The Right Opinion
What I Ask of Romney and Obama
The Republican Convention ended on the theme "Believe in America." That sounded nice, but it was just another platitude. Mitt Romney's speech was filled with platitudes: "We will honor America's democratic ideals. ... We're united to preserve liberty."
Please.
Liberals and conservatives have real differences. We should state them.
America is going broke, and tough decisions must be made. To save our future, we must slow the growth of entitlements and military spending. Mitt Romney was silent about that.
Sure, "Believing in America" means individuals get to decide how to run the businesses we create. But it should also mean that we get to run the rest of our lives, too: whom we marry, what we do for recreation, what substances we ingest, how big our soft drinks are. Mitt Romney said nothing about that.
I want to believe that if Romney is elected, he will finally impose some fiscal discipline and fight to put America on a sustainable course -- but his Tampa speech gave me no confidence that he would.
Instead, he pandered, saying, "As governor of Massachusetts, I chose a woman lieutenant governor, a woman chief of staff, half of my cabinet and senior officials. ..."
So what? What does that have to do with America's problems? Was that supposed to persuade people that Republicans don't wage "war on women"? It won't.
If conventions are mere infomercials, Republicans should at least do them well.
It's offensive that politicians force taxpayers to pay $18.3 million to subsidize these pep rallies. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., tried to end the subsidies, saying, "There is no justification for spending public funds on booze, balloons and confetti." He's right. But Congress ignored him.
The Republicans did some good things in Tampa, like showing two debt clocks and allowing speakers like Ted Cruz to say, "Rights are secure only when government power is restrained." But then Mitt Romney spoke. He said nothing of significance.
"Believing in America" means objecting when politicians claim they solve our problems. Romney said he has a "plan to create 12 million jobs." Huh? Why not 13 million? Why not 50? Promising 12 million is an absurd conceit. When politicians say, "Yes, we can," we should say: No, they can't! Government fails, but individuals succeed.
The Dems are worse. What do they stand for? They say they believe in a progressive, liberal society, but to them that means a giant government that pretends to solve problems, causes new ones and then spends even more to appear to solve those problems.
I say "appear" because they never actually do it.
President Obama came in full of promises. What's he accomplished? He expanded George W. Bush's dangerous debt. Government spending sets peacetime records. He proposed nothing serious to bring Medicare under control. He didn't curtail our role as world policeman -- on the contrary, the administration routinely bombs several populations by remote control. Military spending continues to grow.
Here's what I wish Obama would say this week:
"I was wrong to expand government the way I have. I overreached. Modern liberalism put us on an unsustainable course. I will save America by restoring limited government that keeps the peace but then leaves free people alone."
Hey, I can hope.
Mr. President, like you, I believe in social justice. But I believe in Thomas Jefferson's idea of social justice: a free society where people are unimpeded by bureaucrats and politicians; where people freely trade goods and services -- that is, cooperate -- without anyone telling us what to do.
It means that the government won't engage in what Frederic Bastiat called "legal plunder"-- taking resources from some (mostly working people) to bestow them on others.
That's genuine liberalism -- original liberalism. You, Mr. President, have bought into the upside-down distortion of liberalism, where government runs things (much of it on behalf of cronies -- the well-heeled and well-connected) and the rest of us follow directions.
That's not liberalism. Let's call it what it is: corporatism, state socialism, crony capitalism. Liberalism is about liberty: individual freedom and free markets.
Only that can bring us the real hope and change that freedom represents.
COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
13 Comments
SFJ in Alabama
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:08 AM
John, go have a 24 oz coke and smoke a joint. You'll feel better.
Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, KY
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:15 AM
You know John that well or are you just guessing?
Kevin in Michigan
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM
We've cut military spending enough, time to rebuild - with the caveant of cost efficiency.
But John, Romney is your best choice if you ever want us to start moving towards libertarian liberty.
Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, KY
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Between Obama and Romney yes, between Romney and Paul no. Don't make any Politician out to be the "savior" of this Nation, even Paul compared to Jefferson is a Moderate. What is supposed to keep this Nation strong is it's People respecting each other’s Liberty. Not any one man or a piece of paper, yes that's all the Constitution is, can make a Nation great it is when the People get back to respecting themselves and others that Liberty will work.
India in GA
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 10:35 AM
"To save our future, we must slow the growth of entitlements and military spending. Mitt Romney was silent about that."
Sorry, Mr. Stossel, but that is a red herring. I have no problem with cutting waste from ANY area of federal spending; but the growth of military spending is NOT what is putting our future in jepardy. Thanks to Obama, "growth" of military spending is going to be -20% over the next ten years. Compare that to the looming explosion of Medicare spending.
(BTW, those cuts to military spending don't serve the libertarian ends of ending the wars or closing bases overseas. Most of that is coming out of "investment"; they are serving mainly to weaken our capabilities.)
Heritage has a great article here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/us-defense-spending-the-mismatch-between-plans-and-resources
Tex Horn in Texas
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Thanks for standing up for Libertarian ideals, John. But remember, one of the Libertarian ideals is to have a strong military. In fact, here in Texas, many of us Libertarians believe the only thing the government (through the people) should provide is a strong military and a postal service (personally, I'd drop the postal service) and that is all. Think of that. No government interference in our lives at all. None. That's the true Libertarian ideal.
Where we are: we are at a crossroads, and there's no ideal direction to go. So, looking at the reality of what we're confronted with, the choice between Romney and Obama, and realizing that neither is the ideal candidate, what do we do, John? The choice is obvious: socialism with Obama, or free enterprise with Romney. Since there is no viable Libertarian candidate, I know which I choose, even with all the faults you have stated: Romney/Ryan. I'm a Libertarian too, John, and when a viable Libertarian candidate shows up, and the people of America believe in him (or her), I'll back that candidate. And I'm sorry, fellow Libertarians, but Ron Paul is outta here.
Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, KY
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM
I disagree, our founding Fathers did not want a large Military as a "Standing Army is dangerous to Liberty". They did concede that the State Militias should be brought under Federal authority in times of trouble. The Militias should be made up of all men able to carry a weapon. Military operations we to be so limited as to require the House to approve expenditures for no more than a two year period to keep the Military in check.
Howard Last in Wyoming
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Political parties are basically private clubs. They may have a large membership and have lose requirements for membership, but they are still private clubs. Having the government subsidize them is a clear violation of the First Amendment. If the politicians want to have a meeting the taxpayers should not pay for it. The same goes for primaries, why should the government pay for the election of members of a private clb?
Jim G in Oklahoma
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Yes John it would've been nice to hear Mitt be more direct, however that would have been speaking to the base. He is playing the political game. No doubt about it. He was likely trying to speak to the moderates and independents. Trying to attract the fence sitters over to our side. And that is a tightwire walk, where one has to be very careful in words one chooses.
You've said yourself in previous commentaries, where we are teetering on the precipice where 47% of the population receives some form of government handout or benefit. And once we cross that 50% threshold we may very well be lost as a Constitutional Republic, where the 51% will always vote for bigger government to support their parasitic existence. Again, Mitt may be carefully trying to coax those fence sitters back over to the light of Liberty... at least I hope that's what he's doing.
pete in ca
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Jim G. - I recently read a book that stated, "It is now estimated that 70% of the American population is entitled to preferential treatment under "affirmative action."
The book was written in 1980, and 32 years later, I'd bet that the 30% not covered is now at somewhere between 20-25%. And I bet it's the same group - the endangered white male of the species.
Paul Couch in NC
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM
John, have you thought about decalf?
P. Long in Texas
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Thanks for my first smile this election. Infomercials. I love it. It describes exactly what goes on during elections.
Richard Ryan in Lamar,Missouri
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Dammit John: Are you satisfied with Obama? No? Then quit nitpicking and get behind Romney. For one thing, Republicans desperately need the female vote. What should Romney have said? ---I hate women? I guess he should have bored everyone to death with a bunch of dry, boring stuff that no one would remember the next morning. Give those of us who have had enough with Obama. Stop complaining and get behind Romney. Talk him up instead of down. You would never make it on a team. You`re not a team player.