We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The expectable unintended consequences It had to happen and it has. Both statist parties have found a way around the anti-First Amendment law (MCCAIN-Feingold) of the contemptible John McCain. This is the law whose intent is to prevent protected political free speech from occurring during the late period of the US election.
I read somewhere recently (and cannot find it right now) about a liberal group who are raising money to attack George Bush through the entire campaign season. This seems silly until you realize that he is a proxy for the Republican Party.
The Republican’s have their own breed of professional slime tossers and they have settled on Bill Clinton as a good proxy for Hillary and the Democrats in general.
The bottom line? John McCain is not only a totalitarian: he’s a moron as well.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
… and old, it’s a stressful job, he might die while in office, and he may select Mike “God makes them polls” Huckabee who wants to ban smoking and federalise restaurant menus and local schools and all types of other intrusive things involving American bodies and American souls. Huckabees’s FP sucks donkey balls as well. Can anyone see any good of having Huckabee as the stand-in president?
The real objective of MCCAIN-Feingold (to use Mr. Amon’s spelling) was incumbent protection. There are lots of creative ways to whack the opposition, but McCain-Feingold was aimed at keeping the political class (both flavors) in power. Call it subtle disenfranchisment.
The only surprise is that the political class felt they needed more incumbent protection. By some estimates, less than 10% of federal races were in any way competitive even before McCain-Feingold.
We are left with the outer symbols of democracy, while the substance has been drained away.
Blood in the gutters — the only way that “change” will ever truly occur.
Agreed on Huckabee as well. You will have to excuse me a bit on that part as I have had only a few months to build up my dislike for Huck whereas I have had *years* to build my McCain loathing into visceral hatred.
Prior to the 2004 election I always voted for the Libertarian candidate because it did not really much matter whether Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee won. In 2004 I broke that record because I did not just want to not vote for Kerry; I was horrified at the idea of him in the White House.
Likewise with McCain or Huckabee. If they run I will be voting to ensure they *LOSE*. Hillary and Obama are just more of the same slow slide we have been on for decades. McCain and Huckabee are, on the other hand, clear and present dangers to our basic liberties.
Unfortunately, the epithet ‘moron’ cannot be applied here. Morons don’t become US senators.
‘Deluded’, ‘dangerous’, ‘wrong’ and a host of others, but not ‘moron’.
I support both rich individuals and corporations being allowed to give as much money to election campaigns as they wish to.
I also believe that this is covered by the First Amendment (most Law academics and judges do not agree – but I have about as much respect for them as you do Dale).
However, to call someone who takes an opposing view a “totalitarian” is silly.
Dale, you are wildly exaggerating about McCain. While some of his positions, like McCain-Feingold, and even more cap_and_trade carbon – are very bad, he still got 82% of votes right, i.e. conservative. He is campaigning for tax and spending reductions… he is, possibly, the least worst of remaining Republicans, and would be better, by much than both Obama and Billary.
Yes Jacob. The Cato Institute line that John McCain is no more anti government spending that George Bush is just wrong.
He voted against the new programs that President Bush introduced and he has voted against a lot of other stuff.
He opposed ethenol subsidies in Iowa and now he is opposing the government “insurance” scheme in Florida.
As for “Totalitarian”.
I rather doubt that McCain would move against media outlets who attacked him.
I strongly suspect a President Hillary Clinton would find ways to do this.
It will not be the way it was when Bill was President.
First News International will make a deal (Rupert M. will have – or have his company hit in many ways).
Then talk radio will go – the fairness doctrine will see to that.
Then……
It’s worth noting that McCain’s conservative votes are a lifetime rating, and his more recent years have repeatedly dipped down into the 60s-70s.
McCain has opposed government spending where Bush has supported it, but he’s also advocated big government where Bush has opposed it. Furthermore, his opposition to Bush’s spending often had a considerable element of personal animosity to it, as have many of his policy decisions.
And what are Obama’s and Clinton’s percentages ? 8% ? 12 % ?
Which is better ? I’ll take McCain over Hillary or Obama any day (though without any joy).
I might be a bit tired but I’ve read this three times now
and I’ve still no idea what it is trying to say.
The beauty of Samizdata is – usually – that you can come to it no matter what level of inside track thinking and it all makes sense.
Not with this post. The problem is between the first and second paragraphs where, as far as this reader is concenred, there is little continuation of a line of thought and no context whatsoever.
Lets not just stick in links everywhere and expect readers to do the heavy lifting folks. Put more time into the writing and show some consideration.
I would find it difficult to believe that any long term reader of Samizdata is not familiar with McCain-Feingold. Many, if not all, libertarians would consider it the most serious attack on the First Amendment that has occurred in our lifetimes.
The very fact the John McCain is the primary mover behind this law tells me he has absolutely no conception of what the Constitution means. It is a far more blatant attack on the very core of the 1st Amendment than anything else I have seen in my lifetime since it is an attack on individual political speech. That is something our founders would most certainly have considered utterly inviolable and sacrosanct.
Libertarians fought this in the Supreme Court and got double crossed by the same slime bucket (Ken Starr) who was the special prosecutor against Clinton about his sex life. If anything, it made me sympathetic to Bill. The guy was working for the vested interests (ie incumbent protection) and did not want 1st Amendment freedom of speech arguments heard. He succeeded.
John McCain has *PROVEN* what his stripes are via McCain-Feingold. He will not be forgiven it; and it will not be forgotten so long as I have fingers to type.
My vote and whatever persuasive abilities I have will be used to keep such a person out of office.
That’s President McCain to you. It looks all but certain at this point. As another poster noted, I, too, will be voting for him with no joy, but it’s better than the alternative. Conservatives have tried losing elections to “send a message” before and, it’s given us gems like Jimmy Carter, with which whose disasters we are still grappling.
At least, as other posters wrongly suggested, the odds of McCain selecting Huckabee as his running mate are slim to none. They are as different as peas and turnips. More likely, he will select a more establishment candidate. Dare I hope Thompson will get the nod? We won’t know until it’s all or nearly over.
Oh great, and that would be because voting “the lesser evil” has worked out sooooo well eh? In what ways did Bush improve civil liberties and the sheer size of the state over his Democratic predecessor?
Dale, while many on Samizdata do seem to know about McCain-Feingold, the false suggestions that Romney is similar, or that Romney would increase to size of the state, make Samizdata, in the old Marxist terminology, objectively pro-McCain.
The MSM is in love with McCain and the new media (and radio) are the primary vectors through which Romney makes progress. When sites like this suggest that raising fees by $250 million, while getting rid of a $3 billion budget deficit is an example of increasing the size of the state, they perpetuate the MSM’s dominance of the memes.
There is a genuine struggle in the Republican party between freedom and a cult of personality over a veteran. I’m genuinely disappointed that Samizdata is choosing the “vote Nader” option.
James: Just a gentle reminder… Samizdata is neither a Republican nor a Conservative site. It is “mostly libertarian”. When I speak of Republican candidates it is not with any particular interest in the Republican Party as I have never been a member of it and never will be. The only question in my mind is whether Libertarian Republicans succeed in moving it in a libertarian direction; and whether it comes out with a candidate that is an actual libertarian. There is only one.
I have said nothing about Romney or Guliani as I basically do not see any real difference between them and Clinton or Obama from a libertarian perspective. It is only a matter of which liberties are abridged first, not a matter of liberty versus statism.
I also take interest in the Republicans because they will be controlling my vote in a sense because they have the broadest range of possible candidates. There are two whom I consider enemies to liberty: McCain and Huckabee. There are two whom I consider “more of the same old same old”: Guliani and Romney; and there is one whom I consider a solid libertarian (or close enough for US Government work): Ron Paul
My vote is utterly predictable and I have no doubt said it before. If Ron Paul were to get the nomination, I would vote Republican. If Guliani or Romney get it, I will vote my usual straight Libertarian ticket. If McCain or Huckabee get it, I will actively oppsoe them and vote Democrat.
It is as simple as that. I am NOT a Republican and care little about their fortunes per se.
I think it because folks like myself has seen where not voting for what you actually want ends up. Bush and Cameron are products of non-socialists holding their noses and pretending such people are anything less than vile. The two party system persists because people let it persist.
That said, in truth I do not think The System is reformable (only in part because of folks who think the way you do, i.e. who are not even trying to actually reform it, just patch it)… my guess is that implosion due to the inherent contradictions in regulatory statism and new technology will be what saves us in the long run.
But James, did you think in your most fevered moment that McCain would get a friendly word on Samizdata? The fact he is probably a tad bonkers (and I mean that literally, not as an epithet) would not stop me supporting him if I though he would actually significantly roll back the state. I don’t because he will just do so in a cosmetic manner, if at all.
That said, in truth I do not think The System is reformable…
And another thing is that when “right wing” politicos (relatively) do badly they have (recently at least) taken onboard stuff from the left. Hence iDave’s Tory-lite and W’s Compassionate Conservatism. Of course Blair did the same with his third way.
They don’t seem to realize that for every voter they gain in the centre they lose one on the right*. The whole system is imploding, literally. There’s a vicious circle of “lose, shift, repeat” and the the whole political “spectrum” of yore is collapsing towards a singularity where you might as well vote on the colour of the guys tie as on his policies.
In the end we’ll just end up with a choice between a number of fascists who dream up increasingly goofy initiatives to appear different from each other. The grand cause celebre of our time, the environment, is a deep vein to mine for such initiatives. How long that state of affairs would persist for is moot. I have no idea.
*Who then emigrates, gets pissed-off with the whole bally-lot of them, and/or comments on Samizdata.
I’ve just put up a post at Crusader Rabbit and another at A Western Heart about the NZ government’s own version of McCain/Feingold.
Bastards.
Voting “the lesser evil” has given us… the lesser evil. Look, I’m not kidding about Jimmy Carter. The present unpleasantness with the jihadi movement can be traced back precisely to his feckless reign. Four to eight years, with reverberations decades hence, is a big chunk out of our lives.
I didn’t like George Bush pere so, I didn’t vote, thinking at the least that if Clinton failed, it would discredit the entire liberal side in subsequent years. It never occurred to me in my darkest dreams that he could fail spectacularly and nobody would notice, and would even applaud. I’ll not make that mistake again.
You have got to be kidding. Islam has been a problem since before the United States existed and Jimmy Carter hardly registered on the radars of Sunni radicalism. He locked horns with Iranian Shi’ites and came out in second place and those fellahs are a whole other ball of rabid vipers.
Voting lesser evil just slows the rate at which you get fucked. Not a sustainable strategy in the long run and the long run eventually becomes now.
Welcome to the underside of politics, the part that no talking head wants to discuss — the people who don’t (always) vote.
If you look into Bush 41 vs Clinton and Clinton vs Dole, Clinton got the votes that could have been predicted by linear extrapolation from previous presidential elections. Nor was the issue Ross Perot. The problem was that an establishment, big government Republican candidate cannot attract enough votes. There are lots of contingent voters — people who may vote if they see a candidate they like, but otherwise do not vote at all.
Variable and generally declining voter turnout seems to be a big issue in Europe too. Maybe all those center-right candidates should try something different from drifting ever leftwards. At least in the US, there are millions of extra votes in that direction.
“Islam has been a problem since before the United States existed and Jimmy Carter hardly registered …”
Pace Sir Winston’s prescient admonitions, Carter’s tenure marks a clear inflection point in the modern ascendance of the global jihad.
“…the people who don’t (always) vote…”
It’s a classic passive-aggressive response to those by whom one has been displeased. Take your ball and go home. And, if that doesn’t work, stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue. Maybe it will work, if you can find someone who cares.
No, it was nothing so nefarious; it was just vain and self-serving–all about vindicating McCain’s precious honor. And so unnecessary! Nobody remembers or cares that he is one of the Keating Five. All that matters to people is that he’s a war hero.
How do you figure that? Iranian shi’ites are really only a regional problem and they sure don’t fly airliners into office blocks. How is Carter relevant?
I think you are missing my point. You think that you are making a difference by playing the two horse game and voting for the (assumed) lesser evil. You are not. In fact you are helping to perpetuate the degenerating political culture which is the very source of our weakness. My argument is actually not a principled one, it is a utilitarian one.
Tell me something I do not know.
“Congress shall make no law…”; it sounds pretty clear and absolute to me. How those “Law academics and judges” are allowed to reach their positions without being able to read is a wonder.
The Cato Institute also comes out with the line that Clinton or Obama are better than McCain because of McCain-Feingold.
As if either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama were against it.
Of course it did not prove to be an “incumbents protection Act” as November 2006 showed. Both in the House and the Senate incombents were defeated in large numbers.
Like it or not most people are in favour of restricting the amount of money that rich individuals and corporations can give to election campaigns.
This has to be faught in the courts (on First Amendment grounds) right up to the Supreme Court.
Trying to fight the desire of the majority of voters in elections is not going work out well – because it is the desire of the majority.
Of course one can try and convince the majority that they are wrong – but just pretending it is just John McCain is false.
Morons don’t become US senators.
The prosecution presents Lincoln ChafeeRa.
The prosecution has proved its case – the former Senator from Rhode Island was and is a moron.
As for Senator McCain.
I would not have supported him the primary contests.
For example, just to take one point, he is one of the weakest debaters I have ever seen.
He ignores what is being said around him (almost as if he was deaf) and just carries on using the same few words whether they have any connection to the question asked or to the things the other people have said. And NO – it is not true that all politicians do this, they adapt their words to the question and to what their opponents have said.
This is not just in one debate – this is every debate I have seen.
Still the voters seem to like him.
From a “are we doomed whatever happens” point of view a President McCain would be interesting.
This is because he was the main opponent to Bush brain back in 2000.
Under a President Gore there would have been lots of new government programs.
And under President Bush there were lots of new government programs – no-child-left-behind, the Medicare extention and so on.
It would be nice to think that under a President McCain there would not have been such programs.
Otherwise it really does not matter how people vote.
It really is a “we are all doomed whatever happens” situation.