New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | November 3, 2004

Matt Welch assesses the Bush win.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← More Predictions Revisited | Main | Attn: NYC Reasonoids! →

See all 62 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|11.3.04 @ 12:52PM|#

I lost faith, and figured it would be a close Kerry win, but I never should have doubted Rauch's Rule.

http://www.reason.com/rauch/101703.shtml

Mea culpa!

raymond|11.3.04 @ 1:03PM|#

Matt's article is optimistic.

|11.3.04 @ 1:07PM|#

Two possible trends over the next four years.

1) Libertarians and people with libertarian sympathies will be more important than ever. If the GOP uses Conservative Big Goverment to steamroll States' Rights in ways that are smothering to their social autonomy you can expect a reaction on the part of state populations.

2) The issues four years from now might not be the issues of today. Let's say we manage to stabilize Iraq and get the hell out of there in the next year or two and let's say it's unlikely we'll be invading any other place soon. That will leave the War on Terror as more of a political war than a military one which might reduce it as an issue. And let's say over the next four years that the deficit and government spending are not reigned in. Most likely that will lead to a big-ass fiscal/budgetary/entitlement mess that will be a major issue. And let's say that Gay Marriage, which always seemed like a fad [I mean really, was that even an issue anyone would have conceived of a couple of years ago?] withers away and gets quietly replaced [in those states that care about that sort of thing] with reasonable, legalistic, civil arrangements. If, say these or similar things were to happen then the advantages various parties bring to the table might shift, if ever so slightly.

|11.3.04 @ 1:08PM|#

Matt, here's a small bone I think they'll be throwing you soon: significant rollback of Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act-related regulation in the West.

Don't choke on it though, it's a small one.

Warren|11.3.04 @ 1:14PM|#

That's a pretty rosy assessment Matt. Take another look without the tinted lenses.

|11.3.04 @ 1:16PM|#

It appears to me that Gore did better against Bush than Kerry did.

|11.3.04 @ 1:28PM|#

I would add that Bush's tax cut was merely an evangelical's idea of what a tax cut should be, but I suppose there is some hope on this issue. One of the newly minted Republican Senators, during his campaign, argued for eliminating the IRS and moving to a sales tax. He's the same guy who said that we shouldn't allow gay people or un-wed mothers to teach in public schools.

In regards to foreign policy, the natural habitat of the neo-conservatives running the Defense Department, etc. isn't threatened by a primary constituency that thinks foreign policy should be a function of the Book of Revelation. I didn't expect to see Rumsfeld tried for crimes against humanity, but I would have liked to see him thrown out of the Defense Department.

"[T]he historic Republican commitment to keep spending down... stretches all the way back to January 1995, and all the way forward until the fall of 1996."

David Stockman and Jack Kemp must have been figments of my imagination.

|11.3.04 @ 1:49PM|#

the reign of Islamofascism, er, Evangofascism has begun...hide your rights now before they will are taken

|11.3.04 @ 1:50PM|#

Right now, the simple fact that it is over is good enough for me, but I'll probably revise that assessment when Bush starts another war.

|11.3.04 @ 1:50PM|#

Hey, let's get to the real important issue:

Does Bush's win increase or decrease the chance of "Fahrenheit 9/11" winning the Best Picture Oscar?

And, speaking of Michael Moore, once I eventually was able to access his site, there apparently hasn't been an update since before the polls closed last night.

|11.3.04 @ 2:11PM|#

Pros:

U.S. won't sign Kyoto Treaty
Social Security might move towards privatization
Tax cuts remain permanent

Cons:

Gives the Religious Right a big boost
Police State continues to grow
Nothing to hold back spending increases

|11.3.04 @ 2:12PM|#

thoreau,

There are things other than another war to be concerned about.

Those newly minted Republican Senators will probably be confirming our next Supreme Court Justice. They're the people to whom John Ashcroft and the Justice Department will answer.

I consider Hitler to be among the most disgusting of human beings, but I wouldn't call him a paranoid. Calling Hitler paranoid ignores the fact that hundreds of millions of people all over the world were conspiring against him.

In the very near future, people may refer to me as an alarmist. When they do, I'll point out that, in fact, there's an awful lot to be alarmed about. Maybe it won't be as big of a change as I think it will, but, right now, the future looks pretty bleak for civil liberties.

|11.3.04 @ 2:14PM|#

Ken-

I get your point about how there are other issues than war. But what's with the Hitler reference? That seemed like a total digression and I'm not sure what the point was. It wasn't a simple matter of equating certain politicians with Hitler, because you seemed to be talking about the nature of paranoia. So I'm baffled.

|11.3.04 @ 2:17PM|#

David Stockman and Jack Kemp must have been figments of my imagination

Ponnuru didn't claim that there were no Republicans committed to spending cuts before 1995 or 1996; obviously there were. There still *are* Republicans committed to that. They just only controlled the party during the brief "Contract with America" period.

notherbob2|11.3.04 @ 2:19PM|#

All moaning liberals should read (extreme liberal) Kristof in the (extreme liberal) NYT today. He is right on. Never thought I would say that. Sometimes a two-by-four across the chops is what is needed to initiate a change of thinking.

|11.3.04 @ 2:21PM|#

thoreau,

Hitler was supposed to be to paranoid as Ken was supposed to be to alarmist. Millions of people really were out to get Hitler and Ken has very real things to be alarmed about.

Of course, now that I think about it, I don't particularly care for the comparison to Hitler, but that's how the logic was supposed to go.

...I didn't get a lot of sleep last night.

Yaron|11.3.04 @ 2:26PM|#

I just read the article...

"Libertarians have hammered Bush about stem-cell research"

Is this really true? I'd think a libertarian would be against all federal funding of scientific research, and would consider the stem-cell limitations a good start.

|11.3.04 @ 2:32PM|#

It's over, and I'm relieved.

The questions going forward are: How to raise the voice of libertarians in the Republican party. Or, how to make the LP start thinking strategically.

|11.3.04 @ 2:34PM|#

some family values hag, now being interviewed on npr has identified "moral values" as too much porn and explicit language AND consumerism and excessive marketing to children...someone on this board has cited the notion that we get the government we vote for...the coming years may be known as the war on your freedom to decide things for yourself

|11.3.04 @ 2:35PM|#

"The dumb case against Bush regards him as having betrayed the historic Republican commitment to keep spending down from year to year. This history stretches all the way back to January 1995, and all the way forward until the fall of 1996. But the dumb case against Bush doesn't pause to acknowledge that Reagan increased spending, too, especially in a first term of recession and defense build-up, or that the Gingrich Congress cut a big-spending budget deal with Clinton in 1997. The case, in its dumbest form, assumes that anti-spenders can, by denying Bush reelection, cause Republicans to return to the true path."

We've already had the same discussion about the same article, Dan.

Ponnuru is way off on this. His statement ignores Stockman and Kemp's "Dunkirk", the efforts of Phil Gramm and many others through the years. In fact, it negates every "commitment" the Republicans made to cut the budget before Clinton was elected. Ponnuru seems to be counting on the short-term memory of his readers here, apparently for good reason.

What's truly ridiculous about Ponnuru's statement is the part that suggests that Republicans are more likely to return to the "true path" with Bush reelected rather than defeated. This suggestion defies everything I know about behavioral science.

|11.3.04 @ 2:41PM|#

I stated on several ocassions that Bush was likely to win (but I never stated that he was a lock).

I've thought from the start that the Bush-Kerry contest was a wash; both candidates might have some positive points to them, but taken as a whole, I found no reason to vote for either of them.

|11.3.04 @ 2:46PM|#

Ken Schultz,

Ponnuru (and Dan by way of adoption) is practicing sophistry. And yes, what is truly ridiculous is the notion that they will show any backbone regarding these matters. The notion that they'll suddenly try to stop bribing people is silly.

raymond|11.3.04 @ 2:49PM|#

I'll probably revise that assessment when Bush starts another war.

Forbes was just on BBC News talking about Iran and how the mullahs must be dealt with in one way or another. If not peacefully, than "whatever it takes". (That's a quote from Bush, not Forbes.)

He compared the war against Islamist extremism with WWII and said (I'm paraphrasing) that opening a new front (ie, against Iran) wouldn't be "adventurism".

raymond|11.3.04 @ 2:56PM|#

: How to raise the voice of libertarians in the Republican party.

Why not try raising the voice of libertarianism in the DEMOCRATIC party? You've got a better chance.

|11.3.04 @ 3:03PM|#

It's very depressing that Russia and the PRC are the last best hope for freedom in the United States. They're the only powers that can contain American imperialism in the Middle East, but I am afraid that they lack the will for the job.

|11.3.04 @ 3:03PM|#

raymond,

Labor Unions, especially government employees, are so entrenched in the Democratic Party; I don't think there's room enough for both of us. We're diametrically opposed on many issues, free trade and the minimum wage spring immediately to mind.

I think it more likely that the Democrats could go the way of the Whigs and the Libertarians take the Democrats place, and I consider that to be highly unlikely.

|11.3.04 @ 3:08PM|#

cheney just used the term mandate...matt's view, as said above, is quite optimistic

|11.3.04 @ 3:27PM|#

"Let's say we manage to stabilize Iraq and get the hell out of there in the next year or two and let's say it's unlikely we'll be invading any other place soon. That will leave the War on Terror as more of a political war than a military one which might reduce it as an issue."

E. Steven, why would you think that we'd be unlikely to invade someone else? Bush has made it clear that he considers this to be primarily about hostile governments. In Afghanistan, allegedly launched to destory Al Qaeda's ability to operate, with the Taliban portrayed merely as a hindrance to the mission of running down Bin Laden, Bush was faced with the choice of deploying troops to finish off OBL at Tora Bora, or deploying them to assert authority over the country and maximize their capacity to fight military engagements. He chose to keep his forces in and around the capital, and in bases ready to deploy for further battles. At this same time, he shifted resources from fighting Al Qaeda to planning and carrying out the invasion of Iraq. In late 2003 or early 2004, a Predator destroyed a car full of top Al Qaeda in Yemen. Then that sort of thing came to a stop, as the Predators were redeployed to Iraq.

Despite the fact that we are at war with stateless terrorists, every time he has been faced with a choice between fighting stateless terrorists and fighting (or replacing) a hostile govenrment, he's chosen the latter.

If success in Iraq were to free up some resources that could be utilized for some other mission, what makes you think Bush would choose to put them into the raids and targetted actions you'd prefer, rather than putting them into the "liberation" of some other Muslim country from the regime that runs it?

|11.3.04 @ 3:29PM|#

Bottom line: libertarianism has never been so far removed from the levers of power in this country, at least during my lifetime. Goldwater conservatism, which provided its nominal home in the Republican party, is dead, disembowled and dismembered. The trend has been obvious for a long time, but King George is about to throw the dirt down big time starting right now. Our enemies worship a fierce, moralistic deity and, goddamnit, the Straussians have determined we need one, too.

Hold on for bumpy ride, liberty lovers.

Brad Reed|11.3.04 @ 3:34PM|#

Ken-
Speaking as a Democrat:
Yes, there are too many issues that Libertarians and Dems disagree with to absorb the Libertarians into the party.

I DO think that both sides need to form something of a "civil liberties" coaltion- cuz if the evangelical turnout has told us anything, it's that John Ashcroft ain't goin' nowhere.

|11.3.04 @ 3:53PM|#

Brad, the problems with a civil liberties coalition between Democrats and Libertarians are two-fold: a) Libertarians cannot credibly bring votes to the table; and b) the overwhelming majority of Democrats are incapable of grasping the Libertarian conception of civil liberties.

|11.3.04 @ 3:59PM|#

Wow, somebody responded to something I wrote. A first for me. Thanks!

Anyway, Joe, I just wonder sometimes where we'd get all the money to mount another massive military campaign. Those things ain't cheap, and we're running down the treasury day by day. More importantly though, I can't think of who we'd successfully invade. Syria maybe, but would Syria be worth it? Iran would probably be a mess, a much bigger mess than Iraq. I think they would really resist and put up a massive, dirty fight and unlike Iraq they probably do have WMDs they could hurl at us or Israel. And then there's North Korea. If the Weekly Standard thinks we can take a million of those boys [and the five hundred million Chinese who'd probably join in] then God bless 'em. You know I'd like to think we're the kind of country that could solve every problem by kicking somebody's ass but something tells that wouldn't be possible short of a Gen. Ripper style nuclear pacification.

Gene Berkman|11.3.04 @ 4:05PM|#

I think Matt summed up the issues well, particularly in noting that Bush will offer nothing to libertarians.

The Libertarian Party did not have a significant effect on this election. Nor did the libertarians in the Republican Party, with the exception of Ron Paul.

Libertarians are better known among anti-Bush Republicans, as well as among the antiwar crowd. We need to build on this. A more community oriented libertarian movement, combined with lobbying members of Congress to oppose new big government initiatives.

And, of course, buy books.

|11.3.04 @ 4:08PM|#

While we're all baselessly speculating.... I really don't think that "the overwhelming majority of Democrats are incapable of grasping the Libertarian conception of civil liberties." I don't think that the "overwhelming majority of Democrats" have ever really been offered a choice here.

I also really don't think that "Labor Unions, especially government employees, are so entrenched in the Democratic Party." I personally think that the cultural/demographic bent of the skilled and unskilled labor population typically represented by unions means that, for all the get-out-the-vote efforts they make, only some of it really translates into votes for Dems. Unions like the make-work pork, and the Republicans have proven themselves plenty good at that.

|11.3.04 @ 4:13PM|#

And then there's North Korea. If the Weekly Standard thinks we can take a million of those boys [and the five hundred million Chinese who'd probably join in] then God bless 'em.

It's unlikely that we would invade North Korea. But if we decided to start a bombing campaign against suspected nuclear and/or missile sites, there really isn't anything they could do about it. The NK military is even more of a paper tiger than the Soviet military turned out to be.

|11.3.04 @ 4:27PM|#

Interesting outlook regarding North Korea, Dan, and I hope you're right about the NK military. But on what evidence do you base the paper tiger statement? Thanks in advance for telling me, as I genuinely want only to know.

raymond|11.3.04 @ 4:30PM|#

a) Libertarians cannot credibly bring votes to the table;

Granted. They can't even bring votes to THEIR table.

(Am I the only self-styled libertarian who thought Badnarik came across as a bit of a kook? Am I the only one who thinks there are bigger libertarian issues than the 2nd amendment and driver's licenses?)

and b) the overwhelming majority of Democrats are incapable of grasping the Libertarian conception of civil liberties.

From where I'm sitting, the Republicans don't seem all that capable, either. In fact, imo the overwhelming majority of Republicans seem incapble of grasping _Republican_ concepts of _anything_.

|11.3.04 @ 4:31PM|#

If somebody wanted to pursue a libertarian strategy with the Democrats it would have to be a stealth strategy. A libertarian-minded individual could run for office as a Democrat. There would be 2 ways to do this:

1) Glorious defeat: Refuse to compromise on any issues, and limit your Democrat camoflage to packaging pure libertarianism in Dem-friendly rhetoric (e.g. point out that social security transfers wealth from blacks, who have shorter life expectancies, to whites, who have longer life expectancies). Odds are that you'd lose in the primacy, unless you live in a place where the GOP is so strong that you're the only place crazy enough to seek the Democrats' nomination. In that case you'd lose in the general election.

2) Heresy: Here you learn to tolerate a lot of things while you make incremental changes. You don't rail against the very existence of various government programs, but you suggest some stream-lining.

What would make you different from a Republican? Well, although you'd have tread lightly on the welfare state you can be much more aggressive on social issues. Also, you save your harshest criticism for things that Republicans might not normally mess with. You'd expend more energy railing against zoning laws that hurt low-income workers rather than cutting the estate tax. You'd lobby harder for an end to agricultural subsidies rather than a repeal of the Endangered Species Act. You'd spend more time advancing an agenda favored by lobbyists for small businesses and less time advancing an agenda favored by lobbyists for big businesses. You'd spend more time worrying about handgun rights for battered women and less time worrying about assault weapons.

I'm not trying to denigrate any of the causes that would have to be eschewed to be a stealth libertarian inside the Democratic Party, but if the goal is to create a second caucus for smaller government, you have to pick your battles carefully.

I doubt that many of the die-hards on this forum would have the stomach to do this, and I certainly don't have the skills to win an election on ANY party's ticket, but that's my thought on the matter.

|11.3.04 @ 4:57PM|#

"The NK military is even more of a paper tiger than the Soviet military turned out to be."

But they do have enough heavy artillery around the DMZ to level much of Seoul. That wouldn't be a pretty site. And I wouldn't trust Kim Jong-Il to be sane enough not to do it in the event of a limited strike on his nuclear facilities.

Regarding the agenda of a second Bush term, perhaps we should all keep in mind that he won't be up for reelection again. As with other second-term Presidents, there's relatively little need to pander this time around. That said, I doubt that a non-pandering Bush will be too pleasant from a libertarian perspective either. Perhaps a little better in terms of fiscal restraint and decent on regulatory/trade issues, but still disturbing on judicial appointments and other social issues, and possibly more disturbing on foreign policy.

As to the question of libertarianism's influence on American politics, as I've said before, wait till the Boomers start retiring and dying in large numbers, and tens of millions more post-Boomer Americans have reached voting age. The effects of this demographic shift on the culture, along with the financial crisis that'll be spawned by the Boomers retiring en masse, will create an opening for libertarianism to gain a real following, provided that there's a party able to capitalize on it.

gaius marius|11.3.04 @ 5:04PM|#

But if we decided to start a bombing campaign against suspected nuclear and/or missile sites, there really isn't anything they could do about it. The NK military is even more of a paper tiger than the Soviet military turned out to be.

remember, mr dan, that what we don't know about NK far outweighs what we do. given how accurate our intel was in iraq, i don't think anyone can say anything about what NK could do in response to american aggression -- including incinerate tokyo, or even possibly seattle.

As with other second-term Presidents, there's relatively little need to pander this time around.

oh god, mr eric -- are you saying it gets worse for libertarians than the last four years? what, is he stalin? :)

|11.3.04 @ 5:30PM|#

I don't see a home in the Democratic party unless there are localities where the opportunity presents itself. There was a time when the Democrats were the party of states rights. Now it's the party of spent causes: women, labor, minorities, popularists, and the wealthy supporters of those causes. Not denigrating the party history, Jim Crow needed to go, but affirmative action forever is self defeating.

States rights is a minority party dream. Just as term limits are, and line item vetoes. I predict that some Democrats will suddenly discover that the states are a better forum for their issues then the federal government is if for no other reason than that is where their voices can be heard. The Republicans on the other hand are clearly losing interest in states rights, the line item veto, and term limits. They're in power now, and have figured out that it is much easier to push in one arena then in 50 arenas. This will take some time, and eventually libertarians will end up in the minority party.

If there is a future in the Republican party the libertarians would have to control some funds, and place as much of a purity test on them as the CC does.

b-psycho|11.3.04 @ 5:49PM|#

"One of the newly minted Republican Senators, during his campaign, argued for eliminating the IRS and moving to a sales tax. He's the same guy who said that we shouldn't allow gay people or un-wed mothers to teach in public schools."

This is something that's grated at me for a long time. Why is it that 99% of the time when a mainstream politician is even remotely serious about things on economics that we'd like they have a bible shoved a mile up their ass?

|11.3.04 @ 7:21PM|#

on what evidence do you base the paper tiger statement?

A number of reasons.

(1): They haven't fought in fifty years -- they are, basically, an "army" of green recruits with virtually no experience in anything other than suppressing the civilian population of North Korea.
(2): In classic Stalinist style, North Korea has spent the last fifty years ruthlessly purging anyone who displays too much talent or ambition. Their officer corps consists of the politically dependable, not the militarily capable.
(3): Following on (2) above, the NK military is rigidly hierarchical, which means that even basic tactical decisions will get pushed too far up the chain of command. This dramatically worsens both response times and the quality of the final decisions. It also means that the army can be crippled simply by cutting or degrading its communications.
(4): NK is dependent on China for its oil supply. The pipelines and facilities are extremely vulnerable to attack by the United States -- assuming, that is, that China doesn't just cut off NK's oil itself, which it has in the past when NK got uppity.
(5): The people of North Korea are starving, and the army is severely malnourished.

There are other reasons, but those are some big ones.

But they do have enough heavy artillery around the DMZ to level much of Seoul.

Not exactly. They have enough heavy artillery to level much of Seoul *if* the artillery was allowed to fire for a prolonged period of time. Given that we know where all the guns are and have gotten really good at lobbing smart bombs and cruise missles, it is unlikely that the artillery would be able to fire for very long, if at all, unless it was North Korea who initiated the hostilities.

|11.3.04 @ 7:50PM|#

E. Steven, your post about the problems with mounting another large scale military campaign makes sense to me, but looking at it from the point of view of the Bushies and neocons...

1) They (Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans) would greet us with flowers.

2) "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

As far as libertoids fitting into the Democratic Party, we've got gay liberationists, socially conservatives unionists, academic leftists, low income city dwellers, upper income professionals from minority groups, New South moderates, and petit bougeois immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. You really think you'd be particularly out of place at this party?

Not one of these groups is further away from the libertarian center than the welfare corporatists and paranoid religious conservatives who make up the Republican coalition. The affinity between libertarians and Republicans revolved around opposition to the New Deal coalition, and stiff Cold War politics. It's the 21st century, fellas. Take a look around you.

|11.3.04 @ 8:01PM|#

Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who's in favor of free-trade and cutting marginal tax rates?

|11.3.04 @ 8:54PM|#

The last three Democrats to be nominated for president supported NAFTA.

Clinton's economic plan cut tax rates for most taxpayers. Gore put forward a 10 year/$600 billion tax cut plan, which Kerry endorsed.

Kerry supported the elimination of trade subsidies that Bush defended.

Bush imposed a number of tarrifs, and extended others that were about to expire.

Bush is running huge deficits that will require tax increases to pay off - even higher than if he'd implemented them himself, due to compounding interest and the looming retirement of the baby boomers.

Republicans talk a good game on these two issues, but the reality is more complex.

|11.3.04 @ 9:15PM|#

I'm almost there, but, honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with logic. Culturally, it's hard for me to think of myself as supporting the Democrats. That might be my only option though.

I just had this horrible picture run through my mind of Bill Clinton with a light saber in one hand, reaching out to me with his other hand and saying, "...Ken...I'm your faaathheeerr."

Oh God! Has Bush kicked me hard enough to join the dark side?

AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAHHhhhhhh!

|11.3.04 @ 9:39PM|#

Ken,

Just tell joe you've decided to become a Democrat. It'd make his day. He could probably use a boost.

|11.3.04 @ 10:45PM|#

hey, Ken, there's me! I vote democrat and I favor free trade, the elimnation of agricultural subsidies, and the 2nd amendment! then why vote dem? because I also support abortion rights, gay rights, reasonable environmental legislation (hey, pollution credits! market-based solutions!), not running multi-trillion dollar permanent deficits, and an end to pork barrel giveaways to corporations. plus, the repubs are a bunch of christian, gay-hatin, racist vote in the south-getting freaks. I'm sure there's, like, 5 others like me, too. we're a potent political force in the making!

|11.3.04 @ 11:39PM|#

"They have enough heavy artillery to level much of Seoul *if* the artillery was allowed to fire for a prolonged period of time. Given that we know where all the guns are and have gotten really good at lobbing smart bombs and cruise missles, it is unlikely that the artillery would be able to fire for very long, if at all, unless it was North Korea who initiated the hostilities."

I remember reading that they've deployed a lot of the artillery on the hills near the DMZ in such a way that it would take a while to knock most of it out, at least unless you plan on using tactical nukes. Regardless, considering how many people live in the Seoul metropolitan area, and what the global economic effects would be if the city was subject to heavy artillery strikes for any significant amount of time, would you really want to take the risk even if we could knock most of the artillery out quickly? And even if we did knock most of it out quickly, the extent of the bombing needed could easily trigger a second Korean War, with all the attendant consequences.

Unless we get signs that Kim Jong-Il wants to do a Team America routine - and I don't see any at this point - why tempt fate in such a manner? The most sensible way to end this standoff is to tell Beijing that if they don't do something about their client state's nuke program, we'll take the same passive approach should South Korea and/or Japan ever get similar ambitions. If we still aren't getting anywhere, consider adding Taiwan to the list. All three of these countries likely have the resources and talent to build a nuke within a year if they ever wanted.

|11.4.04 @ 12:16AM|#

at a National level it seems clear the Flag and the Bible are still factors that animate voters...until a major crisis...then a short upheaval, change of pace...

|11.4.04 @ 12:46AM|#

considering how many people live in the Seoul metropolitan area, and what the global economic effects would be if the city was subject to heavy artillery strikes for any significant amount of time, would you really want to take the risk even if we could knock most of the artillery out quickly?

Well, I don't think we should attack North Korea at all unless we think it's likely to either use its nukes or give them to someone who will. In that scerario, I don't think it would be right for the United States government to refrain from attacking just because Seoul is at risk; it isn't the US government's job to keep Koreans safe, it's the US government's job to keep Americans safe.

But yes, I think we should, for now at least, continue our current policy of strongarming other regional powers into dealing with North Korea.

raymond|11.4.04 @ 1:22AM|#

Well, Dan, I now have to agree with you. (I _think_ it was you.) There will never be a draft under Bush.

No need. 59,117,523 Americans have indicated that they are ready to go out heavily armed to keep Americans safe. I'm sure they're all lining up now at their local recruiting agencies.

Of course, you'll never run out of executioners, either.

Could life get any better?

|11.4.04 @ 2:52AM|#

trainwreck,

Religion and nationalism are dangerous passions.

Dan,

Any impact (boom boom) that might fall on South Korea in the event of a U.S. attack on North Korea is the responsibility of the U.S. and North Korea. As an innocent third party South Korea would have to be compensated for such impacts.

|11.4.04 @ 2:54AM|#

Dan,

Of course, as you said, you're not a libertarian, so your respect for things like property rights, etc., is probably limited.

|11.4.04 @ 6:28AM|#

aww, c'mon; doesn't anyone want to talk about my mad democratic/libertarian fusion ways? I want to legalize hard drugs! Everyone can have belt-fed machine-guns, just for laffs! Show me some love.

raymond|11.4.04 @ 6:46AM|#

aww, c'mon; doesn't anyone want to talk about my mad democratic/libertarian fusion ways?

Feeling lonely? Ignored?

Except for the "abortion rights" and 2nd-amendment planks of your LibDem platform, I'm with you. One of the five.

(You work at night, right? Everybody who posts here seems to do so while at work.)

|11.4.04 @ 7:55AM|#

actually, I live in sunny Singapore, world's least libertarian state...

|11.4.04 @ 9:09AM|#

Of course, as you said, you're not a libertarian, so your respect for things like property rights, etc., is probably limited.

OK, I'm lost. To be a libertarian, one must support "things like property rights" without any limits? And people wonder why libertarians can't get elected.

|11.4.04 @ 1:18PM|#

59,117,523 Americans have indicated that they are ready to go out heavily armed to keep Americans safe. I'm sure they're all lining up now at their local recruiting agencies.

Of course, you'll never run out of executioners, either.

See, this sounds like the warped thinking of the reflexive Statist. Given that 70 million Americans own guns (many own more than one), they are already armed and ready to "keep Americans safe." No need to go through a government recruiting agency. Defense begins at home.

And presumably, most of those gun-totin' Americans are quite willing to act as executioners, if it comes down to their life or that of a criminal's, at the scene of a would-be crime.

"Think globally, act locally. Bang!"

|11.4.04 @ 7:26PM|#

I still cannot understand why many Libertarians are so uterly unmoved by Bush's election. On the basis of open mindedness, I have often supressed the instinctive feeling that the Libertarian mindset is one that is primarily concerned with the issue of taxation; with ciivl liberties as an "Oh-and-another-thing!" kind of afterthought.

The surge of the Christian right in this election is a truly frightening development in my mind, and I would certainly have felt much more comfortable with a (Gasp!) Democrat as President.

As someone who sympathizes with many arguments made by Libertarian thinkers, I still feel that there is much more of a dialogue with the Democratic party on certain issues, than there ever will be with evangelic types in the Conservative party. And let's not be naive, the religious right is what keeps the party standing. Without it, they would promptly wither.

Anyone who feels that the Libertarian party can make inroads into the GOP, and supress the desires of the dominant, evangelical base, is embarrassingly naive.

It will be, for immeasurable amount of time, a Christian based party. Anyone who sympathizes with the hopeful push of reason into any party's fold, will be waiting for a bus that will never come.

Until that changes, I will vote gainst The Republican party, and I will lament the election of any one of its candidates.

I expect, with a minimum amount of introspection, that many Libertarians should as well.

raymond|11.5.04 @ 1:34PM|#

Labor Unions... are so entrenched in the Democratic Party; I don't think there's room enough for both of us.

I do not see a contradiction between libertarianism and collective bargaining. imo, A libertarian union is not only possible, it is desirable.