Tuesday | September 09, 2003
One libertarian's rant against Bush
This is a fun rant:
The administration just didn't listen to any of them, because it was determined to go ahead with its plans, regardless of facts, regardless of the truth, regardless of anything that would deter them. And they obviously didn't want the public to be fully aware of all this, because then the public might not have supported all these plans for rebuilding the world -- not if they knew the full costs, how long it would take, how many Americans might die, and that it might not work in the first place.The rant is not surprising. What's a Libertarian to like about the Bush administration? It has no concept of civil liberties save those embodied in the Second Amendment. Its imperialistic foreign policy has cost the country hundreds of lives and hundreds of billions in treasure (and counting!). the size of government has grown more under Bush than any recent president, including the last few Democrats. More jobs have been lost under Bush than any other president since Herbert Hoover.
As for fiscal sanity, how can one ignore the record deficits? But wait, Bush apologists argue, the deficits are only at record highs in absolute dollars, not in terms of percentage of GDP! See, everything is okay!
Given that I advocate fiscal responsibility (budgets should be balanced across the business cycle), I find that latest GOP spin ridiculous. As if half-trillion dollar deficits can ever be considered acceptable.
But aside from that, it's now clear that Bush's War will push the deficit into record levels -- as a percentage of the GDP:
But now, with little appetite in Congress or the White House for budget restraint, the new spending request will simply add to a deficit that could rise to $550 billion or more next year, congressional and White House estimates suggest. Measured against the size of the economy, a common way to compare deficits over time, the deficits of next year and 1992 are about the same. Both are approaching 5% of the total output of the United States, a size where economists begin to take notice.So much for that "percentage of the GDP" spin.
I've long advocated that libertarians had to make a choice. Neither major party advocates shrinking government. God knows the Democrats never will, nor should they. Republicans pretend otherwise, but they are even more eager to increase the size of government (the better to pay off their political benefactors like Halliburton).
So libertarians can either vote Libertarian, or vote for the party that is less hostile to personal liberties. The Republicans are the party of the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, and imperial conquest. And they don't trust individuals enough with the truth, so they lie and lie to hide their true agenda.
Dean and/or Clark would take the gun issue off the table, but yeah, Democrats would repeal the tax cut to restore fiscal sanity. Democrats would enforce environmental laws that sometimes intrude on property rights. And Democrats are more apt to try and regulate businesses for a variety of (mostly altruistic) reasons.
So, to libertarians, which is more harmful to your personal liberties? The Republicans who lie about their intentions and then trample on your civil liberties while growing the size of government, or Democrats? The choice is yours.
(And to the purists who gag at the thought of welcoming libertarians under our tent, deal with it. I don't want to just eke out a victory against Bush, I want him to go down in a landslide loss, repudiating everything he and his cabal stand for. And to do that, we are going to have to welcome, with open arms, every group disaffected with the state of the nation, be it libertarians, or Greens, or -- heck -- even Southern whites.)Posted September 09, 2003 09:17 AM | Comments (191)