Lucille
11-27-2008, 09:56 AM
Does the Libertarian party still matter?
Traditionally opposed to government interventionism, libertarians are at a loss about how to respond to the economic crisis (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/26/libertarian-party-us-economy)
"People are asking: What in God's name is happening to our economic structure and the economic underpinnings of our country?" he said. "How have we gotten to this point where trillions of dollars are being absolutely squandered, both currently and prospectively, on 'bail-outs' that we know aren't going to work?"
Barr was the Libertarian party's 2008 candidate for president. He entered the race in May, after trying to coax Republican iconoclast Ron Paul out of his quixotic bid against John McCain and into the small-government third party. Paul spent $35m and Barr spent $1.2m on nationwide campaigns that warned Americans that government had grown too large and invasive, that the Federal Reserve had overcooked the economy and that inflation was risking America's superpower status.
In September, the warnings of Paul and Barr seemed to come true. An economic crisis that started with the subprime market meltdown has not been slowed, in their view or in the views of most people, by the $700bn bail-out signed into law October 3. Both McCain and Barack Obama voted for it. A majority of voters said, in the election exit polls, that they opposed it. Yet Barr got only around 510,000 votes for president. If this wasn't a good time to be a libertarian politician, what would be a good time?
It's hard to say, because libertarians, like their fellow travellers in the conservative movement, are at a loss on how to move forward. The growing consensus in America is that Obama must act as boldly as Franklin Roosevelt did to save industries, restore confidence in markets and reinforce the safety net for less well-off citizens. The cover of the post-election Time magazine got literal and caricatured Obama as FDR, the steward of a New New Deal. But libertarians were not merely opposed to the New Deal. It was anathema to their beliefs. It was the antithesis, they thought, to what America stood for. "Rooseveltism, Hitlerism, Stalinism are all only local variants of the common doctrine that man has no natural rights but only such as are created for him by the state," wrote libertarian scholar Albert Jay Nock in 1937.
But modern libertarian thinkers and economists are not so dogmatic, or so reflexively anti-intervention, as Nock was...
[...]
All of this was happening as the official candidate of the Libertarian party, like previous standard-bearer Ron Paul, was denouncing the very idea of such market interference. But even libertarians who completely opposed the idea of the bail-out, and are wary of any more government interventions, split in their reactions. Scholars at the Cato Institute, the largest and most influential libertarian thinktank, bordered on buoyant when they told the Washington Post that they were ready for a real ideological battle again. Over at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an Alabama thinktank that attacks the sellouts at Cato (the charge: they are part of a "Kochtopus" that takes money from billionaire David Koch to accommodate Washington power), pronounced the death of the American system and the "mother of all depressions" if the bail-out passed.
American liberals are divided about the new spirit of government intervention, too. Most Democrats in the House of Representatives opposed the bail-out. They, however, have reasons to be optimistic about the coming flurry of government experimentation and intervention. Libertarians like Barr are shocked, surprised and as of right now divided on how to adapt.
No, they didn't (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml). How can he write bullshit like that and get away with it?
I wish reason would fire Weigel already. His Obamania and Dem shilling is getting so so tired. Wonkette would be a better fit for him.
Traditionally opposed to government interventionism, libertarians are at a loss about how to respond to the economic crisis (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/26/libertarian-party-us-economy)
"People are asking: What in God's name is happening to our economic structure and the economic underpinnings of our country?" he said. "How have we gotten to this point where trillions of dollars are being absolutely squandered, both currently and prospectively, on 'bail-outs' that we know aren't going to work?"
Barr was the Libertarian party's 2008 candidate for president. He entered the race in May, after trying to coax Republican iconoclast Ron Paul out of his quixotic bid against John McCain and into the small-government third party. Paul spent $35m and Barr spent $1.2m on nationwide campaigns that warned Americans that government had grown too large and invasive, that the Federal Reserve had overcooked the economy and that inflation was risking America's superpower status.
In September, the warnings of Paul and Barr seemed to come true. An economic crisis that started with the subprime market meltdown has not been slowed, in their view or in the views of most people, by the $700bn bail-out signed into law October 3. Both McCain and Barack Obama voted for it. A majority of voters said, in the election exit polls, that they opposed it. Yet Barr got only around 510,000 votes for president. If this wasn't a good time to be a libertarian politician, what would be a good time?
It's hard to say, because libertarians, like their fellow travellers in the conservative movement, are at a loss on how to move forward. The growing consensus in America is that Obama must act as boldly as Franklin Roosevelt did to save industries, restore confidence in markets and reinforce the safety net for less well-off citizens. The cover of the post-election Time magazine got literal and caricatured Obama as FDR, the steward of a New New Deal. But libertarians were not merely opposed to the New Deal. It was anathema to their beliefs. It was the antithesis, they thought, to what America stood for. "Rooseveltism, Hitlerism, Stalinism are all only local variants of the common doctrine that man has no natural rights but only such as are created for him by the state," wrote libertarian scholar Albert Jay Nock in 1937.
But modern libertarian thinkers and economists are not so dogmatic, or so reflexively anti-intervention, as Nock was...
[...]
All of this was happening as the official candidate of the Libertarian party, like previous standard-bearer Ron Paul, was denouncing the very idea of such market interference. But even libertarians who completely opposed the idea of the bail-out, and are wary of any more government interventions, split in their reactions. Scholars at the Cato Institute, the largest and most influential libertarian thinktank, bordered on buoyant when they told the Washington Post that they were ready for a real ideological battle again. Over at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an Alabama thinktank that attacks the sellouts at Cato (the charge: they are part of a "Kochtopus" that takes money from billionaire David Koch to accommodate Washington power), pronounced the death of the American system and the "mother of all depressions" if the bail-out passed.
American liberals are divided about the new spirit of government intervention, too. Most Democrats in the House of Representatives opposed the bail-out. They, however, have reasons to be optimistic about the coming flurry of government experimentation and intervention. Libertarians like Barr are shocked, surprised and as of right now divided on how to adapt.
No, they didn't (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml). How can he write bullshit like that and get away with it?
I wish reason would fire Weigel already. His Obamania and Dem shilling is getting so so tired. Wonkette would be a better fit for him.