?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 

Who is John Galt? - Rubin

About Who is John Galt?

Previous Entry Who is John Galt? Jul. 7th, 2004 @ 04:18 pm Next Entry
"George Bush, I believe, is in his soul a moderate."
- Howard Dean in 2000

I'm concerned for the future of this nation because the left has been able to fool so many people into believing that George W. Bush is an extreme right-winger, when in truth he is a moderate. Look at his record on spending: He joined with Teddy Kennedy for the largest expansion of federal spending on education in decades. He signed into law so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" which like political correctness (another left-wing idea) attempts to limit free speech. Then he pushed through Congress a $400 Billion Medicare Drug Benefit program - the largest new entitlement since Johnson’s Great Society - though admittedly $400 billion is far less than the Democrats wanted to spend. He has yet attempted to reduce any government programs or spending. Other than tax cuts, he hasn't pushed any co-called right-wing initiatives through Congress.

What does this mean for the future of our nation? How can important "right-wing" initiatives (such as school vouchers, tort reform, and reforming/privatizing Social Security) needed to reform and limit government ever be passed when a moderate can be painted as so extreme?
If this continues, how can a truly conservative candidate ever be elected?

There is something to be said about helping the fall of the country by not producing, electing left-wing candidates, and dropping out. This would allow government to expand its size and control over the everyday lives of its citizens beyond anything sustainable until the day it crumbles under its own weight (like the former Soviet Union). Then a new smaller and limited form of government could be crafted out of the ashes. However, the fall will take at least 20 years to occur and the aftermath and reconstruction will likely take nearly as long... and there's no guarantee the new government would not be an even greater monster than the one that just fell apart.

Even if it was known that only the best possible result could occur, I honestly wouldn't want to live through those 40 plus years of turmoil. So being selfish, I'd like to at least delay the collapse until a day I wouldn't have to live through it. I'm afraid with the current political climate that's the best we can do.

At least these people let me believe there is some slight hope for the future.


In case you were wondering as to Who is John Galt? 8-)
Current Mood: pessimisticpessimistic
Leave a comment
From:laughin
Date:July 7th, 2004 04:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I hope Reagan's death will be a wake up call for many in the GOP. But I think that they like to spend our money too much.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:July 8th, 2004 12:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It seems that the longer someone stays in Washington, the more likely they'll become enamored of spending money. The Congressional class of 1994 (the republican revolution) started out attempting to cut the size of government, but over time some have been pounded into spending submission, and others just spend government money to be re-elected.

I think term limits would help out greatly in keeping the idealism alive. 12 years for both houses (Six 2 year Congressional terms and Two 6 year Senate). Perhaps only allowing the house/senate party leaders to remain then if the leadership doesn't do what the new representatives want they can easily be voted out of the leadership - which would likely make it their final term.
[User Picture Icon]
From:raininva
Date:July 7th, 2004 10:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I still want to know why it is that 'left winged' and 'right winger' became dirty words depending on who you say them to. Why can't people just pick who they want based on if that person will best represent the same viewpoints and such that they have. Instead of making it about calling them evil names like conservative and liberal.
[User Picture Icon]
From:cxi162
Date:July 8th, 2004 08:09 am (UTC)
(Link)
Why can't people just pick who they want based on if that person will best represent the same viewpoints and such that they have.

Because things aren't that simple. Not only do you need to figure out what a candidate stands for, but you need to also figure out if what they are saying currently reflects what they've done historically, or even what they said five minutes ago. On top of this is the fact that most people are not voting for a candidate, they are voting against the other one. Lastly, picking a candidate based on certain key viewpoints isn't so simple when you really come down to it. Most people will find a single key issue that they disagree with a candidate on and fail to vote for them because of it, irregardless of whether in general the candidate was a better choice. This all leads to labels as justification.

Take, for example, people who vote Democrat because Republicans are seen as anti-gay, or people who vote Republican because Democrats are seen as socialists. It's the party division itself that creates the labels. The only way to get what you describe is to not have political parties at all. The problem is that people look at generally one major issue in the party split and think, "well, I can't be in X party because I don't believe in Y", failing to realize that perhaps X party was the better choice all things told, and they should still vote for it regardless of the Y issue.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:July 8th, 2004 01:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
But right-winger isn't a dirty word... 8-)

But seriously, I don't think conservative/liberal are evil names - and I certainly don't consider liberals evil (with exception of the big names such as Lenin and Stalin)... I just consider them wrong.

I saw this comment recently, and find it hard to disagree: Most elections revolve around one central question: should we grow government at a fast rate, or should we grow it at a very fast rate.
One of the first things we need to dispel is the the misperception that opposition to big government constitutes a lack of compassion. Maybe then we'll have a greater chance of having the limited form of government envisioned by the framers.
[User Picture Icon]
From:vileone
Date:July 9th, 2004 02:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think much of the confusion arises from the fact that "right" and "left" are meaningless. I recommend Political Compass for a good discussion of the issue.

Liberal and conservative have some small meaning, but generally aren't applied in any particularly useful way. Liberal in general should mean "more" and conservative should mean "less" but it's seldom clear what it is more or less *of*. If government programs, then both parties are liberal in that both parties are only growing government, just different parts. If liberty, then both parties are conservative in that both parties are only eroding liberty, and usually there for the same groups. They only argue about the margins.
(Leave a comment)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com