Why I do not cheer for The Democrats
Whilst I share many people’s intense dislike for George W Bush and his allies in the Republican Party, I do not see the Democrats as saviours as many do. Whilst I am sympathetic to the ideas of lack of discrimination and equal opportunity and eradication of poverty, that does not make the Democrats natural allies, in the same way that Labour are not natural allies for Liberals.
The Democrats are more akin to Labour, they are, for the most part a big government, high taxation, interventionist party. Like Labour they take an authoritarian view, seeking to make people live as they wish, rather than setting people free from restrictions.
True, this is the line Bush’s administration has taken, and against him, even John Kerry would have been an improvement, indeed, even Ralph Nader would have been, but that does not make the Democrats the great hope many make them out to be.
Look at the new crop of new senators and representatives: They campaigned on illiberal anti-free trade platforms, on protectionist, isolationist, verging on nationalist platforms. Edwards is positioning himself as a Souther populist, the Southern populists was a group which first sought to ally with the black population in the South, but followed up by attacking them along with Catholics and Jews.
There are many decent Democrats, but as a party they are not fundamentally liberal, their presidential candidates are all big state, high tax devotees and will not deliver a liberal program.
Neither party promotes a liberal agenda, although the Republican Liberty Caucus (’The Conscience of the Republican Party’ as they term themselves) promote a libertarian liberal agenda, both parties have serious flaws from a liberal viewpoint and strong illiberal tendencies.
The best interests of the American people, and the world, would be served by a split administration, one party in the executive and another in control in the legislature, and just pray for moderates on both sides.
I live in hope of a liberal group consisting of liberals in both parties emerging, but the electoral system and the political climate do not encourage this so I think the dedicated liberal cause in the US will continue to be weak.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Right on the nail. I’ve already arrived at the conclusion that Giuliani in the White House and a Democratic Congress would be the best outcome next year. Guiliani’s American Hero status gives him a real chance to win over Republican Conservatives despite his very consistent adherence to choice on abortion, gay rights and gun control (some libertarians would disagree with him on that one but he said he supports the right to bear arms, with the right of states to regulate the right). Giuliani isn’t just a 9/11 Hero, he got crime down a lot which included gutting the mafia, he got the economy booming and cut taxes, and showed he could work with a Democrat city council. All good precedents. There are some concerns on civil liberties and links with dodgy businessmen, but it really doesn’t add to a great deal after 8 years running a famously tough city. Romney did a good job with a Democrat legislature in Massachussetts but has now gone for the Rep Con base; Schwarzenegger continues to do a good job in California with a Dem legislature. Democratic populist-protectionists and big government addicts very disappointing, but no chance I can see of a purist American Liberal Party. However, I’m surprised tha tyhou don’t mention the US Libertarian Party, which I don’t care for but might suit your Hayek-purist Libertarian sympathies. Like other purist libertarians the US LP inevitably contradicts itself by opposing (at least in part) immigration and global trade agreements on the grounds that the World Trade Organisation as a multi-national bureaucracy. I find these arguments self-contradictory, you might be more amenable at least to the latter.