Political Wrap-Around

Comments

7 responses to “Political Wrap-Around”

1. 

   Eric Dondero

   2008-03-04

   Simple explanation: These Anarchists you ran into are indeed NOT libertarians. They are just usurpers who’ve come into our movement to use our label. They know Anarchism doesn’t sell. Stop being hoodwinked by these leftwingers.

   Libertarianism is about Goldwater: Fiscally conservative, Socially tolerant and STRONG ON DEFENSE!

   Obama is the polar opposite of a libertarian: Fiscal socialist, Civil fascist, and weak on Defense.

   Reply
2. 

   David

   2008-03-05

   And here I thought Goldwater was a conservative rather than a Libertarian.

   I can understand when someone calls Obama fiscally socialist and even weak on defense, but what makes you call him a civilly fascist?

   Reply
3. 

   Obi wan liberali

   2008-03-05

   I think Goldwater would have found a lot in common with Obama. Obama is a social libertarian and there is no indication that he is weak on defense. To me, squandering America’s military strength on wars of aggression weakens our military, rather than strengthens it.

   Reply
4. 

   David

   2008-03-05

   I agree with you completely – I did not mean to suggest that I thought Obama was weak on defense, only that I understand what people are talking about if they say he is. Playing defense far outside your home borders is a pretty good indication that you got there by playing offense.

   Reply
5. 

   mackenzie

   2008-03-06

   I find the separation of church and state interesting since I find Obama to be the preachiest of all. I don’t get the separation of church and state issue, it seems to be founded on the idea that only atheists should be allowed to serve in political positions, as if atheism were not it’s own religion. We do have freedom of speech in this country and so that should include the right to express thoughts about God, even for politicians In the Federalists Papers, Publius frequently refers to “the Devine. They did not, however, refer to Jesus, because that would be a reference to Christianity, even though many of our founding fathers were Christian. I haven’t heard any politicians recently referring to Jesus or Allah or Buddha, or any other specific religion, and certainly not legislating any particular religious view (with the possible exception of atheism). and so I do not know what the issue on separation of church and state is about. (I don’t hear any of our politicians professing to be atheists)

   The libertarian position hardly seems different than the liberal position. If libertarians are for freedom, I do not know what that should be associated with any position on Iraq. Those for the war and those against the war most likely see their positions as a freedom issue, for different reasons.
   If libertarians are difficult to distinguish from liberals, why would it be surprising that a liberal would represent their point of view as well as anyone else?

   Reply
6. 

   mackenzie

   2008-03-06

   If playing defense far outside our borders is an indication that we are playing offense, then those taking a moral stance against that which they label as “a war of aggression”, should likewise apply that to America’s role in WWII, as if, if Germany had defeated all of Europe, the United Sates would not have been it’s next un-allied target, and as if America should stand by while millions of people are driven from their homes and murdered, and as if we are not living in a globally connected world, and the only thing that exists is in the immediate range of vision.

   Those calling this war a war of agression are deluded, in my opinion. We were attacked in a global terrorist war, which was declared long before we paid any attention. It took 911 to get us to wake up.. There was no front to the war until Iraq, and before we went into Iraq that country was living under a brutal dictatorship, with only a second generation of the same brutality to look forward to. Great difficulty followed but at least there is something for Iraqians to fight for, such as the right of the people to govern themselves. Calling this a “war of aggression” is pure disingenuous rhetoric, imho.

   I can only hope that if a democrat is elected that the promise to immediately withdraw from Iraq is political rhetoric. What is the plan? To, on day one, throw out the current chief of the military, who has understanding of what is taking place, replace him with a novice and instruct the novice to withdraw?

   If anyone listened to the president’s last State of the Union’s address, they might realize that withdrawal has already started any way, but withdrawal based on experienced strategy not on political opportunism.

   Reply
7. 

   David

   2008-03-06

   The whole point of the separation of Church and State issue is that Obama would redefine it, not that he would strengthen the current interpretation of that clause – that is why he is “the preachiest.” I believe he would put the separation of church ans state back where it should be – which is just as you described it with generic references to religion as part of the debate. This is one of the ways that Libertarians and liberals diverge – liberals would muzzle all public reference to religion where libertarians would enforce the right of each individual to practice their religion – even in a public setting – so long as they do not force others to participate. Another major difference is in fiscal matters. Libertarians are interested in small government while liberals favor large government. That should be a good reason why it would be surprising to find a liberal representing some Libertarian views.

   As for the war – there are some fundamental differences between Iraq and WWII. We were attacked by Japan which was in league with Germany. Some might argue that we should only have fought Japan but you rightly point out that Germany would have attacked us as soon as they had conquered Europe (if not before). Besides that – the axis had already signed the tripartite pact where they agreed that they would all fight any nation that fought against any one of them so our declaration of war against Japan would have implicitly been a declaration of war against Germany even if we had not made that declaration explicitly. Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda – which is who attacked us. Also, admitting the truth that attacking Iraq was not a defensive move is not sufficient proof that it was the wrong move. My real issue with the current rhetoric of the majority of Republicans is that they falsely say that it was a defensive move. It was defensive only insofar as there is truth in the saying that the best defense is a good offense – and I’m not prepared to argue either side of that one.

   The reality is that both sides of the Iraq debate seem more interested in rhetoric than in facts. The war is going better than its opponents claim, and going into Iraq was not a matter of defense as its proponents continue to claim. John McCain recently put it well when he said that we can’t go back and undo the decisions of the past. The key now is to make wise decisions moving forward and I agree with your assertion that an immediate withdrawal from a Democratic president does not sound wise – although if you listen to both Obama and Clinton their plans both sound more like a change in posture than a real change in practice from our current situation.

   Reply