New at Reason

David Weigel | September 11, 2006

Jonathan Rauch asks "Who's going to clean up after Bush?" and watches politicians back slowly out of the room.

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.

← Al Jazeera's newsnet neutrality | Main | Kabul Confidential →

See all 10 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.

Bernd Haug|9.11.06 @ 4:59AM|#

Say, why does a libertarian magazine still publish a person who mentions "undermined confidence in government for a generation" as if that was one of the many problems of the Nixon administration?

"If the country seriously intends to prevent terrorism, then spying at home, detaining terror suspects, and conducting tough interrogations are practices that the government will need to engage in for many years to come." - what's up with that?

He treats the trend towards police state as if the abuse was not the thing itself but that nobody wrote rules that explicitly allow concentration camps, a Stasi system and torture? Because that would supposedly make it, say, easier, to roll back such abuses without seeming "weak on security" or what?

The only thing Rauch seemed ever remotely libertarian on was gay marriage, and there his line wasn't the correct "marriage is no business of the government" but "oh please dear feds give us permission to our human rights".

He certainly is entitled to his opinion, no matter how ill-conceived it may be, but he'd probably better placed at some "national greatness southpark conservative", or whatever the non-troglodyte wingnuts call themselves these days, outfit.

|9.11.06 @ 5:29AM|#

Why are so many self described "libertarians" (really propertarians, but that's another story) so pious about, well, being libertarians. I'm sure Rauch will offer 1,000 sorries for not having the "correct" view on gay marriage. Thanks for the moral clarity. Who cares if more reasonable people would describe the "correct" position as merely a "more compelling argument."

You should be pleased to have a mensch like Rauch. Though, perhaps I like him precisely because he's *not* one of the looney "libertarians" we tend to see in _Reason's_ pages, or especially in the comments section of this blog.

Slightly more off topic: I was perusing the latest issue of the usually unreadable _New Republic_ (I subscribe to _The Nation_, obviously) and I saw an ad for _Reason_ quoting Adlai Stevenson! And if I can just go on one more tangent: A letter to the editor claimed Leo Strauss voted for Stevenson in '56.

|9.11.06 @ 6:30AM|#

The only time that was really appropiate to question Bush was in 1999. Really, as with Franco, everything else was to be expected based on past experiences.

|9.11.06 @ 10:53AM|#

For me it's as simple as this: Results. And you can't blame the Democrats - or the Republicans - for his lack of them.

A leader, by definition, leads. A uniter, by definition, unites. Just calling Bush a something, doesn't make it so. If he can't unite the public (without the prop of a national tragedy, no less) then he's not a uniter or a leader.

Blaming the liberals or the democrats or the MSM for his lack of ability and obvious missteps is one thing that has always mystified me in his supporters.

He's an un-engaged man - let alone president - who's done little to lead his party, the country or the world. His actions and rhetoric are based on a stunningly cynical lack of genuine vision and directed toward even more cynical naked power-grabbing.

Now, his own party is wise to him and the public is wise to both.

I've always heard that Bush is deceptively smart and shrewed. Well he's certainly deceptive, alright. And if he's smart and shrewed, that's an even bigger deception.

|9.11.06 @ 11:28AM|#

I could cite easily 5 or 7 20th century Presidents worse than Bush, much worse.
How about that 4 termer - Franklin Roosevelt ?
How many centuries will it take to undo the mess he created ? How about Bush's two predecessors ?
Or his two opponents (Gore and Kerry)?

Bad Presidents, or ones that are less than perfect is the norm.

|9.11.06 @ 11:30AM|#

What did Nixon do that destroyed our country for so long? Nixon was ten times the Pres Dubya has been. I'd trade bush for nixon in a heartbeat. Bush breaks more laws by lunchtime than nixon did during his entire presidency, including watergate. I wish a little breaking and entering was the worst thing bush had done.

|9.11.06 @ 12:36PM|#

Bruce, Nixon brought us wage and price controls. It doesn't get much worse than that.

|9.11.06 @ 1:06PM|#

|9.11.06 @ 4:32PM|#

Sometimes it sounds good at that time. Sometimes it is good at that time, but not so good later.

Fact, our government provided weapons and training to OBL's crew. Was that a mistake? In the late '80s when we were doing it, it was a great idea, today, it's wan't so great.

The attack September 11 might not have happened if we had let the Soviets take Afghanistan.

|9.11.06 @ 4:38PM|#

""Blaming the liberals or the democrats or the MSM for his lack of ability and obvious missteps is one thing that has always mystified me in his supporters.

He's an un-engaged man - let alone president - who's done little to lead his party, the country or the world. His actions and rhetoric are based on a stunningly cynical lack of genuine vision and directed toward even more cynical naked power-grabbing.

Now, his own party is wise to him and the public is wise to both."""

To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi
Who is more foolish, the fool, or the one who follows the fool?