One of them is not that Obama would make a better President–I’m not saying that! Frankly, I have self-righteous-socialist fatigue and was ready for a change even if it just meant being lied to–I guess I prefer surreptitious, shame-faced socialism to the blatant, arrogant kind, but that’s just me. So I’m not glad Obama won, but there are a few things to give the stalwart libertarian some small comfort.
1. The Liberty Movement and the Tea Party were totally betrayed by the Republican establishment who used the now discredited excuse of “electability” every time they threw a Tea Party candidate under the bus in 2010 or cheated Ron Paul in the 2012 primaries. But the days of beating into submission the grassroots movements struggling to keep the Republican party honest may be behind us. Every single one of the people I know who are disappointed (some devastated) by Obama’s reelection are no more disgusted with Obama then they ever were, but they are freshly and totally disgusted with the Republicans. As I’ve always said, the Republicans are worse than the Democrats because the Democrats honestly represent the statist left, while the Republicans pretend to defend limited government and in so doing take the place of those who actually would. Now that it has been shown that the political strategy that demands people of good conscience choose the lesser of two evils instead of actual good is no more a winning one than sticking to one’s principles would have been, perhaps it can be put to rest. (Well, a girl can dream, can’t she?)
2. We are headed for a financial and political crisis just like the one we are seeing in Europe. We are one step behind Europe on the road to serfdom and one step behind them on the road to collapse. Romney’s insistence on maintaining every last government program and Obama’s insistence on bloating them all further is the difference between death by a thousand paper cuts and cutting an artery. I’m not crazy about those options but maybe it’s better to take a razor to the jugular–at least you’ll know what killed you! Here’s why: Nixon closed the gold window in 1971 and we had unbearable inflation within a decade. Had Reagan and Volcker not intersected at a singular moment in monetary history and voluntarily put the brakes on, people might have realized the problem and at least maintained some appreciation for real money. However, Reagan and Volcker delayed the inevitable; now we have arrived at a much later stage of the crisis and it’s almost impossible for the average citizen to connect the dots.
It is clear to anyone who has really viewed American politics with an open mind that although the Democrats say they are for big government, civil liberties and peace, they actually are for big government, social control and the military industrial complex; likewise, although the Republicans say they are for small government, constitutional rights and a strong defense, they actually are for big government, social control and the military industrial complex. The next three items go to the hope that those facades may be stripped away…
3. With Obama’s last election behind him, perhaps some in the mainstream will begin to acknowledge that he raids medical marijuana joints more often than Bush did, deports more illegal immigrants than Bush did, signed the NDAA with shame but without conditions, failed to close Guantanamo and has a kill list–just to name a few. No civil libertarian, Obama!
4. If Romney had been elected and presided over expanding entitlements and perhaps the socialist collapse that is our due, socialism would not have been blamed, rather the press would have pinned it on cronyism, conservatism, trickle-up economics, whatever. At least if Obama is at the helm when America goes over the tipping point, there is a chance that socialism will be among the suspects.
5. With Obama in office when Israel strikes Iran, and when he floods Israel with extremely powerful weapons and supports the next and perhaps worst war in the Middle East, it may finally give the lie to Democrats’ claims of being the party of peace. (Don’t think this will happen? It was reported, however briefly, that Obama made a deal with Netanyahu: Wait until after the election to bomb Iran and I will grant you the power of shock and awe.)
6. I’ve written a couple of times about the explicit neo-conservative strategy of creating a budget crisis by piling Republican socialist policies on top of Democratic ones and forcing America to choose whose they like better. Well, America has chosen. Now maybe the Republicans will finally acknowledge that this was an ill-conceived, dishonest and deeply flawed approach and return to a platform of fiscal conservatism, civil liberties and a constitutional defense policy.
7. Ultimately I found Romney to be a likeable guy so I’m happy for him in some weird way that he is to be spared the aggravation of being President–not that he sees it that way, of course–but what he actually might come to appreciate, being a man of faith, is that losing the election may well have saved his soul!
I liked #7 best. It’s a compassionate assessment, less fear-based. Romney will have more time to devote his considerable resources toward ministry. I don’t think this country’s current struggles come remotely close to what they went through from 1929-1945. If that didn’t ruin us, the current laundry list of obstacles won’t either.
I wonder if I’ll ever read an article pointing out the fallacy in the concept of big vs. small government. More or less doesn’t determine outcomes. What’s needed is BETTER, WISER government, people in place who can and will make correct decisions. Sometimes that requires more people and resources, and sometimes it’s better handled with less. It depends on the specific problem under consideration.
I respect your position on government. If one believes in government I think you may be correct. For me, I am an anarcho-capitalist–I believe government really exists to grant privileges to one group over the other and pretend to offer legitimate services in order to get the people’s buy-in; I believe that the legitimate political, social and security functions government performs could be provided by non-coercive organizations. My preference for Republicans (who I will never vote for–I only vote Libertarian) to champion constitutional principles rather than compromise them is that at least that approach recognizes the rights-based, law-based arguments for government. Also, regarding Romney, I doubt he’s killed anyone himself or by proxy yet – that would probably have changed for him on inauguration day. (Who even wants to be in the position to feel compelled to do that?)
I’m not so sure the Republicans so much betayed us as much as they showed us who they really are. There really is no real difference other than on a couple of social issues. I agree with you about hoping Democrats show their true colors (hopefully the sheople will see it this time around), but it seems like you are really hoping Republicans will suddenly wake up and realize they were wrong about electability and everything else. They are who they are, agents of the military industrial complex and the world banks. I don’t think they will ever change.
I love your ideas, and I love that you give people like us who view liberty a voice.
Keep it up!
I think you might have misunderstood Romney’s position on finances. It was most clearly laid out in NO APOLOGY. Our economy would have benefited from a balanced budget and a balanced budget ammendment–both things Romney was committed and capable of providing. Romney was willing to tackle entitlements–the biggest cause of our budget woes–by moving towards a position of voluntary removal. Removal of government control.
Obama is moving the opposite direction.
Romney spent decades balancing budgets in business and government. If he said he was going to balance, he was going to balance. That’s what he proved in Mass.
We missed a fundamental shift in Federal economic policy when he lost.
Our rights would have benefited from a removal of Obamacare. Some may point to Romneycare and claim it was the same. It was not. NO APOLOGY laid out exactly how much he believed in free-market health care and the state’s right to choose.
He was certainly no anarcho-capitalist. But he would have reduced the size and scope of government.
His win would have given more political power to the folks the Tea Party put in congress in 2010. His win would have elevated and validated their ideas. It would have given them more political muscle to get some of them implemented.
He would have appointed more conservative judges.
It’s tempting to want all or nothing and hope for radical big swings in power, but we see, even with the 2010 elections, how rarely that happens in a nation of competing ideals and long-term government programs and bureaucracy.
A much better strategy is to take every inch of ground you can and then add to it. To keep moving in the right direction. To maintain momentum.
Using a football metaphor, the teams that win consistently don’t win games by basing their strategy on a hope for rare, game-revolution plays–an interception, on-side kick, safety, Hail Mary pass, etc.. They win football games by always pressing forward. 2 yards, 4 yards, 3 yards, 15, 2. We lost the ball in this election. The opposition is moving forward on us. It would have been far better to have kept the ball and moved down the field.
I would be more concerned with the htcaehalre bill and how it affects women.Why should women get free contraceptives? I believe in maximum freedom. I believe in limited government. I do not think it is right to force a company or an insurance provider or anyone for that matter to provide anything they do not wish to provide.I also believe that women have a 100% right to purchase contraceptives and use them. Nobody should take that away.However a far right religious organization, no matter how much you disagree with it, should also have the right to not provide these services (or any services) to those they employee.