Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Libertarians Should Hope for Clinton Versus Bush in 2016
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/archives/2015/05/10/clinton-versus-bush-in-2016
Published: May 10, 2015
Author: Sheldon Richman
Post Date: 2015-05-10 11:30:46 by Hondo68
Ping List: *The Two Parties ARE the Same* Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Keywords: obviously opportunistic, void of principle, delusive phantom of hope
Views: 5801
Comments: 23
The more I think about the coming presidential election—it’s not unreasonable to ask why I think about it at all—the more I am convinced that the best contest for libertarians would be Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush. Why? Because all we libertarians would need to do is point to the ballot and ask, "Here’s our argument against politics. Need we add anything?" What could better illustrate the bankruptcy of the political system than that race? What better way could there be for us to capitalize on the presumed disillusionment, especially among young people, with the Obama years? You wanted hope and change? Here’s what it got you. The stale politics personified by these two uninteresting, dynastic power-seekers couldn’t be better suited to driving home our point that the status quo is too firmly entrenched to be challenged effectively from within. I’m not saying that’s a timeless law of nature, but it seems to be the case at present. If someone knows a way to change that quickly, please let us know. A Clinton v. Bush contest would have all the excitement of a snail race. Again, that’s good for the advocates of liberty. Is anyone really going to be excited about these two? I guess a few people will think having a woman elected president is worth any cost. But really—Hillary Clinton? She’s so obviously opportunistic and void of principle, so ready to say whatever she needs to say to assemble a winning coalition. When she tries to sound like a progressive, I feel I’m watching a Saturday Night Live sketch. She has none of her husband’s ability to feign sincerity. Does anyone really believe what she says? I think the only honest statement that could come from her would be, "I want power. Now!" And Jeb Bush—I can barely conjure up a mental image of him; that’s how memorable he is. What does he believe in? It’s a silly question. He believes he ought to be president. I realize the bar is low, but the other candidates in the race would be more interesting, even if in a screwball way. Bernie Sanders against Rand Paul would have more spectator value—maybe. It would depend on which Rand Paul we got. Rand Paul in an anti-interventionist mood, tearing into the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president for perpetual war and execution by drone without due process (with Americans among the victims), would be a welcome sight. But the pressure of coalition politics will keep that Rand Paul under wraps, even if a hint is dropped now and again. No wonder his father looked despondent at the campaign kickoff. On the Democratic side, I fear we won’t get 100-proof Sanders. He is in a position to go after Clinton from the left on both foreign and domestic policy, but indications are that he will confine his assault to the domestic side. I’d love to see him spell out Clinton’s record of support for war—she helped make Libya, Syria, and beyond the disasters they are today—and her suspicious reticence about the civil-liberties violations committed by the Obama administration. [She was willing to criticize George W. Bush on that count.] But what if Sanders calculates that the public doesn’t care enough about foreign policy or surveillance, and instead focuses entirely on economic issues, where from a libertarian perspective he’s a mess? That would be a shame because Clinton should be seen for the hawk she is. She is vulnerable on the domestic side, of course: her notorious ties to Wall Street are juicy targets for someone like Sanders, and she deserves to have this dirty linen put on full display. But Sanders is boxed in by his modest—yes, modest—agenda, which calls merely for more regulation by Washington bureaucrats rather than a radical elimination of the deeply rooted government privilege that characterizes the American political economy. [Markets do regulate themselves when privilege is absent.] He seems unfamiliar with the principle of regulatory capture. How many failures of "reform" must we experience before people like Sanders finally get the point? Sadly, a great opportunity will be lost to teach Americans that the problem is the corporate state—the long-standing government-business alliance—and that the solution is the radically freed market, not better regulators. We can empower bureaucrats or liberate people. It’s not really a tough choice. I suppose Rand Paul would make "crony capitalism" part of his campaign too, but we can’t expect him to propose a thorough rooting out of corporatism. Further, since he supports increased military spending, he encourages expansion of the trough at which major corporations feed. So at best his message would be murky and uninstructive. Another opportunity forgone. So I’m leaning toward the position I opened with. Let’s have the two stalest, most forgettable people imaginable run for president in 2016. Suffering through that race will either convince people that needed radical change won’t come from the electoral system, or if that is too much to swallow, it will convince them that the candidate gatekeepers must be exiled so that fresh thinking—read: libertarian ideas—can have a shot for a change. Wouldn’t a few months of Clinton and Bush be worth it?
Poster Comment: The "anybody but x" crowd is already looking for candidates worse than Jeb or Hillary. Maybe Donald Trump and Rachel Maddow?
DonkeyHotey/Flickr 
DonkeyHotey/Flickr
Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Silly superfical writing.
That sums it up better than any thousand word speech. It's a damn shame more people can't understand that simple concept.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
True. He was probably assigned to write "x" number of words on a Bush-Clinton match up,but he did make one excellent point that I quoted. Besides,since all we ever get any more are superficial candidates,superficial writing is about all we can expect.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
That's because the Libertarian Party is closer to the libtard party than a Conservative party. That's why our radical libertarians spend more time picking on the (R)'s than the (D)'s. It's the main reason why I registered independent... I can't get past the narcotic loving, criminal sympathetic libtard crowd... that would rather cut their tongue out than post an article that demonizes welfare.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I'd like to see you cite an article, - posted by any libertarian at LF, --- that instead of 'demonizing welfare', supports welfare. Can you?
Neither one will be nominated. -- I'm predicting that no one who has presently announced, will be chosen. -- And I'm guessing that both parties will eventually choose candidates with libertarian leanings.
Show me one article you've posted that specifically demonizes welfare... just one. Ops... You can't. I rest my case.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
You have your ideas on back-asswards. The Libertarian party is for de-centralization of government unlike liberals otherwise known as the Democratic/Republican Party. Republicans are closer to to Libertarians because they say they value individual freedoms and decentralization of government. The "Rs" are just giving lip service and show their outright indignation about individual liberties and freedoms, hence they are picked on for their hypocrisy. What do you care if someone enjoys a dubie in the confines of their own home?
I'd like to see you cite an article, - posted by any libertarian at LF, --- that instead of 'demonizing welfare', supports welfare. Can you? Your space case? Over the last 15 years of posting here, LP and FR, my opposition to welfare statism is well established. So is your support for big brother type statism. -- I rest MY case.
15 years of opposition, and you can't post one example? Sounds like SPIN. Post one example... Just one article over 15 years, that SPECIFICALLY demonizes welfare. You still can't. Dont post back without a cut and pasted example.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
5.0 WELFARE 5.1 The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government. 5.2 All able-bodied Americans have the responsibility to support themselves and their families.
Nice try... but you aren't Jim Robinson Moreover, all your responses were not standard tpaine hate. You're so disingenuous, that you use an example from a site I don't use and you post an article posted by someone other than you. Admit it... you love welfare compared to LE... it doesn't seem to bother you much. lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
It's rather interrsting that you supposedly hate government so much... but never found the ambition to post ONE article demonizing welfare, specifically. You are inconsistent. You either just hate cops... or you're a libtard. Which is it? Time to confess
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
5.1 The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government. 5.2 All able-bodied Americans have the responsibility to support themselves and their families. To: Jim Robinson Well done, thanks. - I would vote for any republican that would swear to honor these positions, and who would vote against any legislation that would circumvent them. - - Are there any in California? 2 posted on 7/24/2002, 4:26:24 PM by tpaine
You're quite demented about this subject. Why should I post articles demonizing welfare, when it doesn't particularly interest me? -- What interests me is big brother socialistic clowns like you, who are in the closet about your fascistic tendencies. PS... I don't hate govt, cops, or you. You're amusing, and the other two are necessary nuisances.
It's a damn shame more people can't understand that simple concept. Yep, that which you quoted jumped out at me as well.
Maybe here, because 90% of the attacks by Yukers butt boy are against liberty. You NEVER see that particular scumbag attack anything but other posters who believe the government has way too much input and control over everyone's daily life.
It doesn't interest KILLary Klinton either.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
And I am guessing you need to get to a doctor for a checkup.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Some things are so obvious they don't have to be pointed out to most people. Then again,you are a product of your environment,and thinking for yourself was punished instead of rewarded. Welfare is NOT the business of governemtnt. it is the business of organized religions,charities, and individuals. Most people,even those who don't like it,understand this to be true without having to be told.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I'd like to see you cite an article, - posted by any libertarian at LF, --- that instead of 'demonizing welfare', supports welfare. I'd bet that after his many years of posting, grandisland can not show us one time he posted an article demonizing ANY govt program. Is it important to him to be a fellow traveling sycophant? -- You bet...
Your line reminded me of a discussion from years ago, at FR: --- --- I grew up in the midwest at the tail end of the city or county 'poor farm' system. It was a blend of a private & local government safety net system, developed before social security. If you were broke & homeless, and displayed it, -- you had the option of moving on, - or going to the poor farm to work at caring for the counties infirm & elderly indigents. - You were not allowed to wander the streets as a beggar. The governments involved provided the land & infrastucture, but the 'inmates' and private charities did the rest. -- It DID work fairly well, if memory serves. Although I'm sure the system was overwhelmed by the depression, and then killed by various welfare schemes. 75 posted on 3/21/2002, 1:59:04 PM by tpaine
It was killed by organized religion protecting their turf and their access to the federal and state treasuries. After all,how can they continue to get multi-million dollar contracts to provide charity to the needy if some evil bastards are willing to do it for free?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
We can empower bureaucrats or liberate people. It’s not really a tough choice.
#3. To: rlk (#1)
Silly superfical writing.
#4. To: All (#0)
Libertarians Should Hope for Clinton Versus Bush in 2016 Source
#5. To: GrandIsland (#4)
I can't get past the narcotic loving, criminal sympathetic libtard crowd... that would rather cut their tongue out than post an article that demonizes welfare.
#6. To: hondo68 (#0)
A Clinton v. Bush contest would have all the excitement of a snail race
#7. To: tpaine (#5)
I'd like to see you cite an article, - posted by any libertarian at LF, --- that instead of 'demonizing welfare', supports welfare.
#8. To: GrandIsland (#4)
That's because the Libertarian Party is closer to the libtard party than a Conservative party.
That's why our radical libertarians spend more time picking on the (R)'s than the (D)'s.
It's the main reason why I registered independent... I can't get past the narcotic loving, criminal sympathetic libtard crowd... that would rather cut their tongue out than post an article that demonizes welfare.
#9. To: GrandIsland (#7)
I can't get past the narcotic loving, criminal sympathetic libtard crowd... that would rather cut their tongue out than post an article that demonizes welfare.
Show me one article you've posted that specifically demonizes welfare... just one. Ops... You can't. --- I rest my case.
#10. To: tpaine (#9)
Over the last 15 years of posting here, LP and FR, my opposition to welfare statism is well established
#11. To: GrandIsland (#10)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts
#12. To: tpaine (#11)
Posted on July 24, 2002 at 6:47:01 PM EDT by Jim Robinson
#13. To: tpaine (#11)
#14. To: All, grandiose (#11)
5.0 WELFARE
#15. To: GrandIsland (#13)
Nice try... but you aren't Jim Robinson Moreover, all your responses were not standard tpaine hate. You're so disingenuous, that you use an example from a site I don't use and you post an article posted by someone other than you. Admit it... you love welfare compared to LE... it doesn't seem to bother you much. lol It's rather interrsting that you supposedly hate government so much... but never found the ambition to post ONE article demonizing welfare, specifically. You are inconsistent. You either just hate cops... or you're a libtard. Which is it? Time to confess
#16. To: sneakypete (#2)
To: hondo68 We can empower bureaucrats or liberate people. It’s not really a tough choice. That sums it up better than any thousand word speech.
#17. To: GrandIsland, Gatlin, Yukers special friend (#4)
That's because the Libertarian Party is closer to the libtard party than a Conservative party. That's why our radical libertarians spend more time picking on the (R)'s than the (D)'s.
#18. To: tpaine (#15)
Why should I post articles demonizing welfare, when it doesn't particularly interest me? -- What interests me
#19. To: tpaine (#6)
And I'm guessing that both parties will eventually choose candidates with libertarian leanings.
#20. To: GrandIsland (#13)
It's rather interrsting that you supposedly hate government so much... but never found the ambition to post ONE article demonizing welfare, specifically.
#21. To: Y'ALL, grandisland, govt sycophant (#7)
Show me one article you've posted that specifically demonizes welfare..
#22. To: sneakypete (#20)
Welfare is NOT the business of governemtnt. it is the business of organized religions,charities, and individuals.
#23. To: tpaine (#22)
Although I'm sure the system was overwhelmed by the depression, and then killed by various welfare schemes.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]