|
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Thursday, 04 February 2010 00:00 |
|
Clearly, the Democrats and their policies are unpopular. But what is the alternative? For what can you vote, when you go into the ballot box? Republicans are the party of nothing, even now. If Republicans took over tomorrow, most of them would be the same people who ran the show before. Republicans are not the party of limited government, in the Jeffersonian sense, nor even the party of smaller government. Look at George W. Bush's eight years in office with a Republican Congress. They grew the government at the rate of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the biggest liberal Democrat in history up to that point; this gave Democrats the ability, once regaining power, to grow the government to Soviet Union levels. Thank you, Republicans.
Republicans have been, and presumably still are, the party of a slightly slower growth of government than the Democrats. What this means in practice: Republicans will tax, spend, borrow and regulate what's left of the private economy at a slightly slower rate than did Democrats. It's the bare minimum they can get away with, is all. When government interventionism fails, this allows liberal Democrats to run for office claiming, "See? I told you so. Limited government doesn't work. Republican philosophy is a failed philosophy." What philosophy? What is a Republican? It's clear what Democrats stand for, both in words and action. What is a Republican other than Democrat-lite?
In fact, it's big government that isn't right and therefore doesn't work--whether run by Democrats or Republicans. It's heartening to see Obama and the Democrats collapsing so much quicker than expected. But to what end? What will replace them, if they do lose office in a year or two? Look at the Republicans in the Senate, and elsewhere, and judge for yourself if you think their policies will be substantially different from what came before them and what they themselves were doing just a few years before. Democrats are admittedly so bad, so liberal, so extreme in the fullest socialist-fascist sense of that term--like nothing yet seen in American history--that conventional Republicans do seem better by comparison. Obama and Pelosi have indeed done the impossible: Make George W. Bush seem not so toxic. Yes, it's true that most Republicans will not read terrorists and war criminals their Miranda rights, and allow them to plea out of their crimes as if they were purse-snatchers. But is that how low we have come in America: to elevate foolishness to the status of solution as the only alternative to outright insanity?
Democrats offer the politics of something--something perfectly awful and horrendous that will, before long, bring America down once and for all. Republicans offer, and have offered all along, the politics of nothing. No wonder Americans keep crying out for change. If liberals are thrown out of office in mass numbers, it remains to be seen if limited government--in the original Constitutional sense--is what we will get. |
|
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Sunday, 31 January 2010 00:00 |
Governments who already have ownership of your wallet eventually will want control of your voice and your mind; it's not a question of if -- but when. |
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Friday, 29 January 2010 00:00 |
|
"Barack Obama is 48-years-old, a 'young' president. But in a sense, he is an OLD 48-year-old. The House leadership, the committee chairmen leading his agenda, are old guys from the 1960s and '70s. The so-called progressive Democrats who make up his core base are essentially a labor movement stuck in a one-size-fits everything industrial model from the 1930s." (Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal, 1-28-10)
This is what I mean when I refer to "the 30 percent." 30 percent of voters will vote for Obama -- and someone else just as socialist -- no matter what. Probably another 30 percent would never vote that way; they are either pro-capitalist, pro-individual rights or at least vaguely Republican. The 40 percent who are uncommitted literally go back and forth, almost every election. Some of this 40 percent are pro-individual rights and are therefore disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats (although ferociously liberal Democrats, like we have in office now, drive them back to Republicans soon enough). Most of the 40 percent are simply looking for something different. They know it's not more of the Bush socialism-lite we had for 8 years under Republican control. But they're clearly not looking for "Socialism: The Real Thing," either. This means the next stage is for a political movement to develop that is not merely "moderate" but decisively in one direction or the other. Obama is trying to make that movement socialism and fascism, of the left. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't sell too well in America. So what's next? A return to Bush-style socialism-lite, or something truly different?
Do you enjoy The Daily Dose of Reason? Do you crave for more in-depth articles on every subject imaginable? Then check out The Living Resources Newsletter here! |
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Tuesday, 26 January 2010 00:00 |
I saw a headline that the Obama Administration rewarded a government contract to a political supporter. To me, the real headline is that this is even news at all. What do people expect? The primary job of government as we know it is for government to redistribute wealth. All the politicians know it. Most are sly and disingenuous about it. But Obama was frank and open about it. Right before he was elected he made the comment that the purpose of government is to "spread the wealth around." Everybody knew this going in, but most voted for him anyway. And now they're surprised that he awards the plunder to those who supported him? This is the insanity of America. Obama did not let America down. He's just another lightweight who never could have made a living much any other way. In the age of liberty and individual rights, Obama never would have been President. In the age of redistribution this is the sort of leader you get -- this one, the last one and the one before that. The people who vote for these creeps, actually thinking you can change the nature of plunder and legalized theft, are the ones who brought America down. America is learning that you cannot change leaders to get change. You must change the nature of government and what it does. That would be change. |
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Monday, 25 January 2010 00:00 |
Politicians fight over whether to keep or fire the current Federal Reserve Chairman. At issue is whether he has done a "good job." What exactly constitutes a "good" or "bad" job as Federal Reserve Chairman? The Federal Reserve interferes in the operation of a private economy, usually creating problems in the short-run and always creating problems in the long-run. The Federal Reserve is based on politics, not economics. No government entity will ever act more rationally or competently than free, responsible individuals will act on their own behalf in an unregulated marketplace. Sooner or later every Federal Reserve policy is a bad thing if not a disaster. Consider the Great Depression, caused in large part by manipulation of the currency by the Federal Reserve. Consider the inflation of the 1970s caused by the Federal Reserve's choice to inflate the supply of currency so politicians could spend as they wished. Consider the current Great Recession, triggered largely by a prior Federal Reserve Chairman's manipulation of the interest rate, leading to the collapse of the housing market and all that followed. The dispute should not be over whether Greenspan, Bernanke or the "chairman du jour" is or isn't a "good" Federal Reserve Chairman. The debate should be over why we even have a Federal Reserve at all. |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 43 of 84 |