Voting
on November 7, 2006
DIGG THIS
So, for whom
should we Austro libertarians vote? November 7, 2006 is fast approaching,
and this is a question may of us will have to face. If you don’t
vote on principle (see this
for a magnificent counter argument) then who do you root for?
I suggest
that the most important issue on the basis of which one should make
such a decision is foreign policy. Yes, I know all about the diamonds-water
paradox. We never decide between in this present context, all of
foreign policy or all of economics nor all of personal liberties
issues, but only between incremental bits of each. So, yes, these
other issues are important too. Yet, "war is the health of
the state," Randolph Bourne quite rightly tells us. It is a
"leading indicator" of liberty, to put matters in terms
comfortable for those of an empirical case of mind. As Bob
Higgs has eloquently demonstrated, U.S. foreign military aggression
is the fountainhead of most of the rest of the depredations of the
state. Due to the ratchet effect, imperialist
wars catapult government involvement in society; afterward,
state power recedes, somewhat, but never back down to the status
quo ante. The march of government is on an ever-upward trend, thanks
in very great part to foreign adventurism. So, while we must always
be on guard to protect economic and personal liberties, foreign
interventionism is even more important, I contend, overall.
How do
the political parties stack up in this regard?
To mention
the Republicans is to dismiss them out of hand, and with a great
degree of contempt and moral indignation. George Bush II ran on
a relatively non-interventionistic platform, but, like his mentor
FDR, did everything in his power while in office to violate these
promises. No, the Republicans deserve the back of the hand of the
electorate. Throw these bums out.
What about
the Democrats? Well, Hilary Clinton is no Gene McCarthy, and neither
is Al Gore nor John Kerry. (Where is being "clean for Gene,"
now that we desperately need him?) In any case, it is difficult
to say, exactly, who speaks for the Democratic party. I have chosen
as spokesman for this purpose – wait for it – none other
that Paul Krugman. Although a credentialed economist, he is almost
always wrong on this subject, supporting socialism, interventionism
and dirigisme policies. He thus is in the mainstream of the "blue
state" party, and it will be of interest to hear him out on
foreign policy, an issue that rarely attracts his attention.
In his
New York Times column of 10/31/06 entitled "Putting
a number to failure in Iraq," he is actually pretty good on
this issue, at least at the outset: "Iraq is a lost cause,"
he tells us. Do we have the ghost of Gene McCarthy in, of all places,
this left-wing mainstream economist? Sadly, we do not.
For he
then continues "It’s just a matter of arithmetic: Given the
violence of the environment, with ethnic groups and rival militias
at each other’s throats, American forces there are large enough
to suffer terrible losses, but far too small to stabilize the country."
This is no clarion call for an end to foreign interventionism. It
is at least compatible with the view that more U.S. forces
should be placed in Iraq, the better to "stabilize the country."
Whereupon
Krugman gets, if anything, worse: "Afghanistan, on the other
hand, is a war we haven’t yet lost, and it’s just possible that
a new commitment of forces there might turn things around."
Why Afghanistan,
given that it has a larger population than Iraq, and the reason
Krugman wants the U.S. out of the latter country is that we do not
have enough troops to "stabilize the country"? (I love
that expression; I wonder how Krugman would react if a bunch of
Chinese, or Nigerian, or Brazilian troops were sent to the U.S.
to "stabilize" us.)
Here is
his "reasoning": "… things in Afghanistan aren’t
yet as far gone as they are in Iraq, and it’s possible that a smaller
force … might be enough to stabilize the situation.... If we stopped
trying to do the impossible in Iraq, both we and the British would
be able to put more troops in a place where they might still do
some good."
I’ve got
a suggestion for Paul "Stabilizer" Krugman. There are
many, many countries with far smaller populations than either Afghanistan
or Iraq. I suggest we, forthwith, invade all of these countries:
Monaco, Yemen, Jordan, Lichtenstein, Portugal, Fiji, Malta, Zaire,
Burundi, Benin, Mali. There are many others, but I can’t think of
them off the top of my head. And don’t give me any crap about the
foolishness of such a policy. Surely, there are "terrists"
in all of these countries, and weapons of mass destruction too.
Anyone who denies this is no patriotic American! The war against
"terrism" is a worldwide phenomenon, and anyone who wants
to limit it to Afghanistan, forsooth, is a fair-weather terrist
fighter.
But, I
digress. We’re supposed to be discussing who to vote for in a few
days, so let’s get back to that. What about the Libertarian Party?
Before going into this, let us take a moment for full disclosure,
here. I am a wild-eyed devotee of the LP. I have been active in
it, to a greater or lesser extent, since 1972, when I ran for State
Assemblyman of New York. I was once a candidate for Vice President
of the national campaign, and have given dozens of speeches to the
annual conventions of the federal party and to many, many state
conventions as well.
However,
sad to say, I really cannot support the federal Libertarian Party.
For they, too, just like Paul "Stabilizer" Krugman, want
to pull troops out of Iraq, but not bring them home either; instead,
send them to yet other foreign countries, where, presumably, their
imperialist services are in greater
need. (For more Rockwell critique of the LP, see this.)
How the principled have fallen. It is one thing for the Democrats,
à la Paul "Stabilizer" Krugman to support such a policy.
But for Libertarians to do so? Murray Rothbard must be spinning
in his grave at the prospect, after he spent so much time and energy
trying to inculcate some modicum of principle into this group.
 No,
I cannot in good conscience ask anyone to support the federal Libertarian
Party. Not, at least, until they rescind this horrid policy. (Whenever
I get a fund raising letter from them, I reply that I will contribute,
but only when and if they publicly climb down from this eminently
anti-libertarian viewpoint.) The state libertarian parties, still,
are a different matter. In my view, the rot has not set in there
to anywhere near the same degree. To the contrary, at the state
LP conventions I have addressed, I have found the rank and file
to be pretty sensible on all issues, certainly including foreign
policy.
So, two
cheers for the LP at the state level, and none for them at the federal.
November
4, 2006
Dr.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans. He is the
author of Defending
the Undefendable.
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
