Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate
War Loses, Again
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
DIGG THIS
More than three years ago, George Bush unleashed the dogs of war on
Iraq, perhaps hoping that he would take his place among the "great" war
presidents. It's strange how these guys imagine themselves written about in
history books in the manner of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR, rather than
Truman, Johnson, and Nixon. It's been more than 50 years since war immortalized
a president, and yet they keep trying.
The dogs of war didn't build freedom and democracy in Iraq, or
bring justice or peace. Rather, they came right back and ravaged the Republican
Party in the election of 2006. This election has probably sealed Bush's place
in history as a failed war president who used a period of national anxiety
about terrorism for his own personal aggrandizement and the enrichment of his
coterie.
That wasn't part of the plan.
The loss of the House and perhaps the Senate is all the more
extraordinary considering that the failed (no longer any dispute about that)
war on Iraq was the decisive issue at every level.
Think about this. We've grown accustomed to believing that economic
interest alone dictates voter habits. From that point of view, voters have
little to complain about on the surface. Unemployment is low, stocks are up,
inflation is mixed but under control, and growth is not brilliant but
creditable. The Iraq War is in the news constantly but it has little impact on
most American voters. The draft is threatened but not likely. The war debt is
high but hidden.
What do regular Americans care whether we were lied into war or
that Iraq suffers under military occupation that is driving the country into
the hands of fanatical Islamic theocrats?
Well, apparently many voters do care, even those who don't have
family members fighting and dying.
Many people voted based on what might otherwise seem to be an
abstraction. Bush undertook this war with arrogance and claims of god-like
power. The result has been catastrophic. And apparently this amazing failure of
government had an impact on the vote.
How very 19th century! How very extraordinary! It seems that a
certain impulse toward idealism still can make the margin of difference. It's
not only about economic interest. Issues of peace and justice and truthfulness
really do matter, even now. Ideas and not interests alone can still change the
course of history, even in an age of cynical democracy in which buying and
selling votes is said to be what matters.
That's the good news. The bad news is that the party that has
failed has also taken down some good ideas, among which is that vast increases
in the minimum wage are bad for working people. The Republicans campaigned
against the many ballot initiatives raising the minimum wage. Six states
approved increases in the minimum wage. None of the increases will be
devastating to the economies of these states, since they are still low in real
terms. But one can only be aghast at the economic ignorance behind such
ballots, which are pushed by unionized, high-wage workers precisely to block
low-wage workers from entering in to job competition.
I suppose we should be glad that these are taking place on the
state level instead of nationwide. That's some consolation. But they might also
be harbingers of the essential struggle to come: whether the economy ought to
be controlled and regimented or be permitted to be governed by free market
exchange alone. These are the sorts of debates a normal country has. With war
out of the picture, who can't but welcome such a debate?
As bad as these socialistic ideas are, Republican economic
interventions such as Sarbanes-Oxley are to some degree worse than a
minimum-wage increase. And consider too the Republican Medicare expansions. Who
would you rather have ruling you? Social democrats or fascists?
It's a pathetic fact that the Republican Party squandered yet
another opportunity to make a difference for the good in this country. They
forever promise freedom but forever deliver despotism. They might have shrunk
government, really cut taxes, balanced the budget, reformed money, freed up
trade, or decentralized government. Instead, they threw it all away to defend
an indefensible war.
If the Democrats inch us closer to socialism at home, the
Republicans must share in the blame for having attempted socialist-style
planning on the international level, and more welfare and economic controls at
home, not to mention an expansion of the police state.
Let there be no more talk of the good guys and bad guys in the
mainstream of American political life. The state in all its forms is the enemy,
and both parties are part of the problem.
You think it can't happen? That there are too many interest groups
dedicated to the permanence of power and planning? The election of 2006 shows
that short-term economic interests alone do not always dictate the political
future.
November 8, 2006
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the
Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and
author of Speaking of Liberty.
Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com
Lew Rockwell Archives
Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
