Libertarian Bush?

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry is quoted in June 16 & 23 issue of The New Yorker as saying, "The Bush Administration agenda isn't conservative Republicanism, and it's not radical Republicanism--it's extreme libertarianism."

Two thoughts: (1) Bush a libertarian? What's Kerry been smoking?

(2) Among Democrats, is "libertarianism" now a demonizing term that is the moral equivalent to "card carrying ACLU member" for Republicans?

Comments

[david f]

ruby ridge happened under bush 1's watch... so we have three in a row that are bad on CLs
drf

[Jim N]

Brad, Clinton's pro-Big Brotherism (shrug) was as strong as Bush's. The USA PATRIOT act was full of powers that the Reno DoJ had been requesting for years and which had originallly been blocked by the Republicans. There was the Clipper chip and many other problems. My point here isn't that Republicans are better on this issue, merely that the idea that Clinton was better than Bush is not true. The only reason he appears to have been better on civil liberties is because he was less successful at curtailing them, not because he didn't try.

[Steve Skutnik]

I really do hope the Democrats nominate this guy - then we can really have a "Clash of the Intellectual Titans" in 2004...

[thoreau]

Strangely enough, I always thought Ruby Ridge happened under Clinton until Bill O'Reilly of all people set me straight.

Not defending Clinton, just commenting on the strange way that a widespread misperception was corrected for me. Who'd've thunk O'Reilly would be able to set the record straight on ANYTHING?

[fredH]

Thoreau:

If you haven't left for your bus yet, the remark about "I belong to no organized party..." was made by Will Rogers. He also said, "When the Democrats form a firing squad, they stand in a circle."

Joe:

Sad but true about the Clinton administration civil rights record. As bad as Ashcroft is (I lost any shred of respect I might have had for him when he turned art critic), at least he hasn't killed anyone yet. That's more than you can say for Reno.

From my perspective, Bush's stand on stem cell research alone is enough to disqualify him as a libertarian. No libertarian would appoint an archreactionary like Leon Crass... uh, Kass, the Dr. Strangelove of bioethics, as his ethical advisor. "Ethical" and "Kass" don't even belong in the same sentence.

[david f]

thoreau,

the ruby ridge assumption is understandable -- with janet "skullsplitter" reno in charge, it would make perfect sense for her to do something like that. plus it was always mentioned in terms of the post-waco "fear of government agents phase" in the early to mid 90s. so, it wasn't that, ahem, vast right wing conspiracy (which, at last glance, appeared to be everybody slightly to the right of the Hill-Billies, so that was most of us) that helped seed that myth, rather our favorite liberal media...

i just would wish that those who feared government power back then would be voicing their fear of government, post PATRIOT.

it seems that the conservative side doesn't realize that many of their laws, which are perfectly fine for them now, can be used against them when prez HRC takes over. Examples of HRC terror organizations: NRA, right to life, patriot/militia groups, probably some of the wackier southern baptist fundie churches...

cheers,
drf

[James Babb]

I knew Kerry was a big government commie, but I thought he had a minimal brain. Could the LP sue over this slanderous statement?

I found the full article: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030616ta_talk_mcgrath

Perhaps this can be turned into an excuse to educate the New Yorker readers on what libertarianism is. To submit a letter in response to a New Yorker article for publication in the magazine, you may send an e-mail to [e-mail]. Alternatively, letters may be faxed to 212-286-5047. Letters should include the writer's name, postal address, and daytime phone number.

[david f]

from the "republican liberty caucus",

republicanliberty.org/libdex/index.htm

note the platform and also who is rated "libertarian" on this site.

it appears as though, judging from the names of the "libertarians" that the term has already been hijacked...

cheers,
drf

[Royce Dunbar]

Using the term "Big Government" to go after both the Democrats and Republicans is not very useful.

The Dems are more obviously for Big Government. They need a BIG Government that has a Big Treasury to redistribute wealth and fund cabinet level bureaucracies to do things like fight obesity and simultaneously ensure that overweight kids keep their self-esteem while losing weight.

Non-libertarian leaning Republicans are proponents of "Strong" government. Size is less important here. Right-wing Republicans need government to be big enough only to peer into your bedroom, check your church attendance and test your urine.

[david f]

hey Royce!

one question about your comment: while the "big vs strong" can explain some things, PATRIOT, the megahuge pork budget passed this last time, the farm subsidies, etc., bush calling for "no child to be left behind", etc., all of those things sound like big and strong govt to me...

i don't see how many of those bedrooming, pissing, moralizing programs could not be dependent on anything other than big government.

good blog, by the way! and greetings from your neighboring statae to the east... to the others -- check out Royce's comments on the iraq war and war on terror. it would contribute a lot to our ruminations on this site!

*grin* and finally, do you get any "dances with wolves" jokes because of your last name? ha ha 🙂

cheers!
drf

[joe]

I knot it's not popular to say this around here, but some of the militia/right-wing groups from the 1990s really were dangerous and terroristic, so it's no wonder the feds got into more scrapes. This is not to defend Reno, but to point out that Ashcroft's ability to avoid Ruby/Waco situations is partly a result of the decline of rightist militancy.

Now, I'm not calling every armed white guy in Idaho a terrorist. But really, you utopian libertarians tend to look at those people through the same glasses the 70s left looked at the Sandinistas. It's sort of like the Muslims who don't support terrorism, but don't knock themselved out denouncing Hizballah either.

[thoreau]

Joe-

Prepare to be called a liberal Democrat.

I agree with Joe's point that the militias were not always blameless in scrapes with the feds. For all of our government's flaws, we still have relatively fair trials. If somebody thinks the feds are arresting him unjustly, the correct way to handle it is in court, not by shooting at the FBI. This is not to exonerate the feds for all of their actions, merely to suggest that there's plenty of blame to go around in places like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[joe]

I think everyone knows that I'm a liberal Democrat, a democratic liberal, a liberal liberal, and a democractic Democrat.

I'm just here for the free nachos.

[david f]

hey j and t:

sorry about the unclear point -- it's the supporters of the militias whom i'm calling out. these supporters were gung ho in being anti govt. now they're silent. why is that? PATRIOT screwed us more than clinton/reno did (talking results here, not useless "they wanted to..." arguments here). These ad hoc/ "pragmatic" solutions to the world's problems will come back and bite those who are for it now in the tushie.

it's "anti big government except if it's my side" at work. we see it in the ad hoc hypotheses in support of the current FP. We see it in those opposed to the FP, also in terms of arguments of convenience.

and, wait until prez hillary starts enforcing patriot against said militia and the NRA etc. it's not romanticizing the militia, it's questioning a perceived double standard.

mmmm. nachos...

cheers! drf

[amr]

why does everyone think HRC will be pres?
It'll clearly be Jeb Bush in 2008. With Condi as veep. Or vice versa. And they'll get my vote.

[thoreau]

amr-

Some people might think HRC will become Pres. some day, but others just say "President HRC could use the Patriot Act to go after anti-abortion groups..." to illustrate the point that whatever power we give to Bush and Ashcroft could some day be used by a liberal President, and the right might not like the results.

Personally, I get a chill down my spine when I read letters in the local paper from people who say "I don't mind the Patriot Act because I trust my President George Bush to not abuse his power." (Not an exact quote, but there have been several letters along those lines.)

[Kevin Carson]

Mike:

It works like a ratchet. The movement is always toward more police statism. The liberals complained (and rightly so) about all the restraints Reagan/Meese removed from domestic spying by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They also raised hell (even more rightly) against the jackbooted shit that Ollie North and Louis Giuffrida were cooking up in the basement at the NSC.

But things continued along the same trajectory under Clinton/Reno. We got not only Waco, but the 1996 Counter-terror bill sponsored by the FBI stooge Charlie "Jackboot" Schumer. That law gave the President power, by executive fiat, to classify groups as "terrorist" and then rob their assets through civil forfeiture under the RICO statutes.

Now the freepers who were howling about Auntie Jen are the same ones saying "I trust my president" and "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." The sheeple have spoken. Baaaaaaaaaaaa.....

[fyodor]

thoreau,

"there's plenty of blame to go around in places like Waco and Ruby Ridge" Amen. However, I think it's worth bearing in mind that the damn the rules of engagement overreaching government officials side of that tango is the side that's accountable to we the Gentle Folk, not the come and git me if you can Copper side!

drf,

"now they're silent. why is that?" Just goes to show that popular trends and group loyalty are a lot more important to most people's politics than principles and issues, eh!?

[david f]

hey fyodor,

sigh. and as Eeyore notes: "oh well".

cheers!
drf

[Xrlq]

Ruby Ridge itself happened at the tail end of the Bush I Administration, but the subsequent whitewash, promotions, etc. did not. That, in my book, is even more damning than if the whole thing had happened on Clinton's watch. One might expect an ?berpartisan like Clinton to cover his own tracks, but why on earth would he want to cover his opponent's?

[Vointhebotersjoycot]

You ask, "What HAS John Kerry been smoking?"

He's been smoking Campaign Weed. That's the stuff they all smoke when the race is on.

[L.Spooner]

You guys have it all wrong, wrong, WRONG! You don't even realize when you have A TRUE LIBERTARIAN running the show. George W. Bush is the greatest Libertarian ever to come down the pike. He's even greater than Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, and Nathan Hale combined! Ron Paul can't hold a candle to this great man.

You want true freedom? You want liberty -- Libertarian-style? Look to George W. Bush! Our miracle has arrived. It's right here, in our midst.

Now we can FINALLY get a return to the once-great Constitutional Republic we so yearn for, and which we (sob) so sadly lost.

But with George W. Bush there's hope. HOPE!

(Of course, Kerry runs a close second. And, failing that, there's always Hillary-to-the-rescue.)

[thoreau]

Spooner-

I want some of whatever weed you're smoking! 😉

[Spooner]

It's called DW (Disappointment Weed, or Disillusionment Weed.) When you smoke it, it produces volumes of sardonic expressions.

Here, have some.

[Trigger]

Isn't that funny coming from Kerry, who lost about 20% of the Mass. vote to a shoe-string campaign budget Libertarian in the last election. If Bush is a libertarian, I guess that makes Kerry an extreme fascist.

[Brad S]

The administration that gave us the Patriot Act is somehow libertarian? You have GOT to be kidding me.

[David 2]

Bush Junior - LIBERTARIAN?????

(thud)

Whoops! Excuse me... I just picked myself off of the floor because I laughed myself right out of my chair.

What HAS John Kerry been smoking? Is it the same stuff the rest of the Democratic Party has been smoking? And if this substance is what is causing the DNC's delusions, why haven't the Republicans been able to get it declared illegal? I mean these guys are supposed to be BIG on the anti-drug crusade, right?

[Anonymous]

I thinko cinquo is correcto.

[Rarl Kove]

Kerry is just so...
very...

That was a shampoo commercial as I recall. Twist that into something evil and humiliating. That's how we attack him.

[Bern]

Bush & Kerry are hippy-dippy, acid-doper-rockers, lily-livered, pinko-commie, egg-sucking-dogs!

[joe]

The quote is presented without context. Was Kerry talking about Bush's ideas on helping the poor? On civil liberties? On privacy issues? On international trade? On foreign policy? On issues like Social Security, Bush is an extreme libertarian.

And Cinquo, the Democrats are all over the place on civil liberties (and just about every other issue on the landscape). They have much less party discipline than the Republicans. When you vote for the GOP, you know you're going to get the RNC line. With the Democrats, you have to look at each candidate individually. Think Barney Frank vs. Zell Miller - there is nothing even close to that level of dissent within the Republican Party.

[mike]

Kerry is dolt. Coming out against libertarians and misidentifying what is a libertarian shows Kerry is both stupid and dangerous. (I don't know what liberty is, but I'm against it.)(or, I'm so opposed to liberty I am even opposed to the remotest resemblance of a libertarian - Bush).
If the dems nominate this guy, they are done. They will be crushed in the generals and then will splinter. Maybe a libertarian shard will arise.

Zell Miller must have whiplash from the violent shaking of his head.

[dude]

Sometimes I fantasize about the democrats just melting down and becoming a third party. Seem to be headed that way. Another party would be needed to takes its place and that's where a *real* smaller-government party would arise to act as a counterbalance to the big government civil-rights stifling republicans.

Eh, stranger things have happened.

[Russ]

Never trust anyone with poofy hair. That covers Kerry and Dubya.

[Eric Hanneken]

"On issues like Social Security, Bush is an extreme libertarian."

No way. An extreme libertarian would want to end Social Security, and allow employees to invest their former FICA payments in whatever they chose, including heroin and prostitutes. In contrast, Bush wants to keep Social Security, but allow employees to divert a small portion of their taxes to federally-approved investment accounts, untouchable until retirement. That's tame, not extreme.

[David Nieporent]

Joe -- Ron Paul, John Ashcroft and Olympia Snowe don't represent a wide range of opinion to you?

And if Bush is an "extreme libertarian" on Social Security, one of us needs to recalibrate his sensors. Bush is calling for Social Security to be abolished forthwith? I don't think so. He may be looking at a moderate amount of privatization, which could be termed "libertarian" in a sense, but surely not "extreme" libertarian.

[joe]

OK, Dave, good point. The Olympia Snowe-Arlen Spector-Mitt Romney, northeastern moderate branch of the Republican Party does differ considerably from the "Kill All the Fags/May I See Your Papers, Please" faction that reigns nationally. But this is really less than meets the eye. First, that number of national office holders from that faction is in free fall, with national conservative organizations making a concerted effort to keep moderates from winning local primaries (eg, the California governor's race). Also, look at how dissenting Republicans are treated by their leadership, vs. the way chairs and committee assignments are given out by the Dems.

[Brad S]

The rational Libertarian position on Social Security has nothing to do with heroin or hookers. The rational position is that Social Security should be done away with so that employees and employers alike can take the % of salary that had been going to Social Security and turn it into a 401-k contribution. That way, the money actually (GASP) gets invested in something and actually (GASP) grows over time. Also, the employee actually (GASP) knows what his/her balance is and can (GASP) choose how to invest the funds. Finally, the employee (GASP) has some security that those funds are actually there and that he/she is not banking on a government promise to pay out future benefits which the government may or may not be able to afford to pay out at a later time. Investment, growth, knowledge, choice, security. Things that Libertarians embrace whole-heartedly. Things that absolutely terrify Liberals. After all, these things reduce people's reliance on Big Government.

[joe]

...And I realize that the libertarian policies Bush supports aren't extreme on this site, but looking at the national political scene, ending Social Security as a guarantee, and letting the people who make the wrong investments go without, is a pretty radical position.

Finally, do you think Bush's public pronouncements on the issue are an accurate depiction of the administration's true desires, or a modulated version toned down for public consumption?

[thoreau]

Excuse me while I try to wrap my brain around the notion that Bush is libertarian. Sure, the standard GOP rhetoric is a lot closer to libertarianism than the standard Dem rhetoric, maybe even the standard GOP actions are slightly closer, but there's MUCH to be desired.

But before we get too harsh on the Democrats, I'd say this:

I'll take an ACLU-style Democrat over a George Bush-style Republican any day of the week.

I'll take a Ron Paul-style Republican over a John Kerry-style Democrat any day of the week.

In a contest between the Ron Paul Republican and the ACLU Democrat, well, variety is the spice of life, so bring them both in as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure somebody will now call me a liberal Democrat.

[Julian]

If you look at practice rather than rhetoric, there's little to choose between the parties for a libertarian. By almost any measure, Clinton was far better than Bush; I'll be voting for a Democrat--ANY Democrat--in 2004.

[Brad S]

Julian - I agree. From a Libertarian perspective, there is very little difference between the two dominant parties right now. Demicans and Republocrats look a lot alike to me. Clinton = tax and spend Liberal, favors Big Government, ho hum. Bush = tax and spend "Conservative", REALLY favors Big Government. I agree, I think overall I'd take Clinton over Bush. Both were big into taxing and spending (well, okay, Bush is raising spending without as much taxing - just as much of a problem if not more). But at least Clinton was not as pro-Big Brother as the Bush administration is (although one could argue that had 9/11 occurred on Clinton or some other Democrat's watch, they might well have tried to pull the same crap that Repubs have - the Patriot Act, the TSA, etc etc etc).

[thoreau]

I like Joe's point about the GOP efforts to squash dissent, vs. the more disorganized Democrats. Conservatives killed the California GOP by controlling the primaries. Somehow, though, my quasi-libertarian GOP state senator has survived. I guess his fiscal conservatism and anti-abortion stance helped him.

Conversely, when liberals get upset over a "moderate" Democrat, they try to punish him by voting Green.

Somebody once said "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Dennis Miller once said (in reference to some political group that he didn't like) "Now I have nothing against organizing to get your point across. The Democratic Party might want to try that tactic some day..."

[thoreau]

One final thought before I have to catch the bus:

When we have a Dem in the White House and a GOP Congress, the GOP Congress mounts effective opposition.

When we have a Republican in the White House and a Dem Congress, the Democrats are incapable of opposing any GOP ideas except pro-life judges and (occasionally) tax cuts.

In the interest of checks-and-balances, I'll take a Dem President and GOP Congress over the current arrangement.

[joe]

" By almost any measure, Clinton was far better than Bush" Pretty sad, when you consider Clinton's record on civil liberties.

[Mike]

Waco and Ruby Ridge are a better record than Guantanamo Bay?

[Jerome]

Thoreau, you oughta be on TV. Better yet, you oughta be on the pages of the LP News. That's where battles such as this are raging on a continuous basis. Have been, for many years. But we have yet to see one iota of progress.

You need to listen to people like Joe P. Boyle more, and heed their ideas. At least such ideas can translate into some actual forward motion, instead of all these words, Words, WORDS! Dammit!

[Jerome]

PS. That's not to say that I agree with Joe's "nomination" of a moron like Nader. Surely, there's much better caliber out there.

[joe]

Like all other forms of politics, there must be moderate libertarianism to go along with the radical variety found on this web site. I think a few moderate Libertarian candidates in the right races could make a real splash.

Unfortunately, you people keep meaphorically nominating the Jello Biafras instead of the Ralph Naders. You can't just attack fraud and waste and move programs towards markets. No, you have to play "more-Randian-then-thou." You can't just argue the facts on specific poorly thought out gun laws; you have to sqeeze in as many photo ops with toothless guys in camoflage as the campaign Tercel can get to. You can't just call for more local control of schools; you have to tell every soccer mom in the state that you're going to shut off educational aid and cut the school budget in half.

You people need to decide whether you want to be a relevant force on the political scene, or remain a cloistered society of the elect.

[Anonymous]

"You people need to decide whether you want to be a relevant force on the political scene, or remain a cloistered society of the elect."

yeah dats why we need to be more like Ralph Nader, a true relevnat force! or better yet, lyndon laroush!

[thoreau]

Joe-

I agree 100%. However passionate I may be on some issues, I'd be happy to vote for a candidate who wanted to take a tiny step in the right direction, instead of the Republicrats who argue about "Big step in wrong direction or small step in wrong direction?"

What we need is a Jesse Ventura-style party to complement the Libertarian Party, just as the Democrats are the moderate version of the Greens. People from the Libertarian Party would hurl insults at the Ventura-style party just as Nader insists on trashing the Dems, but a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal (rather than fiscally pure and socially pure) would actually win some races, cut some taxes, and repeal some restrictive laws.

The problem is too many Libertarians will be angry that it's not quite the Promised Land, where every tongue shall confess that Rand is good and behold! the heavens pour forth pro-liberty novels like manna unto Israel in the desert of Sinai. And surely, oh children of Liberty Pure thou shalt chafe at the slings and arrows of this smaller government.

But I'd sure enjoy it as a damn good first step!

OK, go ahead and tell me that I don't believe in smaller government. I shall take my Cato-issued Constitution and leave the monastery, to go into the sinful world of downsizing government the practical way.

[James Merritt]

Between Kerry mis-characterizing Bush as a libertarian, and the Republican Libertarian Caucus mis-characterizing others as libertarians, it would seem to me that the Demos and GOP are equally involved in a campaign to confuse the public about what libertarianism is all about, and who deserves to wear the label. Does this surprise you? These guys know that libertarians are getting through to the people, or at least that people are sick and tired of the good cop/bad cop scam and are looking for an alternative that they suspect Libertarians may offer. Naturally, obfuscation, distraction, and confusion are the typical and predictable reactions from BOTH the GOP and Demos, who have the most to lose. Whether they are actively colluding or not, neither party wants to lose its cushy seat, so they are effectively working as partners on this one. THEY know who their enemy is. Why can't WE remember who the enemy is and not fall for the old "work within the two major parties" canard? We have to bust the duopoly. That's job #1.

[Joe]

I'm proposing incrementalism -- plain and simple. Point is, let's not be so stuck in our ivory tower that we can't be willing to take practical baby steps in the real world.

For specific details, come to the next meeting, or read your mail. I don't intend to have our ideas splashed all over creation, only to be coopted by the opposition (who may be reading these comments at this very moment) -- especially now around campaign season.

[thoreau]

Jerome-

What does Mr. Boyle propose? I'm all for anything that gets some actual results in the right direction.

[Jason]

Well, Buster, we can see you may be impecunious. Otherwise you probably would've invested in a better internet connection.

But, no matter. When my great-grandparents failed to plan, failed to save for old age, they had the discretion to humbly go to church or charity to help 'em out with medical care, food, and shelter. They wouldn't brazenly go to a hired gun, asking coercers to hold the gun to their neighbor's head to fork over money in order to finance their failures (which is what governments do.)

Do we have an obligation to the less endowed or the less fortunate? This goes back to the age-old question, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

For the answer, look here: http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_list.php

[buster stronghart]

Attracted as I am to many libertarian positions I cannot fathom how libertarians expect the Great Unwashed Masses to invest their money by themselves in light of the failure of many of the Washed Elite to protect the money in their 401K's and of the similar failure of 90%+ of professional money mangers to avoid the loss of billions of dollars during the transition from a bull market to a bear market two years ago.
There are questions of ability to invest wisely, of and of money discipline.
Is it the libertarian position that if I fail (or your brother fails) to build a proper retirement bundle that it would be all right for us to go without medical care, food, and shelter?
Do we have no obligation to less endowed or less fortunate? I chose my parents well--but what about those who didn't? Don't we have an obligation to them?

[buster stronghart]

Attracted as I am to many libertarian positions I cannot fathom how libertarians expect the Great Unwashed Masses to invest their money by themselves in light of the failure of many of the Washed Elite to protect the money in their 401K's and of the similar failure of 90%+ of professional money mangers to avoid the loss of billions of dollars during the transition from a bull market to a bear market two years ago.
There are questions of ability to invest wisely, of and of money discipline.
Is it the libertarian position that if I fail (or your brother fails) to build a proper retirement bundle that it would be all right for us to go without medical care, food, and shelter?
Do we have no obligation to less endowed or less fortunate? I chose my parents well--but what about those who didn't? Don't we have an obligation to them?

[joe]

P.S. Even though I'm neither Libertarian nor a libertarian, I come here to learn. I feel that sooner or later, I might very well become a Libertarian, because deep down, I've always felt to be a libertarian at heart. I feel that the libertarian philosophy is simply the natural way in which humans ought to relate to one another.

That's why I come here. Libertarians make more sense than anything else I read out there.

[joe]

I didn't write the last message. I'm not a Libertarian (or even a libertarian). And I don't capitalize my name.

[Drew]

Remember this, Kerry is a fellow bonesman of Bush Jr. He is a well trained LIAR as Bush so don't expect him to say anything bad about him. Even if that means falsely using the word libertarian to advance their cause. I laughed and was scared at the same time when I read Libertarian Bush?

[John]

I think it is about time we have a devote christian in office. Bush has the backing of Christians in this country. Being outspoken about his faith is a strong statement of his character. How long has it been since a President has openly been religious. Unless you count Clinton's nonsense of going to mass. Dont get me started on Catholocism. Kerry and the Democtratic party can make all the attacks they want. Bush is in for another four years.

[Tommy]

why don't we all just vote for NADER? It seems to me like thats the only real choice we have for 04'.

[Volkwijn Donita]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/19/2004 11:37:25
Just as a solid rock is not shaken by the storm, even so the wise are not affected by praise or blame.

[Rosenbloom Phil]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 200.103.235.235
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 04:01:24
It's never right to say always, and always wrong to say never.