Who Really Believes in Liberty
By
While driving about last night, I tuned into the Mark Levin Show, which airs on KTLK. During the time I listened, Levin was playing Ronald Reagan’s infamous 1964 speech in support of then Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. Between segments of the speech and after the conclusion, Levin generically pondered the current crop of Republican candidates and the state of the nation.
Levin rang the alarm that we have enemies in this country who wish to destroy our liberties. He correctly pointed toward the socialistic path of todays over reaching bureaucratic state that delves into our personal matters.
Levin then stated that many who wear the badge of conservatism have little or no concept of liberty. Republican Candidates for President lack the philosophical roots to defend those ideas brought forth in the Constitution. I would add that such criticism is not limited to those seeking the nation’s high office, but captures the failings of almost every party candidate and official at the national, state, and local levels.
Furthermore, the so-called barkers of freedom, which include the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Mark Belling, fill the airwaves with political analysis that seems more akin to something heard on ESPN. Reminiscent of a home team sports show, their talk boils down to us versus them. What these air jockeys fail to realize is that us has become them.
An illustration of this point occurred just after the announced budget compromise in the Wisconsin Assembly this past fall. Afternoon radio talk show host Mark Belling wanted to know who won this budget battle, Democrats or Republicans. Again his analysis and those of listeners calling in was paramount to listening to post game comments one would hear after a football game. I called in to the show and shortly was on the air with the host. My commentary briefly stunned Belling. Since the budget deal involved higher taxes and fees of one type or another and the level of spending increased, I concluded that government won and liberty lost. Belling reiterated the question somewhat differently and I answered the same. I then chastised Belling for turning these matters into football games where the fundamental ideas of freedom are buried beneath the “box-scores.” He finally surrendered to my point. In electoral terms, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
The fact should be painfully clear that those who carry the banners for either party have no philosophical interest in liberty. The Democrats have long ago abandoned any principles of limited government. The Republicans, on the other hand, still talk the game, but intertwine the rhetoric with policy that promotes additional government programs and intervention into the private affairs of the individual.
Last week while doing some Saturday afternoon channel surfing, I came across the Republican “debate” just held in Iowa. The fifteen minutes or so that I watched amply revealed the philosophical approaches of the candidates. Their answers along with my knowledge of past history left no doubt that all but one of these candidates would further the choke-hold of government.
Here is my quick take on the Republican field:
John McCain- He has no regards for the Constitution, a comment that can be made about every candidate except Ron Paul. McCain proudly sponsored a bill along with socialist Russ Feingold to limit political speech in this country. You have to go no further in the analysis of John McCain. But his support for giving illegal aliens amnesty also shows that he holds no belief in the “rule of law”. It is also worth noting that McCain would not scrap the present tax system.
Mitt Romney- When asked what he would do for Iowa farmers; Romney fired a laundry list of programs including more investment in technology and education. Investment to a politician means only one thing, more government spending and regulation. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney helped create one of the largest government intrusions into healthcare.
Mike Huckabee- His record in Arkansas speaks for itself. He supported benefits for illegal aliens and his record of taxation eclipsed that of Bill Clinton. Peggy Noonan just penned a good piece on Huckabee. His main appeal is to the religious right that seems to believe a cross and pro-life bumper sticker automatically deems you as a defender of freedom. No offense, but please spare the revivals for a tent on a hot summer day. We already have a preacher in the White House who has expanded government powers to horrific proportions. Peggy Noonan
Rudy Giuliani- More than the previously mentioned candidates, Rudy actually has some attraction. Foremost, he believes in the free market for K-12 education, which is a good start. His opposition to abortion does not bleed over to a call for a Constitutional Amendment. He seems to believe this and other moral issues need to return to their original jurisdictions, the states and the individual. Given the experience of 9/11, Rudy has given no indication that his foreign policy or domestic surveillance views would differ little from the current occupant of the White House.
The aforementioned candidates all answered two questions similarly that truly revealed their beliefs in big government. The first question asked their views on farm subsidies. These candidates all tapped danced about believing in free markets, but… The second question had to deal with global warming. They all believed in human causes of climate change and that we must cooperate with other countries to reduce our emissions. In other words, not one of them would vacate the premises of the United Nations and would continue to allow the erosion of our sovereignty through world bodies.
Fred Thompson- Tucker Carlson stated it best when he noted that Thompson has a “trophy wife”, not a good enough reason to support him.
This brings our list of candidates to Ron Paul, the one candidate who has never swayed in his belief in liberty and limited government. He does not believe our sovereignty is up for sale to the wishes of other countries. Paul is just one in a handful of politicians that truly understands the consequences of monetary policy and the creation of fiat money. He in essence is everything conservative pundits and Republican officials claim they stand for. Yet, they avoid him like the plague. How ironic that the beliefs these talking heads and party elites espouse publicly causes them so much consternation privately. If you truly believe in the idea of liberty, then Ron Paul is the only viable candidate.
For the boasters of conservatism, their avoidance of Paul says more about the true beliefs they hold inside than anything else.
Related posts:
- Nation Needs Shared Liberty, Not Sacrifice As usual, Ari and Linn hit a triple sending in two runs.. President Obama calls for “shared sacrifice” to address the nation’s debt. But forcing...
Mark, Another tremendous post.
I would like to point out that Rudy Giuliani, nor anyone else other than Paul believe in our 2′nd amendment right to own guns. They are want them licensed and/or regulated for hunting. This too will lead to the demise of liberty in this country, as the real reason is to protect liberty, hunting and self defense come next.
I support Ron Paul; he espouses many true Libertarian values: smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom. He is the only one who believes individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices. This responsibility has been incrementally usurped by big government. As we can clearly see today, such denials of freedom promote irresponsibility and dependency.
Mark, I read Noonan’s article and frankly she was being kind. Mike Huckabee is a SIRC (Socialist in Republican clothing). There was an interview by Kudlow recently, get this..
These are comments by Larry Kudlow to Hugh Hewitt about Huckabee from a December 22, 2007 show..
“When I had Governor Huckabee on, what was it, last week or the week before, I had a bout with him. I went at it. He wants to, if need be, have government regulate salaries. I think he’s crazy. I don’t think he understands the free market business system. He’s not good on taxing, he’s not good on spending, he’s not good on free trade. In other words, all the prosperity factors seem to be Mr. Huckabee’s weakness. I don’t think he understands it. He’s just out of tune with all measures of free market, supply side economics. You know, it isn’t his religion, and I admire his religion. I personally am a man of faith. I regard myself as an Evangelical, the fact is. But it’s not his religion, it’s his positions. Condi Rice came out of the State Department. Hell, I haven’t seen her in about a month or two. She came out and attacked him because of his navet on dealing in international affairs with Iran and others. He doesn’t seem to understand power politics, and that we are in a jihadist global war. ”
Frankly, I think it IS Mr. Huckabee’s religion. And Kudlow, an evangelical Christian? It’s all becoming rather clear now.
Somebody please turn out the lights. I am going to bed early and hopefully when I awake on Christmas eve it will all be apparent that it was a horrible dream and that, in fact, the year is actually 1775, and I will be headed down to a pub in Boston tomorrow to discuss the matter of King George’s proclamation which went into effect, actually, today. The proclamation closes the American colonies to all commerce and trade, to take effect in March of the coming year (1776). There are also rumors of France being willing to aid in the revolution. There is much to discuss and ale to be drunk. Good night.
Ok, all of you people make very good points about the candidates and their lack of Libertarian ideas but you don’t address the real issue in this election year. Who is the best candidate WHO CAN GET ELECTED?
I agree that Ron Paul has the best Libertarian credentials of the Republican candidates, but he doesn’ t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected.
I think it was Fred Thompson who actually came out for the Fair Tax, but he doesn’t have any better chance than Paul.
It sounds like Mark is giving a back door endorsement to Rudy and I have to agree that he is probably the best candidate who is barely capable of getting the nod.
I can’t believe anybody here actually wants a Democrat to get elected, especially Clinton. But, wait a minute, maybe that wouldn’t be so bad after all. Indeed, we deserve who we elect. Maybe 4 years of hell would finally start to convince some people.
Naw, never happen…
Thanks for chiming in dmagnus. Welcome! I’m not convinced that simply having a (R) behind your name will get anyone elected anymore. I would rather go through the 4 years of hell knowing that those of us who are in denial, would sober up. I do believe we would have been no worse off the last 7 years had we had Gore president. The current crop of GOP candidates think that government can be better if managed well. The real issue, is that there is too much government to manage. You can’t tell me that if we reverted back to the levels of government of 25 years ago, we couldn’t survive. The problem is that government is reaching into just about everything, not just what is constitutionally mandated. Nope. I’m prepared to let Rome burn.
I can’t agree that crazy Al would have been better than what we’ve had the last 7 years. That guy is NUTS! But then again, so are the rest of the lib crowd. I have selfish reasons for keeping the status quo – I’m going to be retiring in a few years and the thought of losing what little I have to look forward to is pretty depressing – and that’s what will happen if a lib gets elected. The best we can hope for is that in a couple of years, we get a (R) dominated congress. That is if the R’s get both a brain and a backbone and start acting like R’s again. They probably won’t, now I’m REALLY getting depressed! I’m about 90% convinced to vote for Paul, but the thought of totally wasting my vote, heck, actually helping elect a crazy lib is making me start to lean away from that. Well, we’ve got almost a year, a lot can happen.
dmagnus, I think Ron Paul appeals to both sides of the isle, but in completely different ways. Frankly, I suspect there is more to fear by Republicans of a Ron Paul presidency than there is for the Dems. In fact, I am convinced of it. Moreover, if one concludes that none of the Republican candidates (other than Paul) are actually sincere and will stand squarely and unwavering for smaller, more limited, government, lower taxation, and more individual liberty (the three key tenets of the traditional GOP) then a Ron Paul candidacy is perfect…
Whether or not Paul would be electable is more a political calculation now, based on all of the biased news media which is against him, than it is an honest appraisal of his views. If he were the GOP candidate there would be, at the very least, an incredibly important debate in this country – one that is way overdue. The essence of it is the role of government in our lives. Nobody in the race but Ron Paul has the voting record, knowledge of economics, and a distinct and correct view of the foundational premise of the country so as to be enabled to engage honestly in that debate. Just imagine an election featuring Ron Paul verses Barak Obama… I see no reason to think, once the country is faced with this choice, Paul would not have a great chance to win. Same thing with Hillary. Seriously, both Obama and Mrs Clinton have some serious baggage that has not come under scrutiny by the GOP yet. Were Ron Paul to be the standard bearer it would be the worst possible scenario for the Democrats – he takes away from them the only issue they won on in 2006.
I have thought long and hard about Ron Paul and the notion of having that debate outweighs any pragmatic political calculations concerning electability – it’s purely about finding a way to reset the national mindset.
Lastly, and as mentioned by the admin, welcome to OTBL! I look forward to hearing more of your comments.
I would also like to welcome dmagnus to the discussion. I am really puzzled about the comment that Ron Paul cannot be elected. I have personally converted approximately 20 people in the past month. Just imagine if they did the same. Ron Paul has a significant chance of being the nominee. I think the next few weeks will be very telling.
Like many, Dmagnus fears that changing the staus quo will endanger the pensions and savings accumulated over many years of labor. I have written over the last two years about the coming of a great financial calamity, far worse than the Great Depression. The odds of such an event become greater with each passing day.
It is the status quo of redistribuiton, war, and monetary manipulation that makes such a financial disaster possible. I fear that we have already crossed the point of no return from stopping such an event. But one thing is certain in my mind, without a dramatic political shift toward limited government and individual liberties, we will be diving head first into a period of “Dark Ages” for generations to come.