Many with a libertarian bent will never forgive John McCain for his speech-muzzling "McCain-Feingold" law that served mainly to divert campaign financing dollars to even less visible pathways. Granted. But it's hard to argue with his recent call for the wayward GOP to return to limited government principles:
We were elected to reduce the size of government and enlarge the sphere of free and private initiative. We increased the size of government in the false hope that we could bribe the public into keeping us in office....
Americans had elected us to change government, and they rejected us because they believed government had changed us.
Such sentiments are particularly pertinent this week, as we mourn the loss of Milton Friedman, who shed light into the muck of left-liberal economic stagflation and showed how trusting people to make their own choices, rather than empowering government bureaucrats (and smug Ivy League elitists) to choose for them, leads to growth, prosperity and dynamism. Of course, many of us would also stress that freedom to choose for oneself extends beyond the marketplace and boardroom, and that limited government doesn't mean wielding state power to impose a moral regimen on the populace - lessons that social conservatives failed to grasp. (Friedman, himself, opposed the "war on drugs" and favored decriminalizing prostitution.)
Still, as congressional Democrats salivate at the thought of imposing their beloved price controls, wage schemes and trade barriers, Friedman's loss is most acutely felt.
22 Comments for “A Light Amidst the Darkness.”
posted by ETJB on
You certainly have the FOX NEWS/GOP buzzwords down pat.
How about applying your libertarian “choice” beliefs to our electoral system?
posted by dr on
John McCain- “I’m not a maverick, but I play one on TV.”
I’m really sick of the media doting on his every word. Wake me up when he votes his conscious, rather than just talks about it.
posted by Tim Cravens on
Not only did McCain help chip away at free speech, he also supported the (thankfully) defeated anti-gay amendment in Arizona that would have banned legal recognition of gay couples.
The Republican Party needs to return to its roots of limited government — but John McCain is certainly not the person to lead them in that task.
posted by Antaeus on
McCain says he can tells gay by our “demeanor”. But that’s not what bothers me (though I’m sure it bothers some of you.) It’s the fact that his father covered up the intentionality of the sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty in the Mediterranean Sea on June 6. 1966 by a fanatical Middle Eastern nuclear power that somehow is always just fighting for its “survival” and is simultaneously the darling of atheists liberals and Rapture Christianists. Can you possibly, possibly guess which one?
I have no doubt that Sr’s reward for treason rendered was the halo placed on the head of his legacy.
We can do better than this “Keating Five Reformer”.
posted by Randy R. on
Let’s see — a majority of Americans support the raising of the minimum wage, but this is a Democratic problem? And what Dem has called for price controls?
As for trade barriers, I am against them, and I know many Dems want to end outsourcing and so on, and I oppose that position. But let’s not forget that it was the Bush administration that supported and received trade barriers for US steel, attempted to get trade barriers installed against foreign car manufactureres, and it is the Bush Administration that seeks to limit the export of technology to China.
So let’s not buy all that Fox News crap and instead examine the real issues and positions by both sides, shall we?
posted by Raot on
Some gay people do behave in stereotypically gay ways, and I wouldn’t be surprised if John McCain were bright enough to be able to tell that these people are, in fact, gay. The suggestion certainly doesn’t bother me.
posted by raj on
Randy R. | November 17, 2006, 7:28pm |
And what Dem has called for price controls?
Richard Nixon? Oops, right, he was a Democrat in Republican garb–in sheep’s clothing. A RINO–a Republican
In Name Only.
As to the rest. Regarding elimination of trade barriers–barriers to free flow of goods–sorry, but free trade
in goods is only part of the issue. One also has to reduce or eliminate barriers to free movement of labor, and also
reduce or eliminate minimum cost differences. The EU got it partially right by reducing or eliminating free flow of
labor. They haven’t gotten it totally right, since there continues to be differences in regulations–costs–regarding
pollution, labor safety standards and the like, but they are decreasing them.
But let’s not forget that it was the Bush administration that supported and received trade barriers for US
steel…
And Canadian timber, and more than a few other types of goods from Canada. Canadians are livid about the fraud
that NAFTA turned out to be. Canadians have been seeking other markets for their products, as well they should
have.
…attempted to get trade barriers installed against foreign car manufactureres.
That is one reason why foreign-owned car manufacturers have set up assembly plants in the US or Mexico. They
ship parts to assembly plants in the US or Mexico, where they are assembled into finished automobiles. The import
duties on the parts are relatively low–substantially lower than the duties on the import of finished products. So the
parts are made abroad and shipped to the US or Mexico for assembly. Obviously, such an import duty regime
does nothing for the makers of parts who may be resident in the US–which are the relatively high-skilled part of the
operation–but awards the relatively low-skilled assembly part of the operation.
posted by raj on
On the subject matter of the post
(i) Some of us who have been sentient beings for a number of decades, and who are not just recovering lefties, know that the Republican mantra of “limited government” (whatever that means) is, and for at least the last 40 years been, just Public Relations talk for the masses while they raid the public treasury for their preferred constituents. Republicans aren’t particularly interested in “limited government,” and, as far as I can tell, never have been. It would be nice if Stevie would support his thesis, but he never does.
(ii) Such sentiments are particularly pertinent this week, as we mourn the loss of Milton Friedman, who shed light into the muck of left-liberal economic stagflation
Mourn him all you want. Some have a different view of his “legacy.” Milton Friedman: a study in failure. Note the last three paragraphs.
BTW, the “economic stagflation” that is referred to was a combination of incompetent conservative policies, including Nixon’s wage-and-price controls to stem inflation due to the (conservatives’) Vietnam war and Nixon’s taking the US off the gold standard. Government was the problem, just as it was in the early 1930s, during which the Federal Reserve exacerbated the recession that led to the Great Depression by raising interest rates and restricting the money supply to (!) combat inflation. Of course, the Fed was then controlled by Stevie’s beloved Republicans.
posted by Avee on
raj baby boobie, This week Democrat leaders called for price controls on drugs (plunging the value of pharma companies), raising the mandatory minimum wage, decreeing health benefits that private companies must provide, and blocking free trade agreements. Go haunt another site, boobie baby.
posted by Carl on
What kind of a maverick is McCain with the way he has fawned all over the Falwell brigade the past few years? He also supported a ban in Arizona on most or all legal contracts for gays.
posted by kittynboi on
He’s no maverick at all. McCain has shown himself to be nothing more than an oppurtunistic politician.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
People keep talking about the Republican roots in limited, small government and fiscal responsibility.
Could someone point out just two years in the past fifty where a Republican administration actually reduced government spending, year over year?
Oh sure, the GOP like to trot out in Libertarian drag every few months — right before passing the Patriot Act, or jacking up spending on Medicare prescription drugs, or starting a $400 billion (and counting) war, or launching some new absurd Constitutional amendment targeting gays or flagburners or some other unpopular minority. It’s going to be awfully hard for the Republicans to reclaim a “heritage” that they never had to begin with.
Republicans campaign like Libertarians and govern like Democrats, while Democrats campaign like liberals and govern like Republicans.
posted by dalea on
McCain has principles and a consience? Who knew?
posted by Greg A on
Avee states <>
Citation please. All I’ve heard about is their desire to allow Medicare to negotiate prices, not set them. But not being a news junkie I certainly could have missed something.
posted by raj on
Avee | November 18, 2006, 9:14am |
Echoing Greg, I’m sure that with the vast research resources that are available to you (Avee), you can provide a citation to your assertion that “[t]his week Democrat leaders called for price controls on drugs.”
posted by ETJB on
NPR had a story about the GOP today. Andrew Sullivan was the ‘libertarian’ conservative along With Ralp Reed and another gentleman.
One of the callers was a self-identifed fiscal conservative who is gay.
It was a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of the issues. I suspect that you can download it online.
posted by Kevin on
I have a hard time believing calls for \\”limited government\\” from someone who seems to find in the Constitution a federal power to investigate and regulate baseball and boxing. For McCain and many others in the GOP, \\”limited government\\” simply means \\”involvement in our objectives rather than Democratic objectives.\\” McCain will never get my vote, not even against Hillary. I\\’d Libertarian.
posted by Mark on
Mc Cain supports the biggest and worst government program of all: non-defensive war. More limited government BULLSHIT from the GOP.
posted by raj on
I’ve never understood the fascination with McCain. His only claim to fame was that he was shot down bombing over Vietnam.
On another matter, returning to the post, Stevie never ceases to amuse me:
Still, as congressional Democrats salivate at the thought of imposing their beloved price controls, wage schemes and trade barriers…
Apparently, Stevie is too young to remember that the last president who imposed wage and price controls was Richard Nixon–who, if memory serves, was a Republican. And the last president to increased trade barriers was–wonder of wonders–George W. Bush. I’m referring, of course, primarily to the increased tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber and steel, which were imposed in 2001 or 2002. And, if memory serves, George W. Bush is also a Republican.
I suppose that Stevie will soon be telling us that Nixon and Bush were really Democrats in Republican clothing.
posted by dalea on
Raj, maybe Stevie has been caught up in the horrible ‘gay world’ and taken too many drugs. This would explain his disconnect from reality. We maybe should organize a gay intervention to rescue him.
How many posters here would be willing to help rescue Stevie?
posted by ETJB on
Can it be a really, really “fablous” intervention?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the last president who imposed wage and price controls was Richard Nixon–who, if memory serves, was a Republican. And the last president to increased trade barriers was–wonder of wonders–George W. Bush.
Yep. And Ronnie Reagan, who the GOP always present as a patron saint of the free market, was an active supporter and promoter of trade barriers limiting importation of Japanese automobiles to bail out the Big 3 (who kept producing junk thanks to the protected market).