Republicans Ally with Hillary Clinton to Bring On Socialized Medicine

George Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger jointly get credit for empowering Hillary Clinton to once again seek socialized medicine. Bush led the way by accepting the premise that government must provide for medical care when he initiated the government provision of prescription drugs to the elderly. He also endorsed the idea that it was unfair for drug companies to charge a lot for their drugs and make money, since he initiated that plan in response to a public outcry over "high" drug prices.

Gov. Schwarzenegger took this further and has proposed de facto socialized medicine in California, the nation's largest state. As goes California, so goes the rest of the country.

One should not be surprised by the leftist actions of two of the leading Republicans of the land. The spiritual father of George Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger is Republican President Richard Nixon who, when he was president, radically expanded the welfare state and the government's regulatory apparatus. It is doubtful that any Democrat could have gotten away with such things as: the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA, the imposition of nationwide wage and price controls, the abolition of the remaining gold standard, and the endorsement of the near hyper-inflation of the currency.

Republicans are often worse enemies of capitalism than Democrats. If they decide to advocate a statist policy, their fellow Republicans are ham-strung from speaking out in opposition, as they would if a Democrat were taking the same position. Out of a mistaken view that it is "pragmatic" to placate the opposition by hijacking their ideas, they enact avowedly left-wing programs such as the expansion of welfare spending, raising the minimum wage, etc. However, such a tactic, while it may be "pragmatic", is far from practical. All they succeed in doing is demoralizing their party and at the end of the day, all they have accomplished is the enactment of a laundry list of left-wing policies that would make any Democrat proud to have accomplished.

The bottom line is: NO party stands for anything remotely resembling even a semi-free society. Even when judged strictly on economic terms, I cannot endorse a Republican over a Democrat.

I might add that many Democrats have done "Republican" things such as John Kennedy, who lowered income taxes, Jimmy Carter who deregulated railroads, trucking, and the airlines, and Bill Clinton, who presided over welfare reform and partial deregulation of telecommunications and electricity.

I think it is very important to withdraw support of Republicans until they begin to actually stand for limited government. Don't think that we will get worse economic policies under a Democratic administration. Odds are, we won't.

Why I Will Keep Voting Democratic, Until... In every major area, except for religious values, I cannot see a difference between the parties. Both parties spend our money with abandon. They redistribute wealth from rich to poor or from one pressure group to another. They purchase votes with earmarks and new welfare programs. They restrict the substances that can go into our body, whether it is food or drugs. Both parties fund mediocre and pacifying public education. Both parties use our money and military to aid unworthy peoples and countries abroad. Both parties compromise with dictators, give money to those dictators, and pay for the podium those dictators speak at. Both parties use the coercive power of government to enact rules that favor nature over man. The Republicans differ from the Democrats in only one important way. In addition to doing all of the same things the Democrats do, the Republicans also seek to destroy the separation of church and state. For the Republicans, their paramount value is religion, and they seek to inject it into our life in sundry ways. They seek to ban abortion, to restrict "devilish" scientific research, to fund programs to teach anti-abortion and abstinence abroad, to use government money to fund religious charities at home, to ban pornography on the Internet and curse words on television, and to ban particular sexual practices, gambling, prostitution and drugs. The only other difference between the parties is what they call their statist programs. The Republicans will often claim that their religious-statist program is enacted in the name of "freedom" or "liberty" or "free markets" or "American values" or even "capitalism". The Democrats also use these labels sometimes, but without conviction. They are far more animated when they demand "social justice", the reduction of "inequality of income" between the rich and poor or between CEOs and workers, and "environmental justice". The Democrats are more honest in calling their leftist program by its left-wing labels. For their relative honesty, the Democrats deserved our vote. For their relative secularity, they deserved our vote. In terms of actions, it will be awful if the Democrats exercise their newly-found power. But one thing is for sure, it will not be worse than the actions of the Republicans. And when the Democrats get blamed for the failures of their policies, it will not be "free markets" or "American values" or "capitalism" that gets blamed, it will be the statist ideology those policies actually represent. If the Republicans rediscover a secular approach to limited government, they will be worthy of my vote. Until then, I will continue to vote for the lesser of two evils: the Democrats.

President Bush -- Big Talk and Little Action, A Dangerous Combination

I would prefer an avowed pacifist as president, instead of President Bush. At least, when the pacifist fails, he would go down in history like Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain who claimed he was establishing "peace in our time" as he signed away Czechoslovakia's sovereignty to Nazi Germany on the eve of World War II. Chamberlain thought he would achieve peace by appeasing the Nazis. Instead, his policy of appeasement emboldened the Germans and helped bring on World War II.

Chamberlain became a symbol of the evil of appeasement. As an exemplar of how NOT to deal with dictators, he helped strengthen the spine of the world as it fought the Nazis and later the Communists.

What is the danger of Bush? First, in actual practice, he appeases no less than any other administration. He is now offering oil, nuclear plants and other goodies to the Iranians and North Koreans to persuade them to stop their programs to develop nuclear bombs. Yes, he did invade Iraq, but he does nothing against the greater enemy Iran, even as that country, for example, ships bombs into Iraq to kill our soldiers. In Israel, he authorized the Europeans to send more money to Hamas, the same terrorist group that has killed many Americans. Indeed, Bush's actions to defend us from Muslim terrorists are likely not that different than what we could have expected from a Democratic administration.

But, despite his little actions, Bush is (at times) a big talker. He refers to the "Axis of Evil". He pontificates loudly against the Iranians and North Koreans, against Syria, etc. (that is, when he is not holding hands and kissing the crown prince of Saudi Arabia -- yes, Bush did that a few months ago in case you missed the photos in the newspaper).

By talking big and doing little, Bush disorients and alienates those who want the United States to properly defend itself against the terrorists. Through his big talk, Bush gives the "appearance" of strong action, while his actions are incredibly weak. Bush operates on the premise: "If words could kill, my enemy would already be dead."

Unfortunately, while Bush talks, the enemy prepares for his next move.

A pacifist as President (such as John Kerry), would give us the same actions, but none of the same phony talk (although we would get different phony talk). And when another attack occurs on his watch, it is pacifism and appeasement that gets a black eye. Under Bush, when we are attacked again there will be no clarity as to why Bush's policies were unsuccessful in preventing that attack. Was it because we were too weak against the Muslim terrorists? Or, maybe we were too strong by calling them too many names and supporting Israel too much? Maybe Bush should have more actively cut ties with Israel and offered that country up as appeasement to the inflamed Muslim masses?

If a pacifist fails, it is pacifism that gets blamed. Then maybe next time a truly strong leader like a Winston Churchill could step in and win this war. I hope that when it happens, it will not take something as horrific as the nuking of an American or Western city [I live in New York]. And I hope that Bush hasn't muddled things up so much that all the Winston Churchills out there who could step up would be silent.