The rise of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States served as a warning to the Republican Party. The latter came out of the George W. Bush presidency bruised and tattered. The Bush administration served only to reveal the true intentions of a dangerous neo-conservative ideology, eliminating the Republican Party’s already eroded credibility. The transition of power hardly came with a shift in ideology. The United States went from leadership intent on expanding government to leadership looking to expand government at an even faster pace.
George W. Bush’s second presidency and the coming of the “Great Recession” bore witness to a great rise in libertarianism. Barack Obama’s election turned out to be yet another positive catalyst for the libertarian movement. Those disillusioned with the eight-year Republican reign and then deceived by Obama’s cries for “change” turned toward more virtuous alternatives—personal liberty and limited government. Thanks largely to the efforts of Congressman Ron Paul, one of the few true limited government conservatives, the libertarian movement turned mainstream.
The Republicans, ever so cunning, were quick to shift their ideology to one which came closer to libertarianism. Given his position as leader of the ruling party, Obama became the symbol of big government. Seeking to redefine the conservative ideology in an effort to regain popularity, the Republican Party moved to oppose Obama’s every move, campaigning mostly on the concepts of limited government, liberty and the free market.
This change in ideology has brought about a revival of the Republican Party. Although it would be naïve to take Republican ideology at face value, whatever it may be, it is disappointing to see that recent events show that the return of the “Grand Old Party” to its “old right” roots is nothing more than an elaborate swindle. The party’s politicians are doing what they do best: lie.
Recently, conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote a vicious attack on Ron Paul. Although a self-styled conservative “with strong libertarian impulses”, he was gracious enough to show his true colors during his tirade directed towards Congressman Paul and his supporters. Particularly, he set out to underscore the fact that “Republicans still believe in a robust and proactive national defense” and that most Republicans were still not keen on protecting liberty if it conflicted with their own subjective social preferences—such as gay rights. The latter is quite amusing, as he later proceeds to blast Ron Paul for including racial slander in his newsletters of the 1980s—something Ron Paul himself never wrote. Even if he did, it is clear that Harsanyi’s message is that the state should be allowed to intervene in social and private matters, but an individual does not have the right to state an opinion.
Harsanyi reiterates the Republican support for the warfare state by referring to Ron Paul’s isolationism as part of a “half-baked” theory. His comments on Ron Paul’s monetary policies are not dissimilar, and his attack on End the Fed proves him unsympathetic for the Austrian campaign to end central banking. Ultimately, the only thing “libertarian” about David Harsanyi seems to be his opposition to the Barack Obama presidency. Unsurprisingly, David Harsanyi is not the only neo-conservative trying to pass off as a liberty-oriented republican.
Republican support of the warfare state should stand as a warning of their true intentions. A political party, which believes it right to maintain the most highly funded military in the world and to use it to intervene in foreign countries, cannot be taken seriously when arguing for “limited-government”. Do not let the “national defense” tag fool you. Were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq not fought in the name of “national defense”? The elusive terrorist-group known as Al-Qaeda by the U.S. Government has yet to be defeated, and “weapons of mass destruction” have yet to be found in Iraq.
Why should a government ready to intervene in foreign states be trusted to keep out of politics in their own country? Let us not forget the use of the “national defense” card to justify George W. Bush’s implementation of the Patriot Act, or to validate the government’s “right” to detain “terrorists” without charges and for an undefined period of time. A Republican might claim that the Bush years are long-past, and Republican ideology has changed. Yet, according to David Harsanyi most Republicans are not yet willing to allow government to end intervention in social policy, such as civil rights.
How convenient to criticize Ron Paul for his “audit the Fed” movement. But, libertarians should not be surprised to see the Republicans avoid the topic of central banking. How else would they fund their wars?
The Republican farce should not be tolerated. As soon as they lost the 2008 elections, the GOP quickly moved to oppose President Obama’s extraordinarily large bailouts. They were quick to forget George W. Bush’s own $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailouts. Neither was then Republican presidential candidate John McCain completely opposed to subsequent bailouts. The GOP would never allow their creditors to go bankrupt, because that would only make it more difficult to carry out their own big-government agenda.
Maybe the only truly liberal (in the correct sense, as opposed to the progressive usage of the word) Republican policy is their opposition to universal health care. Nope. The Republican “solutions” to high health care costs are far from laissez-faire. Although supposedly interested in abolishing the state-line restrictions to healthcare acquisition, the GOP supports deferring the right to regulate the healthcare industry to individual states. What difference does it make if the market is being planned from Washington D.C. or from the respective state capitals? Healthcare does not need intervention at all.
The icing to the cake comes in the form of their fourth major proposal to lower healthcare costs:
…end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
Since when does enforcing more tests and procedures lower costs? The real issue is the lack of respect for the contract between doctor and patient. If the contract is not respected no amount of procedures or tests will disallow the consumer from suing the doctor for an event which the consumer had already factored in the risk for. It is clear that the Republicans have no interest in pursuing a liberal or laissez-faire doctrine when it comes to healthcare, and so what could have been their only link to the libertarian movement turns out to be another fib.
Worst of all is the open mingling between “libertarians” and Republicans. “Libertarian” organizations and publications have devoted themselves to cooperating with Republicans. Reason Magazine, for example, even went as far as to publish David Harsanyi’s blatantly anti-libertarian piece. Even if their intentions are to expose conservatism to libertarianism—and, one should not be fooled into believing that this is always the case—, over the long-run this strategy is only bound to damage the libertarian movement.
Libertarianism should not associate with a political party which supports waging war, while hiding their true machinations behind the curtain of “national defense”, and central economic planning. The Republicans already have a dedicated and copious support base, composed of individuals oblivious to the party’s lies. Libertarianism cannot afford to lose its credibility by appearing to support a party which is interested in nothing but expanding government. In fact, libertarians who actively support the Republican Party, even if only because of their opposition to Barack Obama, are at best misguided.
Such is the nature of politics. One cannot hope for the leviathan to kill itself. One should not be fooled by the farce of partisanship or the concept of “balance of power”. While one party looks to addict us all to the welfare state, the other intends on making us all murderers and thieves. Both parties embrace big-government. They are but two faces to the same coin. A true libertarian should choose neither. A true libertarian should choose liberty.
Pingback: Paultology — david harsanyi.