War Loses, Again
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 half a century 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! 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 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 campaign 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. What would you rather have ruling you? Petty socialists or aggressive fascists? Tough choice.
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, cut taxes more, 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. 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 interest alone does not always dictate the political future.
Comments (24)
I think disgust at this war was the key last night. The Republicans lost both houses of Congress and six governors. The Neo-conservatives have no one but themselves to blame.
As for the Democrats, they need to stop their self congratulatory preening. They were not elected to office on a positive basis, but were sent there out of desperation by people disgusted by this war. If they have any intelligence and backbone at all, which I strongly doubt by the way, they will stand resolute and refuse ANY new appropriations for this war. If it comes down to it, they can refuse to pass a Defense Department appropriation bill for the 2008 fiscal year until the troops are completely withdrawn.
But if they start going along, to get along, with this administration, they may find their tails kicked right back out in 2008.
Published: November 8, 2006 10:01 AM
The endless analysis of why Republicans lost the house reminds me of a study in which people were asked to predict the next number is a series before them, without telling them that the numbers were generated randomly. Every person in the test thought they could see patterns and could predict the next number based on those patterns.
The party in power has lost seats in almost every off year election in history, especially in a president's second term. The best explanations I have seen for this phenomenon are 1) that people have buyers remorse after electing a president and 2) that swing voters, so-called independents, don't trust either party and so try to make sure that Congress and the Presidency are controlled by opposing parties.
I favor the second one. The Cato Institute has convinced me that it's the best we can hope for in a government for awhile. Some analysts consider libertarians the new swing voters.
Published: November 8, 2006 10:05 AM
Mark Brabson,
There's NO WAY that the democrats cut funding. They will be eaten alive in 2008 if they do that. Can you imagine what the GOP would run on if the Democrats cut funding for Body Armor and up-armored HUMWVEE's, but the troops stayed in Iraq? The GOP would scream that the Democrats would have blood on their hands; they would be finished.
What's more likely is that the Demcorats will hold endless hearings on the "culture of corruption" until late 2007, when all of the 2008 candidates will begin to emerge. '08 is the first "open" presidential race in a century (I don't think '52 counted, because Truman tried to run, but lost badly in the primaries).
Published: November 8, 2006 11:26 AM
Did anybody notice that the Libertarian Candidate in Montana was the difference in the Race up there? We still don't know who's going to win up there, but the LP candidate pulled 3% of the vote, with most of her votes probably coming from the GOP. Perhaps if Burns supported lower spending the LP candidate would have only gotten 2.9% of the vote and Burns would have been re-elected already.
Published: November 8, 2006 11:31 AM
I noticed in a bunch of lesser races, that Libertarians drained off enough votes to change the outcome. I was rather disappointed at Bob Smither's campaign totally fizzling out in Texas, as that was very promising at one time.
As for the war. There are other possibilities for the Democrats to pursue. They could, for example, offer up a Defense appropriations bill that cuts funding for research and development, but funds the troops and their immediate protective equipment. They can tell Bush if he wants any more, he has to end the war immediately. Or, they could offer to not subpeona Halliburton in exchange for the war's immediate end. On the other hand, if Bush remains intransigent, they can go on an offensive with subpeonas and investigations and tie this administration in total knots with embarrarsing disclosures.
Democrats have a rare chance to actually stand on a principle and demand this war end now. Now to be honest and realistic, I don't think they actually will, but we can always hope, can't we.
Published: November 8, 2006 11:56 AM
It's depressing to think that those who love to use force on other shores are washed out to be replaced by those who love to use force domestically.
The likes of Pelosi are liked by libertarians on civil liberties, great, but civil liberties don't mean a whole lot without economic liberty, and while she espouses balanced budgets and purports to "only tax when needed" she then talks about universal health care, the two don't go together. Her ilk will have to raise taxes to the stratosphere/ration care, or rely on Republican stealth tactics via deficit and debt, or use empire and conquest.
I hope that anti-war sentiments don't cloud judgement on what is now installed in D.C. Being swing voters in a dialectic of increasing Statism of any stripe is little to be inspired by. Warfare and Welfare States are joined together. Vacilating between the two Statist branches of our Government seems to an exercise in futility. One might as well quit worrying about it and wait until they come to take me away and go down swinging.
A Socialist/Statist is Socialist/Statist. What do I care what the flavor of the day is? Either I am free, or someone is taking my labor and using it to bash someone over the head. If there is any preference, I'd rather have a regime that has a tendency to use extorted wealth to bash others' heads versus my own. It's insane that the choice comes down to that.
Published: November 8, 2006 12:10 PM
In my post back on October 28, I made some predictions, lets see how I did.
Predicted Senate +7D, actual +6D
Predicted House +30D, actual +25D
Predicted Governors +7D, actual +6D
Predicted state legislators +200D-+300D, actual +275D with a number of races still pending
I am beginning to think Professor Larry Sabato actually does have a crystal ball. For those of you that don't know, his site is called the Crystalball, which is why I made that reference. He has been uncannily accurate on election predictions.
Published: November 8, 2006 12:18 PM
I'm sorry, but I somewhat disagree. While the War in Iraq is definitely, and rightly so, a key issue among principled Libertarians, how do we explain the re-election of Senator Lieberman in Connecticut? He is a strong supporter of the Iraqi War, the war on terrorism, our intervention in the Middle East, and interventionist U.S. foreign policy in general.
I believe that also contributing to the Republican's defeat were the scandals, that President Bush and some other Republicans tend to be cultural conservatives, and that they occasionally propose (but rarely act) to reduce the size of government. (Senator Lieberman, by contrast, is decidedly a liberal regarding most cultural/social and economic issues.) A significant number of Americans have little respect for traditional morality, and most of the electorate is addicted to the handouts and (fake) paternalism of the entitlement state.
And I would also add that many Americans are disenchanted with the Iraqi War not because it is wrong morally and illegal, but because it has not produced an American victory. Americans love a winner. On principle, the Iraqi War is no different than all other foreign wars the U.S. has entered into at least since the Spanish American War in 1898. But how many Americans, except principled Libertarians and Classical Liberals, would condemn U.S. involvement in these other military conflicts (Vietnam being a possible exception), not to mention our interventionist and imperialist foreign policy?
Published: November 8, 2006 12:40 PM
It is pretty darn difficult for an incumbent US senator to lose. I think the election was a referendum on the money pit and bodybags piling up in Iraq. People want out. There's no articulable reason left to stay there. The Democrats may allow their lame duck president to save face by letting the troops hang around until 2008 but after that I imagine they're north to Kurdistan and south to Kuwait and Qatar.
The Connecticut race was a bit unique. It's last Republican Senator was Lowell Weicker, who was a liberal maverick. There is no way they were going to elect a GOP senator under the Bush administration. Their other choice, Lamont, is a stupid commie who campaigned with Jackson and Sharpton. Who was going to vote for him other than blacks and government employees? So a plurality settled on Lieberman.
Published: November 8, 2006 12:57 PM
Reactionary,
Your comment regarding the Connecticut race is plausible. But this would seem to indicate that settling for Lieberman, as opposed to Lamont who actually does oppose the Iraqi War, means that the other issues you mentioned meant more to Connecticut voters than the Iraqi War. And my major point is that the Iraqi War is only part of the explanation for the election results, and a convenient excuse for many non-Libertarian/Classical Liberal voters, especially given their support for virtually every other war the United States has entered or started.
Published: November 8, 2006 1:22 PM
I've found that most people who oppose the war in Iraq, aside from Libertarians and Classical Liberals, generally did not even understand the meaning of the war in the first place. I have heard many people, especially Democrats, say that they support the war on terror, but not Iraq. It is like saying they support the war against Germany, but not in France. Bush failed to even explain the meaning of the war in the first place. For that alone, he deserved to lose.
Published: November 8, 2006 2:22 PM
Lest anyone get too excited about this election, or Iraq or Montana, do remember that, lost in the sheer number of close races decided yesterday, the following rather unfortunate:
1. Vermont overwhelmingly elected a bona-fide socialist, Bernie Sanders, to the Senate, and
2. Ohio elected Lou Dobbs's long-lost brother, Sherrod Brown, to the Senate.
The former, sez the Washington Post, got a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO. The latter wrote a book, Myths of Free Trade, endorsed by economists like...uh, Studs Terkel. Close enough, I guess.
(While I'm on the topic, here's a funny sentence from Publishers Weekly's glowing review: "[Overseas], miserably underpaid workers, denied workplace safety regulations or the right to unionize, can't buy the products they make, which creates imbalances of supply over demand and thus contributes to global economic stagnation." First of all, chasing employers away will not raise wages. Second, how many Malaysians or whoever really want Nike LeBrons or lollipops or Palm styluses anyway?)
According to Jacob Weisberg of Slate, "free trade has definitely left the building."
Meanwhile, the Mises blog features...an attack on Deepak Lal, author of a defense of classical liberalism, because he's not an anarchist.
Oh.
Published: November 8, 2006 5:45 PM
How does one so successfully convolute their thinking so that they could confuse "treaties" like WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, et al. with Free Trade?
Published: November 8, 2006 6:35 PM
M E,
And what do you suppose will replace these treaties? Pure laissez-faire? Or protectionism driven by people frightened of the goods Wal-Mart is buying from overseas?
Published: November 8, 2006 7:44 PM
Connecticut is unique, due to large populations of Liberal Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and a HUGE submarine base run by a HUGE defense contractor, General Dynamics. I think Reactionary has a point - many Connecticut voters thought the way the DNC attacked Lieberman by throwing their weight and money behind Lamont was just spiteful and pointless revenge.
Published: November 8, 2006 8:51 PM
L.R.
Free Trade would be just that, Free. We should light up those "treaties", bonfire-style, and light up our trade routes, from beginning to end, "Lights, Camera, Action"-style. I think the result would truly be less costly, more efficient, and generate greater wealth for more people.
Those "treaties", that masquerade as Free Trade, currently shield their "work" in nearly impenetrable reams of paper, thousands of pages thick. Worse, they create supra-state organizations peopled by the barely-known making "decisions" that barely, if, knowable.
What else are they, if not a travesty?
Published: November 8, 2006 9:19 PM
Ah, free trade. Since when do you check the passport of the person you are doing business with, anyways? What is wrong with the idea of shipping a Fed Ex box across an imaginary line arbitrarily drawn on a map over 100 years ago without having to pay a stranger a sum of money? What is the big deal? Are protectionists afraid they will lose their jobs? I don't get it.
Published: November 8, 2006 9:46 PM
There will be an interesting aspect to the 2008 elections, that will work strongly in the Democrats favor. That being that the Republicans hold the vast majority of the Senate seats up in 2008 and many of those states are trending Democrat. Add to that the fact that a number of Republicans will be retiring and the result could be that the Democrats reach the magic 60 votes needed to invoke cloture. If that happens AND a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2008, this country will make a political hard left not seen since FDR took office in 1933.
Will be a Libertarian and Anarchist nightmare for sure.
Published: November 8, 2006 9:57 PM
On "Free Trade" - I talked to two clients today who happen to be located in Canada. I agreed to send them items with which to conduct sampling and send back to me for analysis. I had to caution them though that the items, while they MIGHT make it through, might also be held up in Customs for weeks in either direction, and require the payment of duties and fees. And this is a country with whom we allegedly have a "Free Trade Agreement" (remember NAFTA?)
Published: November 8, 2006 11:52 PM
M E,
NAFTA is more complicated than is ideal; I don't disagree with you on that. The question is not what should happen, it's what likely will. The popularity of Lou "Yellow and Brown People are Taking Your Jobs" Dobbs, not to mention the election of Bernie "Greedy Capitalists are Taking Your Jobs" Sanders, does not exactly evince a great economic perspicacity on the part of the American people. I dearly wish it were otherwise, but let's not fool ourselves here.
* If any Firefox programmers are reading this, the word "okay" isn't in your spell-checker's dictionary...
Published: November 11, 2006 9:23 PM
L.R.
While I wish this trait:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perspicacity
was in greater abundance, I'm not sure how calling "treaties" like NAFTA, Free Trade, helps individuals gain better perspective.
Something about your most recent post brings to mind Tucker's essay on Water Heaters and the 120F thermostat setting.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/001594.asp
The conventional wisdom: set your water heater at 120F and use less electricity, might be true enough. But, as was shown, many problems, costing "dollars", were engendered by that method of saving pennies.
While not an exactly analogous situation, telling the American people, in effect, they cannot compete with "Free Trade", the kind under the guise of "treaties" such as NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, et al., isn't the whole story, either.
Would you think that if any(all) discussion of those "treaties" referred to them as Managed Trade, that the American people's "perspicacity index" might uptick?
Past the (limited/unlimited) Free Trade toggle, I'm surprised that you don't take issue with the supra-state bodies, filled by unelected "representatives", that these "treaties" have created.
Published: November 12, 2006 12:04 AM
None of you mentioned the influence of the newsmedia on voters. Which includes endorsements.
In the beginning it were the newsmedia that said Bush is a genius ! But later they said less about his ability. And for the longest time it was the newsmedia that putoff admitting Iraq was in a civil war. Never has it been said (in the news) of the impossibility of winning an urban guerilla war (in the Middle East !) My point is that they have a major influence on how the war and politics are discerned by the public. And they know so little about war (even after Viet Nam !)
The newsmedia idolizes our politicians, and some of them are amazingly incompetent over our freedom. Ron Paul (TX) is the exception (I always forget to mention him.)
The newsmedia promotes homeland security, but it's a huge waste of money and an even greater destroyer of our freedom. The media promotes socialism more than the politicians do - Nov 6 - blame the news media or blame our underground Libertarian newsmedia for not reaching the masses.
On Nov 7 the tv and press newsmedia won because their candidates won. America lost but it could never win with the types of politicians promoted and endorsed by it's newsmedia.
With the exception of candidates that support the 2nd amendment (which includes Ron Paul) I would say the only positive thing about them, in this election, are resistance to the Patriot Act and the war from the beginning. This includes few politicians: Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Bob Murtha (and Ron Paul !)
Published: November 13, 2006 5:38 PM
Those of you who oppose the WAR in Iraq, might do well to study History. The term WAR is a misnomer.
There was the WAR of 1812, the Civil WAR, World War ONE, and finally World War TWO. All of these WARS were brought to a successful conclusion.
As a matter of fact, we have aided those Countries that presumed to take that which we had worked long and hard to accomplish. We now work with and enable those who attacked us to reach a higher standard of living and economic wealth, coupled with democracy. (Japan, Germany)
Since World War Two, where all of the Citizens of the US worked together to help bring the horror to an end in OUR favor; there have been no WARS, nor successful conclusions. We DID have the Korean Conflict, Vietnam Police Action, Desert Storm and a multitude of adjectives for the current insurgence. All of these have not ended. We are still in Korea, ran from Vietnam, did not finish the Storm, nor do we have the stomach nor resolve to complete the response to an ACT of aggresion upon our Country on 9/11/01.
Don't put me in your cubbyhole of WAR hater, or pacifist. I spent 13 months in SouthEast ASIA, at the request of MY COUNTRY. I did so willingly, without reserve, or running off to another Country to hide behind someone else's skirt; then turn around and condemn the COUNTRY that allows me to have these rights. Those who did so were COWARDS!; brought up in a society that allows instant gratification.
In 1965 the Draft took many of our Countryman, male and female, who had no choice, except those mentioned above. There were over 47,000 who lost their lives, literally, and Thousands more who came home half a person. Some lost limbs, others eyesight; some both. Others came home with other disabilities, drug and/or alcohol related. Others worse still, with memories that they could not suppress, disconnected and unwanted.
What they came home to was the SCORN of those whom they went to protect; to be spat upon, cursed, and worse, turned away.
Today, our Military is the BEST and BRIGHTEST group of VOLUNTEERS to offer their services to an ungrateful Country. I know, I know, we all verbalize about how grateful we are, how proud we are, how much we support our troops. This for the most part is Lip Service. The troops know it and so do YOU! Yet they continue to serve!
Most of you who complain have never served in the Military, nor even helped in the food line at a shelter. Most of you have way to much Time and Money on your hands, which gives you Time to Ponder the Truths of our Society. You remind of the "WOMEN"? from one of our NorthEastern States who wanted to SUE the State Education Department. They wanted to have the urinals removed from the boy's and men's restrooms, because their precious daughters' restrooms did not have urinals. This treaded upon their daughters CIVIL RIGHTS. WAY TO MUCH TIME AND MONEY!!!!!!!
Get a GRIP!
Published: November 14, 2006 9:52 AM
We have these adults in this country that are still saying (even after US troops gang raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl and then killed her and her family) that the soldiers and POLICE are their heroes. They sound like children who still believe in princes and princesses.
I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps; At Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton I climbed and practiced on MY Smokey and Mt Motherfucker. I joined because I had this silly idea I would walk in the footsteps of those before me, like those farmers and minutmen at Concord Bridge (Massachusetts) in 1775. I joined for me, not for any other, and no other owes me anything. I did it also so that we can all continue to exercise our 1st amendment right to say or write whatever the fuck we believe in, including articulating or advocating libertarian principles about wars or conflicts of imperialism or insanity.
But more important than all that is that our freedom does not come from war or conflict - it comes from our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. And our greatest threats to our freedom have never come from outside our borders but from within, within our own government. Participation in War or combat is not a requirement to be free in the US - read the goddam thing ! Usually, it's those who volunteer into the military who know the least about freedom and war. Maybe that's the way it should be. I don't have any heroes ! And I don't want any.
Grip this !
Published: November 14, 2006 6:21 PM