the
difficulties of pacifying an essentially medieval state (with
plastic explosives and AK-47s), but I don't think we had a choice
about getting involved. Maybe we could have caught bin Laden in
Tora Bora, maybe not. The rest of NATO may not like it, but foreign
occupation of the country should last decades. This would be easier
to sell if GWB hadn't invaded a country under false pretenses while
dissing our allies.
2) It hasn't. The factions that will bring down our imposed
democracy are just biding their time till we leave. Islamic
Republic or a return to thugocracy is Iraq's future. I hope I'm
wrong.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 7:09PM|#
Also, in a convention war, we would still have kicked the shit out of anyone in 2001. Its when you get into non-conventional warfare that the problem starts, and money doesn't fix that.
|11.12.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Yeah Clinton "slashed" the defense budget pretty good. Instead of spending eight times more than any potential enemy did on defense we were spending like 7.5 times. Shit, we're lucky Cuba didn't invade us and make us stop watching football and only watch baseball...
BDB|11.12.08 @ 7:13PM|#
"That man is a national treasure."
If by "national treasure" you mean "all-purpose GOP scarecrow" then
sure.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 7:15PM|#
You have to be real, real "special" to be attacked by a wild rabbit I guess.
SIV|11.12.08 @ 7:16PM|#
Hazel
Stem cells -Bush did nothing to outlaw this research.I credit him
with not funding it.I just wish he had extended this to all science
not related to a Constitutionally mandated function of
government.
Katrina-Bush should have ignored the Sovereignty of the State of LA
and gone in immediately but he didn't create the problem.Nature and
the elected offficials of LA are to blame.
Gay Marriage- I thought this one was all Clinton and the
Congress.
I don't consider it an "issue" at all as I am opposed to all State
recognition of marriage.
|11.12.08 @ 7:18PM|#
I've been thinking and thinking about good things Bush has
done...
Well, there is that part of NCLB that allows some limited school
choice if your kids school fails enough times to meet the
benchmarks. That's a good thing.
"I do give Mighty Joe Bush credit for attempting to reform Social
Security."
Yeah, that would have worked out GREAT in our current financial
situation, eh? All those seniors with their savings in Wachovia
stock counting on the dividend check to buy Depends...
|11.12.08 @ 7:20PM|#
"Katrina-Bush should have ignored the Sovereignty of the State
of LA and gone in immediately but he didn't create the
problem.Nature and the elected offficials of LA are to
blame."
Yeah, it's just that the Bush White House and GOP led Congressional
reports on the Executive's handling of that situation say that's a
bunch of bullshit! Failures were widely acknowledged and certainly
not limited to undue respect for LA statehood...
SIV|11.12.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Crow Eating Dumbass,
But what if all the privatized social security $$$ was shorting the
market? :)
BDB|11.12.08 @ 7:21PM|#
Good thing Bush did?
He didn't demonize Arabs and Muslims after 9/11. He could have
easily done an FDR there if he had been a real bastard. Which makes
me think he isn't am evil person (Nixon), just totally
incompetent.
|11.12.08 @ 7:21PM|#
ROFL. Is this a joke? I'm pretty sure that Democrats do not need libertarians as a "check" to avoid implementing Jim Crow laws or eugenics programs. What a crock!
BDB|11.12.08 @ 7:21PM|#
Oh, on that note, the attempted immigration reform. But it was a failure (again, his incompetence coming into play).
|11.12.08 @ 7:27PM|#
J sub D (fer realz):
Err, that weren't me, but what the hey, I'll take a stab at it.
Thanks! I agree with you while waiting for R C Dean's attempt at
justification, except that the Taliban just moved out of town for
awhile and now they're back, so we really didn't get rid of
them.
Johnny Nowhere|11.12.08 @ 7:39PM|#
my contribution to the "Bush Successes" list:
that speech he gave on the rubble of the Twin Towers, standing on a
fire truck bumper with a bullhorn.
I liked him in that moment.
Paul|11.12.08 @ 7:40PM|#
And when we're all good and fucked, the country will simply
turn towards whatever fucking fuckers are calling themselves
conservatives, who will by then be back to preaching the
libertarian line so they can fuck us again once in
power.
fuck me...
|11.12.08 @ 7:55PM|#
And when we're all good and fucked, the country will simply
turn towards whatever fucking fuckers are calling themselves
conservatives, who will by then be back to preaching the
libertarian line so they can fuck us again once in
power.
It's pretty much a gang bang, when you think about it.
|11.12.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Why did Dick Cheney really shoot that guy in the face? Was it,
as the conservative mainstream media would have you believe, a
"hunting accident?" Or was that man about to spill the beans about
Dick Cheney's secret gay sex affair with George Bush?
Fact: Cheney goes by "Dick" (many homosexuals use "dick" as a
codeword for penis, which they put in their mouths!)
Fact: Cheney has publicly stated that he "stands behind" Bush
"100%" (and is it just coincendence that this is exactly where gay
men stand when they are having gay sex with their partners?)
Fact: Cheney has relatives that are in fact gay (a direct lineal
descendant no less!)
Fact: Cheney has been admitted to GW hospital several times in the
past few years (while the public reason given has been "heart
trouble" that is of course hard to buy, a man with such troubles
would have been eliminated at the vetting stage of the VP selection
process, but what would you say if I told you that hospitals often
provide treatment to gay men whose anuses have been harmed through
gay sex? It's TRUE!)
When is Reason and other conservative media outlets going to ask
the real questions about Cheney's consumated love affair with a man
who is also the President of the United States?
A videotape explaining all these interesting facts overlooked by
the conservative media outlets that report "the news" can be bought
at a local progressive or afro-centric bookstore near you! Know the
truth!
Paul|11.12.08 @ 8:01PM|#
recent two-by-four upside the head evidence that they can
fail in a catastrophic manner instead of desperately blackguarding
the New Deal, which, as I recall, ended about 70 years
ago?
What failure? Oh, you mean that market correction which showed the
true value of all those complex debt instruments? I'm
sorry, we must have a differing version of the definition of
'failure'. Some of us live in a world where that's referred to as a
"market success".
For instance, some people refer to the recent A.S.S.R.A.P.E.
legislation as a "Rescue" act, others refer to it as a
"Bailout".
If I buy pork bellies on the commodities market and lose my shirt,
that's not a market failure, that's the market merely telling me
that I probably made an unsound investment.
The ultimate point here is that it's not about a market
'failure'... or even a market 'success', it is about the failure of
a group of institutions to heed the market signals (and observe
market fundamentals) that were ever so clear to a few curmudgeony
market 'fundamentalists'.
Talking about market failures is the wrong conversation. Maybe we
could start talking about our overregulated market which has
flood-walled our market so completely, that we can't see the
signals for what they are... until it's too late?
Nah, because that totally kills the vibe for
New Deal II, the Revenge of the New Deal.
Oh, and on this:
desperately blackguarding the New Deal, which, as I recall,
ended about 70 years ago?
Do us a favor, let the Democrats know. Because the Democrats have
recently taken on these 'new' ideas which are so 70 years ago.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 8:13PM|#
"Two words: Terri Schiavo."
Weird how that was the moment his whole Presidency started making
its long trip down the shitter.
Bingo|11.12.08 @ 8:24PM|#
BDB, it's pretty analogous to the Bush's entire presidency. A whole bunch of hand-wringing and rhetoric, aggrandizement and moralizing, blatant disregard for the Constitution, and, in the end, the subject of all that consternation ends up fucked.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 8:26PM|#
Good point Bingo. I was going to say Iraq would be, but Terry
Schiavo fits even better.
Please don't fuck us worse than Bush, Obama...
short, fat bastard|11.12.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Only men born between March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959,
were completely exempt from Selective Service
registration.
March 6th, 1957 -- Missed it by that much ;-)
Last group of 18 year olds to register for the Vietnam era
draft.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Honestly, Pro L, as long as things don't get WORSE than they are now I'll consider him a success. Is that really too much to expect?
Seward|11.12.08 @ 8:34PM|#
I think we should remember what Friedman concluded about the
Great Depression; namely that it was the fault of the Federal
Reserve via its omissions.
Paul,
You are right; market failure to a lot of people means any time an
individual, corp., etc. has financial problems. Of course what it
really refers to (in a rough way) are those parts of life where
markets are so ineffecient that government intervention provides a
greater effeciency. When one puts it that way its pretty obvious
that market failure is less common than is generally
understood.
economist|11.12.08 @ 8:36PM|#
"And when we're all good and fucked, the country will simply
turn towards whatever fucking fuckers are calling themselves
conservatives, who will by then be back to preaching the
libertarian line so they can fuck us again once in power. "
AARRGGH! MAKE IT STOP. My ass will be bleeding for years as it
is.
Seward|11.12.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Bingo,
A lot of the rhetoric around the U.S. auto manufacturers' problems
seems to assume that it is vital we make cars and car parts in the
U.S. (of course we will whether those companies survive or not) and
that somehow the jobs associated with that industry are some sort
of sinecure, or more accurately, if those jobs "disappear" they
will not be replaced by anything else.
economist|11.12.08 @ 8:40PM|#
Generally, the definition of market failure involves a systemic flaw in the decision-making process that makes the market inefficient, such as externalities.
economist|11.12.08 @ 8:41PM|#
Concerning the auto industry bailout:
"We can't have dem Japs takin' ur jebs!"
economist|11.12.08 @ 8:42PM|#
Sadly, I fear that we libertarians are doomed to
irrelevance.
But I'd rather be right than be relevant.
Bingo|11.12.08 @ 8:52PM|#
Seward:
I grew up in Detroit and the amount of political hold the unions
have is unbelievable. Additionally, the auto companies are run in
the most ridiculous way by the management. They basically follow
whatever trend there is a year ago and pump all their production
and money into it. Add onto that the pensions and retirements and
health care for the retired baby boomer auto-workers and you have a
recipe for disaster.
The Dems are the union party and they will essentially shovel money
into that burning inferno. It's not about the jobs, with the
pension and retirement funds there is almost no way to quench the
unions desires. It's a perfect storm that will inflate the
currency, result in expansive federal policies, and fuck over the
people that have actually tried to act frugally and
intelligently.
What the Feds *should* do is tell the unions to fuck off and let
Detroit fall into a shitstorm of rioting and save the rest of us
from fiscal destruction. What they will do is funnel more and more
money into a bunch of failed companies whose management is
completely incompetent and whose workforce is a bottomless pit of
unfulfillable desires.
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 8:54PM|#
A lot of the rhetoric around the U.S. auto manufacturers'
problems seems to assume that it is vital we make cars and car
parts in the U.S.
I remember when Zenith died. There was much hand-wringing about the
fact that there would never be another US manufactured TV.
But shipping a couple of of jillion TVs across the pacific is a
smaller problem that shipping all the cars the US needs across the
pacific and atlantic.
Cars will continue to be manufactured in the US (or at least in
North America). The CEO may just live somewhere else. Big deal.
economist (scared economic nat|11.12.08 @ 8:57PM|#
But kinnath, that means that the Japs and Koreans would have control over a signifcant part of our economy. It would be the end, you hear me? The end!
mike farmer|11.12.08 @ 8:57PM|#
I started my first small business in the 70s and lost my first
small business in the 70s.
I bought my first house shortly after the horrors of the 70s, eary
80s -- 11% interest rate if I remember correctly.
I was in New Orleans in the late seventies, stranded, out of gas,
trying to get on through to Texas -- I had to hunt for gas like
looking for a dope man in a new town.
I don't remember much about the late sixties or most of the
seventies, so I was there, I think -- what I remember was an
economic mess. Obama will likely be another Carter, without the
accent and crazy brother.
Seward|11.12.08 @ 8:59PM|#
kinnath,
Well, government policy shouldn't be to promote assembly line work
in the U.S.
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 9:01PM|#
Well, government policy shouldn't be to promote assembly
line work in the U.S.
You lost me there.
I said logistics dictates that some manufacturing of automobiles
will stay "close to home" for the US market.
I didn't say anything about government involvement.
Seward|11.12.08 @ 9:02PM|#
economist,
You know, South Carolinians shouldbe freaking out that most of the
TV shows in the U.S. are made in California. They have a TV show
gap that must be filled!
BDB|11.12.08 @ 9:02PM|#
I'd just like to know why we're the only first world country
that can't seem to have companies that make stuff like TVs and
decent cars anymore.
I'm not saying it is bad that we don't, I'd just like to know why
Holland and Japan can do it, but not us.
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 9:07PM|#
Holland
I don't think the Netherlands manufacture anything of significance
after Fokker died.
Seward|11.12.08 @ 9:08PM|#
BDB,
Why didn't a Japanese company create Windows?
Something I found about MITI the other day was interesting.
Apparently in the 1950s it made the decision to have only two
manufacturers of cars in Japan; Honda protested and it retained the
right to make cars (but without any subsidy). Imagine a world
without the Honda Accord.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 9:09PM|#
"I don't think the Netherlands manufacture anything of
significance after Fokker died."
Look here.
|11.12.08 @ 9:11PM|#
"I'd just like to know why Holland and Japan can do it, but not
us."
It must be those greedy silly unions which they don't have in
Holland.
Oh wait, 25% of their workforce is unionized and 3/4 are covered by
collective bargaining agreements.
So I guess it's not that, eh?
Seward|11.12.08 @ 9:11PM|#
kinnath,
Well, the Netherlands remains one of the world's busiest centers of
trade. Then there is their truly awesome flower and vegetable
industries.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 9:13PM|#
CED, what do you think of company unions?
They're the most common kind of union in Japan, but FDR outlawed
them here.
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 9:13PM|#
. . . and it employed 128,615 people in more than 60
countries
Don't know enough about Philips to say for certain, but I would
wager that the foundries for integrated circuits are in Asia.
kinnath|11.12.08 @ 9:16PM|#
Well, the Netherlands remains one of the world's busiest
centers of trade.
Amsterdam is an important port city, and it's gorgeous. Interesting
red light district too.
But I would take Singapore over Amsterdam for climate and scenery
(but the coffee houses have their own special appeal).
|11.12.08 @ 9:19PM|#
I think it's an oxymoronic term.
A person is only represented rightly by a group independent of the
other bargaining party.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 9:21PM|#
I tend to think they're the best middle ground. The Japanese economy has done very well with them.
|11.12.08 @ 9:23PM|#
Has the Japanese worker? Do they have more on the job liberty than their counterparts that are members of independent unions?
|11.12.08 @ 9:25PM|#
I like unions because for many people they are the best chance
for realizing any significant liberty at their workplace.
A truly voluntary agreement is more likely realized when the two
bargaining powers more closely equal one another in bargaining
power. For most workers unions further this.
|11.12.08 @ 9:28PM|#
Corporations allow folks to pool themselves to give themselves more efficacy, and there are legal protections to promote them (limited liability for example), much like unions. I have no problem with the corporate form either.
|11.12.08 @ 9:33PM|#
My dad was in a union. At his job the workers were not at the mercy of the arbitrary whim of the boss. There were contracts in place, bargained for with the collective might of the workforce, and the boss and the worker went by them. If it said they get three breaks a day they got it. In non-union jobs the authority of the boss over the worker is much greater and the worker is put into the much heralded by libertarians position of compliance with the will of the boss or quitting. Of course in real life very significant hits are taken when a person quits their job and thus people often sacrifice their liberty on a daily basis and comply...
BakedPenguin|11.12.08 @ 9:40PM|#
SIV - my bad. Ford also told New York to "Drop Dead" when they
asked for their bailout.
Given recent events, I think that was farsighted of the man.
|11.12.08 @ 9:52PM|#
My dad was not in an UAW union.
And I think GM's woes have more to do with management than with
their unions.
Baked
Ford was, I think, the last President to have played college
football. I doubt we'll see another one of those in my
lifetime...
|11.12.08 @ 9:54PM|#
Please, folks, "CED" is not going to ever be convinced by anything you tell him. Just let him alone.
BDB|11.12.08 @ 9:55PM|#
I still laugh every time I see the moniker you have to wear for 22 more days, CED.
BakedPenguin|11.12.08 @ 9:59PM|#
CED - If Sarah Palin can get with in 6% of the popular vote, anything can happen.
Seward|11.12.08 @ 10:20PM|#
CED,
A person is only represented rightly by a group independent of
the other bargaining party.
Unions are not "independent" (they have their own vested interests
in other words) and they certainly don't represent the best
interests of every person in a union. Indeed, that is one of the
main problems with unions and why they are so incredibly
ineffecient on average; they tend to close down interaction between
an individual employee and employers.
Seward|11.12.08 @ 10:22PM|#
CED,
A major reason that GM is doing so poorly is due to the pension
system which both management and the union agreed to many decades
ago.
|11.12.08 @ 10:40PM|#
# John McCain | November 12, 2008, 3:58pm | #
# # Obama is no FDR
# Senator, I served with FDR, I knew FDR,
# FDR was a friend of mine. ...
More of a godchild than a friend, methinks. But at heart a true
statement, I'm sure. ;-)
|11.12.08 @ 10:53PM|#
# Only men born between March 29, 1957, and
# December 31, 1959, were completely exempt
# from Selective Service registration.
But that doesn't mean we KNEW we were (going to be) exempt. It just
turned out that way. We sweated the damned draft "lottery" like
everyone else. Indeed, had the war continued much longer, I also
would have had to register and (given my unfortunate number) serve.
It's one of the few times in my life I can honestly say I caught a
big, lucky break. Makes up for all those dud California lottery
tickets I was later to buy, I gotta say.
Unlike many of my g-g-generation, however, I never hated the
warriors, only the war. The upper echelon officers and civilian
brass that brought us the wartime travesties of my youth should all
burn in the seventh circle of hell -- the one said to be reserved
for traitors and other abusers of trust.
|11.12.08 @ 10:55PM|#
xxx sorry, "upper echelon brass and civilian 'leaders'" -- emphasis on the quotes around 'leader.' I'm glad I kept those quote marks around: they're just as handy today, for the very same reasons.
Douglas Gray|11.13.08 @ 1:24AM|#
"It's a perfect storm that will inflate the currency, result in
expansive federal policies, and fuck over the people that have
actually tried to act frugally and intelligently."
Two excellent economists at UCLA recently verfied this thesis for
the Great Depression, showing how FDR's Policies actually made it
worse for the majority of those most in need. What happens is they
showcased the few that were helped.
History will repeat itself. Worst case scenario; Obama will try
things, they won't work, things will get worse as they did under
FDR, He won't be blamed and will remain popular; people still won't
get it, that statism doesn't work, and a libertarian approach
minimizes the harmful effects of corruption and excesses better
than any other approach.
|11.13.08 @ 7:42AM|#
"Except for their commentary on the drug war and various civil
liberties this place looks a lot like townhall.com"
That's a pretty low blow, don't you think?
geniusiknowit|11.13.08 @ 9:39AM|#
These so-called libertarian ideas are untenable. Arguing for a
mini-statist approach to government simply gives legitimacy to the
inevitable totalitarianism toward which our government is slowly
but surely headed. You're not arguing any logically discernible
differences between right and wrong. You're not showing there are
any black and white differences between good government and bad
government, but merely advocating for a different shade of
gray.
It's okay to coerce everyone into subsidizing the courts, police,
and military to protect the general welfare, but not okay to coerce
everyone into subsidizing doctors, hospitals, and insurance to
protect the general welfare? It's okay to coerce everyone into
subsidizing the creation of roads, bridges, and other
infrastructure, but not okay to coerce everyone into subsidizing
the cost of education, employment, and retirement for the same
people who create or use that infrastructure?
|11.13.08 @ 10:09AM|#
1) In what way did the initial Afghanistan campaign rank as
a success?
I think J sub handled it. Sure, the Taliban is now over the border
in Pakistan, but they're not the government in Afghanistan. Whether
they come back in and take over depends on how well Obama does,
doesn't it? Hard to lay their return at Bush's feet.
In what way has Iraq turned into a success? Have we found those
WMDs?
Saddam is gone. How quickly people forget that he was a major
sponsor of terror, how he corrupted the UN and our Euro allies, and
how weak and likely short-lived were the international sanctions
keeping his WMD program dormant.
AQ in Iraq is broken. The major cities have been turned over to the
Iraqis. They have a democratic government with as much claim to
legitimacy as most. At this point, it really looks like we
succeeded in creating a viable society there. Still a little early
to say, and nothing that can't be lost if Obama screws the pooch in
Iraq. But, again, that will be hard to lay at Bush's feet, won't
it?
sfb|11.13.08 @ 10:09AM|#
It's okay to coerce everyone into subsidizing the courts,
police, and military to protect the general welfare, but not okay
to coerce everyone into subsidizing doctors, hospitals, and
insurance to protect the general welfare?
Correct
It's okay to coerce everyone into subsidizing the creation of
roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, but not okay to coerce
everyone into subsidizing the cost of education, employment, and
retirement for the same people who create or use that
infrastructure?
Correct again
|11.13.08 @ 10:11AM|#
I like unions because for many people they are the best
chance for realizing any significant liberty at their
workplace.
I don't know many union members, but I'll never forget one guy who
told me that being in a union was like having twice as many bosses,
all telling you different things.
|11.13.08 @ 10:14AM|#
It's okay to coerce everyone into subsidizing the courts,
police, and military to protect the general welfare, but not okay
to coerce everyone into subsidizing doctors, hospitals,
and insurance, housing, automobiles, food,
wages, employment benefits, consumer credit, and professional
sports teams to protect the general
welfare?
geniusiknowit|11.13.08 @ 10:28AM|#
It's okay to coerce everyone into subsidizing the courts,
police, and military to protect the general welfare, but not okay
to coerce everyone into subsidizing doctors, hospitals, insurance,
housing, automobiles, food, wages, employment benefits, consumer
credit, and professional sports teams to protect the general
welfare?
Well, what is the sense in doing something only half-assed?
economist|11.13.08 @ 11:00AM|#
RC,
You're normally very rational, but when you start posting about
Iraq, I can imagine you suddenly developing a wild look in your
eyes and screaming "NO, it's not a failure!"
AW|11.13.08 @ 11:02AM|#
This is a good site for intellectual ammunition.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_new
economist|11.13.08 @ 11:04AM|#
My $0.02 worth,
I like unions as long as they're voluntary, and as long as they
can't use force (or the threat of force) to make employers deal
with them. I think that both Taft-Hartley and the Wagner Act
sucked.
economist|11.13.08 @ 11:42AM|#
"people thus sacrifice their liberty on a daily basis and stay
at their jobs"
Uh, no. Doing something that's necessary to survive doesn't count
as "sacrificing one's liberty". The vast majority of people have to
work to survive. Sometimes work can be a pain in the ass. Like
going to the doctor, buying groceries, and dealing with the goddam
fucking DMV (sorry, it's just that I went in to get my license
renewed yesterday, and had to wait four hours before my number was
called.)
Some things in life aren't fun. That doesn't make it the same as
tyranny. Really, you should be smarter than that, MNG.
|11.13.08 @ 12:26PM|#
You're normally very rational, but when you start posting
about Iraq, I can imagine you suddenly developing a wild look in
your eyes and screaming "NO, it's not a failure!"
Because I read sources other than coastal media on Iraq, I don't
think it is.
Just what about the current situation in Iraq is failing? AQ in
Iraq is beaten. US casualties are at an all-time low, and are
nearly at the level of casualties from accidents in other overseas
postings. The Iraqi government is still democratic, and now has
sovereign control over almost the entire country. Even the cities
are being turned over to Iraqi security. They are legitimately
negotiating a status of forces agreement.
Sure, it can all still go into the shitter. Bad neighborhood and
all that. But if it does, it will be because Obama blew it, not
Bush (setting aside the question of whether we should be there at
all, of course). Bush is actually leaving Iraq in pretty good
shape, considering.
|11.13.08 @ 12:55PM|#
But but, when we wrote the history books we were always always
the good guys.
/progressive off
Anyway, good job mentioning what actually happened...
Ravac|11.13.08 @ 1:02PM|#
A person is only represented rightly by a group independent
of the other bargaining party.
Or, y'know, himself.
|11.13.08 @ 4:22PM|#
But if it does, it will be because Obama blew it, not Bush (setting aside the question of whether we should be there at all, of course). Bush is actually leaving Iraq in pretty good shape, considering.
I want some of what you're smoking ... as long as it doesn't turn
me into a Bush apologist, like you are.
You fail to take into account the goals of both the Afghanistan and
Iraq forays, neither of which have been satisfied and both of which
have increased problems in other areas. One cannot claim "success"
for goals that have not been met be pointing to background noise
and saying that it's somehow been made better.
1) The goal of the war was to remove weapons of mass destruction.
Removing Saddam was NOT the goal. Remember that "nation building"
is not something Americans do, according to Bush. If we are
currently engaged in that practice, it in no way signifies
"success", but rather abject failure. We were supposed to remove
the WMD and get out, not topple the government and then build a new
one. You also neglect to remember that AQ was not even in Iraq
before we attacked, and that "AQ in Iraq" is a new organization
that is only tangentially connected to the AQ proper that we began
to pursue in Afghanistan following 9/11, again without success.
FAIL
2) Afghanistan is a failure due to the Bush administration's
complete inability to craft a plan and follow through with it.
Taliban were never defeated, just moved, where they now wait until
we withdraw to move back in. Again, a complete failure. Add to that
the fact that
opium production has increased significantly since we attacked
in search of Osama Bin Laden, and we can say definitively that the
Bush administration's strategy has not only failed to accomplish
our goals for going into Afghanistan in the first place, but they
have also seriously damaged its goals in the WoD. The Taliban did much
better. Massive FAIL.
Lastly, I take it you have never subscribed to any of the theories
that the previous administration leaves messes for the next
administration? The huge piles of crap left by Bush will have no
impact on the Obama administration, because it's all on Obama, now?
Blind, man. Purposefully blind.
Sorry, R C Dean. You've got to get out of the Kool-Aid tank more
often.
|11.13.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Warren,
Of all the periods in our recent history for Obama (or 'a' Obama)
to come to power--with a 'mandate', no less--now is the worst
time.
Just as with FDR, he will have more power than usual to institute
profound changes.
And remember, he is building on FDR and LBJ's
legacy.
(shudder)
|11.13.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Oops, that Name should have been "matthew" not lefiti's Sock puppet--that joke is done.
|11.13.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Butler,
Removing the WMD's was only one issue. Saddam was and was
continuing to be a destabilizing influence in the middle east. The
coalition most certainly wanted him and his regime removed from
power.
He, his regime, and much of AQ in Iraq are gone and/or dead.
Success, not FAIL (also, this isn't fark.com)
|11.13.08 @ 4:52PM|#
RC Dean
I don't know many union members, but I'll never forget one guy
who told me that being in a union was like having twice as many
bosses, all telling you different things.
And they take money out of your paycheck.
economist|11.13.08 @ 4:59PM|#
"Saddam was and was continuing to be a destabilizing influence
in the middle east. The coalition most certainly wanted him and his
regime removed from power.
He, his regime, and much of AQ in Iraq are gone and/or dead.
Success, not FAIL (also, this isn't fark.com)"
So why isn't the region more stable now that Saddam is out of power
and dead?
|11.13.08 @ 6:30PM|#
Most people are not old enough to remember how bad the 1970s
really were.
Ah, those were the days. Remember how inflation just went away
because we all put on "WIN" buttons?
I'm digging through my stuff now for my old WIN button. Don't need
it quite yet, though.
|11.13.08 @ 8:15PM|#
I do believe that GW Bush nominated two Supreme Court justices
who actually believe in the first and second amendments.
Looks like GW batted 1.000 on SCOTUS appointments, topping Reagan
.333, and Daddy Bush .500.
|11.13.08 @ 8:31PM|#
Libertarian ideals should be at the core of the "progressive"
agenda, and people with libertarian leanings are too often excluded
from the mainstream discourse. Unfortunately, the Republican party
has never been a repository for real libertarianism, although it
seems many libertarians drift towards a conservative agenda.
Libertarians have for too long been aligning themselves with a so
called conservative agenda, espousing "small government" with a
tendency towards social conservatism. This has simply given the
Republican party a rabid element that essentially marks it as a
party of the Christian right wing, suppressing abortion rights,
and, with the Bush administration, suppressing all constitutional
rights.
Libertarianism is not just the right to own and use whatever kind
of machine gun you like, and other liberties become secondary to
their discourse.
What about a kind of libertarian progressivism, that encourages
freedom of speech, free association, and grassroots community
building? Jane Jacobs seems a core thinker within a kind of
libertarianism with a liberal slant, criticizing top-down
government for its failure to recognize the elaborate network of
complexities that drive social and communal behavior, networks
which serve better to regulate the community than de facto
regulation.
I am a libertarian, and I vote Democratic despite my frequent
dissatisfaction with certain progressive attitudes, because they
seem more inclined towards a core liberty.
The constitution should not be interpreted strictly, it should be
interpreted with the mindset of granting people the maximum
possible liberty within the law, and restricting the power of
government to impose itself on private individuals.
The problem with certain strains of libertarianism is that it seems
to think that private mercenaries are better than a national army,
or that private corporations should have more rights than labor
unions, when the reality is that both powers have the right to
exist, and both are free associations of people.
A GENUINE libertarianism, along with a GENUINE socialism, would
look less like FDR or TR, and would essentially be a society with
maximum liberty, and maximum freedom of association, operating
within a non-coercive framework based on consensus and small,
direct democracy, rather than top-down, coercive policies.
There is something to be said that the two most free thinking
states in the union are Vermont and New Hampshire. Each state seems
to interpret itself differently, but both are libertarian, and both
possess a kind of New England socialism that makes them each
paragons of a different way of looking at the same situation.
|11.13.08 @ 8:41PM|#
It is not my experience that Libertarians respect individual freedom at all. Depends on who the individuals are and whether libertarians like what they beleive or not. I find them at the head of the parade when it comes to attacking individuals who don't beleive politically correctly. Which is why libertarians get no where fast and serve as a spoiler rather than a leader of power.
|11.13.08 @ 9:12PM|#
Until Libertarians become guided by actual thinking, instead of
automatically referring to dogma, then they will never be able to
run a government without getting in even worse trouble than the
Republicans did when they ushered in a new Great Depression.
Right now, the Libertarians are a cult of cranks.
jk|11.13.08 @ 11:38PM|#
I find them at the head of the parade when it comes to
attacking individuals who don't beleive politically
correctly.
Ayn Rand has properly corrected Jesus, "Judge, and be prepared to
be judged."
|11.14.08 @ 2:24PM|#
My rankings on how I am feeling today about them. Upon reading
about any of them on a given day, their score gets lowered.
1) Reagan
2) Eisenhower
3) Bush 2
4) Ford
5) Nixon
6) Bush 1
7) Kennedy
8) Clinton (tie)
9) Carter
10) LBJ
Deborah|11.15.08 @ 8:27AM|#
Great article. It's good to be reminded of what previous libertarians did to keep our country from going off the rails. We must keep our powder dry because we'll need to fight hard during an Obama administration with a compliant Congress. Shudder the thought.
|11.16.08 @ 6:50AM|#
The recent bailout is just a bandaid to cover up a systemic flaw
in our economy. That is, the fundamental inability of the American
people, it's bankers, borrowers and lenders to develop accountable
methods of personal responcibility in making wise choices. Without
wisdom and intelligence, capitalism fails. And I think Adam Smith
would agree with me on this. Donald Trump always mentioned that
people should go to school and get a damn good education. I wonder
why?
Unfortunately, the goverment can't sit by and let people who make
poor choices cause the entire economy to collapse and ruin things
for everybody, when only 2-5% of the population were a part of the
problem.
And no, this isn't about poor people buying homes... This was
mostly people flipping houses in Cali and Florida, and they got
burned, not in the process of achieving the American dream. The
American dream is to own a home, not flip them. The those flipping
homes who got burned, I say they got what they deserved, to the
rest of us, may god have mercy upon your soul.
|11.16.08 @ 7:19AM|#
Actually Deborah, the article is dead wrong on so many counts.
It's fails to account for the State's Rights movement of the 50's
and 60's (remember George Wallace). It was the doctrine of State
Rights that was behind the whole idea of having the Jim Crow laws
in place. The idea of having states having the liberty to pass
oppressive laws was ridiculous, and it wasn't until the civil
rights act of the 60's until the states no longer had this
power.
The article has a naive and distorted view of history. I won't say
that they abuses of government are without consideration,
governments having been abusing people since the dawn of human
society when we first created civilization, a social order to
organize the classes, etc.
To lump nazism, progressivism, socialism, etc all in one category
is ludicrous. To fail to account for the distinctive differences in
approach, or to differentiate between politics is wrong.
America began as a backward nation, and one of the most racist
countries on Earth. (This is truth). We had a civil war over
State's Rights... Yes, slavery was an issue, but State's Rights was
the main motivation behind the south to seceed. Because the south
wanted the liberty to set their laws as they see fit. (See how
liberty gets twisted in there as an excuse to justify oppression)
The South is dominated by backwards Evangelical belief systems even
today, but that is another point entirely.
Now, oppression exists in most organizations where their is a power
differential, ie manager/worker relationship, etc. Read about bully
victim relationships as well.
This is what defined American history, the slow elimination of
racism, by elimintating state's rights to do whatever the state
wants. The federal government asserted itself with the civil rights
act and told the states in the south that they couldn't do that
anymore.
Not to mention, does anyone see the irony in a black democrat as
president. If you really know your American history, that irony
would be fully understandable to you. And it shows how far the
democrats have come to erase their past sins of supporting state's
rights in the past.
Paranoia over government abuses is always understandable, people
are always a little paranoid about anyone who has slightly more
power than them in some way or another.
But put government abuses and trends into historical context. When
this nation was first founded, we had endorsed slavery, we abused
an entire race of people and the practice was endorsed by the
federal government at the time. (Refer to the 3/5th law) We
abolished that during the civil war. We advanced from that. During
industrialization, many industries were abusive to workers, then
there were the unions to help workers.
The last extensive abuse of government was the internment of the
Japanese during war world II. To compare that to now, I think the
fact that we didn't throw all arabs in camps after 9/11 is a sign
that we have improved as a nation.
The paranoia has no justification, this nation has significantly
improved over it's course of existance in terms of human rights and
liberty.
The progressives, have, at every step of the way, been advocating
the elimination of slavery and eliminating the abuses of people
with power from the 1850's onward. It culminated with the passing
of the civil rights act in the 1960's, which this article
conveiniently fails to mention.
While progressives were strongly behind the passing of the civil
rights legislation, it would suprise many, that a Virginia democrat
ADDED sex to the bill in an attempt to make the bill fail. It was a
strategic attempt to feign support for the bill in hopes that by
adding sex to the bill, that it would fail. Note, that, at the time
it was the southern democrats that were opposed to civil
rights.
I understand that most magazines are just think tanks trying to
mold agendas, but I really hate misinformation. The next article I
read comparing Hitler to progressivism will make me barf. Obviously
there is a difference between what Hitler did, and the
progressiv
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Damon W. Root
- Putting a Stop to Congressional Overreach, Damon W. Root, November 13, 2009
- Tyranny of the Minority, Damon W. Root, November 2, 2009
- Power to the People, Damon W. Root, October 28, 2009
Related Articles (History, Supreme Court, Libertarian History/Philosophy, Barack Obama)
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- Bernanke’s Philosopher, Penn Bullock, November 17, 2009
- The Rise of Communist Nostalgia, Cathy Young, November 16, 2009
- Are Tea Parties Racist?, Matt Welch, November 16, 2009
- Putting a Stop to Congressional Overreach, Damon W. Root, November 13, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245