Why I Don’t Want United Government
Jim Babka on Aug 29th 2008
The Democrats are likely to expand their lead in the House and the Senate. Obama is running a Great Society liberal’s campaign. Uniting both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. would be bad.
Gridlock is good.
Until Obama flip-flopped on the FISA vote, and it became apparent the Democrats didn’t understand the need to stop their silly oil drilling ban, I liked Obama better than McCain.
Now I don’t like either of the leading candidates, and I think the results will be more bad than good whichever one of them wins.
I am very opposed to the Bush foreign policy, and I think McCain will continue that. I also hate McCain’s positions on carbon taxes and political speech. He’ll have aid and comfort from the Democrats on these positions.
But McCain will, overall, accomplish far less than Obama will. And it’s that bi-partisan (or uni-party) accomplishment that I’m really concerned about. I don’t want both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. to come together to, “get things done.” When they get thing done, it costs us money, time, and hassle. It restricts our choices. It takes away our rights and liberties.
Gridlock is good.
What’s at stake in this election is the level of legislative success. Barack Obama would be able to get a great deal more of his agenda passed than would John McCain.
And here’s what Obama’s going to do once elected, that will have permanent, detrimental effects…
* Card check
* Fairness Doctrine
* Universal health care — “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free!” (I think P.J. O’Rourke or Dave Barry said that).
Card check is a union organizer’s dream. Instead of a secret ballot to approve a union in the workplace, organizers can take a card around to the employees, and get them to sign it. Intimidation actually results in a pro-union vote! Even George McGovern opposes this in favor of a secret ballot. But the Democrats want card check because they want shrinking labor unions to start growing again. Unions are an important part of their political base, offering both campaign donations and independent expenditures, as well as grassroots organizing and get out the vote machines, plus a ready base of well-indoctrinated Democratic voters.
The Fairness Doctrine was in existence from the Johnson through the Reagan administration. Once this anti-free speech ban was lifted, talk radio exploded on to the scene, and conservatives dominated it. I don’t like the direction conservatism has gone since this happened, but I like far less the idea that the media would be centralized. The result will be Big Government Establishment Position A (socialism) and Big Government Establishment Position B (corporatism) would get “equal time.” All others would sit out, in the name of fairness. For diversity, the marketplace, not bureaucracy, should determine what airs and what doesn’t. The Democrats would like to shut down conservative talk radio — and anything else that doesn’t advance their agenda.
Both of these steps, plus whatever version of lobbying reform they devise, will be designed to enhance and increase the Democratic Party’s long-term electoral success. That’s the purpose, plain and simple.
The pernicious effects of a liberal, corporatist health care scam will include the enrichment of the few — privileged government contractors.
It might take 10 or 20 years, but those who have private insurance will have premiums that are much higher than today’s. Most people won’t be able to afford to keep their private plan, and will end up on the government plan. As the burden increases on the government plan, waiting lists will become increasingly common. Rationing of services might even follow. And then…
EVERY politician will claim we have a crisis, caused by the corporations involved.
Of course, these politicians will claim they need even greater government command and control to fix the problem. They’ll finish socializing medicine.
As a result, medical innovation and scientific breakthroughs will be stifled. Flexibility and choice will end up in the trash can. And there will be a Doctor shortage.
Gridlock would be great here!
But all of this is very likely to happen with united, one-party government under Barack Obama.
Looking at these issues, I guess it could be said that John McCain is the lesser of two evils. But that’s still pretty damned evil!
Filed in The Bureau
Free Health Care! Who said that?
If McCain would actually stand up with an economic policy in line with what the Republicans say they support - free market and small government (mostly) - I’d feel a lot better. As it is, with GWB’s expansion of government power and size, the Republicans have pretty much done away with supporting capitalism. So, I’m not sure what advantage McCain has over Obama here.
The huge downside of McCain is that he’s going to appoint extreme conservatives to the Supreme Court and destroy our non-economic freedoms as well. :(
I despair.
Very well said, Jim. Another thing about Obama that makes me very uneasy is his anti-NAFTA talk. I realize that he’s (supposedly) backed down from that talk, but it should have never been said in the first place. The constant democratic pandering to unions, and promises to punish companies that outsource labor– all of this is very bad news for the economy.
I don’t think that’s enough to make me vote for McCain though. Jason had a really good post a while back about voting strategically for gridlock and just how tricky it is. I’m still planing to vote libertarian in November as far as the presidential ticket is concerned.
The Fairness Doctrine is scary as hell. Normally I’d shrug and say that I’ve been done with terrestrial radio for a while now anyway; but the asanine conditions the FCC put on approving the Sirius/XM merger, and their open intentions to censor satellite radio and cable television make me think there’s simply no escape.
On the other side of the spectrum Braxton brings up another point that worries me: SCOTUS judges. I’ve wondered for a while if my concerns in that area should cause me to vote for Obama.
The cons are stacked to high against the pros for either side, I feel like a deer in the headlights of an unavoidable truck of disaster.
When both the proffered alternatives are bad, better to have them both inside the tent pissing on each other than … you know what, perhaps I should just leave that metaphor alone.
Bipartisanship is when the politicians stop fighting each other, so they can gang up on us.
I find it very surprising that anyone seriously concerned with libertarian issues would support a Republican President this time around. The Bush Administration has had a sustained, hard push over the last eight years to make the “Unitary Executive” doctrine the de facto law of the land. It’s hard for me to imagine anything worse for our liberties than a chief executive with the powers and privileges of a monarch, and yet that’s exactly what Cheney, Bush, Yoo, and company have been working steadily towards.
John McCain has surrounded himself with people who hold the most extreme neo-conservative views in the party. He’s not just going to be four more years of Bush, he’s going to be four more years of the worst parts of Bush. If the idea of “anything’s legal if the President does it” doesn’t scare you way, way worse than universal health care (plenty of other Western countries have it and yet shockingly their nations have not imploded), expanded union power (ditto), and some changes to the way the FCC works, then I would respectfully suggest that your priorities are way out of whack.
We’ve been witness to a full frontal assault on the concept of separation of powers and the enshrinement of a monarchical executive, largely unnoticed by the vast majority of the country. When asked what he would do with his first 100 days in office, Obama said “I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution.” That’s exactly what I want to hear.
I’m conservative in my view that our liberties are best protected by a strong Constitution keeping power out of the hands of the few; that makes it difficult to pass new legislation; and that respects the rule of law. George W. Bush and his Administration have done everything they can to gut those concepts. Electing John McCain will tell them that they should go right ahead, that the rule of law is an outdated and unnecessary concept, and that we might as well get used to it.
To hear someone on this site, of all places, put what are fundamentally just policy differences ahead of fundamental concerns like this is very, very surprising.
[...] Mr. Babka’s “Why I Don’t Want United Government,” reader Jeff Hebert makes some very interesting comments, including the following excerpt: I [...]
Jeff –
I think a lot of the willingness to support McCain may be due to the fact that he’s not Bush. But the degree of difference seems to have shrunk so much that, to my mind, it’s not worthwhile to support him. At the moment, I’m leaning toward voting for Barr, and after the Republican convention I’ll have a post explaining where I ultimately end up and why.
Jason,
Thanks for the update, I look forward to that post.
Putting on my Republican Concern Troll hat for a moment, I honestly think the best possible outcome for them is to get crushed in this election, hopefully prompting them to eject the neo-conservatives and their authoritarian fetishism from the party.
If they can plausibly return to being the small-government, rule of law, fiscally conservative party they were before Karl Rove got his hands on Chimpy McFlightSuit, they’ll be much, much better off. I really am saddened that a party I used to respect — and even voted for in at least one Presidential election — has fallen so far away from what their core values used to be.
Please do not take my article as a personal endorsement of John McCain! My comments are merely a description of whether or not we’re in the 3rd circle or the 4th circle of the Inferno.
As for teaching the GOP a lesson, both good and bad things can come, and good things and bad things can be prevented, regardless of which flavor wins. And as the President of DownsizeDC.org, I know the election of either McBama or O’Bain will keep us busy.
I have not made up my mind if I will vote, though the recent poll data showing Barr at 8% begins to make me interested in him. I don’t think participating in a vote total of less than 1% helps anything; quite the contrary — I believe those exceptionally low vote totals hurt us. But under no circumstance will I be voting for McCain or Obama. I was simply making an argument for gridlock as marginally better then presently available alternatives.
[...] week, I wrote that gridlock was the best of bad alternatives (“Why I Don’t Want United Government”) — that both candidates represented great evils, but McCain would accomplish less with a [...]
Carnival of Divided Government Quînque et Vîcênsimus (XXV) Special “Labor Day + 7″ Edition …
John Babka at Positive Liberty lays out the libertarian case in “Why I don’t want united government” and “The Gridlock Strategy”… We are as one. …
[...] Babka at Positive Liberty lays out the libertarian case in “Why I don’t want united government” and “The Gridlock [...]