Main Menu

HomeREAD The FREEDOM BLOGVisit The Freedom ForumArticles By Author NameCreate Your AccountWant To Be An Author?Send Us An EmailVisit Our Myspace PageEconomic News-n-ViewsArticles of InterestWebsites of InterestFreedom Reading ListFreedom Video ListFreedom QuotesDollar History Video

Advanced Search Access


Login



Who's Online

We have 147 guests and 1 member online

Business News Feed

Reuters: Business News
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals.
Reuters News
Party Politics and the Bailout PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 4
PoorBest 
Written by Jordan Brown   
Wednesday, 01 October 2008 15:09

Party Politics and the Bailout

The defeat of the bailout bill by the House of Representatives was a nice blow to the worst of the statists in Washington and their sycophantic funders on Wall Street. While it seems likely that a similar version of the bill will pass in the next week, those members who voted against Monday’s bailout deserve at least a nod of recognition, as they sent a clear message to Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, and House and Senate leadership that we won’t just roll over and die because they beg, plead, and threaten.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is the party affiliation and placement on the left/right political  spectrum of those who voted against the bill. As Dave Weigel noted on Reason’s Hit and Run blog, opponents of the bill ranged from left-wing Democrats to conservative Republicans.

While every single individual ‘conservative’ Republican should have voted against the bill, based on party ideology and traditional measures of ideology, that wasn’t the case. Likewise, those labeled ‘leftists’ should have supported such a large intervention in the economy, as well as the huge amount of power that would be given to the state to regulate the market henceforth, but that’s not what happened either.

This raises a couple of good points about political parties and the left/right measure of ideology.

First, whatever the Republican Party has done—or not done--in the past to garner the support of the freedom movement is history, and shouldn’t earn them any knee-jerk support today. Actions speak louder than campaign speeches and political platforms, and the Republican Party has resoundingly rejected any of the principles that might have made it worthy of support in the past. The nomination of John McCain and support for war, crippling debt and now a fascist bailout bill should make this very clear

This is not the say the Democratic Party is any better, as their record is equally appalling. It's not too much of a stretch to picture the leadership of both parties sitting around a table every few years, drawing slips of paper from a hat to see who will support which statist positions for the next two or three election cycles.

If one is going to vote for and support political officeholders and candidates, said support should be based on the principles of the individual candidate, not their party affiliation. Parties are a convenient way to lump people together into neat little categories; it allows the media to portray partisan bickering as a clash between diametrically opposed political forces. But the parties aren’t diametrically opposed, never have been, and the bailout bill demonstrated that fact. A number of Democrats voted for the bill, and a number against it, and the same for the Republicans. The leadership of both parties, however, supported it, as it was the expansion of government power and that’s what parties are all about—increasing state power in a such a way that the party and its membership can take credit for increasing security, fostering equality, or whatever.

It could be argued that party affiliation does indicate how an individual member will vote, because individual party members choose which party to join, and therefore voluntarily embrace the platform of one party over the other. But how can two parties encompass the variety of positions individual politicians take? After all, Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani are in the same political party, and no one would argue that they have any positions in common; Dr. Paul is as likely to vote with radical ‘leftist’ Democrat Dennis Kucinich as he is with ‘conservative’ Republican Tom Tancredo, because he is a principled individual, not a GOP placeholder. And while he might be an extreme example, the bailout roll call demonstrates that Ron Paul is not the only candidate willing to ignore party leadership and take a stand.

As believers in the sovereignty of the individual, we shouldn’t fall into the collectivist trap of party politics, or look the other way when members of the ‘good’ team support atrocious legislation like the bailout bill. All politicians—both incumbent and hopeful—should be regarded with skepticism, and held accountable when they violate our rights. Likewise, if someone does the right thing, ignoring the ruse of party politics to oppose bad legislation, their stand deserves our attention, though not our unquestioning support.


Additional Reading:

For an alternative to the left/right political spectrum, check out the Nolan Chart. For an examination of the flip-flop game the two major parties play through the years, and why neither one deserves your support, go here.
 
© 2009 thefreedomrevolution.com