Mid-Term Elections, 2006
I've received a bit of email from people who were wondering why it is I have not commented on the upcoming mid-term elections."Sciabarra, you're a political scientist, for Chrissake! What do you think?"
Well, let's leave aside the question of how much science goes into politics: It's always nice to know that some people find value in what I say. But with all due respect: There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I have not changed my views of this two-party, two-pronged attack on individual freedom by one iota: A Pox on Both Their Houses! In truth, however, the modern Democratic Party has always been honest about its Big Government agenda. But the"small-government" GOP has long embraced the politics of Big Government. As the majority party, they are a total, unmitigated disaster for individual liberty, whether they are religious rightists or so-called"progressive conservatives"—who are actually much truer to the GOP's 19th-century interventionist roots than so-called"Goldwater" or"Reagan" Republicans (those who embraced the rhetoric of limited government, while still paving the way for a growth in the scope of government intervention). You have to chuckle when even Hillary Clinton sees the hypocrisy:"The people who promised less government," she said,"have instead given us the largest and least competent government we have ever had."
Still, I must admit that my political perversity would like very much to see the Bush administration get a royal slap across the face, such that the Democrats take the House of Representatives and, at the very least, close the gap in the GOP-controlled Senate. This is purely a strategic desire: Party divisions can have utility in frustrating the power-lust on both ends. In any event, I think it's probably true that the GOP will suffer a setback, and I have been saying so for over a year.
Please understand, however: THIS WILL DO NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CURRENT DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN POLICY DISASTERS. I don't mean to shout, but with regard to foreign policy alone: The Democrats handed this administration the current foreign policy debacle on a silver platter. They will not challenge one inch of the Bush administration's Iraq policy or its ideological rationalizations for that policy: that"democracy" can be imposed on societies that have little or no appreciation of the complex cultural roots of human freedom.
Either way, I'll be watching the results of politics-as-bloodsport on Tuesday, November 7th.
Cross-posted at Notablog.
comments powered by Disqus
Mark Brady - 11/2/2006
Unfortunately, it looks now as if Lieberman will win.
David T. Beito - 11/2/2006
It would be a bonus if Lieberman also lost.
Sheldon Richman - 11/2/2006
I'm planning my election-night "Watch the GOP Go Down" party even as I type.
David T. Beito - 11/1/2006
I agree with everything. While all things considered GOP losses would bring net benefits, I see one (really only one) downside.
A Democratic victory MAY weaken the current attack on racial preferences. Perhaps it is my ivory tower mentality but I can see first hand just how corrupting these preferences can be in higher education.
This doesn't stop me from hoping for massive GOP losses, however.
- While French historians take a common view of WW I, British and German don't
- Historian: Proclamation Naming Pa. State Gun Gets Facts Wrong
- Irish slave owners were compensated historian reveals
- Two historians are in a race against time to preserve early church records from destruction
- Yale's Jay Winter sums up what we should remember about WW I