Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
argive99

A Good Pro-bush View

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I'm linking to Bidinotto's blog where he posted an article by Libertarian John Hospers. First let me say that I am no fan of John Hospers and while a like Bidinotto, I am well aware of his institutional affiliation. But I think the Hosper's piece makes some compelling reasons to vote for Bush. Too often I find that Objectivist's on this forum criticize Bush according to a standard of comparison with John Galt. Any politician will appear corrupt and repulsive standing next to Galt. But as Harry Binswanger pointed out recently, Bush is pretty much all that the current culture is psychologically prepared to accept (Binswanger speculated that the most the culture would accept would be someone maybe 10% more agressive than Bush). Hospers makes the same essential points with some new important ones. His plus Binswanger's reccommendation have convinced me to vote for Bush and to believe that it is very important he win.

I know some on this forum will not be swayed by this essay; ie MisterSwig, Noumenal, etc. Its not my intention to sway anyone, but to offer another good piece of reasoning to be digested.

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=181

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm linking to Bidinotto's blog where he posted an article by Libertarian John Hospers. First let me say that I am no fan of John Hospers and while a like Bidinotto, I am well aware of his institutional affiliation. But I think the Hosper's piece makes some compelling reasons to vote for Bush. Too often I find that Objectivist's on this forum criticize Bush according to a standard of comparison with John Galt. Any politician will appear corrupt and repulsive standing next to Galt. But as Harry Binswanger pointed out recently, Bush is pretty much all that the current culture is psychologically prepared to accept (Binswanger speculated that the most the culture would accept would be someone maybe 10% more agressive than Bush). Hospers makes the same essential points with some new important ones. His plus Binswanger's reccommendation have convinced me to vote for Bush and to believe that it is very important he win.

I know some on this forum will not be swayed by this essay; ie MisterSwig, Noumenal, etc. Its not my intention to sway anyone, but to offer another good piece of reasoning to  be digested.

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=181

Hospers certainly is not popular within the ranks of the LP. Basically what he proposes can be summed up in a very well known cliche: "Vote for the lesser of two evils." No thanks, standing on principle is the only way I know how to conduct myself. Hospers has all but sold out his own political party out of expediency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bidinotto wrote:

The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property. It is opposed to free speech: witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and Kerry's threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will call it "defending human rights." This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents.

How paranoid. :D

Bidinotto may as well vote for Bush. He sounds just like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How paranoid. 

Bidinotto may as well vote for Bush. He sounds just like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

Do you have any arguments other than smear and ad hominem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the above evaluation of the Democratic party and the Left.

Are you going to call ME paranoid?

Can anyone here say that the above quote does not accurately represent the intentions of the Left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From John Hospers's letter:

”I was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972.”

That was the year Nixon ran against the anti-war, pro-welfare state George McGovern. Surely the differences between those candidates were as great as the differences between Bush and Kerry. Hospers says Kerry's election would be a "catastrophe." But wouldn't McGovern's election have been a catastrophe for the same reasons? Why, then, didn't Hospers push for the re-election of the incumbent in 1972, as Ayn Rand did?

"The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites . . ."

Evidence?

"His wife's foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry administration."

What principle of capitalism requires that foundations have "transparency"? Is Hopers calling for federal regulation of private charities?

“Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have been added to the economy since August 2003.”

And Bush has given us the highest level of federal (non-Social Security) spending paid for by borrowing of any president in the past half-century. Doesn’t Hospers understand the elementary economic principle that deficit spending must be paid for with future taxes and/or inflation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Bush has given us the highest level of federal (non-Social Security) spending paid for by borrowing of any president in the past half-century.  Doesn’t Hospers understand the elementary economic principle that deficit spending must be paid for with future taxes and/or inflation?

Another way to deal with the deficit is to cut government.

Bush didn't understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have any arguments other than smear and ad hominem?

I really want these articles to offer solid proof of Kerry's alleged anti-Americanism rather than echo the numerous rantings of the Religious Conservative right.

Thus far, from my extensive readings of such authors, all I have seen are rants of anti-American charges against Kerry without direct presentation of solid proof.

Also, the Conservatives are amounting to apologists for the Bush administration's failings, saying, for example, that the Bush administration's intentions to go to war against terrorism far outweigh the shortcomings of these wars thus far. They also cite time elements.

It is up to the Conservative critics to try to offer other than smear against Kerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another way to deal with the deficit is to cut government.

Bush didn't understand that.

Bush understands it a little.

And Kerry doesn't AT ALL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really want these articles to offer solid proof of Kerry's alleged anti-Americanism rather than echo the numerous rantings of the Religious Conservative right.

Thus far, from my extensive readings of such authors, all I have seen are rants of anti-American charges against Kerry without direct presentation of solid proof.

Also, the Conservatives are amounting to apologists for the Bush administration's failings, saying, for example, that the Bush administration's intentions to go to war against terrorism far outweigh the shortcomings of these wars thus far.  They also cite time elements.

It is up to the Conservative critics  to try to offer other than smear against Kerry.

Proof of Kerry's anti-Americanism? I can't enumerate them here, for they are far too numerous. Suffice it to say, look at what he did during college, the 70's, and take a long good look at his senatorial record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...