Another Conflation We Missed

|

And just to add one to Jesse's observation below: Bush's argument against actual protectionism—the traditional economic sort—was framed in terms of the need to resist the temptation to take panicked measures that centralize power in the federal government in response to economic uncertainty. A fair point… one that might even have wider applicability.

NEXT: Union of the States

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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. holy crap!

    So instead of posting one article on the state of the union and being forced to *gasp* slum it in the comment section every damn reason columnist and their mother decided to post an article of thier own. none with links or quotes or anything of substance by the way

    thanks guys i will be sure not read any of it.

  2. I was totally pleased to see him address isolationists instead of responding to the liberal internationalists… he was addressing libertarians and ignoring the silly statists.

  3. Also.. I liked the ring of this (emphasis my own): “And tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our Nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.”

    To me this said: “We respect your right to protect your own civil liberties — and we’ll morally support you — but you’re going to have to do it on your own.”

    This is a version of internationalism that I can approve of, not in the swaggar of the Iraq intervention. We need to get involved — in Bush’s words tonight: “Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need.” — but our involvement should take the form of cheerleader instead of coup leader.

  4. Taylor, can you expound in more concrete terms on what you mean by getting involved in foreign intervention in “the form of a cheerleader”?

  5. Bush’s argument against actual protectionism…was framed in terms of the need to resist the temptation to take panicked measures that centralize power in the federal government…

    Bush made that point? Really? Then I’m impressed that this big government president would actually appreciate that argument. But if he was sincerely concerned about a dynamic that will centralize power in the federal government, he wouldn’t keep centralizing power in the federal government!

  6. My definitions…

    Foreign intervention: conservative internationalism. get involved when it counts, where it counts — i.e. when it means securing American liberties.

    Cheerleader: My dad always told me that if you’re not the lead dog, the view never changes. Improving our leadership ability by improving our image, establishing relationships, and freeing markets abroad doesn’t necessarily entail an expansion of the executive. Talk comes cheap, but America shouldn’t be shy to take a stand for individual freedom by being more vocal on the world level.

  7. conservative internationalism. get involved … when it means securing American liberties.

    That criterion does not sanction the Iraq war, the tax dollars to Israel, the tax dollars to Egypt, the tax dollars to Jordan, the tax dollars to Uzbekistan, the tax dollars to…

  8. Damn, I was hoping that Bush would say something like this:

    We are going to invade Iran. (Out of Iraq! …and into Iran.) We will them combine Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan in a new nation–The Islamic Democratic Caliphate. The Caliph will be popularly elected. Islam will be the state religion, but the new constitution will protect the rights of religious minorities. Muslims should have nothing to fear from these religious minorities; at worst, they should pity them for not knowing the one true god, Allah. Any Muslim, strong in his faith, should know that no minority religion could ever threaten Islam. Women will have rights in this new nation. Why would any good Muslim man fear a woman with rights and freedoms? Only a weak man, with little faith in Allah, would ever fear a woman. (Etc. Continues with more clever justifications for rights and freedoms for the citizenry of the New Caliphate.)

    Think that would fly? 😉

  9. Any Muslim, strong in his faith, should know that no minority religion could ever threaten Islam. Women will have rights in this new nation. Why would any good Muslim man fear a woman with rights and freedoms? Only a weak man, with little faith in Allah, would ever fear a woman.

    Sounds good. But first, I hope all you GOP-type Neocon Judeo-Christian Fundies swallow your own medicine. I say this as five “Not Afraid of Women’s Rights” fundie-Bush states (mine included) are lining up to take women back to the wonderful day of naturopath “coat-hanger” surgery …

    Or will you be like the white males who cry about affirmative action and “being qualified” until they see an Asian male, WAY better educated and WAY better “qualified”, and then suddenly discover quotas and set-asides like the Jesse Jackson crew ….

  10. Sigh.

    Like all good politicians, Bush knows how to wrap anti-liberty policy in the language of liberty. Anyone who believes he, or the Republican party at large, have any belief in liberty needs to get off the Kool-Aide.

  11. Stuffitinyourpiehole,

    I wish I could see these phantoms you are flailing your arms against. They just aren’t here.

    Who do you mean by ‘you’? The Real Bill? Weird.

  12. I am surprised that a libertarian thread on conflations missed Bush’s conflation of democracy with liberty. I guess Bush read Kemp’s editorial that democracy is more than elections and took it at face value.

  13. wellfellow,

    I believe that this website:
    http://www.bitterasianmen.com/index.html
    may explain ‘piehole’s wrath.

  14. Ok i lied i read it all!

    you bastards.

  15. “America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom.”

    This reminds me of the 3 biggest lies in the world:

    1) I love you.

    2) I respect you.

    3) I promise not to cum in your mouth.

    On a related tangent:

    Check’s in the mail.

    Bird’s on the way.

    Read my lips, no new taxes.

  16. Thanks, Taylor. I have to admit I’m a little fascinated with trying to figure out what makes you tick, political-thinking-wise. You seem to have fairly libertarian opinions and not even necessarily be in agreement with Bush’s policies. But you also seem to be fascinated by Republicanism, praising Bush’s speech and posting a picture of yourself with POTUS on your website. Were you raised in a strongly Republican household or something like that?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.