Congratulations, America. It appears that you have just elected the most statist, anti-freedom, anti-individual-rights president in history, or at least since FDR, whose appalling legacy of "big government is the answer for everything" still haunts us, drags down our economy, and saps our individual wealth to pay for it all.
It's mind-boggling to me that Americans seem so eager not to be geuinely free, at least as evidenced by how we vote. Every cycle, we elect people who have told us to our faces that they think we should be less free than we are, and for some incomprehensible reason, the majority of us seem to think that's the way to go. I just don't get it.
Of course, I'd be only slightly less depressed if McCain had won, because his policy views are, taken as a whole, only slightly less repugnant to liberty than Obama's. As we liberatarians are wont to say, the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is which freedoms they want to take away first.
It's going to be a long four years.
Oh, and incidentally, this is the first time I will have a president who is younger than me (by about four months). Nothing good can come of that.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
It's all so depressing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Why don't you wait to see how he governs before you pronounce the end of freedom in America. It's really sad and rather pathetic to see the level of hatred and despair from the anti-Obama crowd on what will go down as one of the most historic nights in our nation's history. If this evil man has taken all your money and your liberties a year from now, then feel free to bitch all you want, but for the time being how about showing a little... gee... optimism? You might be less depressed.
That makes no sense to me. When he tells us in unambiguous terms--as he has, repeatedly--that he is in favor of policies that makes us less free, why do we have to wait a year to feel depressed about it? I mean, the best case scenario here is that he was lying, and won't do all the things he said he wants to do. I think it's a little bizarre to hope that he was lying.
When people are in an insecure, fearful situation, they cling to some higher power to make them feel ok, be it God, their mommy or the government. In 3rd world countries, many people actively support the tyran (sp?) dictator, not because they think it's the best viable political situation, but because they are fed up of living in violence, fear and insecurity. Remember, food on the table, job security and basic health benefits preceed some abstract notion of "freedom".
With the stock market crashing and the media telling us that our money is going to hell, it is only natural that people turn to big government to help them.
However, you can't underestimate the big impact hope and a vision has on the masses and how it can transform large number of people (albeit, be it to do productive or harmful things). I do think Obama has the opportunity to do some good here simply because he managed to rally up so many supporters that truly believe in his cause.
PS: I live in America, but I am not allowed to vote (just another damn foreigner being taxed without representation).
"He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will lose both and deserve neither."
-- Benjamin Franklin
First, let me say that I love reading your take on the Vegas poker scene and everything else you write about.
Next, before I get to my point, let me say that I did NOT vote for Obama. I voted for Barr. But, I wonder if you are a bit off base with your comments here. Is he really that opposed to the freedoms that you speak of or is he just saying we are going to have to pay more for them? With regard to personal freedoms and liberties, he can't possibly be worse than the last 6 years and Bush looking into our living rooms, our bedrooms and our phone lines, can he?
I think there are plenty of reasons to be frightened by this election, but I am not sure that restriction of personal liberties is one of them.
The Republicans have proven that they can't possibly be trusted to allow us to make our own decisions and that is one of the biggest reasons they are on the outside looking in.
Howdy Rake:
I would label myself as cautiously optimistic. I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, I followed both candidates, and I made my choice. Ultimately, I went with the agent of change. There's not a doubt in my mind that McCain would have continued the failed policies of Bushco, and I know we can't have that. Yes, I have my doubts, and I "hope" to God Obama won't do the things that left-wing liberals are known for - tax and spend, big gub'mint, etc. - but we need change, and for good or ill, Obama will bring change.
Again, I followed both the candidates and studied their platforms, but I have to ask a silly question here: what policies, specifically, are you referring to that "make us less free"? Did I miss something? Will we need to now "show our papers" when crossing state lines? Will my works of art now be subject to government approval? In what way will Obama's policies affect my personal freedom as a U.S. American?
Oh no, not another FDR. Look how that turned out with him as President.
I thought it was sad that nobody here in New Mexico that I've talked to had ever heard of Bob Barr.
Regardless of whether or not he should have been voted for, I think he should have been heard.
Blank:
Any increase in taxes makes us less free, because we have less of our own money to spend. Obama is undoubtedly more opposed to second-amendment rights than any previous president in history. He will reduce your freedom to choose all sorts of things in the name of reducing global warming (e.g., what car you can drive, what light bulbs you can buy, etc.). He would resinstate the fairness doctrine, reducing your freedom to listen to the politically oriented radio shows you might like. He wants to essentially nationalize health care, reducing your freedom to choose a private insurance plan. He wants to increase the minimum wage, reducing your freedom as an employer to negiotiate terms with an employee. On general principle, we can anticipate that he would support all manner of restrictions on what you can eat, drink, and smoke, in the name of public health (e.g., banning trans fats, taxing tobacco and alcohol further, toughening regulations on food products). Everything will become more expensive as regulations on businesses increase. It will become harder to get a mortgage, for example, as he implements more strigent regulations on banks.
Thanks for the response, Rake. If I may:
You have a point on the global warming deal (and the potential federally regulated limitations that come with solving it). Frankly, I'm really not sure if we've reached a point with the alleged "climate change" that necessitates sacrifice as the only solution; I guess it depends on what scientists you believe. That said, we had to make sacrifices during WWII (I'm told). Maybe we're entering into another era of abdication in order to deal with a very real crisis. I'm willing to admit that possibility as least as much as I'm inclined to denounce it.
I really don't think he's going to take our guns, and I will shoot and eat my own crow if he does.
The Fairness Doctrine is an FCC policy, and in the world of blogs, YouTube, and Podcasts, I'm not too worried about anybody's political views being quashed, nor my ability to hear them. In principle, you have a good point, and I agree, but there are other outlets that Bam won't be able to touch. If anything, it was Democrat Gore's invention of the internet that gave us this much freedom.
Under the Big O's health plan, I believe you can keep your existing plan if you want to. I've got a humdinger of a plan, and was worried about that. Provided he's NOT lying, I feel OK with it.
With the Sin Tax stuff you mentioned, I agree, and that does worry me...a little. People should be able to drink and smoke themselves right into the Cancer Ward or eat themselves to death. This is (or should be) a free country, but if taxing the toxic is the worst thing he does, I'm OK with that.
Finally, it *should* be tougher to get mortgages. We wouldn't be in the problem we're in if Dems hadn't worked so hard to create a swarm of unqualified homeowners, much less allowing banks to prey on the poor saps. If he cracks down on lending, he would actually be going against Carter and Clinton. I would applaud him for that.
I don't necessarily want to get into a point-by-point debate, but wanted to at least offer another viewpoint, and maybe give you some glimmer of hope. Hope's all I've got right now, otherwise I've got to start looking for real estate in the greater Toronto area.
--Ant.
I'd thank you to not assume that because I voted for Obama that I am voting to remove all of my freedoms. In point of fact, our freedoms have been stripped bare in the last 8 years and I don't see anything in Obama's stance that suggests it can get anything but better.
The things you list as "freedoms" pale in comparison to the real freedoms that have been lost under the Bush presidency.
Stick to poker - blogging about politics can only get you into trouble.
Bob --
Did you listen to Obama's victory speech? Were you completely unimpressed? What did you find there that would disturb you?
I know that it's just one speech, and that you're worried about policies, not speeches, but still I'm curious about your reaction.
I, for the first time, was damned impressed -- and newly hopeful about Obama.
As for your comment about taxes, I'm curious:
How does every increase in taxes make "us" less free if, say, the government takes from you to give to me ... or, or course, vice versa?
Dan
1. Yes, I heard the speech, or much of it. He can say nothing quite eloquently. But grand promises of national unity are either deliberate lies or shocking self-deception. The nation has never been unified on anything, at any point in its history. Even the writing of the constitution is peppered with deliberate placement of interest groups in balanced opposition to each other, and a major concern was how to prevent majorities from abusing the rights of minorities. It has always been so and always will be so. Those who want bigger government against those who want smaller government, rich against poor, black against white, north against south, urban against rural, farmer against union workers, small states against big states, religious against atheists, men against women, laborers against shareholders, etc. To claim or imagine that there is going to be a magical unification come of such disparate and opposing interests is lunacy, and politicians who assert such earn my contempt for being either liars or madmen.
2. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Peter is clearly less free. Is Paul? Well, yes, in the Niemoller sense (when they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist, etc). Assuming we all aspire to be richer, we should all oppose increased taxes on the rich, since that may well be us some day. There is also the moral sense--i.e., perhaps Paul isn't technically less free, but he's not better off morally, just as the slave owner is not in a morally superior position to the slave; both are lessened by the ownership. In an economic sense, we are collectively poorer with redistributive taxes, since under such a system both Peter and Paul have reduced incentives to be maximally productive, so national wealth and productivity are less than they would be otherwise.
1. From Senator Obama's victory speech -- and I see no false promises of "magical unification" here; I see only a plea for the willingness to seek reasonable unification:
"There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know the government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek; it is only the chance for us to make that change.
And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.
Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.
Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House -- a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity. Those are values we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. (Cheers, applause.)
As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends -- though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too. (Cheers, applause.)
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. (Cheers, applause.) To those -- to those who would tear the world down: we will defeat you. (Cheers, applause.) To those who seek peace and security: we support you. (Cheers, applause.) And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals -- democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope. (Cheers, applause.)
That's the true genius of America, that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow."
It seems you would prefer the president-elect to stand up there and say: "Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I have nothing to say to you except this: Life is a war of all against all. Have at it."
2. As for this -- "Assuming we all aspire to be richer, we should all oppose increased taxes on the rich, since that may well be us some day" -- I am mystified. I don't see any intellectual or moral or economic basis for that statement. Believe me when I tell you that the prospect of paying marginally higher taxes on my marginal income is not going to deter me from seeking that marginal income. Would it deter you? I don't think so.
Are you opposed to progressive taxation, in principle?
Sign that last one Dan from Minnesota, OK?
Dan:
Sorry--if there is some way for me to change the designation of who submitted a comment, I haven't figured it out yet. All I can do is approve a comment or not, but not edit them, as far as I know.
But to the substance. Here's what George W. Bush said in his victory speech, December 13, 2000. See if it sounds familiar:
********
Tonight I chose to speak from the chamber of the Texas House of Representatives because it has been a home to bipartisan cooperation. Here in a place where Democrats have the majority, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to do what is right for the people we represent.
We've had spirited disagreements. And in the end, we found constructive consensus. It is an experience I will always carry with me, an example I will always follow.
I want to thank my friend, House Speaker Pete Laney, a Democrat, who introduced me today. I want to thank the legislators from both political parties with whom I've worked.
Across the hall in our Texas capitol is the state Senate. And I cannot help but think of our mutual friend, the former Democrat lieutenant governor, Bob Bullock. His love for Texas and his ability to work in a bipartisan way continue to be a model for all of us.
(APPLAUSE)
The spirit of cooperation I have seen in this hall is what is needed in Washington, D.C. It is the challenge of our moment. After a difficult election, we must put politics behind us and work together to make the promise of America available for every one of our citizens.
I am optimistic that we can change the tone in Washington, D.C.
I believe things happen for a reason, and I hope the long wait of the last five weeks will heighten a desire to move beyond the bitterness and partisanship of the recent past.
Our nation must rise above a house divided. Americans share hopes and goals and values far more important than any political disagreements.
Republicans want the best for our nation, and so do Democrats. Our votes may differ, but not our hopes.
I know America wants reconciliation and unity. I know Americans want progress. And we must seize this moment and deliver.
Together, guided by a spirit of common sense, common courtesy and common goals, we can unite and inspire the American citizens.
********
Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/bush.html
I am not able to find Bill Clinton's 1992 election victory speech online (at least not in 10 minutes of searching), but here's what he said on election night 1996:
**********
Today the American people have spoken. They have affirmed our course. They have told us to go forward. America has told every one of us -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- loud and clear: it is time to put politics aside, join together and get the job done for America's future....
The challenges we face, they're not Democratic or Republican challenges. They're American challenges. What we know from the budget battles of the last two years and from the remarkable success of the last few weeks of this Congress is the lesson we have learned for the last 220 years -- what we have achieved as Americans of lasting good, we have achieved by working together. So let me say to the leaders of my Democratic Party and the leaders of the Republican Party, it is time to put country ahead of party.
We do not know the final outcome of the Congressional elections but we know this: The races are close. The American people have been closely divided. The Congress, whatever happens, will be closely divided.
They are sending us a message: Work together. Meet our challenges. Put aside the politics of division and build America's community, together.
**********
Source: http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/speeches/961105victoryspeech.shtml
Sound familiar?
Don't both of those sound nearly identical to what Obama said the other night?
So, do you believe that either Bill Clinton or George Bush goverened in that unified, non-partisan or bi-partisan way, putting aside politics, leaving behind the inter-party bickering and nastiness? Do you think either of them rise above party politics and change the tone in Washington? If so, you have been living in a different world than I have been.
So if you agree that both of the last two presidents have made lovely-sounding promises that are similar to those made by Mr. Obama, but then failed to actually live up to them, what objective reason is there to think that this latest speech means anything more than the previous ones did? I suspect that we could go back and find substantially similar promises made by most election-night victors, and they have never proven to be true, within my memory.
I think it's just empty rhetoric, signifying nothing. The selection of his chief of staff certainly doesn't look like an effort to be conciliatory--hard to think of a person he could have picked that is more viciously partisan. Do you think that Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel suggests a firm commitment to rising above petty partisan politics, in compliance with his own speech?
Oh, and as for progressive taxes, yes, I am opposed to them in principle. If there is to be an income tax at all, it should be (1) the same percentage across the board, and (2) without deductions, and (3) payed directly, rather than deducted from paychecks. Having a huge percentage of the population paying no income tax means that they have no incentive to demand fiscal responsibility from their representatives. Having a progressive rate thwarts productivity more than an equal rate would. And, of course, people having to write out the tax check would make them feel the pain more acutely, making it much harder for increases to pass.
Wow - re: your assertion that because both Clinton and Bush made similar sounding speeches that we can't trust Obama? That's a pretty negative outlook on life - but I guess that's about right for a 'grump'...
At some point you have to choose to believe in something or is life really worth living?
Sorry, Bob. I've been away from town, and from your blog. Thanks for your answers.
I still wonder, though, whether your theoretical comments about progressive taxation have any applicability in real life. To wit -- as I wrote earlier:
"Believe me when I tell you that the prospect of paying marginally higher taxes on my marginal income is not going to deter me from seeking that marginal income. Would it deter you? I don't think so."
Would it deter you?
If not me, and if not you -- then whom would it deter?
----
As for the selection of Rahm Emanuel: I'll wait to see the pudding.
----
I think you might find the current New Yorker article about Obama's liberalism an interesting thing to read.
Post a Comment