http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/kerry-calamity.html
In the weeks before the election, with the usual partisan hysteria becoming ever more intense, public intellectuals are ripping off the mask of principle to come out in favor of one or the other candidate. Typically, many libertarians are throwing their support behind Bush, and on the usual grounds that he is better than a hypothetical alternative. It's a strange argument. First, there is always a worse hypothetical alternative to even the worst hell on earth. Even in a solitary, dark, 5'x5' prison cell there is something worse: the wardens could stop delivery of porridge once a day. But that is no argument for believing in the system, or ceasing to try to find a way out of it. To love one's captors and appreciate their favors is a psychosis, but one that gains a mass following in the weeks before a presidential election. Second, there is something gravely perverse about libertarians who arrive to convince us that the present calamity caused by the existing regime isn't so bad after all; indeed we should support it in order to forestall a worse fate. The only result of such a position is to diminish one's own intellectual credibility. One thinks of all the great philosophers, scientists, and artists who have thrown their support behind a terrible despot. They had a million reasons for doing so. But it always ends up diminishing them. Third, there is no reason to believe that a Kerry victory would necessarily result in something worse than a Bush victory. One reason many supported Bush the first time was because he would supposedly stop the great catastrophe of a Gore victory. In fact, we can have no idea what Gore would have done while in office. With a Republican Congress, and a stock market deeply suspicious of an anti-industry president, it might have ended in four years of blessed gridlock instead of the wild ride of the lunatics who currently hold office. With a track record going back some 35 years, we do know that Democrats have tended to expand the budget less, deregulate more, pass fewer new government programs, care for certain fiscal responsibilities, protect civil liberties a bit more, bring about fewer wars, avoid aggressive protectionism, and do a better job of cleaning up the public sector. Conversely, we also know that Republicans bust the budget, create new agencies, expand the federal payroll, zoom debts and deficits, start wars, and protect favored industries with trade tricks. Yes, they do cut taxes but for the same reason that Democrats try to raise the minimum wage: sops for friends. These are generalizations, and I grant that they are counterintuitive. It seems that the parties perform largely opposite of their platforms (for more, see the research of Frankel, Westley, and Thornton), which is not to say that either party deserves support. But it does seem that we can discount extreme claims of total collapse on the occasion of a Democratic victory. In retrospect, Clinton and Carter were better for the liberties of Americans than Bush 2, Bush 1, Reagan, and Nixon. Again, this might be due to the peculiar dynamics of American politics. It could be that the Republicans are better at playing a defensive than an offensive role. The Democrats are easier to steamroll, and so the Republicans in power are able to get away with more. Either party with full power is a terrible danger, but with two parties battling it out, we stand a greater chance of victory for the individual. Somehow the mix seems more advantageous to our long-run interests when the Democrats hold executive power and the Republicans hold legislative. There is nothing a priori great about such arrangements. This observation comes about by observing history, and it could change. And yet there is a core rationale behind the reality that Democrats make better executives and Republicans better legislators. The Democrats are the party of government, with the owners consisting of mostly public sector employees and their dependents. These are some of the most loathsome characters in American politics. Paradoxically, however, they have the strongest interest in keeping government functioning well, which implies balancing the budget, cleaning house, stamping out corruption, maintaining some semblance of order and peace, not doing things that utterly discredit bureaucracies, finding fixes to make things work a bit better for themselves and their friends, etc. As the most direct owners of the state, they have the strongest interest in its health and well-being. The Republicans in contrast are the party of the private sector and the government contractors. Their primary interest is in getting their hands in the pot that belongs to the government. They are anti-government alright, so much so that they are willing to loot for themselves just about everything that is not nailed down. They arrive in town with the desire to grab as much for themselves and their friends as possible, and do it before their time is up. Remember the scenes in the first weeks after the Iraq invasion when American soldiers were stealing and abusing everything in sight? That's Republicans when they capture the executive branch. So a pattern has been established. The Democrats arrive with two agendas: clean up the public sector and make it work better (because they own it and they believe in it) and pass gobs of new programs. The Republicans and Wall Street (remember Clinton's fear of the bond market?) stop them from doing the second one, so they are left with the little fixes that conform to the civics-text ideal. Under Democrats, despite an ambitious agenda, we get a host of small fixes designed to shore up the status quo: more balanced budgets, Clinton's welfare reform, Gore's "Reinventing Government," Carter's deregulation, and the like. After this, the Republicans arrive in town and work to unbalance the budget, pass out cash to the military and corporate world, reconfigure the tax system to benefit Republican voters, and pass edicts to help old-line industrialists and banking interests. So it goes. There is no way to know with any certainty that this is what a Kerry victory would amount to, but the historical record in the post-LBJ era would lead us to believe that the end of the world would not be nigh. The Republicans are best out of power. That's when they put on their libertarian cloak and strut around like principled Jeffersonians. Actually, it's a sickening sight, but not as bad as Republicans exercising power and pretending as if they alone stand between us and total calamity. Finally there is the fear of bad judges. Actually, Republican judges can be as bad as Democratic ones. In the last several years, with many cases of federal and civil liberties on the docket, the Democrat-appointed judges have been better on libertarian issues than the Republican-appointed ones. This whole Supreme Court bogey, dragged out by GOP consultants just before every election, is just a shameless attempt to manipulate the gullible. Many bad things would happen under a President Kerry. But many horrible things have happened under the Bush presidency. This is a regime that has exploded government power at a pace I hoped we would never see again. Just once I would like to see one of the Bush supporters write something like: It is true that he has expanded the budget at twice the rate of Clinton, that he has created the largest and most powerful new federal bureaucracy since the WW2, that he has imposed costly protectionist legislation, that he keeps prisoners of war in violation of international law, that he lied about Iraq, that he is personally responsible for the deaths of 1,100 US soldiers, and 15,000+ Iraqi civilians, that his war has inspired terrorism around the world, and that another four years of this can only mean more loss of liberty and more bloodshed. And yet, I support his reelection for fear of Kerry. But the Bush supporters don't say that. Instead they liken him to God. They consider him savior. They trust him with leadership. They really credit him with securing the country. They say that he is ruling in the name of liberty. It is remarkable, even demonic. The Bush regime isn't just a group of leaders vying for our affections. It is the world's leading example of the cult of power itself. Kerry may be dangerous but he heads no cult and commands no army of deluded religious fanatics willing to celebrate him as he leads the country into a totalitarian hell of endless war and central administration. Nonetheless, this is not an endorsement. It is an anti-endorsement. Until the day of real freedom arrives, we need both parties so that they might fight among themselves. Better that they point their guns at each other than at us. October 26, 2004 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty. Copyright  2004 LewRockwell.com On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:33:49 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >To: 999 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >From: Wizenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT) > >> > >Below is an open letter from Dr. John Hospers, first Libertarian Party > candidate for president and author of the first book explaining and > defending modern libertarianism. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >An Open Letter To Libertarians > >by John Hospers > > > >Dear Libertarian: > > > >As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first > presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972, and was the > author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing > libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian PartyÃââs Statement > of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in 1972. I still > believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year -- more than > any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party -- I have major > concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans. > > > >There is a belief thatÃââs common among many libertarians that there is no > essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties -- between > a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush > administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be > farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of > liberty. > > > >The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a > catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current campaign speeches, > his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the International Totalitarian > Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the > Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world. The Democratic Party > itself has been undergoing a transformation in recent years; moderate, > pro-American, and strong defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe > Lieberman and Scoop Jackson are a dying breed. Observe how many members of > the Democrat Party belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from > the Democratic Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of > the contemporary Democratic Party. > > > >TodayÃââs Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they > are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it, > including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for them > any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is construed as a > defeat for them. > > > >The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical > environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, > and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and > loathe private property. It is opposed to free speech Ãâ" witness the mania > for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and > KerryÃââs threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads. > If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to > suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk radio and in the > university system. They will attempt to enact ÃâÅhate speechÃâ and > ÃâÅhate > crimeÃâ laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, > and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and > intimidate their political adversaries. They will call it ÃâÅdefending > human rights.Ãâ This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry > administration Justice Department that will have no truck > > with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents. > > > >There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing violence > against Republican campaign headquarters all over the country, and Democrat > thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. Yet not a word about it > from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous trend to increase > dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly accepted by the > liberal-left mainstream media. This is an ominous sign of worse things to > come. > > > >Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us that > he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed repeatedly > in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military establishment and > devastate American security by placing more value on the United Nations > than on the United States: for example he favors the Kyoto Treaty and the > International Criminal Court, and opposed the withdrawal of the U.S. from > the ABM Treaty. He has been quoted as saying that it is honorable for those > in the U.S. military to die under the flag of the U.N. but not that of the > U.S. Presumably he and a small cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, > via the U.N. or some other world body which will make all decisions for the > whole world concerning private property, the use of our military, gun > ownership, taxation, and environmental policy (to name a few). In his > thirty-year career he has demonstrated utter contempt for America, national > security, constitutional republicanism, > > democracy, private property, and free markets. > > > >His wifeÃââs foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left > organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian > principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency > to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry > administration. > > > >Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming election > via a legal coup, e.g. to claim victory on election night no matter what > the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere and everywhere > they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a mockery of our > election process, throwing the entire process into chaos -- possibly for > months -- and significantly weakening our ability to conduct foreign policy > and protect ourselves domestically. Let me repeat: we are facing the very > real possibility of a political coup occurring in America. Al Gore very > nearly got away with one in 2000. Do not underestimate what Kerry and his > ilk are going to attempt to do to America. > > > >George Bush has been criticized for many things Ãâ" and in many cases with > justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the First > Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on failing to > protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would > fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great virtue, however, is that he > has stood up -- knowingly at grave risk to his political viability -- to > terrorism when his predecessors, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. > On many occasions during their administrations terrorists attacked American > lives and property. Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless > retaliation such as bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on > faulty intelligence, to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he > was hit with ÃâÅthe big oneÃâÂ: 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism > was more than a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. > and indeed to the entire civilized world long > > before his administration. He decided that action had to be taken to > protect us against future 9/11s involving weapons of mass destruction, > including ÃâÅsuitcaseÃâ nuclear devices. > > > >Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens the > world just as Nazi fascism and Soviet communism did in previous decades. > The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-Muslims without a > tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in wishful thinking on this > issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of nuisance, which can be handled > without great inconvenience in much the same way as one swats flies, rather > than as hordes of genocidal religious fanatics dedicated to our > destruction. > > > >The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal with > the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot Act seem > to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on reality). > But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face of it, and in > spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation campaign that any > American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven > for terrorists. SaddamÃââs regime is no longer a major player in the > worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their weapons of terror. > The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass destruction has been > eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah. Terrorist cells all over the > world have been disrupted, and thousands of terrorists killed. The result: > Americans are orders of magnitude safer. > > > >National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely excoriated > for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I > attended in l962, in response to complaints that ÃâÅtaxes are too highÃâ > (then 20%), ÃâÅPay 80% if you need it for defense.Ãâ It is not the amount > but the purpose served that decides what is ÃâÅtoo much.Ãâ And the purpose > here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face of vastly > increased threats to its existence. > > > >Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These cuts > got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all > economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have > been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other projects in the > wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. For example: > > > >(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning > whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax. If such a change > were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of liberty and > prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry. > > > >(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone, could > bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it would make > his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has already > repudiated any such change in social security laws. > > > >The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a > completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes time > and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans, who labor > under a plethora of economic fallacies and political misconceptions. It > will involve a near-total restructuring of the educational system, which > today serves the liberal-left education bureaucracy and Democratic Party, > not the student or parent. It will require a merciless and continuous > expose of the bias in the mainstream media (the Internet, blogs, and talk > radio have been extremely successful in this regard over the past few > years). And it will require understanding the influence and importance of > the Teresa Kerry-like Foundations who work in the shadows to undermine our > constitutional system of checks and balances. > > > >Most of all, it will require the American people -- including many > libertarians Ãâ" to realize the overwhelming dangerousness of the American > Left Ãâ" a Fifth Column comprised of the elements mentioned above, > dedicated to achieving their goal of a totally internationally dominated > America, and a true world-wide Fascism. > > > >Thus far their long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry > presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-funded > cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency would help to > stem this tide, and along the way it might well succeed in preserving > Western civilization against the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, > and may shortly have the weapons capability, to bring it to an end. > > > >When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, > to vote for a ÃâËminor partyÃââ candidate who cannot possibly win, just to > ÃâÅget the word outÃâ and to promote the ideals for which that candidate > stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it > becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers > philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most > favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming election will determine > whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. > That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in > 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various > critical ÃâÅBattle GroundÃâ states and therefore the presidency itself. > That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I > believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do. > > > >We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of > liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and > free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the > Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote Libertarian, we may win a tiny > rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war. > > > >John Hospers > > > >Los Angeles, CA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Mail â CNET Editors' Choice 2004. Tell them what you think. a > > > _______________________________________________ > Libnw mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw > Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw > _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
