Greenhut's Broad Brush
Posted by: Jubal | 08/20/2008 1:33 PM
My friend Steve Greenhut just wrote a post entitled "The GOP No Longer Stands For Freedom."
That's just patently, manifestly and obviously absurd. I've heard of painting with a broad brush, but that claim is more like using Earl Scheib. With all due respect, Steve's post should have a "Warning: Gross Oversimplification To Follow" attached to it.
Steve writes:
Republican activists and donor and a great number of office holders have been complaining about the how the Bush Administration and the congressional GOP shredded our party's credibility on spending restraint and reducing the size and scope of government -- a fact Steve is well aware.
To lump all Republicans together in the manner Steve just did is absurd.
As I've said before, I think the libertarians are wasting their time in the Libertarian Party. It will never be an effective vehicle for advancing their cause. Indeed, it's only practical impact is to tip close closes to Democratic candidates, thus accomplishing the exact opposite of their goal.
Of course the GOP is an imperfect vehicle for advancing libertarian ideas. And working within the GOP means libertarians would have to work with others who don't agree with them on every point.
Of course, serious libertarians could remain in the Libertarian Party. But odds are American voters will never seriously a party that debated whether to nominate for president new Libertarian Bob Barr or a woman who supports legalizing child pornography in the name of being pro-liberty.
That's just patently, manifestly and obviously absurd. I've heard of painting with a broad brush, but that claim is more like using Earl Scheib. With all due respect, Steve's post should have a "Warning: Gross Oversimplification To Follow" attached to it.
Steve writes:
But why choose between two totally awful candidates and two totally awful parties? How can we be part of a GOP that loves expanding the welfare state (see Bush's prescription drug program), loves federal spending (Bush has grown the federal government more than LBJ), has no interest in civil liberties, is committed to Wilsonian adventures overseas, and is terrible on many social issues such as the drug war and immigration?And again:
The key issue here: The GOP no longer even talks about liberty. Limiting government is no longer on its agenda.Really? The GOP never talks about liberty? Leaving aside the imprecision of saying "the GOP" talks about anything, has Steve roamed the country examining the agenda and actions of every Republican office holder? Surveyed the views of Republican activists? Or is this just a hasty, blanket claim?
Republican activists and donor and a great number of office holders have been complaining about the how the Bush Administration and the congressional GOP shredded our party's credibility on spending restraint and reducing the size and scope of government -- a fact Steve is well aware.
To lump all Republicans together in the manner Steve just did is absurd.
As I've said before, I think the libertarians are wasting their time in the Libertarian Party. It will never be an effective vehicle for advancing their cause. Indeed, it's only practical impact is to tip close closes to Democratic candidates, thus accomplishing the exact opposite of their goal.
Of course the GOP is an imperfect vehicle for advancing libertarian ideas. And working within the GOP means libertarians would have to work with others who don't agree with them on every point.
Of course, serious libertarians could remain in the Libertarian Party. But odds are American voters will never seriously a party that debated whether to nominate for president new Libertarian Bob Barr or a woman who supports legalizing child pornography in the name of being pro-liberty.
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
As long as we're talking about assumptions, I'll take issue with your statement that a Democratic win is the exact opposite of libertarian goals. Greenhut is known for expressing the view that the Republican party will never reform if they can crush our Constitution and still win elections. A Republican loss may be a good thing in many libertarian eyes.
Please explain to me how a Barack Obama victory, combined with the near-certitude of an expanded Democratic majority in Congress, advances libertarian goals?
Think of it this way - a large number of libertarians have recently realized that Republicans can be extremely efficient at stripping us of our liberties, in many cases exceeding the atrocities of the Democratic party as of late. The combination of the two parties in the present state is even more dangerous to any Constitution-minded individual.
If you have not already read it, Greenhut's piece on the subject is here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-gop-party-2083930-republican-committed
I was hoping the way you would think of it was to give me some specific examples of how a Democratic Congress and a President Obama would advance libertarian goals.
Jubal, did you even READ Greenhut's blog article? Or did you just knee-jerk this post based solely on the title?
The GOP Greenhut is referring to is the controlling power held by White House, the McCain campaign, and the national committee. OF COURSE there are individual Republicans committed to freedom (especially one particular congressman from south Texas), but these people are not in the power elite of the party. The real power is held by neoconservatives who have led the GOP into a new era of Big Government, Big Spending, Big Deficits, and Big War.
Even Republican congressmen who ordinarily support smaller government have been suckered into the New GOP. Witness John Campbell recently voting FOR that horrid housing bill that forces responsible taxpayers to pay for the bad decisions of irresponsible homeowners and mortgage companies.
The GOP no longer stands for freedom because "freedom" is a tool to use to whip up the masses into supporting the latest Republican initiative, as in "Islamo-fascists hate freedom! Let's invade something!"
What the Bush/McCain GOP stands for is power -- getting it and keeping it. And if that means expanding the government at home and abroad, then so be it.
A Democratic-controlled White House and Congress would advance libertarian ideas by forcing the GOP to spend some time "in the wilderness," where we might rediscover the soul of the party. It happened to us after Watergate, and that resulted in a Reagan America. Perhaps a term or two with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid running things will give us an actual conservative, small-government Presidential candidate in 2016.
After the last 8 years of Bush Hell, one can only dream.
Jubal, did you even READ Greenhut's blog article?
Yep, I did read it. Did you read MY post? It apparently escaped your notice that I quoted from his post, which would have been difficult to do if i had not actually read it.
A Democratic-controlled White House and Congress would advance libertarian ideas by forcing the GOP to spend some time "in the wilderness," where we might rediscover the soul of the party.
Really? Like 20 years in the wilderness from 1932-1952 led to the GOP repealing the New deal when it came to power? Oh that's right -- that never happened.
The "time in the wilderness theory" is bunk.
Perhaps you could address the types of policies a Democratic Congress and a President Obama would enact and tell me how those would advance libertarian ideas. No one else has answered it yet.
Yep, the GOP failed in '52. I never said the wilderness was a hard and fast rule, which is why I qualified what I wrote with "might" and "perhaps." Hope springs eternal. Goldwater certain stepped up against encroaching federal power in '64, but he failed to gain the White House.
The Democrats are marginally better on staying out of people's personal lives. An Obama presidency might do something smart like stop arresting people who use medicinal marijuana. And we're certainly not going to see stupid constitutional amendments to ban flag burning and make marriage a federal issue. And hopefully an Obama presidency would stop torturing, detaining without due process, and warrantless wiretapping. And we might restore some sanity to our foreign policy.
But none of these things are guaranteed, just less impossible than under a McCain presidency.
"The Democrats are marginally better on staying out of people's personal lives."
- But they have a hard time staying out of my wallet.
The Democrats are marginally better on staying out of people's personal lives.
That's true when it comes to the one medical procedure the Democrats don't want to regulate, abortion. Otherwise, the Democrats are the Nanny State Party nonpareil.
The GOP Greenhut is referring to is the controlling power held by White House, the McCain campaign, and the national committee.
If that is what Steve means, then he ought to say as much, instead of tarring all Republicans with the anti-freedom broad brush.
Yep, the GOP failed in '52. I never said the wilderness was a hard and fast rule, which is why I qualified what I wrote with "might" and "perhaps."
That's a very big "if."
An Obama presidency might do something smart like stop arresting people who use medicinal marijuana.
Another big "if."
And we're certainly not going to see stupid constitutional amendments to ban flag burning and make marriage a federal issue.
Be real. First, no flag burning amendment was sent to the states during 12 years of GOP control of Congress. Do you think a Democratic Congress will pass one, or a marriage amendment? Secondly, since the president's veto power doesn't extend to constitutional amendments, an Obama Administration could stop such amendments even if they were sent to the states.
And hopefully an Obama presidency would stop torturing, detaining without due process, and warrantless wiretapping.
McCain has been at cross-purposes with Bush on "torture" for some time. As for the latter, I think you're correct, although we'll disagree on the necessity of Patriot Act measures.
And we might restore some sanity to our foreign policy.
That depends on who one thinks the lunatics are.
Here's what the combination of an even more Democratic Congress and an Obama Administration: spiking income and corporate taxes; increased payroll taxes; forcing everyone into a government-controlled health care scheme; appointment of liberals to the U.S. Supreme Court (the kind who would have joined the 4 justice minority in de facto nullifying the 2nd Amendment), not to mention the lower courts; full-throated support for expanding government command-and-control under the guise of combating climate change; continued locking up of our natural resources...and that's for starters.
The GOP needs reforming. The Beltway wing of the party needs to purged of RINOs more concerned with self-perpetuation than advancing party principles. It needs more people like Tom Coburn.
While we're fighting that battle -- which is ultimately a battle to reduce the size and scope of government -- it makes no sense to hand the keys of government over to Obama and the liberals in Congress, so they can make the job even harder.
I understand libertarian heartburn with the national GOP. But reacting by rooting for an Obama victory is like a spouse responding to a spousal infidelity by marrying a polygamist.