Pick your presidential poison
Zach Caress
Issue date: 1/18/08 Section: Opinion
This Presidential election season is shaping up to be just as disappointing as the last. Remember in 2004 when voters had to pick between the lesser of two evils? The same predicament is rapidly approaching voters in 2008, at least if Americans again choose to stand idly by while both political parties present candidates who continue to promote systems of economic and civil tyranny. So, go ahead and pick your poison from among the front runners of each party. The only choice that one has in this election is in determining what liberty that they value the most in order to support the candidate who will trample on it the least. Allow me to elaborate.
With the election of any of the Democratic candidates, Americans will see a continued onslaught of federal spending. The same is true for almost all of the Republican candidates. There is one exception, but you will have to read just a little bit further to hear his name. Many people have recognized throughout the course of the Bush Administration that personal liberties have been attacked. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the No Child Left Behind Act have managed to increase unneeded bureaucracy and the size of the federal budget. Regardless of any good intentions Bush has had with such ventures, creating new programs and increasing federal spending tramples on the federalist principles of the Constitution, not to mention opposes the conservative small government principles that most Republicans claim to support. Americans have no reason to believe that any of the Republican candidates, save for one, will attempt to remedy the enormous size of the national government by returning power of the purse back to the states and individual citizens. While most of the Republican candidates pay lip service to limiting the size of the national government, only one of the Presidential hopefuls actually talks about reducing the size of the national government.
While reducing the size of the national government may not rank as the most vital issue to address for many of my friends on the left side of the political aisle, especially at a time when there are millions of Americans without healthcare insurance and there is the imminent danger of an economic recession, it should be. When citizens cede tremendous economic power to their government it allows that government to coerce the citizens into making decisions they would not otherwise make. Americans have seen the steady decline of their economic freedom over the last century with programs such as Social Security. The Democratic nominees seem content to continue to support programs that will bring about the same lack of personal liberty and responsibility. While individuals may tout plans to bring about a universal healthcare system at the national level, the infringement upon economic liberties brought about by such national entitlement programs is no different than the attack on personal liberty that is encouraged by those who promote the Patriot Act or other programs that defile civil liberties.
With the election of any of the Democratic candidates, Americans will see a continued onslaught of federal spending. The same is true for almost all of the Republican candidates. There is one exception, but you will have to read just a little bit further to hear his name. Many people have recognized throughout the course of the Bush Administration that personal liberties have been attacked. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the No Child Left Behind Act have managed to increase unneeded bureaucracy and the size of the federal budget. Regardless of any good intentions Bush has had with such ventures, creating new programs and increasing federal spending tramples on the federalist principles of the Constitution, not to mention opposes the conservative small government principles that most Republicans claim to support. Americans have no reason to believe that any of the Republican candidates, save for one, will attempt to remedy the enormous size of the national government by returning power of the purse back to the states and individual citizens. While most of the Republican candidates pay lip service to limiting the size of the national government, only one of the Presidential hopefuls actually talks about reducing the size of the national government.
While reducing the size of the national government may not rank as the most vital issue to address for many of my friends on the left side of the political aisle, especially at a time when there are millions of Americans without healthcare insurance and there is the imminent danger of an economic recession, it should be. When citizens cede tremendous economic power to their government it allows that government to coerce the citizens into making decisions they would not otherwise make. Americans have seen the steady decline of their economic freedom over the last century with programs such as Social Security. The Democratic nominees seem content to continue to support programs that will bring about the same lack of personal liberty and responsibility. While individuals may tout plans to bring about a universal healthcare system at the national level, the infringement upon economic liberties brought about by such national entitlement programs is no different than the attack on personal liberty that is encouraged by those who promote the Patriot Act or other programs that defile civil liberties.
Be the first to comment on this story