RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Collapse of the Loyal Opposition

Tuesday
June 28, 2005

Collapse of the Loyal Opposition by James Kilbourne

The Democratic Party haven’t been a loyal opposition in some time. Since the Vietnam War, they have broken the tradition of a bipartisan international agenda, and have moved further away from the political mainstream with each decade. They have become a motley band of mostly self-serving special interests. They consistently put their own political survival over the wellbeing of their country. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (69 messages)

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:15pm

James Heaps-Nelson wrote:

"Being this is a site that celebrates the philosophy of Ayn Rand, I wonder what her thoughts would have been about Dubya (hint:I don't think she would've had kind words to say about him). Seriously, the presidents that come to mind when I think about Dubya are: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson. Now, tell me how his policies are dissimilar from theirs."

Considering how important religion was to Rand, in regard to Presidential politics, I think she would have been ambivalent about Bush. She would have definitely dissed him in regard to his Fundamentalism and his stands on abortion and stem cell research, in particular -- but she would probably have given him kudos for standing up to the Islamic Fundamentalists. Her problem with the latter, if any, would have been Bush's not pursuing them hard enough, not only in the Iraq war itself, but also in regard to Iran. (Also, I think that these issues would have greatly overshadowed any thoughts she might have had about Bush's economic policies.)

As for comparisons between WW, FDR, LBJ, and Bush, I think the two main ones that stand out domestically are taxes and Social Security. The others all favored higher taxes (didn't they?), while Bush has pushed relentlessly for tax cuts. His approach would have ended the Great Depression years before FDR's chestnuts were pulled from the fire by the economic buildup during World War II. FDR and LBJ were enthusiastic proponents of Social Security in the present communistic form (from each according to his ability to each according to his need), and WW would probably have been -- while Bush wants to move in the direction of private ownership of one's retirement savings. (It could be argued that the coercive elements that would remain amount to not true ownership, but instead a turn toward fascism. This is true of any government program that seeks to allow individual choices within an overall structure of compulsion. Obviously, abolishing Social Security root and branch would be the ideal solution -- but the best realistic solution is apparently a move toward compulsory, government-regulated, private retirement accounts.)

In terms of foreign policy, some might argue that all four of these Presidents lied in order to get us into wars that they wanted. I'm not going to explore that point, just to acknowledge that it is one of the chief critiques by Libertarians of wartime Presidents, and that they do not seem any shyer in applying it to Bush than they were to the other three, in contrast to the Liberals who think that only Bush lied and that the other three (liberal Democratic Presidents, of course) were pure as the driven snow. I'm also not going to explore whether our foreign policy brought about the events that made this war seem desirable to this Administration, and in particular whether 9-11 was "caused" by radical Islamic outrage over the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in order to contain Saddam Hussein. I will say this: I trust and respect President Bush's character and courage in directing this war and our economy more than I would have John Kerry or Albert Gore or any of the above-named former Presidents. He's not perfect, but he's doing a better job than they would have -- and better than anyone expected him to five years ago.

Best to all,
Roger Bissell

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:18pm

Jeff Riggenbach, wrote: "Roger Bissell professes himself unable to grasp the meaning of Rich Engle's statement that GWB 'wouldn't have enjoyed the ivy league education he had were he not a Bush.'

"I can't speak for Rich, of course, but to me his meaning seems crystal clear: An academic mediocrity like Bush would never have even had a shot at getting into a place like Yale or Harvard had his name not been Bush."

Well, that's false on the face of it. Kerry, too, was an "academic mediocrity," and he, too, got into Yale -- and his name was definitely not Bush!

Roger Bissell

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:21pm

James writes:

Bush has changed EVERYTHING, starting with actually responding to a terrorist attack,

It is reasonable to assume that Gore would have also supported the Afghanistan invasion in the wake of 9-11. NO president prior to 9-11 (Dubya included) would have responded with regime change invasions based on an embassy bombing here and there. Iraq would have been a different story, so I'll give you that.

continuing with his refusal to deal with Arafat and actually identifying him for what he was- a terrorist,

You're probably right on this

then championing a Palestinian State

Do you view this is a positive development? Many Objectivists don't.

winning a war in Afghanistan in weeks ( the Soviets took years, and lost it)

Do you really think that Afghanistan is a closed book, James? Outside of its two largest cities, Afghanistan is largely run by warlords with whom we've cut deals. bin Laden is still believed to be roaming freely in that country as well.

establishing a fledgling Democracy in Iraq

When the war was sold on the WMD argument.

As for further evidence of dishonesty, what do you make of the Downing Street Memo, James?

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 7:16pm

Roger Bissell brings up a profound point ...

---------------
(It could be argued that the coercive elements that would remain amount to not true ownership, but instead a turn toward fascism. This is true of any government program that seeks to allow individual choices within an overall structure of compulsion. Obviously, abolishing Social Security root and branch would be the ideal solution -- but the best realistic solution is apparently a move toward compulsory, government-regulated, private retirement accounts.)
---------------

If the implications of the above hold true (that we're stuck in "an overall structure of compulsion" where "to allow individual choices" amounts to Fascism), then I will have to rethink my position -- and, perhaps, become a damn neo-Con myself! I am not kidding here.

The People: "But Ed, you have been either the 4th or 5th most-staunch critic of the neo-Cons -- here at SOLO!"

Ed: "I know, I know ... I even came up with that aphorism: Machiavello-NeoCon-Straussian. But if the only way out of Communism is through Fascism (as the reasoning above implies), then I may have to strike a deal with the devil and feed a crocodile here -- and hope I don't get eaten."

This subtle argument requires much thought. Premises include:

1) We are STUCK in an overall structure of compulsion

2) Abolishing compulsion is ideal, but not realistic

3) Mixed Economies necessarily evolve into totalitarian regimes

4) Allowing individual choices in a mixed economy is tantamount to Fascism

5) Fascism is preferable to Communism (as a totalitarian regime)
------------------------------
Therefore, we must take the best points of the past examples of Fascism (e.g. Italy and Germany) and try like hell to leave out the bad points (those leading to genocide, etc).

As I said, this argument requires much thought. I will be giving it more thought later. Any comments from others (in the meantime) would be emphatically welcomed.

Ed

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 7:27pm

Quoth James Kilbourne:

-----
Tom- I do know who appointed which Supreme Court justices. I should have been more precise in what I said. The Supreme Court is, in my opinion, made up of three basic groups today; conservatives, moderate conservatives, and moderate liberals. My reference to the Bush judges being on the losing side of the eminent domain issue was meant philosophically. When pressed as to which judges he most admired in the 2000 election, Bush named Scalia and Thomas, the two most conservative judges on the court. All of his picks for judges since then are consistent with this philosophy. I think that there can be little doubt that if a Supreme Court where made up totally of Bush appointees, the vote would have been nine to nothing against this majority ruling.
-----

Okay, I see where you are coming from. I disagree, but your argument is not unreasonable. I guess we'll see the quality of his Supreme Court appointments when and if he makes any.

Regards,
Tom

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 7:33pm

After reading Ed Thompson's post, I think I should clarify what I mean by "realistic." I hold the abolition of Social Security as the ideal and as my own long-term goal, realizing that its abolition cannot realistically be achieved in the short-term. My short-term goal is to support privately "owned" retirement accounts as the best realistic reform of Social Security -- while continuing to call for its complete abolition.

I hope it's clear that by "realistic," I do not mean what is metaphysically (i.e., in the nature of reality) right for human beings. All coercive policies are anti-man and thus anti-reality. I am speaking strictly within the context of what is politically possible, and thus "realistic."

I do think that increasing the number of examples of even partial ownership (from what used to be publicly owned enterprises and programs) serves a very important function in educating people that freedom works. But that is only a secondary goal. The most important thing is to continue to argue that freedom is moral and right for people. That means arguing against both communism and fascism on moral grounds, and that those grounds trump the fact that fascism "works" better than communism.

Roger Bissell

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 8:30pm

A good response, Roger.

Though it still leaves those lesser politically-connected -- with a crocodile to feed. A crocodile which we plan to shoot someday; when it becomes "politically possible" to do so.

Reisman has a Social Security phase-out plan that is logically possible, though making it politically possible requires cultural progress (of which SOLO is a world leader).

Do not underestimate the powers of the SOLO side, Lord Bissell!

Ed

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 8:56pm

Just a quick note: It is dangerous to think for Ayn Rand, but I think she would have hated Bush on the religion question alone, just as she hated Reagan on the abortion issue alone. She would have been wrong again.
Actually, she disliked all the Presidents except Ford since she came to America, as far as I have discovered.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:52pm

John Kerry got into Yale (and into the expensive prep schools he and GWB both attended) in exactly the same way GWB did -- by having the right name. His father was a career foreign service officer, slurping at the public trough and using what Francisco d'Anconia called "the aristocracy of pull" to benefit his no-talent son.

JR

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:32pm

James,

Well, you did it. I have been calling the USA bipartisan system the Demopublican Party for years (I think the phrase was coined by Robert Ringer - I know he used it a lot.)

As much as I don't like to think about these two parties, there is no out if I am to live in the USA now. Thanks for pushing me. I found your analysis very perceptive.

The only real issue of essence where I can see that could undermine some of your conclusions is the medium-to-long term results of the Patriot Act, including the growth/entrenchment of new government powers. That makes me really uneasy.

Michael

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:41pm

Michael Stuart Kelley wrote: "I have been calling the USA bipartisan system the Demopublican Party for years (I think the phrase was coined by Robert Ringer - I know he used it a lot.)"

Michael, when I'm feeling lazy, I refer to them as the "Republicrat Party." One less syllable and one less letter. :-) Whatever you call them, though, the fact remains that we are screwed, and not in a good way!

When we are finally in a position to "shoot the crocodile," as Ed Thompson so colorfully puts it, I will be happy to help out, regardless of which wing of the party is holding the crocodile's leash.

REB

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 2:06pm

James-

Maybe I was ranting. Not always a bad thing. The core of it was not an argument, but a question. Why support this administration, given the giant pile of doo-doo that I ranted up into a pile and presented to you? I wasn't exaggerating, that was all real stuff, no? How much is enough? I can't support an anti-homosexual, anti-woman's choice administration, and I am neither a homosexual nor a woman. I am a, uh... "religionist" who can't support this imbedded Fundamentalist right wing. I Those things are fundamental freedoms. And those are just two things! What's the goodness- a more fiscally responsible economic policy? Is that possible? I don't think so, not at the moment- it's not working. And even if it were, would that be enough to offset the other things? I'm seeing lying, and sanctioned corporate violations (Halliburton- 100 MM in potential overcharges to the government).

I don't see, at the moment, many redeeming qualities in either the dems or the repubs.

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 7:07pm

A few more thoughts:
Pete- Gore may have responded to the attacks, but I bet he would have backed off pretty soon. What impresses me about Bush is how quickly he grasped the essentials of how things changed on 9/11, how completely he identified what needed to be done in the short-range and the long-range, how perfectly he expressed it on his 9/20 speech to Congress, and how consistently he has remained to his plan. I think he had the whole thing solved in the seven minutes he remained in front of the school children on 9/11 while the Democrats were thinking up stupid George jokes.

In context, I think a Palestinian state is a reasonable risk to take to solve the problem; at least it has restarted the political process needed.

There is lots more to do in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the whole middle east. What Bush has done is to get this century off to a great start in actually solving the problems. The Downing Street Memo shows that Bush was ahead of people in realizing the problem of Iraq and ahead of other people in planning possibilities to do something about it. It is NOT a predetermined certainty of of an Iraq war, which the manipulators are trying to make it.

Tom- we are now going to see the quality of Supreme Court justices Bush nominates.

Ed and Roger- there are many plans for solving the social security mess that are better than Bush's, and I am sure Bush would agree. But even his was too much for everybody right now. I predict he won't give up; I predict he will get some change for the better that has a chance of proving the point and leading over the next century to a private solution. I'll be back next century to say I told you so.

Michael- thanks for your comments. I confess to not having read the Patriot Act, but have been told by a good friend who is a lawyer and as libertarian as I am that the war against it is unqualified bullshit. He says it isn't dangerous, but could use a few tweaks. I realize this is only a good answer for me because I know him so well, so I only offer it here to admit that I personally have accepted it as a lazy shortcut to reading up on it.

Rich - I failed to get across that I do not accept the pile of doo doo presented as even close to true. I am a homosexual and a woman ( oops, that's right. I cancelled that operation. ) ..and I don't much care for the Fundamentalist movement; I DO cringe on some of his stuff in this area...
You think Bush is economically irresponsible? You wouldn't believe the REALISTIC political alternatives in America to him today. If you did, you'd kiss his shoes.
The Halliburton story, to the small degree it is true, is a part of a problem of public spending and not so much corruption. I think they are a pretty great company, basically.

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 8:11pm

--------------
I am a homosexual and a woman ( oops, that's right. I cancelled that operation. )
--------------

ROTFLMAO!!!

[this is the first time I've used this acronym, James -- and, believe me, in this instance, it had to be done!]

Ed

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 8:22pm

James, while I still disagree with you "on content," I absolutely adore you "on method" (if only I were 5-10 years older -- and gay -- I would seek you out as a potential soulmate).

You have such a wonderful ability to spot all that is good -- and, though I'd argue that this has produced an overly-optimistic bias in you, your intentions are unquestionably value-seeking.

You have such a great spirit, James -- and, whether I agree with you or not, I do respect you immensely. You are authentic.

Ed

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 10:33pm

Well, Ed. If I had had that operation and I were the same age I am now, I chase you all over the lot, too!
Seriously, thank you. That is an amazingly generous post and I am truly honored by it. I will confess that too much optimism has been my near downfall often. I have tried to correct this flaw by becoming more attentive to negative possibilities, but some of my friends would agree with you that I have further work to do here

Okay......... I'm an optimist.....what is ROTFLMAO?

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 3:30am

"Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My Ass Off"

:-)

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 5:54am

Ed wrote:

You have such a wonderful ability to spot all that is good -- and, though I'd argue that this has produced an overly-optimistic bias in you, your intentions are unquestionably value-seeking.

You have such a great spirit, James -- and, whether I agree with you or not, I do respect you immensely. You are authentic.

I second all of the above - except for the word "overly"! Never change, James, for we love you exactly as you are. James Kilbourne - the most radiant of men!

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 6:33am

Ed Thompson wrote to James Kilbourne:

You have such a wonderful ability to spot all that is good -- and, though I'd argue that this has produced an overly-optimistic bias in you, your intentions are unquestionably value-seeking.

You have such a great spirit, James -- and, whether I agree with you or not, I do respect you immensely. You are authentic.

Derek McGovern commented: "I second all of the above - except for the word "overly"! Never change, James, for we love you exactly as you are. James Kilbourne - the most radiant of men!"

I agree. In recent history, we have seen very good things happen as the result of intransigent optimism -- e.g., Reagan's tax cut policies and his pressure on the Soviet Union and its subsequent breakup. I suspect history will record similar advances for liberty as the result of GWB's similar tax and foreign policies. Not bad for two men regarded by some as being "dumb as a post"!

So, stay the course, James. Keep looking to hills. Etc. You are a presence for good in the world and on SOLO.

Best to all,
Roger Bissell

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 9:41am

I am very grateful and taken somewhat aback by the depth of your compliments, gentlemen. Your words inspire me to increase my efforts to live up to them.