As I write, Donald Rumsfeld has resigned. More details in the news media.
Pew Research Center says that libertarians make up 9 percent of the U.S. Electorate. About 2 percent of the electorate vote for the Libertarian Party, which means that about 7 percent of the electorate are what we call ’small-L libertarians’; people who believe in libertarian principals but who, for a variety of reasons, don’t vote for Libertarian Party candidates. It is my perception that most of those people feel that, since the Libertarian candidate won’t win in any case, a Libertarian vote is a waste.
So I wasn’t expecting much in the way of success for the Libertarian Party. (That said, one wonders what would happen if all the small-L libertarians decided to actually place their votes; they could have theoretically huge swing power in U.S. elections.) What did surprise me, however, was the degree to which the nation appears to have swung to the Left this morning. With both the House and potentially the Senate going to Democrats, there has definitely been a shift in the balance of power.
Let’s first deal with a speculation: that George W. Bush will now be in danger of impeachment or being ousted from office in some other dramatic fashion. This is pure fantasy, the wet dream of Bush-haters, who are fixated upon him as an object of hate and see politics almost entirely in terms of pro-Bush / anti-Bush dynamics. The margin of victory was fairly narrow, especially in the Senate, and no matter how much these morons hate the President, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Bush did anything wrong on the issue of the war in Iraq, which is what much of this election is really all about. It’s about Iraq, first and foremost, and it’s about a few other things too.
For example.
Voters here in Arizona have voted for some really, really stupid measures. State propositions are both a blessing and a curse. They constitute the most direct form of democracy in existence, by means of which they also constitute the biggest chance for the electorate to screw things up. Stupid measures approved by voters in Arizona: to ban smoking in restaurants and bars, thus infringing on the rights of private business owners to do the hell what they want. To raise the minimum wage; thus placing debilitating shackles on the small business economy. To allow jail terms for first time personal drug users, thus stepping up the war against the victimless crime of people putting substances in their own bodies. To place an extra 80 cents tax on each pack of cigarettes to fund preschool programs, thus stealing from some people to give it to others’ kids. What a skewed, backward sense of justice these people have.
The propositions weren’t all bad. The people have also spoken on some other issues, such as restricting the government’s power of eminent domain, whereby they could take private land for public purposes. That’s to be welcomed, as is the electorate’s rejection of the proposition which would have banned same-sex marriage and civil unions. Arizona will also be curtailing the amount of property tax the government can impose year-on-year. But America in general appears to have swung to the Left, and there are a few consequences we can expect from the news.
Firstly, there will be new expectations in Iraq. It seems that former CIA director Bob Gates will replace Don Rumsfeld today as Defense Secretary, and, along with the new Democrat majority, this will likely prod a change of direction and a new sense of urgency to come up with a good exit strategy. I have always maintained the need to see Iraq through to victory first, and peace thereafter. But I am one of the few that also sees that I really know very little about how to proceed in Iraq, and the need for good leadership in the Pentagon is essential. Bob Gates will be a fresh face, and hopefully a fresh voice in that endeavour.
Second, European morons will revel in an orgasm of glee over the news of President Bush’s black eye. In an incredible joint statement, over 200 Socialist members of the EU called the election results “the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world.†These asswits wouldn’t know what’s good for the world even if Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal†flew out of nowhere and hit them in the nuts. In the great Amphitheater of Political History, socialism never won any prizes for actually doing what it purports to do: take nations out of poverty. Only CAPITALISM has ever done that. Presently, under the presidency of George W. Bush, we have record highs in the American stock market, the best economy since Ronald Reagan, the largest middle class in the world, a thriving jobs market and record low unemployment rates across the nation. Oh, wait- I’d rather live in France.
(That’s sarcasm.)
Third, Republicans should at this point acknowledge the voters’ disillusionment and go on to work closely with the new Democrat majority for the good of the nation. This sounds like typically fluffy political rhetoric and not what you’re used to hearing from Libertarian Reason. But in this case what’s best for America is to see some balance and some stability, particularly where the fate of the troops in Iraq is concerned. A polemicist like myself isn’t used to making such calls, but there is much at stake right now and perhaps some sensible, non-confrontational dialogue will yield some good results. To the President’s ultimate credit, he seems in today’s press conference to acknowledge with grace the will of the U.S. electorate in this regard.
Finally, it seems likely that the election results here will set the stage for the 2008 presidential election. My dream ticket was Condi Rice up against Hilary Rodham Clinton, thereby granting the Republicans the honour of electing the first black, first female President. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would have also made a decent presidential candidate, but that appears to be out of the question now. Since a real conservative could be unelectable by 2008, Arizona Senator John McCain will have to do – a Republican, sure, but a moderate, with few small-government credentials. Watch now for a face-off between Hilary and McCain in 2008… they’ll be lining up as we speak.
As a (fairly) pure libertarian, I take issue with both conservatives and liberals, both left and right, both Republican and Democrat, on freedom-crushing measures that are favoured by both. But I’ve often found it easier, in general, to agree with conservatives than with left-liberals: they at least at one time understood that a smaller government was a better government. Today we’ve had an election that replaces many conservatives with many left-liberals in the legislatures of this country, and I can’t exactly see that in positive terms, as so many European morons are.
If I’m to take something positive from these election results, it is that perhaps now America will rediscover a sense of freedom in decency standards of broadcast media, which has been all but stamped out following the Superbowl Boob a few years ago. Do one thing for me, House and Senate: restrict the powers of the FCC to enforce backward moral standards on the rest of us, and you will have done something I can support.
(’Always look on the bright side of life,’ I’ve heard it said.)
John Wright
13 responses so far ↓
1 Rosalita Paglia // Nov 8, 2006 at 6:23 pm
I was wondering if we’d see an election post from you today John! I agree almost entirely with what you say here. It is a shame that more libertarians would not vote Libertarian. But that’s politics unfortunately, it doesn’t relate to parties of principal too easily!
2 S Quinney // Nov 8, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Yes John and I thought you may be interested in this Guardian leader. http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1942821,00.html
3 PBX // Nov 8, 2006 at 7:59 pm
A lot of people seem to be very pleased to see Rumsfeld go.
4 Jon // Nov 9, 2006 at 6:37 am
A couple of points - do you really think it helps you to be taken seriously by repeatedly referring to ‘European morons’? Aren’t you a ‘European moron’? Or is it just that you find your, er (stay polite now), radical views more likely to be accepted in the USA?
I’m also interested in your views on democracy. It would be easy to take from your posts that democracy might be anathema to your peculiar form of libertarianism, given that the majority end up making decisions for individuals.
Of course this is only important from your point of view when the side you support loses, but hey, who am I to criticise?
5 John Wright // Nov 9, 2006 at 8:27 am
Thanks guys for the comments. My friend William Crawley makes a good point today on his BBC blog, with the possible presidential candidacy of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani - Rudy may be the only other moderate conservative that could kick out McCain and every Democrat to win the White House in ‘08.
Jon- Thanks for the comment. I don’t need any help to be taken seriously - the reason most of my readers are here is that they enjoy the somewhat irreverent style of this otherwise very reasonable blog. And I wasn’t calling all Europeans morons, I was identifying some European morons.
Thanks all!
6 Anonymous // Nov 9, 2006 at 8:39 am
Giuliani would make a great candidate. If he does for the nation what he did for NY then I’m for him.
7 Jon // Nov 9, 2006 at 8:48 am
“Only CAPITALISM has ever done that. Presently, under the presidency of George W. Bush, we have record highs in the American stock market, the best economy since Ronald Reagan, the largest middle class in the world, a thriving jobs market and record low unemployment rates across the nation.”
I’m sorry. Maybe it’s clumsy juxtaposition on your part - but are you suggesting that the American nation has been ‘lifted out of poverty’ by capitalism?
No ‘nation’ has ever been ‘lifted out of poverty.’ No ‘nation’ has ever come close, capitalist or otherwise. (And no, I’m not suggesting a left-wing alternative would do better.)
To cite the performance of the stock market as an indicator of poverty is one of the more vapid things on this blog, and that’s saying something.
I know you have a kind of reverse snobbery about ‘the left-liberal academic community’ and the standards required by academia to explain or justify a thesis - but those standards exist to ensure people don’t state opinion as fact.
8 John Wright // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:04 am
Jon- Of course it’s my opinion! This is an opinion blog. Did you want me to apologise for that? And your assertion that my opinion is not backed up by the facts is another opinion, to which my opposing opinion is that you are wrong.
Tell me what the general living standard was for the people who today live in the United States of America, before the nation was built and established through years of capitalist principal? In fact, let’s make this easy. Show me a capitalist nation that has a low standard of living. Then, please, show me a non-capitalist country that has as high a standard of living as a capitalist one. This isn’t hard, Jon.
9 S Quinney // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:11 am
Jon as I see it, this was a clumsy juxtaposition, but it was also made on the basis that socialists are wrong where they say they will alleviate poverty through socialism, and John W’s basic argument that capitalism has solved more of these problems than socialism ever would is a good assessment of the facts.
10 Jon // Nov 10, 2006 at 2:28 am
*Sighs*
My point was that raw capitalism doesn’t lift ‘nations’ out of poverty. It serves limited sections of a limited number of countries very well indeed.
Do I know all the answers? No. I don’t claim to - but I can see when something isn’t working.
You’ll agree that capitalism is BY FAR the dominant economic system in the world. There are very few countries with the sort of protectionist economic policies that control pure market forces to any real degree (the USA being one of the prime ones, of course. Oh the irony.) This gives us some sort of chance to evaluate how the system is working so far.
To answer your question - capitalist countries that have low standards of living - actually countries would take ages, so lets just say 90% plus of the people of Africa.
It infuriates me that because a system serves you in your own particular situation well, you slavishly adhere to the notion that unbridled expansion of that system will eventually serve everyone well. How long is that meant to take exactly?
It isn’t hard, John. But understand that saying ‘unfettered capitalism isn’t working for the majority of the world’s population’ is not the same as saying that socialism is the answer.
While I’d love to be able to say I know the solution, not being able to do so doesn’t mean automatic acceptance of the current dominant system as the best available.
11 John Wright // Nov 10, 2006 at 8:51 am
Jon, I appreciate your comment. We disagree. But at least I understand your position now, which is perhaps half the point of discussion in the first place.
First and foremost, I defend capitalism as the only moral political system. I’m defending it on grounds of principal, saying that any and every other political system (period) is immoral - including our own mixed economies by the way. Our discussion here doesn’t even touch on philosophy, only eceonomics.
And second is my belief that capitalism is the only system capable of making a real dent in poverty. You mention Africa. But Africa is the poster-child of what capitalism is not: interventionist, powerful, corrupt governments that deny freedom to the citizens in its charge. In true capitalist societies, Jon, the government is small and unable to intervene. (By the way, protectionist economic policies are prevalent everywhere there is capitalism. Airbus, for example, is heavily subsidised by the British, French and German governments.)
But my central response to you is this. I just don’t believe, Jon, that the facts support your view that capitalism serves only a limited few within the nations that embrace it. Have you studied pre-capitalist West Germany, and observed the effects of capitalism upon it since? Or, since we’re talking about its effect on poverty, can you point me to any countries without the tradition of capitalism that have less poverty per capita than the (reasonably capitalist) United States? China? Cuba? What about a country that would have absolutely no excuse not to be rich, a country with valuable national resources like Saudi Arabia?
Under a capitalist system, there are more jobs, there is more money, and there are more opportunities to create wealth. Poor people in capitalist countries are already in a much better position than people in non-capitalist countries, and they wouldn’t swap places with a North Korean, for example. What exactly explains the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who flood into the United States through the U.S. border from Mexico every year? It’s clear that the effects of capitalism have a universal effect upon anyone in a capitalist nation, not just a limited effect - otherwise there would be no benefit to them in coming!
What explains the wealth of the United States, a nation founded upon largely capitalist principals, compared with the relatively poor majority of the citizens of South America? Answer: capitalism. There are well-understood reasons for why this is the case.. Economics 101 teaches that if you allow people equal rights and equal protection from theft (including that from government) and honour their freedom to live as they please, they will go create wealth voluntarily. And if McDonald’s had never existed, Jon, then its thousands of employees would not have their jobs. Are you still trying to tell me that capitalism is only serving a limited few?
Capitalism is as perfect a system as it gets. There isn’t a better system morally, and there isn’t a better system in practice. Our mixed economies are proof of that: every time taxes are cut, our economy does better. It amazes me that people still try to claim that this is not the case.
Would that we HAD “unfettered capitalism”, Jon.
12 Bana // Nov 13, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Just writing to say that I am a long term subscriber from Dublin back before the adress changed and I think your blog is saying some great things about current events.
13 John Wright // Jun 1, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Bana- I appreciate you being here very much. Sorry it took me so long to see your comment!
Leave a Comment