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
Nothing "Super" About This Majority
The Wall Street Journal peers into the abyss of the coming "liberal supermajority," and shudders:
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on. [...]
One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition. [...]
A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. [...]
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition. [...]
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
I've got no problems whatsover with ex-felons getting the right to vote, and I'm (thanks to a Jesse Walker article in the November issue of reason) perhaps naively unfearful of the imminent return of the Fairness Doctrine (which would, after all, rally Republicans in a way John McCain never quite could). And nowhere in this editorial do you see much criticism for the big-government catastrophe of Bushism.
But as McCain has rightly pointed out, Bush ain't running for president. Barack Obama is indeed more lefty than 1990s Democrats on economic issues–especially free trade, which he has never passed up an opportunity to bash–and placing him at the head of unified Democratic government high on re-regulatory rhetoric is likely to have a whole host of lousy consequences, several of which David Weigel wrote about back in June. In my anecdotal experience, libertarians who plan to vote for Obama are either engaging in a whole lot of evidence-lite Hope about how his intelligence and University of Chicago background will somehow translate into semi-prudent economic policy, or have just decided that that matters less than their one or two big issues, usually pertaining to war. Even though if you think you're voting for a non-interventionist, think again.
|10.17.08 @ 10:47AM|#
Reason has returned to Reason
...libertarians who plan to vote for Obama are either engaging
in a whole lot of evidence-lite Hope about how his intelligence and
University of Chicago background will somehow translate into
semi-prudent economic policy, or have just decided that that
matters less than their one or two big issues, usually pertaining
to war. Even though if you thinnk you're voting for a
non-interventionist, think again.
JP|10.17.08 @ 10:49AM|#
The WSJ has a lot of crust bringing this up now. They were right in there with the rest of the MSM telling us we were all gonna die without the Bailout.
SIV|10.17.08 @ 10:51AM|#
Good post Matt.
I think ex-felons, after serving all terms of sentence, should have
all rights restored, voting,firearms,everything.I believe the
Democrats want current felons to vote.
|10.17.08 @ 10:51AM|#
Obama may to be the left of Clinton, but he is well to the right
of the Democrats of 1965, nevermind 1933.
If the political philosohy of contemporary Democrats was that which
"fell out of public favor in the 1970s," the public wouldn't very
well be realigning to give it one of history's largest majorities,
now would it?
But, yeah. Hope you like unions, alternative energy, and public
health insurance.
|10.17.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide
I also have no problem with felons getting 100% of their rights
back once they have done 100% of their time. But I mean 100% of
their rights. If they can be trusted to vote, they can be trusted
to own a gun. If they cannot be trusted own a gun, they cannot be
trusted to vote. One is either a citizen of one is not. Let us not
return to any of this 3/5th BS.
Lefiti|10.17.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Let's call it the demise of market fundamentalism. Economics is neither an exact science nor a revealed religion, and capitalism can have more than one model. You market fundamentalists can busy yourselves with excomunications. Assholes.
|10.17.08 @ 10:58AM|#
In other words, the election would mark the restoration of
the activist government that fell out of public favor in the
1970s.
It didn't fall out of favor. It just got rebranded with each new
president.
If our Republic can survive an all Republican government, I think
we can weather an all Democrat government.
|10.17.08 @ 10:59AM|#
the election would mark the restoration of the activist
government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s.
Har-de-fucking-har.
How can those clowns actually publish incredibly stupid shit like
this?
Could it be they only disapprove of "activist government" which
provides handouts to people they *don't like*?
|10.17.08 @ 10:59AM|#
The Supreme Court and Fed will still be controlled by Republicans for the forseeable future. For what that's worth.
|10.17.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Perhaps unsubstantiated opinion: one of the benefits to a supermajority over stuff getting passed with a small majority is that you know who to blame if the damned thing doesn't work. Also, maybe (and this is a big maybe), since they don't have to buy votes to do things, they can focus on making programs using "smart" policy instead of stupid half-breed programs with giant extras tacked on to get them passed. One of the major criticisms of programs and regulations is that they're perverted from their academic roots to suit the political class and special interests. With a supermajority, is it possible we don't need those perversions to get them passed?
|10.17.08 @ 11:00AM|#
How can those clowns actually publish incredibly stupid shit
like this?
I think it's the same trick that allows the Wall Street Journal to
rail against the "elite media" on its editorial pages.
|10.17.08 @ 11:02AM|#
They have massive cogliones talking about "massive
expansion of government" and somehow not mentioning Bush and recent
GOP domination of Congress.
That said, Obama and a Dem Congress will really suck too.
Seward|10.17.08 @ 11:04AM|#
joe,
...the public wouldn't very well be realigning to give it one
of history's largest majorities, now would it?
I would say that as a general rule that the public doesn't know
much about the political philosophy of either major party, and they
know less about the specific policy positions of either major
party.
Anyway, my advice to Democrats is to avoid overreach. It is the
same advice I gave to Republicans when they were riding high a few
years ago.
BDB|10.17.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Good point about the Supreme Court. The Federalist Party went extinct around 1808, but the Federalist Supreme Court had influence long thereafter.
|10.17.08 @ 11:07AM|#
That's it! I've had enough!
Now tell me, what am I working for? Being productive is continually
looking like a waste of time. I want my welfare, I mean pony. I'm
getting geared up to embrace poverty and let my government nanny
take care of me.
Is there a good reason for why I should want to pay taxes, be
financially independent, and work hard?
I'm struggling here, help?
|10.17.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Uh, Jimmy Carter had Democratic majorities for his whole term.
Bill Clinton had one the first two years of his first. Both were
substantial majorities. Though admittedly not fillibuster-proof.
But it wasn't the GOP that blocked Carter with the fillibuster. It
was the Democratic leadership that blocked every attempt at
reform.
I comfort myself by remembering that the Democratic party is full
of factions that have widely different aims and aspirations. The
goals of one faction are likely to be entirely at odds with the
goals of another.
If a Congress full of Democrats and Rockerfeller Republicans
couldn't get together and agree what kind of National Health Plan
we should have under Clinton, i don't give BO much of a chance
either.
And the way the Democratic leadership stabbed Jimmy Carter in the
back, over and over again, was a scandal. And he was probably the
hopeiest, changeiest Prez of my lifetime.
That's right even more than JFK (who was actually more conservative
than Nixon on foreign policy).
|10.17.08 @ 11:09AM|#
In reality, the biggest reason that I'm going to be voting Obama is that I think a McCain victory would make the politicians here and the rest of the world think that we were okay with Bush. I don't think the Democrats deserve to win, but I think the Republicans need to lose. Also, Palin is a nitwit and anyone who would select a veep after having spoken to her twice in a decision taken over the course of three days does not deserve to be president. And Barr has a problem with immigrants.
|10.17.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Good point, Isaac. The Democrats can do gridlock all by
themselves.
Wait, no we can't.
Yes! We! Can!
Kyle|10.17.08 @ 11:11AM|#
...return of the Fairness Doctrine (which would, after all,
rally Republicans in a way John McCain never quite
could).
If they do try to pass this through, I wonder how it will be sold?
How will commercial media look, i.e. will everything have to be
"point / counterpoint" type programming?
|10.17.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi will NOT cooperate. They will have their own priorities that will be at odds as soon as inauguration finishes. Look for some honeymoon policies to get passed - and then out come the long knives.
|10.17.08 @ 11:13AM|#
I've got a question for any old-timers that might be reading: are the Democrats in Congress more or less divided into factions today than in the 70s and 80s?
|10.17.08 @ 11:13AM|#
The Supreme Court and Fed will still be controlled by Republicans for the forseeable future. For what that's worth.
Good point.
But I'm not sure either party has had much of a problem with fed
policy.
BDB|10.17.08 @ 11:15AM|#
I see Obama has ceased to Dukakis, and become Jimmy Carter in the minds of Republicans.
|10.17.08 @ 11:15AM|#
My prediction on health care is that Obama gets behind a Pelosi
Plan, rather than trying to push his over hers. His
non-universal-plan-even-though-he'd-like-single-payer position
during the campaign suggests to me a high degree of political
pragmatism on the issue.
A Congressional health care plan probably would have passed in
1994, but the Clintons wanted their plan.
Seward|10.17.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Isaac Bartram,
A lot of that had to do with Carter's efforts to curb pork barrel
spending.
|10.17.08 @ 11:15AM|#
I'm surprised that the WSJ didn't give us a list of respected
Democrats who will be thrown under the bus like Colin Powell.
I agree with Jorgen. The GOP needs to lose. Question is, will they
blame it on abandoning the leave us alone coalition, or will they
blame it on not bringing enough god into the platform?
|10.17.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Isaac,
Well, yes and no.
"Liberal: someone too broad-minded to take his own side in an
argument"
I can see where that guy was coming from.
|10.17.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Lamar,
there is NOTHING in GOP land that can't be fixed with more Jesus! I
put Jesus on my populist sandwich like mustard and mow that
shit.
Seward|10.17.08 @ 11:20AM|#
BDB,
That wouldn't be that terrible. Carter was a better President than
he is often given credit for.
|10.17.08 @ 11:21AM|#
You can bet the handwringing about too much money in government will die off fast. The Dems won't kill the goose that lays their golden eggs, capitalism, but they'll have it on life support when they are finished.
|10.17.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Weren't there still a lot of "Southern Dems"--particularly in
the House--in the 1970s and into the 1980s? These were much more
conservative than our current blue dogs. So I think the Congress
may actually end up more liberal than it ever was in the
1970s.
And as for the presidency: Obama skillfully uses moderate
rhetoric--he's one of the few politicians who takes care to
accurately and sympathetically acknowledge opposing points of
view--but always seems to do so en route to explainng why he favors
the most left-liberal position. I think this will indeed be the
most liberal government in living memory. However, it will be
constrained by harsh budget realities.
|10.17.08 @ 11:26AM|#
I personally think Jesus would have liked us to be communists.
that resting on the 7th day thing sounds a lot like the 35 hour
work week. Dispersing the money changers means he was no fan of
market based exchange rates. And who could ignore his claims that
rich people must give away their wealth or suffer eternal
damnation?
Jesus was a pinko.
|10.17.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Lamar, I believe that the country is on the verge of a great revival centered around the christian models of helping the poor and loving one's neighbor. I believe that the gop's hateful arrogance and condescension of the last couple decades are now resulting in the repopulation of jesusland.
|10.17.08 @ 11:31AM|#
domoarrigato, exactly my point, that's the Jesus I believe will be at the center of this revival. I also believe it will appeal to a lot more folks than did the glory days of the GOP.
|10.17.08 @ 11:32AM|#
and I'm (thanks to a Jesse Walker article in the November
issue of reason) perhaps naively unfearful of the imminent return
of the Fairness Doctrine (which would, after all, rally Republicans
in a way John McCain never quite could).
I read that article and it scared me pretty good. But I have zero
faith in it's ability to "rally Republicans". I think it more
likely they'll just want to put the "right" people in charge of
speech in 'Mericka.
|10.17.08 @ 11:34AM|#
I see Obama has ceased to Dukakis, and become Jimmy Carter in the minds of Republicans.
Actually, I hadn't noticed that.
I have chosen to see approximate parallels, but I haven't seen any
Republican do it.
As for Obama, I respect the fact that in campaigning he has pretty
constantly taken the high road and has shown remarkable restraint
and self control. These are qualities I'd like to see in a
President no matter how I might feel about his policy
positions.
Old Bull Lee|10.17.08 @ 11:35AM|#
"Restrained by harsh budget realities"?
I'd like to think so, but this isn't 1992 when you had presidents
campaigning about paying down the national debt. There is no
budgetary restraint anymore, in either party.
|10.17.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Ben,
I hope you are wrong - but in my gut I fear not. It's not so much
that the country is moving left as it is that the right and left
have drifted towards populism, and the left has done so more
credibly.
zoltan|10.17.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Jesus may have been a pinko, but it doesn't really seem like he ever wanted to force it on anyway. He just wanted people to personally act a certain way, not have government enforce it from the top-down.
Barack Obama|10.17.08 @ 11:37AM|#
the imminent return of the Fairness Doctrine (which would,
after all, rally Republicans in a way John McCain never quite
could).
Don't worry, Republican rallying will also be deemed
"unfair."
I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message.
Jesus|10.17.08 @ 11:38AM|#
I personally think Jesus would have liked us to be
communists.
Yes, I was all about having the government seize wealth from the
productive at gunpoint. I think that's in the Sermon on the Mount
somewhere.
Seward|10.17.08 @ 11:41AM|#
zoltan,
A lot of the rhetoric of Jesus in the Gospels goes like this:
"In the near future a lot of the folks who doing things that I and
those who agree with me don't like are going to get what they
deserve."
|10.17.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Brotherben and domoarrigato: I believe you are both referring to
the conflict depicted in this cartoon (one of my favorite
cartoonists):
Jesus vs.
Jeezus!
|10.17.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Oh, and I never saw one see Obama as Dukakis either.
I thought everone though he was he was all JFK.
Barack Obama|10.17.08 @ 11:44AM|#
As for Obama, I respect the fact that in campaigning he has
pretty constantly taken the high road and has shown remarkable
restraint and self control.
That's right, from my broken promise to accept only public
financing, to my endorsement of the vote fraud squad at ACORN, to
my calling McCain an old crippled racist and claiming 100% of his
ads were negative, it's been nothing but high road for me and I'm
glad people are noticing.
I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message.
P.S. Hey Joe The Plumber, I guess you've learned what happens when
you try to ask me a tough question, huh? Next time you'll know to
keep your big mouth shut.
zoltan|10.17.08 @ 11:47AM|#
"In the near future a lot of the folks who doing things that
I and those who agree with me don't like are going to get what they
deserve."
Oooooooooooh, right. I see what you're saying. Forgot about that
slight detail. It's more like, do whatever the fuck you want 'cause
you're the one who's going to be burning for eternity.
Elemenope|10.17.08 @ 11:48AM|#
I'm still stuck on the first sentence.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of
the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S.
history.
No, it won't. It will be a perfectly usual ideological shift.
Nothing profound about it. At best this is Reagan '80.
Which didn't exactly blow the doors off the barn.
|10.17.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Actually, I think Jesus was the opposite of a communist, but only because of ponderings on the relationship of virtue and compulsion. Can someone be compelled to viture? I don't think so. Therefore, how can we be virtuous in the eyes of God(and/or/= Jesus?) if we have not the opportunity to show that we can follow his rules in the face of temptation and without someone beating us with a stick?
Jesus|10.17.08 @ 11:49AM|#
brotherben,
I believe that the country is on the verge of a great revival
centered around the christian
socialist models of helping the poor
having the government force you to help the poor whether
you like it or not and loving one's neighbor
seizing your neighbor's wealth with the government's
help.
--
Fixed that for you.
Bingo|10.17.08 @ 11:52AM|#
I'm really hoping the GOP shatters into a million pieces or at least formally adopts the "Jesus wants us to save you!" rhetoric and stops pretending to be fiscally conservative.
|10.17.08 @ 11:53AM|#
brotherben,
whether jesus would have compelled his citizens to give alms had he
actually been elected King of the Jews after massive voter fraud is
as irrelevant as possible. The point is that most modern christians
support redistributive policies reflexively.
alan|10.17.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Topic: Gun Rights in DC
Lefiti | October 17, 2008, 10:54am | #
Let's call it the demise of market fundamentalism. Economics is
neither an exact science nor a revealed religion, and capitalism
can have more than one model. You market fundamentalists can busy
yourselves with excomunications. Assholes.
Topic: Swat Teams Gone Wild
Lefiti | October 17, 2008, 10:54am | #
Let's call it the demise of market fundamentalism. Economics is
neither an exact science nor a revealed religion, and capitalism
can have more than one model. You market fundamentalists can busy
yourselves with excomunications. PencilDicks.
Topic: Stem Cells Taught Synchronized
Swimming
Lefiti | October 17, 2008, 10:54am | #
Let's call it the demise of market fundamentalism. Economics is
neither an exact science nor a revealed religion, and capitalism
can have more than one model. You market fundamentalists can busy
yourselves with excomunications. Shitheads.
Topic: Tony Orlando's Comeback Tour Scores Huge Success --
Bionic Knee Key To Great Stage Performance
Lefiti | October 17, 2008, 10:54am | #
Let's call it the demise of market fundamentalism. Economics is
neither an exact science nor a revealed religion, and capitalism
can have more than one model. You market fundamentalists can busy
yourselves with excomunications. Fuckdiddlys.
Barack Obama|10.17.08 @ 12:00PM|#
I think this will indeed be the most liberal government in
living memory. However, it will be constrained by harsh budget
realities.
Heh, you didn't really think I was giving 95% of Americans a tax
cut, did you? Hope and Change are expensive! I just had to tell the
bitter gun-clingers that so they'd vote for me.
I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message.
Kolohe|10.17.08 @ 12:04PM|#
In my anecdotal experience, libertarians who plan to vote
for Obama are either engaging in a whole lot of evidence-lite Hope
about how his intelligence and University of Chicago background
will somehow translate into semi-prudent economic policy, or have
just decided that that matters less than their one or two big
issues, usually pertaining to war.
Regarding this, here's the reason I'm voting for Obama (and I still
consider myself I right of center dude):
Economic policy mistakes tend to be self correcting, both in the
medium and long term. Either the system routes around, or people
can objectively see they don't have jobs - or are otherwise
personally effected by poor economic policy choices - and so 'throw
the bums out'
Foreign policy decisions however (or other non-economic ones, say
for example TSA or the WoD) however, don't have such feedback
loops. These things can be demogouged indefinitely, the body
politic has poor and/or asymmetric information, and in any case
they don't effect many people personally. (the people that are
effected personally are effected dramatically, but they tend to be
more on the margins of political society, or outside it
entirely)
Kolohe|10.17.08 @ 12:06PM|#
I used TSA and WoD as an example, but I doubt Obama will
dismantle either one.
(Indeed, if economic conditions are still pretty bad by 2010, and
crime starts to tick up, expect the Obama administration to paint
themselves as aggressive drug warriors)
|10.17.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Ben - just trying to juxtapose the current context of the will to power with that that must have existed in jesus time - not really central to my point that christianity has a distinctly pinko streak in it.
|10.17.08 @ 12:08PM|#
alan - good detective work, i thought it was just me that I seemed to be having the same argument with lefiti over and over again...
Kolohe|10.17.08 @ 12:11PM|#
per Reinmoose at 11:00
that's why I actually want the senate to have a fillibuster proof
majority (although I give it less than a 10% chance of happening
now)
I want everything over the next two years to be entirely the cause
of one party for good or ill. I'm even willing to spot the
democrats the first 6 months because anything that happens until
Jul 09 is not really their doing.
But come Nov '10 I want there to be an honest reckoning.
Mike Laursen|10.17.08 @ 12:13PM|#
I want my welfare, I mean pony. I'm getting geared up to
embrace poverty and let my government nanny take care of
me.
No, you don't want to get on welfare. It ain't that great, and
being poor still sucks. What you want is a nice job in the Federal
bureaucracy with an early retirement.
Kolohe|10.17.08 @ 12:17PM|#
I've got a question for any old-timers that might be
reading: are the Democrats in Congress more or less divided into
factions today than in the 70s and 80s?
I'm younger than you, but I would say slightly less. There's still
a good deal of the 'blue dogs' like Webb and Murtha, but compare
them to say Scoop Jackson and John Stennis. The modern crop is much
closer to the center of gravity of the Democratic Party.
Mike Laursen|10.17.08 @ 12:18PM|#
That's right, from my broken promise to accept only public
financing...
Wasn't that in response to McCain fucking around, refusing to
commit one way or the other, so that Obama could not tell whether
McCain was going to honor the deal they had made?
|10.17.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Serious question: has anybody ever found anything written by the
guy who posts as Barack Obama the slightest bit worthwhile?
Anyone?
|10.17.08 @ 12:27PM|#
"Serious question: has anybody ever found anything written
by the guy who posts as Barack Obama the slightest bit
worthwhile?"
Only to confirm that McCain supporters are some of the angriest
people alive.
|10.17.08 @ 12:27PM|#
joe, I got the new "kaopectate 3.0" filter and i don't see lefiti and others anymore. Unfortunately, it also drops my own posts about 60% of the time.
|10.17.08 @ 12:31PM|#
No, you don't want to get on welfare. It ain't that great,
and being poor still sucks. What you want is a nice job in the
Federal bureaucracy with an early retirement.
Isn't it interesting how many "small-government" people reflexively
look at aid for the poor as THE enemy, the first thing to pop into
their heads, despite the much broader and larger spheres of
government activity that the government undertakes on behalf of the
wealthy?
Seriously, even when someone decides to talk about living the high
life "on the public teat," the synechdote he latches onto
is...welfare?
|10.17.08 @ 12:31PM|#
fwiw, foxnews is reporting the Supremes gave Ohio officials a bit more time in the voter registration ruling from the circuit court.
|10.17.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Got to keep the poor honest first - they don't pay any taxes. The rich deserve handouts, because all the money is coming from other rich people. Wealth redistibution isn't so much taking from the rich and giving to the poor as it is the rich taking from each other by buying off just enough poor people to vote for it.
|10.17.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Good point, Lamar.
On the other side of the coin, do you think the number of
McGovern/Kucinich Democrats in Congress is larger or smaller now
than in the 70s?
Is it a shift to the left, or a shift to the median, do you
think?
spliffmonkey|10.17.08 @ 12:47PM|#
"Jesus was a pinko."
Hey man, nobody fucks with the Jesus.
Yeah obama with a deomcrat controlled house & senate will suck,
but at least we'll get to see what its like to be England...or
France.
alan|10.17.08 @ 12:48PM|#
joe | October 17, 2008, 12:31pm | #
No, you don't want to get on welfare. It ain't that great, and
being poor still sucks. What you want is a nice job in the Federal
bureaucracy with an early retirement.
Isn't it interesting how many "small-government" people reflexively
look at aid for the poor as THE enemy, the first thing to pop into
their heads, despite the much broader and larger spheres of
government activity that the government undertakes on behalf of the
wealthy?
Seriously, even when someone decides to talk about living the high
life "on the public teat," the synechdote he latches onto
is...welfare?
Your parsing of Laursen's post is bizarre.
you don't want to get on welfare.
By any rational measure, it is not a disarble thing to be on
welfare.
It ain't that great, and being poor still sucks.
The pay out is terrible compared to the mean of what most people
earn, and yes, being poor sucks.
What you want is a nice job in the Federal bureaucracy with an
early retirement.
Yes, indeed, that is preferable to being on welfare. Sound advice,
Laursen.
FWIW, I would have preferred the recommendation of Samuelson, a
hundred billion spent to expand unemployment insurance, some
federal cash flow to back homeless shelters that states are having
problems maintaining, lunch programs, etc. to the damnable bailout.
So, I agree with the overall point, most welfare programs barely
register on the radar screen compared to largess going to the fat
cats.
alan|10.17.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Good God, thanks FireFox spell check. I don't think that
correction is a word and it is worse than what I wrote.
disarble
desirable
|10.17.08 @ 12:50PM|#
alan,
I was agreeing with Mr. Laursen in that comment; I was reiterating
and commenting on his observation about "welfare" being an odd
thing to pick out, and how common that oddity is.
Sorry if that wasnt' clear.
|10.17.08 @ 12:50PM|#
"Hey man, nobody fucks with the Jesus."
Except for mary magdalene. that little trollope.
Kaiser|10.17.08 @ 12:53PM|#
I agree that felons should have the right to vote. I have never
quite understood why they couldn't. I personally don't see how any
libertarian could vote for either of these two clowns running for
president. Some people I guess believe that not voting for one of
the two main candidates is a waste but, imo, the only way to waste
your vote would be to vote for one of them.
From my perspective, the differences between them are so minuscule
I can only tell them apart because one of them is black. They both
want more war, bigger government, more spending, and less civil
liberties.
Thom|10.17.08 @ 12:55PM|#
I've completely abandoned voting based on "issues" - now voting completely based on personality and temperament. That is why I am voting for Obama.
TallDave|10.17.08 @ 12:59PM|#
libertarians who plan to vote for Obama are either engaging
in a whole lot of evidence-lite Hope about how his intelligence and
University of Chicago background will somehow translate into
semi-prudent economic policy,
One might just as well expect him to order the Pentagon to bomb
itself based on his relationship with Ayers. He opposes both NAFTA
and CAFTA, will raise the total tax burden, has a trillion in new
spending, and wants to do away with the secret ballot in union
elections.
Seward|10.17.08 @ 1:03PM|#
joe,
"synechdote"
I think you mean synecdoche.
Isn't it interesting how many "small-government" people
reflexively look at aid for the poor as THE enemy...
Some do, some don't.
However, like any form of government favoritism what is problematic
about such aid (as Hayek pointed out) is its ability to pit varying
groups against one another. Now perhaps the benefits outweigh that
particular cost, but that is what a lot of small government types
find troublesome about it.
Mike Laursen|10.17.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Isn't it interesting how many "small-government" people
reflexively look at aid for the poor as THE enemy, the first thing
to pop into their heads, despite the much broader and larger
spheres of government activity that the government undertakes on
behalf of the wealthy?
Seriously, even when someone decides to talk about living the high
life "on the public teat," the synechdote he latches onto
is...welfare?
I'm a small-government guy, and I mostly agree with you.
Before one gets upset about welfare for poor people, there are so
many other much more egregious areas of government spending to get
mad about. Top of that list: corporate welfare and
imperialist-level military spending.
Also, much larger than welfare spending is entitlement spending
where the middle class is taxed, bureaucracy takes a cut, then the
funds are redistributed to the middle class (disregarding for the
moment that the return of the funds to the middle class is often
time shifted by several years). I don't get mad about that as much
as I think it's really dumb and wasteful.
The two ways in which I probably differ from your view about
welfare (maybe not) are that:
* Ideally, I'd like to see help for poor people come from private
philanthropy. However, if it can be shown that private philanthropy
isn't stepping up to the plate and taking care of the poor, then I
really don't mind having a minimal government safety net. My
libertarian purist card was taken away long ago.
* I much prefer that government help to be pushed down as far as
possible, where it is more personal and accountable. Ideally, most
of the apparatus would be at the county level.
Seward|10.17.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Thom,
Given how hard it is to predict what someone will do once in office
that isn't a terrible criteria.
alan|10.17.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Glad you cleared that up, in the back of my noggin' I was thinking, 'no way Laursen's humor went over Joe's head. that just doesn't happen.'
LarryA|10.17.08 @ 1:30PM|#
I also have no problem with felons getting 100% of their
rights back once they have done 100% of their time. But I mean 100%
of their rights. If they can be trusted to vote, they can be
trusted to own a gun. If they cannot be trusted own a gun, they
cannot be trusted to vote. One is either a citizen of one is not.
Let us not return to any of this 3/5th BS.
The Democrats will accommodate you on this. They'll give felons the
same gun rights they plan on for the rest of us. I.e. zero.
I've got a question for any old-timers that might be reading:
are the Democrats in Congress more or less divided into factions
today than in the 70s and 80s?
About the same with a difference. The feeling I get is that back in
the 80s the differences resulted in "I'll block your bill because
you blocked mine." Today there's more pressure built up, and I
sense more of "I'll vote for your bill if you vote for mine."
I personally think Jesus would have liked us to be
communists.
Define "communist." The utopian Shaker-like community of people
choosing to live communally, or the Marxist
everything-run-by-the-government model. I don't find any scripture
in the red text of the New Testament that starts out, "The
government ought to..." He preached more "Here's an example, but
you have to make the decision" mode. I.e. libertarian.
His non-universal-plan-even-though-he'd-like-single-payer
position during the campaign suggests to me a high degree of
political pragmatism on the issue.
His (Obama's) non-universal-plan-even-though-he'd-like-single-payer
position during the campaign suggests to me a high degree of
political pragmatism prevarication on the issue. Like
his "we don't have the votes to do that" statements on gun
rights.
Isn't it interesting how many "small-government" people
reflexively look at aid for the poor as THE enemy, the first thing
to pop into their heads, despite the much broader and larger
spheres of government activity that the government undertakes on
behalf of the wealthy?
Given that the philosophy of welfare is to control the poor, give
them what they qualify for instead of what they need, and lock them
permanently into dependency on government handouts, I'd say the
reflex is valid. At least when the government gives to the wealthy
it lets the recipient decide how to spend it.
|10.17.08 @ 1:35PM|#
A must read concerning the Obamassiah's filibuster-proof
majority. The thesis is that party leaders want control for
themselves more than they want political power for their parties,
which they might not be able to control:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1879957132/reasonmagazineA/
Indispensable Enemies: The Politics of Misrule in America
(Paperback)
by Walter Karp
|10.17.08 @ 1:44PM|#
"I don't find any scripture in the RED text of the New
Testament"
emphasis mine...
|10.17.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Larry A,
I don't buy the political pragmatism argument, because Hillary was
beating him over the head with the lack of universality in his
plan, back when he was still the underdog. It was a political
lability for him.
Given that the philosophy of welfare is to control the
poor... Uh huh. "Given that everyone but me is evil" is a good
way to make yourself feel good, but it leads to some really deluded
ideas about politics.
Mike Farmer|10.17.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Joe, I think the Democrats were more divided in the 70s and 80s.
It was the difference between Kennedy and Nunn. I don't see that
division now.
I'm voting Libertarian.
Gilbert Martin|10.17.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Universal child health care in Hawaii has just been cancelled
after only 7 months.
Socialism failed even faster than usual this time.
|10.17.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Socialism failed even faster than usual this
time.
Why can't the right people ever get in charge?
|10.17.08 @ 2:26PM|#
...libertarians who plan to vote for Obama are either
engaging in a whole lot of evidence-lite Hope about how his
intelligence and University of Chicago background will somehow
translate into semi-prudent economic policy, or have just decided
that that matters less than their one or two big issues, usually
pertaining to war. Even though if you thinnk you're voting for a
non-interventionist, think again.
Wow...the editor and chief at reason is 3 millimeters from
advocating a vote for Bob Barr....i am impressed Matt. Good
work.
Elemenope|10.17.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Universal child health care in Hawaii has just been
cancelled after only 7 months.
Socialism failed even faster than usual this time.
Whereas it has been humming right along in Rhode Island for the
better part of a decade.
So your real point is that Rhode Island is better than Hawaii. And
in that, you would be correct.
|10.17.08 @ 2:53PM|#
That wouldn't be that terrible. Carter was a better
President than he is often given credit for.
Seward, I'm not so sure I believe those stories about him smoking
pot on the roof of the white house with Willie Nelsen.
Gilbert Martin|10.17.08 @ 2:56PM|#
"Whereas it has been humming right along in Rhode Island for the
better part of a decade."
Social Security has been around since the 1930's. It was an abject
failure from the very first second it began and has reamined so for
every single subsequent second of it's existence.
"So your real point is that Rhode Island is better than Hawaii. And
in that, you would be correct."
Nope - the real point is that it is physically impossible for
socialism to ever be a success - regardless of how long any
socialist program remains in existence.
As for Rhode Island, it's so puny that if it totally vanished off
the face of the earth tomorrow, most people in the country would
never notice the difference.
|10.17.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Wow, the Usual Suspects are out in force on this thread. I
almost thought I had mistakenly stepped into Kos or DU for a
second.
Obama's massive suckitude is in no way ameliorated by the fact of
Bush's also-sizable suckitude. Or McCain's, for that matter.
Should Obama win (which I don't yet take for granted), I see the
second coming of Jimmy Carter. Brittle, thin-skinned liberal
impotently doing battle with the forces of congressional evil.
Everyone who has a job is going to see their taxes go up. We'll get
a couple of new and ineffective budget-busters to go with the
plethora of old and ineffective ones. We'll get a couple of
pathetic attempts at foreign policy, most likely doing only minor
harm.
We'll survive. Start thinking about tax shelters now.
|10.17.08 @ 3:09PM|#
McCain is going to win, and all hell will break loose in this
country.
When it comes down to actually voting for Obama, many that said
they would, won't. For whatever reason.
Dems wish it were as simple as just racism. It's not. People are
becoming more aware of how dangerous Obama is.
Russ 2000|10.17.08 @ 3:11PM|#
University of Chicago background??
WTF??
All he did was teach a few law courses there, he never took a
course at UofC. And you don't need to demonstrate a working
knowledge of Friedman Economics in order to teach there.
|10.17.08 @ 3:12PM|#
"People are becoming more aware of how dangerous Obama
is."
More dangerous than the cranky old man who decides his economic
policy by putting his finger in the wind, and decides his foreign
policy based on how best to bomb Iran?
|10.17.08 @ 3:13PM|#
"He's a friend of them long haired, hippy-type, pinko
fags!
I betchya he's even got a commie flag
tacked up on the wall inside of his garage."
"He's a snake in the grass, I tell ya guys.
He may look dumb but that's just a disguise,
He's a mastermind in the ways of espionage"
CDB "Uneasy Rider"
|10.17.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Didn't he teach at the Univ. of Illinois at Chicago? Much different than the Univ. of Chicago.
|10.17.08 @ 3:27PM|#
More dangerous than the cranky old man who decides his
economic policy by putting his finger in the wind, and decides his
foreign policy based on how best to bomb Iran?
Sadly, yes. McCain sucks, but I would rather have four years of
amusing gridlock than four years of the left being in
charge...which you apparently have no problem with.
BTW, can we get past the myth of Obama being a non-interventionist?
Not only has he flat-out said that he won't allow Iran to acquire
The Bomb, but that he wants to get all tough-guy with the
Pakistanis, too. That'll go well.
Russ 2000|10.17.08 @ 3:34PM|#
What you want is a nice job in the Federal bureaucracy with
an early retirement.
Yes, indeed, that is preferable to being on welfare.
Distinction without a difference, especially for fed jobs that
provide no valuable service whatsoever like the TSA.
Russ 2000|10.17.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Didn't he teach at the Univ. of Illinois at Chicago? Much
different than the Univ. of Chicago.
No, you are confusing him with Ayers who teaches at UIC. Obama did
teach at UofC.
|10.17.08 @ 3:45PM|#
I ask this question...most states the presidential election has been decided...for example my state Washington Obama is 10 points ahead of McCain in the polls....other states have McCain winning. so my Question: If your state is already decided why are you not voting for Barr?
|10.17.08 @ 3:49PM|#
I still don't have an answer: how do Republicans reconcile their criticism of Bill Clinton not taking out Bin Laden because of diplomatic niceties while criticizing Obama for stating that he would take the shot?
alan|10.17.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Russ 2000 | October 17, 2008, 3:34pm | #
What you want is a nice job in the Federal bureaucracy with an
early retirement.
Yes, indeed, that is preferable to being on welfare.
Distinction without a difference, especially for fed jobs that
provide no valuable service whatsoever like the TSA.
Not talking about social utility, and that should be obvious.
|10.17.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Something to consider for those who think letting Democrats have
control for a while will just be temporary:
Two things are almost certain to happy with a Democratic
supermajority - first, statehood for DC, thus making government a
constituent to itself, and establishing a permanent Democrat
advantage in the Senate. Second, the passing of the Employee Free
Choice act, an Orwellian-named law that will eliminate the secret
ballot for union votes, eliminate 'right to work' states, and
eliminate the right of businesses to prevent union formation or
fire a union if it strikes and makes unreasonable demands.
This will result in a massive increase in the number of unions in
the country, and this will be very, very hard to undo once these
unions are in place. It will also massively increase union power,
and government arbitration will put the federal government right in
the mix between employers and employees. It's the biggest expansion
of union power since the Wagner act in 1935.
BTW, under Obama's tax plan and labor plans, the U.S. will shift
dramatically to the left of CANADA. That's right - Canadians will
pay lower business taxes, lower capital gains taxes, lower dividend
taxes, and have a less progressive tax system with lower top
marginal rates. We'll also be paying less in tax as a percentage of
GDP two years after an Obama administration gets under way - we're
in the process of cutting our taxes further, including corporate
taxes. The U.S. is already paying more for health care, and now the
government will run that as well.
That brain drain we've been experiencing in Canada is about to
reverse itself. Come on up to the libertarian paradise, and away
from the People's Republic of America.
Mike Laursen|10.17.08 @ 4:07PM|#
If your state is already decided why are you not voting for
Barr?
When he started detailing his immigration policy. Like taking up
the let's get rid of birthright citizenship cause.
Mike Laursen|10.17.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Not talking about social utility, and that should be
obvious.
Confirming this, as the person who made the original comment. My
point was that being on welfare sucks.
Mike Laursen|10.17.08 @ 4:12PM|#
OK, first of all, you're pulling the statehood for D.C.
prediction out of your, err, place where you are accustomed to
keeping your completely random predictions.
Second, what does it matter if McCain would be more libertarian on
the economic front, if he's much more likely to getting us involved
further in economy-draining foreign wars?
|10.17.08 @ 4:32PM|#
"Second, what does it matter if McCain would be more libertarian
on the economic front, if he's much more likely to getting us
involved further in economy-draining foreign wars?"
Perhaps you could explain where Obama is less bellicose than
McCain?
Obama has said he would attack al-Qaida inside Pakistan, with or
without the approval of the Pakistan government.
Both Obama and McCain say that Iran can under no circumstances be
allowed to get the Bomb, even if that means military action.
Obama and McCain both want to increase troops and funding for the
war in Afghanistan. In fact, Obama wants more than McCain
does.
Both McCain and Obama say that Russia must withdraw completely from
Georgia, and both support NATO membership for Georgia.
So where exactly is the daylight between their policies?
And as a matter of record, Democrats have been opposed to foreign
interventions - until they control the White House. Then they
become, if anything, less restrained than Republicans. You might
want to remind yourself under whose watch the Vietnam war started,
and go back and look at Bill Clinton's record as an
interventionist.
If anything, interventions under an Obama presidency are more
likely, because the public won't be as divided. Right now, a
Republican president couldn't even whisper the idea of taking
military action against someone without the left going into
conniption fits. You can bet that a President McCain would be
completely stymied by a Democratic majority in the house and
Senate. But when Democrats start wars, the left tends to be a lot
quieter. And the right will support it, so a Democratic president
gets a lot more support for war than does a Republican
president.
|10.17.08 @ 4:33PM|#
The WSJ was bought by News Corp. The same people that own Fox
News Network and the New York Post. It's no suprise that the OpEds
would become a right-wing outlet.
For those not familiar with NY newspapers, the NY Times pales in
partsianship compared to the NY Post.
|10.17.08 @ 4:40PM|#
"""So where exactly is the daylight between their
policies?"""
Policies? So far I've heard nothing but standard election spewing
of the mouth. Unless this is your first election, you should know
both sides are talking shit they think will get them elected and
afterwards they'll do what they want dispite what was said. Yeah,
yeah they both want to talk tough so they don't look weak. If you
really think they are talking about their policies, I've have a
bridge for sale.
Gilbert Martin|10.17.08 @ 5:05PM|#
"I still don't have an answer: how do Republicans reconcile
their criticism of Bill Clinton not taking out Bin Laden because of
diplomatic niceties while criticizing Obama for stating that he
would take the shot?"
I'd say it probably has something to do with what you describe as
"take the shot" as Obama publicly shooting his mouth off in advance
about taking unilateral military action inside a country that has
nuclear weapons and is unstable enough as it is. The population of
Pakistan will very likely take a dim view of such action to say the
least.
|10.17.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Welch wrote: "But as McCain has rightly pointed out, Bush ain't
running for president."
True, but McCain's going to be hiring from the same pool of
incompetent Republican hacks that run the Bush admin. And that's
assuming he doesn't just keep all of Bush's Michael Brown-quality
appointees on staff.
Mike Laursen|10.17.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Perhaps you could explain where Obama is less bellicose than
McCain?
Oddly enough, Matt Welch wrote a whole book, quite a bit of which
is dedicated to the topic.
Mike Laursen|10.17.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Meant to add, I'm not talking about their statements, I'm
talking about their personalities and world views.
As TrickyVic pointed out, both just say shit to get elected. It
really doesn't tell you much about what they would actually do.
|10.17.08 @ 6:45PM|#
Since Obama's written foreign policy also says this is his
approach, I take it that we're not supposed to believe that
either?
So what's left? Oh, I know!
"Hope"
Mike Laursen|10.17.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Well, no. What Welch did in his book was to look at McCain's
entire past history. How he has behaved in the past is a pretty
good indicator of how he would behave in the future.
None of this examination of McCain's past says anything about what
Obama will do when he becomes President. But Obama's campaign-time
policy statements don't shed as much light as you think,
either.
|10.17.08 @ 9:47PM|#
Obama may to be the left of Clinton, but he is well to the
right of the Democrats of 1965, nevermind 1933.
OK, I'll bite: which existing bits of the New Deal, War on Poverty,
or Great Society has Obama proposed eliminating?
Which of his policy proposals, which he has unwaveringly stuck to
(rather than flip-flopping on when it was politically expedient to
do so), is to the right of those Democrats? Please be
specific.
Bear in mind, you would have to show that MOST of Obama's
proposals, not just one or two isolated ones, are to the right of
those two lots for that statement to be true.
* sound of crickets chirping *
|10.17.08 @ 10:01PM|#
Could it be they only disapprove of "activist government"
which provides handouts to people they *don't like*?
I think that is a distinct possibility. The Wall Street Journal led
the charge to save the endangered fat cats. Now they are getting
all Edvard Munch over the thought of socialism. It gives them the
vapors.
|10.17.08 @ 11:25PM|#
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME PROLEFEED. YOU WILL NOW BE BURNED AT THE STAKE FOR HERESY. SO SAYETH THE VICAR OF OBAMA.
|10.17.08 @ 11:26PM|#
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Famous Mortimer|10.18.08 @ 1:05AM|#
Leave it to Libertarians to try and scare everyone with Liberal
Doomsday scenarios, after the skull fucking conservatives have
unleashed on America, as well as the world in the past 8
years.
It's not working gentlemen.
Leave this shit for Rush Limbaugh.
|10.18.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Even though if you think you're voting for a
non-interventionist, think again.
Right. And with Obama, intervention would be much more feasible
than with McCain. There's little chance that McCain would be able
to get allies to sign up for another Iraq-scale intervention, but
Obama's international popularity will be such that he'd be much
more likely to be able to pull it off.
One way to think of it is, McCain would mean not only divided
government within the U.S. but also divided government within the
western alliance.
Mike Laursen|10.18.08 @ 2:47PM|#
So, are foreign countries' decisions whether to get involved in our military campaigns based primarily on the international popularity of our President? Do they take other factors into consideration?
concerned observer|10.19.08 @ 6:17PM|#
I've forgotten what the thread is about, but it can all be traced back to the evils of capitalism.
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