November 16, 2008

I sometimes get a feeling, from my liberal friends, of genuine puzzlement about my political views. I'm clever enough to seem somewhat intelligent, I definitely have no love for the religious right, and yet I still insist on supporting Republicans. I've actually been asked, more than once, why?!?

This is why: (emphasis original)

[W]hile I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their big-government intrusions, and there's good reason to think that this will be the case even if the Republicans get full control of the government.

Since I'm probably a bit more socially conservative, I'll take it a bit further. I'm far less worried about the religious right making it harder for Stern to broadcast a homeless man sticking his toe in a woman's vagina, harder for some busybody to sue a local school over the pledge of allegiance, and harder for gay people to finance a divorce lawyer's third yacht than I am about the far left making it harder for people to find jobs, harder for our nation to defend itself, and harder for the country to grow and innovate as it always has.

Because, like Simberg, I've been watching this for a long time and while I know fringe Republicans would like all those socially conservative things to happen, I know they're about as likely to happen as me tagging a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition cover model. Also, like (well, something like) Simberg, I've read about what happens when Democrats get absolutely everything they ever wished for, and lived through the consequences of same*.

And now we're set to watch it happen all over again. Well, it took the debacle of Carter to bring Reagan to the fore. It'd be nice to think that '76-'80, the High School Musical Edition will bring someone of similar stature to the front rank again.

Via Instapundit.

* Which is why you should put your hand down and swallow that comment until you've actually read a book or two about LBJ, Vietnam, "Stagflation", and the school "reforms" of the late 60s and early 70s.

Posted by scott at November 16, 2008 05:50 PM

eMail this entry!

Yes, the good ol' post-Vietnam, post-Watergate days...when the Dems had pretty much carte blanc in Congress and our foreign policy was in shambles...leading us right up to the Hostage Crisis of 1979 . . . and so on.

Posted by: Mark on November 16, 2008 05:57 PM

It still shocks me that this election was so much of a, "Let's don't elect Bush again" thing rather than actually looking at the different records of the candidates. Unfortunate for us - hell, I would happily take the pounding in the Senate and House to not have Obama in the White House.

Posted by: ronaprhys on November 16, 2008 06:19 PM

Well, that's just it. After Carter became prez in 1977, we had the "all three": Dem majority in the House, Senate, and in the White House. Ted Kennedy was a demigod...

I'm not trying to suggest that 1977 was anything like 2008, but there are lessons to be learned here.

Though the economy was pretty much in shambles then too.

Posted by: Mark on November 16, 2008 08:33 PM

If the historical trend holds true and we, every 30 years or so, let the Dems have free reign, then go back to solid fiscal conservatism, I'd almost be okay with that. Unfortunately, the damage that they do is incredibly difficult to undo.

Not that the latest round of Republicans have been fiscal conservatives, either...

Posted by: ronaprhys on November 17, 2008 09:00 AM

Has anyone ever said you guys are cute when you think you have all the answers and that 'those people' are all fools, liars, lazy people and socialists? Well, let me be the first. I just wanna pinch your cheeks and give you a quarter you are so cute. :)

Posted by: Joshua on November 17, 2008 09:41 PM

When did I ever say anything like *that*?

Well, except for maybe the socialist part. I seem to recall saying things like that.

Posted by: scott on November 18, 2008 08:39 AM

Joshua - you know us, we welcome reasoned debate. If you can demonstrate how the Obamessiah will do anything but raise taxes, restrict our rights, and generally tank the economy, we're more than happy to discuss. However, I think you'll have one hell of a time doing so with his record...

Posted by: ronaprhys on November 18, 2008 11:04 AM

I like McCain

I don't like Obama

That said

Isn't this:
"You know us, we welcome reasoned debate. If you can demonstrate how the Obamessiah will do anything but raise taxes, restrict our rights, and generally tank the economy, we're more than happy to discuss. However, I think you'll have one hell of a time doing so with his record..."

Exactly what you would have said about Clinton?? I haven't really looked at the restrict rights thing (Nothing really jumps out in my memory) but he certainly didn't tank the economy or anything.

I don't think I was in the Tax Bracket (Seeing as how I was in the military for his first term and a student for his second) that got raised though I will certianly admit I am not 100% sure on this (Little bit busy at work to go off on a research expedition)

Posted by: Jeff on November 18, 2008 03:02 PM

No - I had different complaints about Clinton as I had different priorities at the time. Secondly, I'd say that the situations right now are different than they were when Clinton ran for office, as far as the economy goes.

Note that I'm looking directly at Obama's past position, actions, and what he's stated he wants to do. None of them appear to be good for business, for me personally, or for what I feel this country was founded on.

Posted by: ronaprhys on November 18, 2008 03:34 PM

Actually if memory serves it was fairly similar (Though not quite as dire)

Remember "It's the economy stupid"

People were saying the exact same things you are saying now about his economic policies (Which is why I brought it up) back when he was President Elect (And the economy remained bad for the first year or two of his presidency if memory serves)

The major differance would be in the Foreign Policy Situation (Since we were coming off the end of the cold war and the first gulf war)

Now we are embroiled in two wars and our military is in much worse shape than it has been since Ford/Carter were in office.

*Shrug* Only time will tell really (Though it's hard for Obama to do a worse job than W has) that's one of the benifits of following an administration that has done such a poor job.

Then again those are also famous last words (Only place to go is up)

Posted by: Jeff on November 18, 2008 03:51 PM

They may have been saying that, but Clinton was much more of a centrist than Obama has ever been. He also did things I disagree with on taxes (raising them) and then, luckily, managed to be President during a great boom in business (the intranets bubble). However, what he didn't do is truly screw things up. Economically, that's the best thing he did. He tried with his healthcare reform nonsense, but aside from that he didn't do anything to really hurt business. In fact, he also did cut taxes for small businesses and allowed NAFTA.

Obama, however, doesn't appear to have the benefit of this philosophy. He wants to raise taxes on small business owners ($250K and above or the potential lower numbers that were reported), raise taxes on businesses, supported the bailout bill, is planning on making a huge push towards socialized medicine, etc. The spending in Iraq isn't going anywhere soon, so that debt's going to continue to mount.

This is a bit different than debt vs deficit. If Obama accomplishes half of what he's said, it's very likely he'll actually lower tax revenues by raising taxes (oddly enough, when Reagan cut taxes, revenues increased) as those with money will get it out of Dodge, he'll increase spending, and do all of this at a time when our GDP is going down.

Don't even get me started on this income redistribution bullshit.

To quote a Guinness commercial - brilliant!

As for the military situation, we can thank Clinton for that piece of joy. In terms of experience and capability, we're definitely ahead at the soldier level. There's still no doubt that our military can come in and reduce any military out there to rubble. We've shown this time and time again. However, what we don't do well is nation-building. Lesson learned there.

Big picture - it's likely that Obama will take the fiscal recklessness that the Republicans have shown (though they did it within our ability to repay the debt, so bothersome but not crippling) and put it on steroids.

Last point - I did address your points about Clinton, but we didn't elect him. We elected Obama. The discussion should focus on his particular policies that he campaigned on, his past history of votes, and what that will likely mean for the future.

Posted by: ronaprhys on November 18, 2008 07:02 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?