News & Analysis
Unlike Bush, The Bell is Anti-State & Anti-War
You've probably heard about the "Miss Me Yet?" billboard in Minnesota, featuring a picture of George W. Bush. According to Fox News, a "group of small business owners and individuals," obviously not fans of Barack Obama, paid for it. That's all well and good, and while I'm no fan of Barack Obama, I don't long for the presidency of George W. Bush. From a fiscal perspective, the Bush Administration was a disaster. Before you repeat the Dick Cheney talking point that most of the spending was for defense and two wars. Let me go ahead and tell you, that's not true. Bush was the biggest spender since Lyndon B. Johnson, dramatically increasing non-defense discretionary spending. Remember, he is a "compassionate conservative," which is apparently a nice term for "statist." Bush signed a new entitlement into law, his administration enacted the most regulations since Nixon ("we're all Keynesians now") and he backed the Wall Street bailout while telling us that he "abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." This is only the tip of the iceberg on his fiscal policies. – United Liberty
Dominant Social Theme: Revisiting Bush to make sense of it all.
Free-Market Analysis: We are returning to our article of yesterday regarding George Bush (Should US Voters Miss George Bush?) because we were surprised to find that some of our readers did not believe it was strong enough or that portions of it somehow constituted a defense (!) of the man. In fact, the article we have selected to excerpt above is not exactly a mainstream one (forgive us) but made approximately the same points we did. We were surprised to find it even took some of our tone and focus. There are obviously some general points about the Bush administration that would occur to almost any free-market thinker, so we are not surprised by the similarities.
You can read yesterday's Bell article here: Should U.S. Voters Miss George Bush?
And NOW – right here – we will state even more clearly than we did yesterday that those who write for the Bell find various policies of the Bush administration to be exceptionally odious and, not to put too fine a point on it, evil. Evil because when the administration could have done good (or at least less bad) it chose the path of war, destruction and oppression both at home and abroad – often in the name of a fictitious and cynical "security." It devalued the currency, brought ruin to the house of its citizens and generally did what it could to confuse the conversation of liberty and debase each and every program on which the republic had been built.
We hope that's clear enough.
Many will defend Bush by stating that he initiated many of his most destructive programs (including two wars) as a response to 9/11. But it is unfortunately obvious to anyone who studies the matter that the administration spent a great deal of energy covering up what happened on that terrible day – whatever it was – and even more energy making sure that those inclined to try to get to the bottom of 9/11 were never able to. We've written about this many times before as many others have and the only new point we have to add to the conversation is that sooner or later the truth will emerge – in all its ugliness – because the Internet simply will not let the issue die. Within the fullness of time therefore we expect the Bush administration to look even worse than it does now.
The point we were trying to make yesterday (and thought we did) was that his administration marked a watershed moment in the dialogue surrounding the state's normal oppressive nature. Like a Roman Caesar, Bush dramatically increased the power of the state and of its overt repressive nature. Until Bush, we would venture to say, the domestic American conversation (the popular one, anyway) revolved for the most part around varying degrees of freedom and citizens' rights – or lack thereof. BUSH ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THE RHETORIC ITSELF. In doing so, the Bush's regime marked a further – and important – shattering of the American political system and cultural conversation.
Bush was perhaps the first American president since Abraham Lincoln (who jailed many who disagreed with him) to elevate state brutality including torture to an exalted level – as an ongoing necessity for increased domestic protection and security ETERNALLY. Additionally, of course, he waged several brutal wars overseas that killed and maimed thousands. But again, our other main point was that Bush is not given credit for the amount of damage he did – quite "cleverly" since many remain convinced he is a dope.
We recently received the following missive from Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty:
Harry Reid knows he has a fight on his hands with you and me over reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Now insiders tell me Harry Reid plans to sneak the Patriot Act re-authorization through the Senate as soon as they come back into session as part of a massive $85 billion special interest giveaway as a "Jobs Bill."
This bill is loaded with pork barrel spending and pay-offs to favored senators, union bosses and big government advocacy groups, and is itself another nail in the coffin of America's economic stability. That's why your voice added to the petition below and your opposition to this outrage are critical. Taking away our freedoms and invading our privacy will certainly not stimulate the economy, and it is by no means "Patriotic." In fact, there is nothing more un-American.
Furthermore, the badly misnamed Patriot Act is not the Act of Patriots. It is the act of petty tyrants seeking more and more power and control over our country. Now, ever so quietly, the Obama administration is working with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to push reauthorization of the Patriot Act through without creating a stir among liberty-minded Americans.
We've all heard the defenses. How the Patriot Act was needed to combat "terrorism." How it would protect civil liberties while increasing security. How it would not be abused. These lies have all been clearly exposed. For eight years, the American people have ignored the wisdom of our founding fathers and traded freedom for security – and as predicted, we are losing both as a result. And now, Congress and the White House are set to reauthorize the so-called Patriot Act.
Frankly, you and I know the Patriot Act should be scrapped, or at least massively re-written to block federal snoops from casting fishing nets over the lives, histories and data of hard-working Americans. Unless you and I act today, however, this won't happen and the Patriot Act will be reauthorized for another five years or more without hardly a peep or a dissent.
If we do not stop this reauthorization, we'll see a whole lot more of what we've gotten over the last eight years:
*** Federal law enforcement on fishing expeditions, searching telephone, email, medical, financial, and other records looking for a needle in a haystack – and abridging the freedom of law abiding citizens everywhere.
*** Warrantless searches and roving wiretaps, paying telephone providers for access to TRILLIONS of phone records and ignoring Fourth Amendment protections.
*** Broad powers for the Treasury Department to demand private banking information and use the Patriot Act as a pretense to interfere with the free market.
*** Vast amounts of electronic data on virtually every American swept up by insider arrangements and purchases from phone companies, airlines and other businesses afraid to say no to a government "request."
We hope that the Patriot legislation is not renewed. But in any event, the Bush administration was responsible for this heinous bill, just as it was generally for the various consolidations of power that took place during his long eight years in office. Why? Because the Bush family historically (along with others of a certain class) has reportedly and evidently served the interests of the power elite, those few families and individuals whose goal it is, apparently, to create a worldwide, centralized bureaucracy and economy with a single currency and an EU-style, top-down, "democratic" leadership.
Yes, Bush and those close to him worked in service of these elites, in our estimation, and spent eight years doing what he could to erode one of the main stumbling blocks to further global consolidation – America itself and those republican red-state patriots whose guns and pickup trucks constitute a kind of "thin red line" warding off even more Draconian US fedgov (and international) oppression. This intention to whittle away at American culture was the proximate cause for the nutty, failed immigration bill (as we pointed out yesterday) that he tried to pass in his last year in office.
The Bell is anti-state and anti-war (other than for limited, potential instances of national/domestic defense) because free-markets flourish best when the state is minimized. Only free-markets with their competition and entrepreneurial fervor can lift a society up and guarantee increasing living standards for all, including better levels of health, etc. America and the West generally are very far from free-markets at this point, though we do believe that the Internet is change-maker that will gradually push the pendulum back toward freedom.
Conclusion: Americans shouldn't want Bush back because of the ruin he inflicted on the American economy and the two terrible wars he prosecuted, which have left an increasing legacy of militarism in America itself. But just as importantly, Americans shouldn't want him back because he attempted to change the fundamental American rhetoric of freedom to one featuring security and defense of the realm, including justifications of torture and international rendition. He was, as we pointed out yesterday, a kind of transformational president – consistently underestimated in our opinion -- and it is only thanks to the Internet that he may not remain one.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Acudoc on 02/13/10 09:35 PM
The Daily Bell couldn't ring any clearer: you are for the rights of the individual, to life, liberty, and capital accumulation. I'm sure you want us to be happy, too!
Reply from The Daily Bell
Each individual is responsible for his or her happiness, yes? But as a general sentiment ... certainly.
|
Posted by TMoore on 02/13/10 06:51 PM
Here is the link to the Beck-Medina radio interview
(transcript)Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks. Horrible.
|
Posted by Kathy on 02/12/10 10:01 PM
I agree with Leo. I add my own. Watching this lying administration, example 1. No lobbyists 2. We take the credit for Iraq, is just about more than I can take. I have absolutely no faith in this president to keep America safe with Obama's crap on friendly countries (Israel) and snuggle up to the enemies (Iran) and treat with kid gloves attitude.
And when is Obama going to do what he says? Absolutely no spine in this administration and the entire world knows it. So do the terrorists.......By the way, we all have the right to our own opinion. Some Americans have forgotten that fellow Americans paid the ultimate price for freedom of speech.
Reply from The Daily Bell
One may decry Obama's incompetence and fakery, but that does not in any manner elevate his predecessor in our humble opinion.
|
Posted by TMoore on 02/12/10 08:50 PM
Speaking of Bush, 9/11 and things here in the heart of TEXAS, the Bell has leave, if it so desires, to examine the underpinnings of the recent hatchet job Glenn Beck committed against Debra Medina about "the question" surrounding the events of Sept 11, 2001.
His comments after the interview are most illuminating inasmuch as it focuses the agenda of the PTB in promoting a faux two party system. Medina is now being written off as crank "truther." But is it possible that it is a good deal more complicated than that?
While I cannot claim "complete" knowledge of the values that animate her political philosophy, I have heard her debates in which she makes clear her vision of, say, private property. It seems that she is truly an unalloyed alternative candidate which threatens to upset the applecart. Perhaps not a few of us would appreciate an obverse, but informed and acute, view of what I shall call the "Medina Effect" from the Bell.
Reply from The Daily Bell
OK, thanks. We avoid watching Beck. But we'll look into why he's attacking Medina.
|
Posted by T Haze on 02/12/10 04:42 PM
Bell editors: to your last question, it depends on how you define America. If you define the citizens and inhabitants as 'America' then the greatest threat to that group is posed by the federal gov of the USA with its impovrishing welfare and warfare programs along with its assault on civil liberties.
If you define 'america' as the federal government of the USA, then its greatest threat is likely you (taking up Rothbard's charge) and others like you who constantly reveal the deceit and lies used to operate the empire.
The claimed enemies of america (fed gov) of course are the impoverished fighters in Iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere across the globe that have been radicalized by US foreign policy to hate everything about this nation.
Not to mention any government that refuses to bow on command from the fed gov (Iran).
Just food for thought: watch out!I hope there is continued analysis of the greek bailout. I wonder how berneke is getting involved in potential credit default swaps with foreign central banks and foreign governments. not to mention expansion of your existing coverage of the desire of the EU to move economic decisions from individual nation states to the EU central body.
Have a great weekend.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks for the insightful; analysis - though we cannot imagine the Fedgov conceiving of us an an enemy. They are a US$3 trillion behemoth, and we are a speck on a flee's behind comparatively ... Tthough we do have good traction with an savvy and well-educated readership - obviously.
|
Posted by Lance E. Schultz on 02/12/10 03:55 PM
Why is it that so many smart people turn a blind eye to the permanent and irrevocable debt enslavement projected onto the American people which our founders vehemently warned us against in the precise manner in which they have been wraught upon us. Our founders warned against the welfare entitlement state, the powers of the central government and the hellish costs associated with foreign interventionism. Only now are we witnessing the true costs of our lack of Jefferson's vigilance. We have spent $944 billion
[Click to view link]
in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional.
Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct Click to view linke
Click to view link
This is before the effects of the $515 billion defense budget to fund over 130 bases around the world. Spending $2.5 trillion for your protection is one thing when you have the money but we don't have any money.
How much security would $2.5 trillion purchase here in America to secure our borders and strengthen our national security? Jefferson and Washington were both right. We should have stayed the hell out of the world's affairs.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks for the good info and insights.
|
Posted by Dave on 02/12/10 03:26 PM
Here is a link to another story on the OB hypocrisy as it realates to encroaching and violating the rights of American citizens!
This is for the 'STAFF' writers who love to spend their days blaming Bush and not focusing on the most dangerous and destructive administration this nation has ever had INCLUDING GW!
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks for the link. Hope you'll still keep reading, even though we disagree!
 |
Posted by Beverlee on 02/12/10 03:21 PM
The idea that the United States of America strips away any citizen's freedoms for fear of men who live directly on dirt without running water and basic hygiene is laughable. Christmas 2009 proved the billions spent and freedoms lost mean next to nothing. Quick action by individuals saved the day; nothing else. If the citizens' confiscated money had been instead spent to reduce the deficit, taxes could be lowered now and wealth creation would boom. Instead, more will $$$$ be wasted on high-tech porno-machines at airports, and unemployment will sky-rocket while what remains of middle class wealth peters out--ostensibly because of men who live on dirt without running water. Do we look like we just fell off a rutabega truck?
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Do we look like we just fell off a rutabega truck?"
To be FBI, CIA, etc. - apparently so. They are still circulating and commenting on announcements purportedly from Osama Bin Laden.
|
Posted by Stuart on 02/12/10 02:06 PM
I'm glad to have someone expose what has happened in the Bush administration. I think part of the problem is that we WANTED Bush to be good, to believe that we had someone who was at least trying to make things better.
It's always difficult to admit that the person you thought was your friend was actually stabbing you in the back. Sometimes we even see people as good just because we want something good, regardless of who they are.
A couple of asides: Regarding arming the people in the same fashion as Switzerland, I heartily agree. There are several good videos on youtube that demonstrate what an invader would be up against. It should be the same in any truly free country.
The first amendment was all about providing protection to people who disclose bad behavior in government and had nothing to do with protecting pernicious pornography. I was both surprised and pleased to see the Supreme Court overturn the advertising ban. Thank you for keeping with the true intent of the founders by providing true free speech.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Very well done! We have spoken to some political observers who believe the Bush administration fully and irretrievably collapsed when he went down to New Orleans (after an indescribably obscene "overfly") and promised the people of that stricken city US$200 billion. Until then, even in his second term, some of his "base" was still waiting for the "conservative" part of compassionate conservative to show up. So many wanted him to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan. After Nola there was no doubt.
|
Posted by Steve Sexton on 02/12/10 01:51 PM
You have made quite a case for the enemies of America. By the way, how is Osama?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Osama is probably dead. Who are the enemies of America?
|
Posted by Zippythepinhead on 02/12/10 01:01 PM
While I agree with the vast majority of the Bell's commentary, I think the author is missing the point of the billboard. While I abhor W and now BHO, I believe the individuals where trying to compare and contrast the two. W was like a guy who drank a case of beer a day, while BHO is a guy who drinks a fifth of whiskey a day. Both drunks for sure, one is worse than the other. Cheers!
|
Posted by Jack Swift on 02/12/10 11:57 AM
The problem of war against the Islamo-fascists is certainly a great deal more complicated than simply the attack on 9/11. The enemy conceives of itself as the "nation of Islam" and it is at war with western culture.
For whatever reason it is the meme of our western elitists that this worldwide conspiracy backed by numerous rich and powerful nations is merely the action of a few criminals. That may be great for the stock market but it doesn't change the nature of the foe.
I believe Bush reacted to 9/11 in a proper, if hasty response. Confronted with the economic realities of upsetting the oil distribution systems of the world, he quickly backed off and changed the game from "crusade" to a war against "terrorism." Good for the elite's meme but that doesn't change the game being played by the foe.
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is difficult to believe in "non-state terror" because it doesn't make sense economically. It is equally difficult to believe, in our estimation, in religions of violence. There is no religion that we know of that has turned violent or expansive without state backing. Ergo, either the current war against "Islamo Fascism" is being fought against an enemy that has never existed historically - and is thus brand new - or America's current and planned wars, such as they are, are being fought against unacknowledged Muslim states. One such unacknowledged enemy is the Pashtuns.
We have written several articles on this subject. To understand the real nature of America's modern wars, one has to look past the Pentagon's dissembling and Bush's (and Obama's) posturing.
Click to view link
|
Posted by Puzzled on 02/12/10 09:06 AM
Again, Good Job, Well done! Some one else sees behind the facade! I, for one thought Bush, was totally incompetent, didn't know he was a deep thinker. Maybe just his handlers were. Today I see Obama for what he is. A figurehead/puppet.
|
Posted by Bill Ross on 02/12/10 08:59 AM
"HIs family history..."Aware of this, but many families have a "black sheep". Juniors academic, drug, alcohol and failed endeavor (business and politics) history proves him a loser.
Concur that Bush family is definitely elite (grandpa Preston financed the Nazi rise to power), but junior was definitely a pawn of his family among others.
Bush's IQ is irrelevant. It is not what you think, it is what you do. You can be very intelligent but spin your wheels and accomplish NOTHING of merit. According to SAT scores, these people claim Bush's IQ is 123:
Click to view link
And, as an intelligent person, I am well aware that sometimes projecting the perception of "strategic stupidity" is very useful in disarming and tricking enemies into underestimation and making mistakes.
Reply from The Daily Bell
And, as an intelligent person, I am well aware that sometimes projecting the perception of "strategic stupidity" is very useful in disarming and tricking enemies into underestimation and making mistakes.
He was clever. He was advised - and instructed - by others, but he was no fool. Nor is Obama.
|
Posted by T Haze on 02/12/10 08:57 AM
Very few acknowledge the impact of the bush presidency with such savvy. Bush, in my opinion, can be compared to Lincoln in terms of his impact on the presidency (expansion of executive power) and the nation at large (2 occupations, continued massive unfunded liable programs, failures responding to Katrina, prescription drug give aways, no bid contracts, NCLB, etc).on of the most amazing things bush was able to do, IMO, was win over the gun-ho majority in this nation in his campaign against Sen John Kerry.
Now I am opposed to just about everything kerry stands for, but bush successfully campaigned as the tougher guy as a draft dodging preppy boy hiding in the air national guard when kerry was boating through river deltas in Vietnam. Not to mention dick cheney got 5 deferments to keep him out of the draft!its either a testament to the gullibility of the american booboisie or to the savvy of his campaign staff and its ability to control messages and dialogues.
Leo, Bush was a man of his word??? how about evidence used to invade Iraq? how many times did you hear bush say "the united states does not torture" only to find out it does pervasively?bush was a terrible president, but to deny the impact he had on the presidency and nation is foolhardy.As for Obama, so far he is just playing the role of a dem now steering the ship of state: escalating wars and escalating domestic spending. nothing new for that party looking at the past century.
|
Posted by Leo on 02/12/10 08:49 AM
Remark by Daily Bell: "Lord, is this a conservative Tea Party initiative?" Stupid remark not worth your other writings. I would love to know who is the "smart one" who placed this comment.
|
Posted by Leo on 02/12/10 08:16 AM
I reularly read the Daily Bell and agree with most of the writings. This one took me by surprise. It smells like another conspiracy theory and complete misundertsanding of what the billboard of GWB means.
People placed it for a reason that the current President is a Socialist and taking our country into abyss. With GW at least we knew that he was man of his word. The current one dos not beieve in anything but himself and is set to destroy this country the way we know it. The blame game is always destructive.
|
Posted by Terry on 02/12/10 08:12 AM
While I agree with many of your points, I wonder what the Bell sees as adequate national defence. You have cited the success of Switzerland keeping small farms and farmers with rifles. Am I to seriously think that is what kept Switzerland from being attacked in two world wars? Did the mere claim that they a nice non-meddling state keep the Nazis a bay?
Whether the terrorist threat is real or not will be clear one day and I personally don't think they have our best interests at heart.What do you recommend we do about that area of the world when you factor in the interests of China, Russia, India and their future energy needs? Please lay out for me a beliveable scenario for stability around the world based on your model.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We are not fortune tellers. In a free society, whether through private insurance or communal self-interest, defensive technologies would be created that would keep up with those of the rest of the world. As to the threat of invasions, what totalitarian dictator in his right mind would make a mainland attack on the United States with its vast land mass and 300 million inhabitants, many of them armed? The US wasn't even willing to invade Cuba during the Castro years.
It is another dominant social theme - a promotion of the elite - that the US must spend a trillion dollars a year on "security," including a huge navy, air-force, etc. - and constantly attack other countries using Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. The US would be far safer and more secure if the powers-that-be had allowed the private market to flourish in the 20th century as before, and Americans had traded peacefully with the world.
|
Posted by Bill on 02/12/10 07:53 AM
I think the confusion regarding the nature and damages of Bush stems from the bad assumption that Bush was actually in control, the initiator of events, actions and programs.
He was not. Bush as all presidents since at least Kennedy (unresolved assassination, as post 9/11 anthrax attacks were a "play ball" message) was a pawn as is Obama. Their job is to "mess up", to create the perception of "necessity" (Machiavelli) for their puppetmasters (elites) long term programs and plans.
Elites appear to want a lot fewer of us and an end to industrial civilization (Malthusians, Luddites) plus, to miseducate and propagandize the general population to idiocy. Elites want feudalism back.
The prime enemy of their agenda is intelligence and the dissemination of accurate information and people collaborating and discussing (internet). Once the majority (or influential minority, leading the rest) of people refuse to be prey, it is game over for elites and their machinations.When politicians / law are caught in a real crossfire between the demands (not whining, an "or else" statement) of "we, the people" versus elites, the people will win, since their retaliation is far greater than anything elites can ever muster.THINK about it:
http://www.cli.gs/IntelligentChoice
Reply from The Daily Bell
Bush as dumb puppet? HIs family history for at least century indicates otherwise.
|
Posted by Alan on 02/12/10 03:48 AM
While I have strenuously disagreed with almost every policy of every US president during my adult life, never, until the presidency of Dubya, did I see in domestic politics the face of cold, calculating, malicious evil. May his name forever be damned by every freedom-loving American.
|
|
