The Classic Liberal Blog

Everyone loves to argue over reform (because like, ya know, that's Realpolitik), but in doing so, the fundamental truth of the matter is ignored ... Every government program requires the socialist principle of taking money from some people (by force), to give to someone else.

Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, foreign aid, social security, medicare, farm subsidies, corporate subsidies ... it matters not what you call it. The truth is that you are stealing from the productive and prudent citizens, so you can give to the unproductive and often destructive.

The Confluence of Left and Right

One of the things that fascinate me about the Rand Paul controversy is how it is exposing the longtime confluence of conservatives and liberals. For 20 years, I’ve been arguing that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between a conservative and a liberal — or, if you will, Depublicans and Remocrats — and the liberal-conservative reaction to the Paul controversy is confirming my point.

Consider these aspects of the welfare state: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, public (i.e., government) schooling, public (i.e., government) housing, SBA loans, mortgage guarantees, foreign aid, bank bailouts, FDIC, education grants, corporate subsidies, and many, many more.

Every one of those programs entails the socialist principle of using the force of the state to take money from people to whom it rightfully belongs in order to give it to others.

I ask you: What liberal does not ardently believe in every one of those programs? What conservative doesn’t also believe in them? Oh, they might argue over which reform should be adopted to deal with the ever-increasing economic crises that come with such programs. But they’d never challenge the nature or existence of the programs themselves. They have come to believe that it is an important role of government to use the force of government to take from Peter to give to Paul.

Sure, you can point to conservatives who pay lip service to “free enterprise, private property, and limited government.” But in the final analysis, conservatives are as deeply devoted to this socialistic junk as liberals are, especially when the president happens to be a Republican.

Consider these aspects of the warfare state: presidential wars waged without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, foreign military empire, foreign wars of aggression, foreign occupations, torture, kangaroo military tribunals, kidnapping, rendition, denial of due process, enemy-combatant doctrine applied to criminal offenses, a dual-track judicial system, infringements on civil liberties, assassinations, and much, much more.

Every one of them constitutes a violation of the principles of a limited-government, constitutional republic.

I ask you: What conservative doesn’t believe in every one of these programs? What liberal doesn’t believe in them? Sure, you can point to a few liberals (and a few conservatives) who take a principled stand against them, but in the final analysis most liberals are as committed to this way of life as conservatives, especially when a Democrat is president, as we have once again seen with the Obama administration.

Consider all the regulatory and interventionist programs, including the ones that are racist to the core, such as the drug war and the minimum wage. (See my article “Why Do Daily Kos and Alternet Favor a Racist Government Program?” and “Free Teenagers: Repeal the Minimum Wage.”)

What conservative or liberal doesn’t wholeheartedly embrace them, notwithstanding decades of damage and destruction?

Ironically, both liberals and conservatives are now acknowledging, even if only indirectly and obliquely, that all this socialist and interventionist junk is bankrupting our nation, given the out-of-control federal spending necessary to fund it.

But they are trapped and they know it. They can rail against all that spending to their heart’s content, but they know that their philosophy precludes them from calling for eradicating the programs that produce the spending problem. That leaves them condemning thunder while praising lightning.

Libertarians, of course, don’t have this problem ...

The modern conservative movement is but a shadow of its former self. Instead of fighting the growth of the state, they waived the white flag and settled on arguing over "reform" instead.

You can't expect to achieve anything by abandoning freedom, you can't "make nice" with statists, and you can't reform a failed state. The only realistic solution to the problems staring our country in the face is to drastically repeal the federal government.

But that ain't Realpolitik, is it? So we're choosing to go bust instead.