Errrr… I have news for you, Cato Institute… Barack Obama was lying.
He never had the slightest intention of going about eliminating Federal government schemes or aspects of such schemes, in the hopes of reducing the overall burden of government.
On the contrary his entire political life has been spent trying to increase the size and scope of government – and to do so in the most corrupt ways possible. Only someone who knew nothing about Barack Obama’s time in politics would be surprised by the hundreds of pages of detailed corrupt wasteful schemes in the “Stimulus” Act, and in the Obama Care Act – and in every other Act he has had passed (the details of which written by such old comrades of his as Jeff Jones – a man who repents of his Communist terrorism as much as Bill Ayers does, i.e. not at all).
Let us say I am wrong – and that Barack Obama is not trying to destroy America and the West in general on purpose (as part of the Cloward and Piven doctrines of spend America to the destruction of “capitalism” that he was taught at all those Marxist conferences he went to whilst a post grad at Columbia)…
…Even if the question of motivation is put on one side, the facts of his record both in the Chicago Machine, and at State level, and then in the United States Senate, where he managed to be even more corrupt and wild spending than Christopher Dodd (one of the two main supporters of the ultra vile “Financial Reform Act” that Obama has just had passed – the other being a creature called Barney Frank), something that might be thought to be pretty much impossible… well, it seems pretty damn obvious what to expect from President Obama.
“But they always knew that Paul”.
No, “with all due respect” the Cato Institute (like Reason magazine) contains some people, not all – but some, who really believed Barack Obama in 2008 – people who never bothered to do the slightest research into the record of Barack Obama – and were abusive (very abusive) to anyone who tried to point out their errors. “You are supposed to be a Christian Paul – Christians forgive”.
Forgiveness comes after repentance.
“Left libertarianism” (i.e. the gross denial of objective reality) has not gone away – as some recent writings show.
Christian I may be – Saint I am not.
Until the good people at the Cato Institute drive out the bad, I will not be putting any trust in them.
While you have people on your staff who continue to have fantasies about Comrade Barack (and the good intentions of the MSM – and the nobility of academia and…) and regard (for example) Tea Party people as fit only for hatred and sneering contempt – then you are not to be trusted.
“But we are atheists” – so what?
People turn up to Tea Party events with Ayn Rand banners (not as gate crashers – but as respected parts of such events) – people go on to the Glenn Beck show and deny the existence of God.
And such people are treated with the respect that the smug “libertarian left” never shows to anyone – bar the left itself (and I do not mean the libertarian left).
This is not a question of atheists versus religious people – it is a question of decent people, versus people who were up to their necks with the Obama crowd (with the MSM, and academia – and the rest).
Until such people wash themselves clean (till they really repent – and that need NOT be a religious thing) then they are active danger to liberty.
Well put, and I say that as a fan/supporter of both Reason and Cato (and even of the writings of some of the “liberaltarians”). There is a lack of charity towards their more culturally conservative brethren that seems to go beyond policy differences. It’s a shame. And as events continue to shake out and vindicate their opponents more and more, I hope some of these genuinely intelligent and (I believe) fundamentally well-meaning people will de-escalate this pointless internecine culture war. I’d like them back on the side of the angels.
While I balk at many of the tea party supporters’ views on immigration, War on Terror etc, the chances of a pure libertarian revolution in the US are zero. The Tea Party is as good as it is likely going to get and Brink Lindsey and co should support the movement. Ultimately the US is a tolerant society and this is likely to remain the case even with a Palin administration.
Nah! ANYBODY could tell that Obama was going to feed Leviathan once he got into office. It was OK to hope that he would somehow be different (ya never know…) but not realistic.
I don’t think they’re the slightest bit surprised – I think they’re using it as a club to beat Obama with. A libertarian think-tank advocating spending cuts is boring, but if you make it out to be Obama breaking promises, it gets(marginally) more interesting. It’s a PR tactic.
Why research into a politician’s background? Youl only risk denying yourself a part of all the blind optimism and showy altruism of voting for a fashionable and allegedly caring messiah.
You’ll also deny yourself the chance to show what a liberal and compassionate person you are when you tell others how you’ve be let down, betrayed even.
In the vain, shallow, safe, government waged world of leftish politics these things are what really matter, not policies that work and make financial sense.
Of course we know Obama is lying. We know he is a socialist. No doubt about that.
Still, in polite society, you try to ignore it, or at least not utter impolite words, and write as if you believe otherwise. It’s a matter of style, of manners.
Nothing wrong with the article in the link.
But those “libertarians” who supported Obama need to be ashamed of themselves, and repent, and take a break, and go meditate about their errors, and refrain from inflicting on us any more of their wisdom, and stop writing articles for a while at least.
I suggest you go back and read what some of them were saying before the election then
Quite a lot of libertarians bought the Obama package fairly wholesale; also, quite recently, Brink Lindsey, whom I generally rate, wrote a remarkably unpleasant attack on the conservative side of the movement. There is a real animus there that he does not seem to feel for the left.
I get the impression that some of the Cato/Reason types have, in the manner of a guy chatting up a young woman, tried to reach out to the Democrats and realised, as everyone eventually does, that there is little in the way of common ground. She’s just not that into you!
“Whenever God errects a house of prayer
The Devil always builds a chapel there
And,’t’will be found upon examination
The latter has the larger congregation”
“Actions receive their tincture from the times
And, as they change, are virtues made of crimes”
The more things “Hope and Change” the more things
stay the same.
“Whenever God errects a house of prayer
The Devil always builds a chapel there
And,’t’will be found upon examination
The latter has the larger congregation”
“Actions receive their tincture from the times
And, as they change, are virtues made of crimes”
1701?
The more things “Hope and Change” the more things
stay the same.
My understanding of scripture is that if you are a Christian then you are, by definition, a saint.
“There is a real animus there …”
We must admit that it’s mutual. Conservative-religious types have little patience for libertarians.
Still, since libertarianism is too small a force yet, it must seek aliances. But not with lefties, they are beyond the pale.
Not the first time I’ve said it, but: All corrupt systems work the same and Obama’s principles, whatever they may be, don’t matter because he’ll sell them out to the highest bidder. Indeed, his one ‘principle’ seems to be growing government so as to have more to sell.
Randian Objectivists are atheists (and very proud and open atheists) yet they are welcomed at Tea Party events – and are welcome on such things as the Glenn Beck show.
As for wars – the discovery that the various wars were not really about hunting down terrorists, but were about social democrat (Woodrow Wilson) style “nation building” to “spread democracy and…..” has changed a lot of minds about the wisdom of an interventionist policy.
“They should have known at the time…” – yes they should, but falling for this was a lot more understandable (in the post 9/11 environment) than falling for Barack Obama.
And the Brink Lindsey essay shows the “Libertarian Left” have not really changed – they are as nasty and intolerant as ever. They would (and do) always sell out Western Civilization to the left.
They need to fundamentally rethink their position – take some time out of politics in order to become better people.
Why would I not have Taken the guff about Obama seriously? Quick answer I spend my working life toiling in the groves of academe which in its so-called liberal arts division is filled with complete ninnies. They have never toiled nor spun in the real world; their economic preference is for in the long run we are all dead deep philosophy of John Maynard Keynes rather than the robust realism of Adam Smith. In short they are a losers and yes indeed ignoramuses who never fact check – they know it all so fact checking is a waste of time. Here are just a few egregious examples of Obama’s ignorance, the misreferencing on the Oval Office rug – the Austrian language – the 57 states of the Union, etc. And trust me Obama the ignorant is not unique – his whole entourage and cheerleading group are cut from the same shoddy cloth.
As a long time Reason fan, I remember the shock that some writers during the 2008 campaign actually expressed cautious optimism that Obama would be at least marginally better than either Bush or McCain. Given his rather clear public and voting record, it was obvious he was and is a bigger statist then either of the 2 Repubs he was compared to.
Reason and CATO both seem to have been shamed by that earlier feeling but the fact remains even some who should have known better let “hope and change” overrun their own hard won realism.
It really is a cultural thing – some people (not all) at Reason magazine and the Cato Insitute want to be friends with the MSM and with academia, they want to be “respected” by the self proclaimed cultural and intellectual elites.
The trouble is that academia and “mainstream” media have been more and more dominated by anti liberty pro “Progressive” government doctrine for more than a century – going right back to the days of Richard Ely and co in academia, and Walter Lippmann (although he partly had a change of heart in old age) and co in the media.
“But Paul what is the point of standing against the elites (rather than trying to work with them) – all that means is that we would have no influence – indeed that we would be in physical danger if we (for example) visited a college campus”.
Why can not the “libertarian left” see what a terrible reply that is? “Influence” with the Progressive elites – they want total government (totalitarianism), they really do, your only “influence” would be over things that do not matter.
And as for the line that if they (the “libertarian left”) stand against the Progressive elites they would be in physical danger visiting such places as colleges – WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU ABOUT YOUR “FRIENDS”?
Sometimes, with dealing with the “libertarian left”, it is like talking to a brick wall.