New at Reason

|10.19.05 @ 9:07AM|#

Take a drunken sailor; disguise him as Scrooge McDuck; fool most of the people most of the time.

|10.19.05 @ 9:11AM|#

Why are Carter and Ford not included in this comparison?

|10.19.05 @ 9:38AM|#

Why are Carter and Ford not included in this comparison?

Beacause their four year terms weren't long enough for a five year sample?

|10.19.05 @ 9:44AM|#

The guy who bucked his party to support the Balanced Budget Amendment would be worse!

|10.19.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Sorry, this is off-topic but I really dig the little Halloween ad you guys put up!

|10.19.05 @ 10:24AM|#

Akira McKenzie,

Not even a four year term in the case of Ford.

Timothy|10.19.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Why are Carter and Ford not included in this comparison?

Because the country was smart enough not to reelect the accidental president and the penut farmer.

|10.19.05 @ 10:34AM|#

Timothy,

Well, Ford was never elected in the first place, so you can say that we were smart enough not to elect him at all! Only the idiots in his state can be blamed for his presence in the Congress (and thus his ability to vault into the Oval Office).

|10.19.05 @ 10:35AM|#

Timothy,

More to the point, Republicans were dumb enough to nominate him over Reagan in 1976.

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 10:37AM|#

"It seems incontestable that we should conclude that the country's purse is worse off when Republicans are in power."

THE DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!!!!1 Uh, oops.

|10.19.05 @ 10:38AM|#

No, the Democrats would have been equally bad.

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 10:48AM|#

"No, the Democrats would have been equally bad."

"It seems incontestable that we should conclude that the country's purse is worse off when Republicans are in power."

cognitive dissonance.... hurting head.... must resort to making fun of kerry's war wounds... or maybe gore's internet claim....

|10.19.05 @ 10:52AM|#

M1EK,

There is no issue of cognitive dissonance, unless you think I have to agree with everything that Nick Gillespie writes. Which would, you know, strange. You know, libertarians aren't pod people.

Warren|10.19.05 @ 10:53AM|#

What makes this all the more frustrating is that Bush, unlike Reagan and Clinton, faces a Congress that is controlled by his own party, which claims to be dedicated to smaller, more efficient government.

Why do people keep trotting out this canard? It's not merely incorrect, it's patently false. When Republicans are out of power they spew a little rhetoric about smaller government. When they're in power, all that rhetoric goes down the memory hole. When in the past five years (or even ten for that matter) has any notable Republican made any claim that theirs is the party "dedicated to smaller, more efficient government"? So why do we keep hearing it? Republican, having paid mere lip service for thirty years have succeeded in branding themselves better than Coke or Pepsi.

Yet Bush has shown no leadership on spending reform�and Republicans have rebuffed even the mildest criticisms of their spendthrift ways. It seems incontestable that we should conclude that the country's purse is worse off when Republicans are in power.

Duuuuuuuuhhhhhh!!! Of course the real lesson is that the county's purse is worse off when the legislature and executive are of the same party, than when under a divided government. Throw in the judiciary and it gets even more costly.

Timothy|10.19.05 @ 10:54AM|#

Hak:

Heh, yeah, I suppose the country was smart enough never to elect the accidental president. Of course, I wasn't even a hopeful glimmer during the Ford and Carter administrations.

M1KE: Well, LBJ was a Democrat with a Democrat-run Congress. Bush is a Republican with a Republican-run Congress. Clinton, Nixon, and Reagan all had the opposing party running Congress for at least most of their tenure. I think the safest statement is that the nation's purse-strings are in danger when one party controls the Executive and the Legislature.

|10.19.05 @ 10:56AM|#

More to the point, an all-Democratic team in power would have been just as bad as an all-Republican team - the worse years coming when either party (under LBJ or W) held all the strongs.

|10.19.05 @ 10:57AM|#

Timothy,

Thanks for backing me up re: M1EK's rather dimwitted remarks.

|10.19.05 @ 11:01AM|#

Timothy,

See, for some reason, M1EK thinks that the Democratic party, you know the assholes who brought us the more improved "War on Drugs," amongst other such lovelies, is somehow better than the Republicans. I personally don't get such blind faith in a political party, but hey, it works for some people.

|10.19.05 @ 11:03AM|#

The guy who bucked his party to support the Balanced Budget Amendment would be worse!
I was gonna rap joe for stealing M1EK's entry line, but I guess he doesn't mind.

|10.19.05 @ 11:08AM|#

Timothy,

Clinton had a Democratic Congress for the first two years of his term, and they remained loyal to the bipartisan budget deal that Poppy Bush struck with the Democratic Congress.

|10.19.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Herman,

The guy who bucked his party to support the Balanced Budget Amendment would be worse!

I remember the guy who bucked his party so as to oppose it - Sen. Mark Hatfield, (R-Oregon). He was sort of a mish-mash - opposed the DP and abortion, helped create the ESA, then began to hate in the latter part of his career, opposed GWI, etc.

|10.19.05 @ 11:15AM|#

joe,

That "budget deal" was a myth from the get go. Spending was after all dramatically higher than promised in 1991 and 1992.

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 11:16AM|#

To Timothy:

Clinton had a Democratic Congress for some of his term, as joe noted. During that time, Clinton was by far the conservative influence, fiscally. It wasn't like he ran as a big spender - he beat his primary opponents by campaigning as a CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT.

|10.19.05 @ 11:17AM|#

Warren,

Yeah, duh, all of us who read Hit & Run probably do know this. But many people still think the Republicans are, you know, a bunch of skinflints who want to cut all government. I remember reading (probably here) about some guy from the BBC opining about how the Katrina disaster might have been less devastating had the U.S. under Bush and the Republicans not been so committed to "small government." I'm friends with lots of hardcore anti-Bush liberals who have positive views of "big government" -- it's very difficult to convince them that Bush has spent more money and expanded government more than presidents like Clinton or LBJ whose domestic agendas they claim to admire. They seem to cling to the stereotype that Republicans are miserly fiscal conservatives. And it seems that some Republicans still cling to it as well.

|10.19.05 @ 11:18AM|#

So basically this proves that the gridlock'd, split the gov't vote for Kerry, was probably the way for small-gov't conservatives to go. At least for rational conservatives. But it also tellingly proves that when it comes down to it, reason never wins and it's too much to ask for fiscal conservatives to vote for a "liberal" senator from Mass.

|10.19.05 @ 11:22AM|#

M1EK,

Which explains "Hillary Care."

...Clinton was by far the conservative influence, fiscally.

Actually, that's not true. Clinton consistently requested more than Congress approved over those two years.

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 11:28AM|#

"t's very difficult to convince them that Bush has spent more money and expanded government more than presidents like Clinton or LBJ whose domestic agendas they claim to admire. They seem to cling to the stereotype that Republicans are miserly fiscal conservatives."

Well, duh. If you really are a big-government liberal, why would you like a big-government conservative just for the spending, when the spending and tax relief goes mostly to people you think don't need the help (corporate welfare and the rich)?

|10.19.05 @ 11:29AM|#

In the 1990s the Congressional Democrats spent more than they promised in the 1990 Budget Deal (far more) and Clinton wanted them to spend even more than that. Its a bit like two drunks at a bar with one slightly less dedicated to drinking than the other. :)

Gary,

...it's too much to ask for fiscal conservatives to vote for a "liberal" senator from Mass.

I'd say it's too much for me to vote in general. :)

|10.19.05 @ 11:31AM|#

Have to agree with Hakluyt on the the "Hillary Care" thing. It's hard to argue that the administration that came up with that behemoth of a policy idea could be called "conservative" in any way.

|10.19.05 @ 11:33AM|#

Gary,

BTW, if Kerry or Kerry suppoerts were depending on fiscal conservatives to carry the day for him, they had some false hopes. Libertarians and fiscal conservatives are so thin on the ground as to make a mockery of such an idea.

Which begs the question. Who did they vote for? Your statement seems to presume that they voted for Bush (or Badnarik?). Did they?

|10.19.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Dyaln,

Yes, nationalized health care is such a conservative and/or libertarian idea! :)

|10.19.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Dylan,

That also leads to an important thought. M1EK, Gary, etc. seem to be basing their position that one should have voted for Kerry based one or two policy points (Bush supporters do the same damn thing). They seem to eschew a larger picture approach though. I wonder why that is? I think its because in doing so you'll find out that Kerry or Bush look like lepers in the process.

|10.19.05 @ 11:50AM|#

party over principle. semper fi.

|10.19.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Arg. So true! But what if there is Nothing Better?

|10.19.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Arg. So true! But what if there is Nothing Better?

|10.19.05 @ 11:52AM|#

party over principle. semper fi.

|10.19.05 @ 12:00PM|#

M1EK

I'm not so sure that's true. Corporate welfare and subsidies to those who don't need them are hardly unique to Republicans. And I really think if it was a Democratic president who had signed things like the Medicaid bill and No Child Left Behind, or had proposed the reconstruction effort Bush has proposed for the Gulf Coast, a lot of my liberal friends would be pleased as punch with that president: "He cares about the poor and elderly's access to medicine, he's using federal power to reform and improve education, and he's helping the poor people who lost everything rebuild their lives." I was with a lefty friend of mine when Bush was giving his speech on social security. She was aghast when he suggested some sort of means testing for receiving SS benefits. "That's horrible!" she gasped. I didn't say anything because I really had no desire to get in a political argument at the time, but I was thinking "You're upset that the guy is suggesting that rich people might not need to receive a welfare benefit from a fund that is supposed to be there for people who retire in poverty?" I can't imagine that trying to reconcile that with her supposed views on government's role in helping those in need wouldn't cause a bit of cognitive dissonance.

Anyway, my point is that their hatred of Bush (which I think is understandable when it comes to things like Iraq, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc., although I also think a lot of it is personal -- they detest his inarticulate cowboy bullshit) causes a knee-jerk reaction on their part to immediately think that ANYTHING he proposes or does is horrible and evil, even if it seems like it would match their general political views.

|10.19.05 @ 12:04PM|#

M1EK

I'm not so sure that's true. Corporate welfare and subsidies to those who don't need them are hardly unique to Republicans. And I really think if it was a Democratic president who had signed things like the Medicaid bill and No Child Left Behind, or had proposed the reconstruction effort Bush has proposed for the Gulf Coast, a lot of my liberal friends would be pleased as punch with that president: "He cares about the poor and elderly's access to medicine, he's using federal power to reform and improve education, and he's helping the poor people who lost everything rebuild their lives." I was with a lefty friend of mine when Bush was giving his speech on social security. She was aghast when he suggested some sort of means testing for receiving SS benefits. "That's horrible!" she gasped. I didn't say anything because I really had no desire to get in a political argument at the time, but I was thinking "You're upset that the guy is suggesting that rich people might not need to receive a welfare benefit from a fund that is supposed to be there for people who retire in poverty?" I can't imagine that trying to reconcile that with her supposed views on government's role in helping those in need wouldn't cause a bit of cognitive dissonance.

Anyway, my point is that their hatred of Bush (which I think is understandable when it comes to things like Iraq, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc., although I also think a lot of it is personal -- they detest his inarticulate cowboy bullshit) causes a knee-jerk reaction on their part to immediately think that ANYTHING he proposes or does is horrible and evil, even if it seems like it would match their general political views.

|10.19.05 @ 12:05PM|#

"It's very difficult to convince them that Bush has spent more money and expanded government more than presidents like Clinton or LBJ whose domestic agendas they claim to admire."

I think this demonstrates a common flaw in political commentary, one that is magnified by how the two party system works: the assumption that your opponent's motivations are opposite yours. One example is how civil rights liberals assume that opposition to their efforts is based on racism, because their own motivation is to oppose racism.

Libertarians and small government conservatives fall into the same trap, assuming that, because they are motivated by a desire to reduce government and taxes as ends unto themselves, liberals must therefore be motivated by a desire to ramp up spending and raise taxes, as ends unto themselves. And, as with calling Barry Goldwater a racist, it's just not true.

Why should I like Bush, just because he spends a lot? The fact that Bush is throwing tax dollars at Big Pharma through the Medicare Drug Benefit doesn't make me support him. The fact that he's funding Don Young's bridges doesn't make me support him. This things aren't just non-liberal, they are anti-liberal, because they make us less able to the things liberals want the government to do.

|10.19.05 @ 12:14PM|#

joe,

...liberals must therefore be motivated by a desire to ramp up spending and raise taxes, as ends unto themselves.

Whether that's what they are motivated by, that's what they do.

|10.19.05 @ 12:17PM|#

Does anyone remember in the 90's when the Repubs took over control of Congress. They ended up shutting down the Fed Gov for about a week I think it was over the proposed budget. All we heard about was ohh this is terrible such and such and such and such will not happen and what about this and that. As if the world would stop turning because the Feds closed down shop.

When in all actuality the Feds shutting down should be encouraged. Most think that having two parties in power congress/pres is good to keep things in check. Others say it creates gridlock etc. The gridlock is exactly what we should all hope for, if they can not come to terms with each other for new legislation we are all winners. Nothing new means no new creative ways for the government to figure out how to seperate us from our money. After all what percentage of legislation is actually in the best interest of tax payers and freedom loving individuals? Kind of like asking someone to name just 5 federal programs that were a success in accomplishing what they set out to do and were on or under budget in the process, good luck.

So they shut the gov down ohhhhh the anxiety I was having about it I tell ya. Oh wait a second I just remembered I still had to go to work just like any other day. Nothing seemed to be any different to me in the slightest, not one single thing could I see was affected by this tragedy. Yet when I got my paycheck for that weeks work they had still managed to take the full amount in taxes they always had before. Wouldn't you think we all should have been pro-rated for those days without the feds performing all those vital tasks related to my daily existance? I mean hell if I don't work I don't get paid why should they have been paid.

Bottom line is that unless your on the government tit sucking away like a crack head on a 3 day binge you will never notice such a thing when it happens. Everyone who is accountable for themselves, works and has their life under their own control won't notice one bit of difference. The only differences we notice are when we're told we are not putting up our fair share to help pay for every worthless american and are asked ahemmmm I mean robbed for more money.

Again I say TERM LIMITS!!!!

Insanity - To repeat the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Fiscal Insanity - to repeatedly re-elect the same pin heads to government with the assumption that even though they haven't done shit but sink us further for the past 20+ years they have been in office they have ONLY NOW had this GREAT ENLIGHTENMENT that will surely fix all our trouble. Come on just one more time, this time I promise... no really I do..

|10.19.05 @ 12:20PM|#

If enough Americans actually favored limited government, one or both of the major parties would embrace that as a defining concept. Alas, that Government Cheese must taste awfully good.

|10.19.05 @ 12:22PM|#

Of course, and even more to the point, its also what Republicans do too.

|10.19.05 @ 12:23PM|#

ChrisO,

Well, to paraphrase Plato, once a republic learns that it can vote itself money, the game is over.

|10.19.05 @ 12:24PM|#

But I know its just bad of me to condemn both of these parties. I really must choose one or the other, otherwise I am just have bad, bad thoughts. :-)

R C Dean|10.19.05 @ 12:30PM|#

Don't go there, Dylan:

Anyway, my point is that their hatred of Bush (which I think is understandable when it comes to things like Iraq, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc., although I also think a lot of it is personal -- they detest his inarticulate cowboy bullshit) causes a knee-jerk reaction on their part to immediately think that ANYTHING he proposes or does is horrible and evil, even if it seems like it would match their general political views.

To suggest that opposition to any Bush policy is not based entirely on cool, rational analysis, but might be perhaps a teensy bit influenced by obvious, frothing personal hatred for Bush, is to open yourself up for righteous denunciations and an all-around beating.

Take it from someone who has been there.

Timothy|10.19.05 @ 12:31PM|#

The problem is that no matter who wins the government gets elected.

[Phrase shamelessly stolen from Alex Tabarrok.]

gaius marius|10.19.05 @ 12:31PM|#

the game is over.

amen, gg. as i'm blathering on another thread, america -- if one can peer through the veil of hubris -- is in fact a rapidly dessicating economic and, yes, military power thanks largely to its terrible indulgent mismanagement under the ascendancy of post-hoover plebiscitarianism.

|10.19.05 @ 12:40PM|#

Hak - unfortunately, that quote about the public treasury appears to be an urban legend. A shame, as it's quite appropriate.

|10.19.05 @ 12:40PM|#

thanks largely to its terrible indulgent mismanagement under the ascendancy of post-hoover plebiscitarianism.

I didn't know William F. Buckley was posting here... :)

The sad thing, Gaius, is that I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point. The welfare state and the rise of the lawyerocracy point to a tired, risk-averse culture in decline.

|10.19.05 @ 12:40PM|#

gaius marius,

Well, I don't agree with either your or Plato's deterministic conclusion about the results of such.

|10.19.05 @ 12:43PM|#

JD,

I don't see anything in that link about Plato.

|10.19.05 @ 12:45PM|#

1) I don't claim to know with certainty what motivates various politicians. I have my suspicions, but I don't know if my suspicions are correct.

Fortunately, motives seem to be largely inconsequential. Divided government seems to be less disastrous with regard to spending. The data supports this hypothesis, and anybody who pays attention to partisan politics can immediately spot the tribal tendencies that lead to less spending in a divided scenario.

2) I think David Letterman said it best in November of 2000: (paraphrase) "It's been a few weeks since the election, and neither guy has won so far. Why don't we just keep it that way?"

|10.19.05 @ 12:48PM|#

JD,

If you peruse Plato's Republic you'll note that corruption in the Republic is predicated on a couple of things - one is the concept I've already detailed. Its only the disinterested, or rather, uncorruptable, Philosopher-King leadership that can save any society from ultimate ruin.

|10.19.05 @ 12:55PM|#

I take issue with De Rugy and Gillespies implied criticism of Kevlar vests for Police Dogs. I imagine that a thousand dollar kevlar dog vest (or even a 5000 dollar kevlar dog vest) is cheaper than the cost of one replacement drug/bomb sniffing dog. Humane reasons aside,it seems only prudent to protect an investment.

|10.19.05 @ 1:00PM|#

joe,

That's a valid point. And I don't think liberals necessarily want to "ramp up spending and raise taxes as ends unto themselves." As a libertarian-leaning something or other, I don't want to "reduce government and taxes as ends unto themselves" either. Maybe some libertarians do, but I'm just skeptical of big government. Skeptical - doesn't mean that I won't give government its due if it happens to accomplish something good. I just think that it often doesn't, and any kind of big government idea should be thoroughly examined and debated before being enacted into law. And a lot of people - Democrat and Republican - don't seem that interested in doing that. The purported ends are enough for them. Look, back to "Hillary Care": that was basically granting monopoly power (or, I suppose, oligopoly power) to the four or five big health insurance corporations, combined, of course with enormous amounts of federal regulation. This doesn't sound like a particularly progressive idea to me, but plenty of liberals that I talk to bemoan the fact that Hillary Clinton was unable to give us national health insurance. All Hillary had to do was say "I'm going to give you national health care," and that was enough for many liberals. And that's why I really think that many of these same people wouldn't consider what you're talking about - throwing money at Big Pharma, etc. - if a Democrat had proposed and/or signed these policies into law. They would just be satisfied that the president was addressing important social issues like old people being unable to afford medicine and children being undereducated and doing something. Their opposition often isn't on the merits or the demerits of the policy, but on the fact that the guy on the other side supports the policy.
I dunno. This is based on my conversations with quite a few liberals, who aren't stupid people by any means. Most of them are my good friends. But I can't help but think they have some serious partisan blinders on, and are stubbornly resistant to look at things in any other way.

|10.19.05 @ 1:41PM|#

Good on joe for the comment about assumed motivations for the opposition. It is an even more ridiculous practice when we conflate 'opposition' with party. The parties don't have narratives that are consistent with their platforms, and they are patently non ideological creatures. A party is the sum of its coalition members. A platform is the sum of the key wants of key coalition members. A party narrative is a post hoc justification for the platform.

I will say this about the Dems. They do not support increased spending for the sake of increased spending, but they can never oppose increased spending if the whole budget is taken into account. The Dem platform demands reallocations of spending to the 'right' places and the Dem narrative insists that there can be no absolute reduction in spending ever. That is why the only way out of any fiscal problem is to raise taxes. The 'responsible' Democrat wing primarily advances tax hikes. They even try to characterize tax hikes as budget cuts, as in "The president is spending too much on tax cuts for the wealthy!"

|10.19.05 @ 1:43PM|#

Dylan - I hear ya'. I have some libertarian-leaning friends, but yet they still argue for quite a bit of government control. Some people I know are more afraid of "big corporations" than they are of the government. Others just don't see any other way than government to "do things".

Hakluyt - I've just started reading a book called The Sleepwalkers (gauis, you may have read it - apparently the author, one Arthur Koestler, joined with your fav AJ Toynebee for a book) and the author has some bad things to day about both Plato and Aristotle...mainly that it was how their works were perceived that lead to the dark ages, at least as far as thought about cosmology and science. Again, I'm only part-way through, so maybe I misrepresenting the author's arguements, and it is a rather old book (1959 I think), but it's been fairly interesting sofar.

gaius marius|10.19.05 @ 1:50PM|#

The welfare state and the rise of the lawyerocracy point to a tired, risk-averse culture in decline.

amen, mr chriso.

Well, I don't agree with either your or Plato's deterministic conclusion about the results of such.

i should take more pains, gg, to point out that i'm no determinist either. we are creatures of free will. i'm simply waiting on the evidence that anyone is going to demonstrate any creative will to reverse our decline into dissolution. i've yet to see it.

|10.19.05 @ 2:01PM|#

Hakluyt - Yes, I know that link doesn't say anything about Plato, but it does address the "origins" of the phrase, and you are the one of very few people who attribute it to Plato. If you have a particular cite from Plato which is the origin of the quote, I retract my objection. I'll do some looking through the Republic, though.

drf|10.19.05 @ 2:17PM|#

dunno -

protectionism. corporate welfare. reckless foreign policy. bigger, more intrusive government. NCLB. WoD. Threat of fundamentalism

proctectionism. ignorant foreign policy. bigger, more intrusive gov't. Kyoto. WoD. Threat of "heather has two mommies".

dunno - once you throw out the ties.... nah. still many problems in each. still, all those years of (relative) peace, falling crime rates, falling unemployment, etc. i prefer those years. damn him for whipping it out on the company's dime.

still, neither is preferable.

the fyodorian/thoreauian theory of divided gov't still holds strong. (dem prez, repb congress, if i remember)

now if we're talking gore vs bush. oh boy...... argh!

Hak: what does spending in 1991 and 1992 have to do with clinton? did i misread you?

|10.19.05 @ 2:22PM|#

Hey Nick, is there a typo in Table 1?

Isn't column 1 (discretionary spending change) supposed to be a weighted average of columns 2 and 3? So the value in column 1 has to be between 2 and 3. It is for everyone but GWB, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so to speak.

Maybe the dates changed? Something is not right.

I wish you had made the chart in html rather than a gif.

|10.19.05 @ 2:26PM|#

"The welfare state and the rise of the lawyerocracy point to a tired, risk-averse culture in decline."

Don't leave out the warfare state - the inevitable flip side of the welfare state coin.

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 2:41PM|#

"f it was a Democratic president who had signed things like the Medicaid bill and No Child Left Behind, or had proposed the reconstruction effort Bush has proposed for the Gulf Coast, a lot of my liberal friends would be pleased as punch"

Then you have stupid liberal friends. Even if you believe that education can be improved by throwing more money at it, and that old people are poor and thus need more money, neither one of those programs does either one of those things. One requires state bureaucracies to do more testing without giving them more money, and the other one enriches drug companies without giving old people more money. Neither one would make a true liberal happy.

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Jason,

Even if we took your characterization of the Dems as true (and it's obviously not, given the Clinton years), one could just as easily posit that they could find reductions in military spending, for instance, obviating the need for (much) tax increase.

At this point, though, anybody who thinks there's any way out of our future budget morass without a tax increase (or runaway inflation) is a complete moron who shouldn't be trusted with the keys to the family car, much less the government.

James Anderson Merritt|10.19.05 @ 2:54PM|#

It is a fact that, during the last election cycle, the various state and national Libertarian Parties ran many sincere, capable, qualified candidates for office.

It is also a fact that, during the same time, wags on Reason Online had very little good to say about either the party or its most worthy candidates, preferring to spend a LOT of time and energy bear-baiting the LP, its members, and its candidates.

Finally, I think it is as close to a fact as possible, without actually being rigorously proven, that the dominant political parties will not change, unless by doing so they acquire electoral advantage or dispose of electoral disadvantage. In other words, as long as they know they'll keep winning, they won't change their ways.

I submit to you all that it is time to support attractive, qualified, truly libertarian candidates wherever you find them, even if that means saying something nice about an LP candidate, or abandoning the GOP or Demos in one or more races. Start as soon as you can -- no later than 2006! -- and don't let up until we get as many real libertarians in office, whatever their declared party affiliations may or may not be. At very least, the major parties must live in fear that they really COULD lose a lot of elections. Ridiculing alternative parties, such as the LP, only helps strengthen the major parties' grip, allowing the latter to continue in their arrogant, complacent ways.

|10.19.05 @ 3:00PM|#

M1EK said,

Well, duh. If you really are a big-government liberal, why would you like a big-government conservative just for the spending, when the spending and tax relief goes mostly to people you think don't need the help (corporate welfare and the rich)?

Is this one of those situations, like the FEMA/NoLA situation, where you're saying "if only the right people were in power with the right programs, everything would be fine"? The actual outcome of the programs, whether they be corporate welfare or "humanitarian" welfare, are usually the same.

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 3:31PM|#

""if only the right people were in power with the right programs, everything would be fine"? The actual outcome of the programs, whether they be corporate welfare or "humanitarian" welfare, are usually the same."

No, if you're a big-spending liberal, you would take issue with who the money was being spent on even in the ideal - i.e., NCLB doesn't try to spend money on teacher salaries; the medicare plan doesn't try to give money to old people; etc.

You guys are trying real hard not to get this. It must be more convenient to Limbaugh the liberals.

Note that I think both of the liberal positions on those issues are stupid, and I actually prefer Bush's (well, on NCLB; I wouldn't have done the Medicare program - old people have not too little, but too MUCH free money these days).

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 3:33PM|#

"It is a fact that, during the last election cycle, the various state and national Libertarian Parties ran many sincere, capable, qualified candidates for office."

It is a fact that most of the LP candidates I've seen have been enthusiastic amateurs at best to scarily creepy at worst. I voted for the amateurs in many cases, of course, in many races where it was them or a loser Republican or them or a loser Democrat but don't kid yourself - most LP candidates look like they peeled off the tinfoil hat just in time for the photo-op.

|10.19.05 @ 3:48PM|#

I submit to you all that it is time to support attractive, qualified, truly libertarian candidates wherever you find them, even if that means saying something nice about an LP candidate, or abandoning the GOP or Demos in one or more races.

To me, it's better to support a Libertarian in spite of his purported wackiness than it is to support a Republican in spite of his pathetic record.

|10.19.05 @ 3:58PM|#

M1EK,

I'd say they "try really hard not to get this" about as much as Naderites did in 2000. "Not a dime's worth of difference," and "It's bound to fail, because it has to fail, so why even bother to think about the details" are objects of faith.

|10.19.05 @ 4:37PM|#

One of the aspects of the Bush fiasco I find curious--and I'm finding myself less and less curious about the Bush Administration all the time--is the apparent disregard Bush seems to have for his heir apparent--whoever that may be.

Bush has killed so many sacred cows, and made so many of his followers explain it all away, that it will be a wonder if anyone who ever called themselves a Bush supporter will have any credibility left for a campaign. ...and who is his heir apparent anyway? ...When was the last time we saw a two-term president that didn't seem to have or care about an heir apparent?

|10.19.05 @ 4:42PM|#

When was the last time we saw a two-term president that didn't seem to have or care about an heir apparent?

Bill's scandals sure didn't do me any favors.

Gerald Ford still bitches to me that he lost because he cleaned up Nixon's mess. I just tell him that at least he lost fair and square.

|10.19.05 @ 4:45PM|#

Don't you feed me lines about some idealistic future.

|10.19.05 @ 4:52PM|#

Tom, it's fairly traditional for the candidate even from the same party as a two-term president to run on a 'change' platform.

Bush The Elder made it quite clear in 1988 that his presidency would not be a third Reagan term. I'm pretty sure that Nixon did the same thing in 1960.

Gore, while not being quite so explicit, promised change from the Clinton record. Of course, he had a couple of problems in that regard: (1) Clinton had no apparent consistency in beliefs or actions to run counter to, and (2) there were much bigger and better way to run as an anti-Clinton, so distinct ideals and policy proposals weren't necessary.

|10.19.05 @ 4:56PM|#

My point with the above is that most of the folks who would be running for the GOP in 2008 would be seeking some distance from Bush, regardless of what he has done recently.

My guess about Bush's rationale is that he can be pretty sure that no one from family's 'inner circle' will be the nominee, so given his value on personal loyalty, he may not give a damn what the GOP does to succeed him.

|10.19.05 @ 5:06PM|#

M1EK:

You are right that we are stuck with tax hikes now, because we now have debt that is of sufficient size that growing your way out seems implausible. My beef is that, to a Dem, it is ALWAYS implausible.

Clinton gets credit for signing The End of Welfare as We Know It, but that was certainly an outlier behavior for a Dem, who happened to be stuck with a popular conservative agenda. If he were to campaign that way in the primaries, he'd never make it.

|10.19.05 @ 5:08PM|#

I submit that to support LP candidates is to waste your time. Support a libertarian issue. Make that issue a deal breaker for your vote. Join the coalition that owns that issue. Hold your nose.

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 6:47PM|#

"Clinton gets credit for signing The End of Welfare as We Know It, but that was certainly an outlier behavior for a Dem, who happened to be stuck with a popular conservative agenda. If he were to campaign that way in the primaries, he'd never make it."

He campaigned on welfare reform all the way back to his days as governor. Is there any GOP spin you guys DON'T just suck up as the unvarnished truth?

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 6:51PM|#

"My beef is that, to a Dem, it is ALWAYS implausible."

The two times they were given the reigns, it WAS implausible. As for other times, the Republicans before Kennedy and Carter weren't as irresponsible as Reagan or Bush II have been.

|10.19.05 @ 11:16PM|#

Did table 1 change, or are my eyes going?

|10.20.05 @ 9:13AM|#

drf,

Hak: what does spending in 1991 and 1992 have to do with clinton? did i misread you?

joe claimed that the Democratic Congress held to the "budget deal" during Clinton's two years in office. My point is that they didn't even hold to it the last two years Bush pere was in office.

joe,

...the assumption that your opponent's motivations are opposite yours.

Sort of how you claimed that unless we showed you our bona fides, then libertarians were just out to screw poor people. You are such a hypocritical skank.

JD,

I don't know what you mean by a phrase. Plato clearly argues that corruption is part of the downfall of Republics.

M1EK,

Neither one would make a true liberal happy.

Ahh, a "true liberal." You can always depend on someone who is devoted to a particular ideology to bring out this particular argument. Sort of how like "true Christians" would never involve themselves in aggressive campaigns against infidels, or "true Communists" would never support mass murder, etc.

The Clinton years would have seen far more spending sans the Congress. Clinton proposed far more spending than either the Democratic or Republican Congress during his administration actually voted for. Don't conflate the numbers in the charts with Clinton's perferred behavior.

joe,

"Not a dime's worth of difference"

I'm curious, why should I vote for a Democrat over a Republican? Why? See joe, one thing you never, ever do here is provide any sort of positive agenda. You scold us for not voting for your pathetic, corrupt party, yet you give us no reason to do so. Until you do so, all you and M1EK's yapping is simply that - yapping. Then again, you motherfuckers are for the WoD, which really says enough about your party.

"It's bound to fail, because it has to fail, so why even bother to think about the details"

Its bound to fail because it has failed.

|10.20.05 @ 9:15AM|#

M1EK:

Amazing, simply amazing that such a popular Democrat idea as welfare reform had to wait until 1996 when Republicans controlled congress to actually become law. Why, I'm amazed it wasn't part of Clinton's primary strategy in 1992. Because it is so popular. With Democrats.

|10.20.05 @ 9:15AM|#

M1EK,

He campaigned on welfare reform all the way back to his days as governor.

He discussed welfare programs; he didn't campaign on the sort of welfare reform bill that was eventually passed.

M1EK|10.20.05 @ 10:07AM|#

"Amazing, simply amazing that such a popular Democrat idea as welfare reform had to wait until 1996 when Republicans controlled congress to actually become law. Why, I'm amazed it wasn't part of Clinton's primary strategy in 1992. Because it is so popular. With Democrats."

It wasn't popular "with most of the Democrats in Congress", nor has anybody claimed it was. It was, however, something that *Clinton* clearly campaigned on throughout his career, and delivered on, both at the state and federal level.

Clinton was my third choice at the time, behind Perot and Dole/Bush. But looking back, he did a fine job, and the unwilligness of so many reasonoids to admit it is proof that most of y'all are really the infamous Republicans Who Want To Smoke Pot.

|10.20.05 @ 10:18AM|#

M1EK,

It was, however, something that *Clinton* clearly campaigned on throughout his career, and delivered on, both at the state and federal level.

Wrong.

Jason Ligon,

Its also amazing that a guy who was supposedly campaining on it didn't bring it up at all during his first two years in office. :)

|10.20.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Jason Ligon,

Why is that these Democrats like M1EK buy into the myths their party spews out?

|10.20.05 @ 10:35AM|#

M1EK, you are an interesting guy. I used to have you pegged as a Democrat. Now I see you more as a guy who's cynical about all of them and is pissed off that we aren't cynical enough about one side in particular.

My kind of man.

|10.20.05 @ 10:45AM|#

thoreau,

Anyone who claims that one of Clinton's goal over his political life was to reform welfare the way it was reformed in 1996 isn't very cynical about one party. And anyone who was dumb enough to vote for Perot, well, is just plain dumb.

|10.20.05 @ 10:48AM|#

Jason Ligon,

"Amazing, simply amazing that such a popular Democrat idea as welfare reform had to wait until 1996 when Republicans controlled congress to actually become law. Why, I'm amazed it wasn't part of Clinton's primary strategy in 1992. Because it is so popular. With Democrats."

To be fair, the law that got signed and passed - the one that increased spending amounts and provided funding for assistance and training - never got mentioned by Republicans in their primaries, either. It as a centrist, pragmatic compromise between a centrist Dem president, and centrists from both parties.

|10.20.05 @ 10:56AM|#

joe,

At the time, it was not considered "centrist" at all. Democrats were falling all over themselves in an effort to criticize it, telling us that it punished the poor, etc. That you try to spin this nine years later into something else is laughable.

Reason.com

New at Reason

Timothy|10.19.05 @ 10:31AM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 10:37AM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 10:48AM|#

Warren|10.19.05 @ 10:53AM|#

Timothy|10.19.05 @ 10:54AM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 11:16AM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 11:28AM|#

R C Dean|10.19.05 @ 12:30PM|#

Timothy|10.19.05 @ 12:31PM|#

gaius marius|10.19.05 @ 12:31PM|#

gaius marius|10.19.05 @ 1:50PM|#

drf|10.19.05 @ 2:17PM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 2:41PM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 2:44PM|#

James Anderson Merritt|10.19.05 @ 2:54PM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 3:31PM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 3:33PM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 6:47PM|#

M1EK|10.19.05 @ 6:51PM|#

M1EK|10.20.05 @ 10:07AM|#

Leave a Comment

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices: