Skip to comments.How Liberals and Conservatives use Fear-Mongering to Promote Statism (Southern Avenger)
Posted on 09/30/2010 6:37:32 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
When President Obama announced a new $50 billion stimulus plan Labor Day weekend, conservatives scoffed -- and rightfully so.
Who does this guy think he's fooling? After the $700 billion TARP bailout, the auto manufacturer bailout, and an $800 billion stimulus, does this president actually think a measly $50 billion is going to successfully turn around an economy where greater sums have failed? But the president and his party have a ready reply for such naysayers: "Imagine if we did nothing?" This open-ended question will undoubtedly continue to provide cover for stimulus-loving liberals, no matter how often conservatives insist that their government intervention simply doesn't work.
When my commentary on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 was broadcast on WTMA, a number of callers were angry I suggested that our policy of foreign intervention does not work. No matter how much I explained how our incompetent government does more damage than good abroad, my critics sounded pretty much like Obama: "But Jack, imagine if we did nothing?"
So yes, let's imagine these scenarios. What if the Federal Reserve had never artificially lowered interest rates and created a housing bubble? What if the Fed had not printed literally countless dollars out of thin air, further weakening our currency? What if we never had borrowed money from China to pay for bailouts and stimulus? Would we be worse off financially than if the government had never done any of these things? Any conservative worth his salt recognizes the absurdity of these arguments and also recognizes that such fear-mongering is typically used as an excuse for more statism.
But such fear-mongering is also used by those on the Right to support our equally statist foreign policy, particularly when they portray radical Islam as somehow a threat on par with the Soviet Union or talk radio's favorite comparison, the Nazis. Although I agreed with some callers that there probably is a uniquely medieval aspect to Islam not present or as prominent in other major religions, I asked, "Why did Americans not have to worry about Islamic terrorism in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s? What has changed? Islam? Or our foreign policy?" The question answers itself in the sense that we don't have to "imagine" what might happen if we "did nothing" in the Middle East today, precisely because when we did little to nothing decades ago, there was no terrorist threat to the United States.
A few of my critics immediately and predictably called me an "isolationist" in much the same way Obama now chides conservative Republicans as belonging to the "Party of No" for opposing every new government intervention the Democrats come up with. Government must do something, you see, and no doubt Obama would readily paint anti-stimulus Republicans as some sort of domestic, economic "isolationists" if such jargon came into fashion. Luckily for conservative hawks, such jargon is well-established but is no less absurd. Compared to how engaged we are today in the Middle East, did the U.S. have an "isolationist" policy toward that region in the first half of the 20th century? Is Switzerland asking for trouble due to their long history of neutrality or isolationism? Are 99 percent of nations "isolationist" for not mimicking the foreign policy of the U.S., arguably the most ambitious imperial power in world history?
When conservatives suggest that we should apply free market solutions to financial crises, liberals dismiss those who make such proposals as libertarian wackos who don't realize that it was the lack of government regulation that led to such problems in the first place. This is similar to the claim many conservatives make concerning foreign policy: that if the U.S. does not drop bombs on certain Third World countries indefinitely, station troops in some Mideast sand pit for decades on end, and regulate the world stage, our refusal to do all this will somehow put Americans at risk.
It's time for both sides to start imagining what they fear most: What if we did nothing? What if our federal government didn't spend or borrow beyond its means or constantly meddle domestically? What if our federal government did not constantly intervene overseas, spending and borrowing well beyond its means to do so?
We used to have a Constitution which restricted our federal government from doing such damage, and if we could only return to that charter, this entire column would be a moot point. Yet the prevailing belief that government must always do something both domestically and abroad will not be discarded by the Left or Right anytime soon. Both sides have an enduring attachment to statism, born not only of their particular ideologies but political identities, and they will continue to create new problems using government intervention in the name of solving old ones, blind to the fact that the larger mess is almost entirely of their own making.
Another Libertarian pinhead blaming the US for Islamic fundamentalism.
But, then again, Rabs, you're a Paultard, which is why you lap this crap up.
Are you kidding? I guess we should just agree with the Left that 9/11 was a police matter instead of an act of war. Or maybe it was an inside job, like Ron Paul's buddy Alex Jones believes.
Naah, we have nothing to worry about from 7th century fanatics with potential access to nuclear weapons ... nothing to see here, move on. Sheesh.
Although I agreed with some callers that there probably is a uniquely medieval aspect to Islam not present or as prominent in other major religions, I asked, "Why did Americans not have to worry about Islamic terrorism in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s? What has changed? Islam? Or our foreign policy?"
Oh, please: have "America's chickens ... come home to roost"? Spare me the paleo-con/Leftist isolationist claptrap. In a world with weapons that can destroy cities in a blink of an eye, we have no choice other than to maintain a proactive and robust military presence in parts of the world that are infested with rogue dicators and terrorists.
What's changed is the fact that Saudi princes sitting on billions of oil money are using their wealth to spread Wahabism around the world. This makes it all the more urgent that we become energy independent.
No mention of course of how the libertarians consistently stand side by side with the Marxists on supporting terrorist rights, defending the rights of dictatorships, supporting the fascist gay rights agenda, defending the rights of drug lords, pimps, etc .
The libertarians have been the best friend that Marxists could have.
I completely agree with the author when it came to TARP. It was the same snake oil salesmen, like Paulson and Larry Summers who caused the mess that told us the sky was falling. The Austrian Economist would argue every billion spent on TARP is an unknown amount of money removed from the private system that could have created jobs or wealth.