flatfloor
05-16-2002, 08:51 AM
A Few Make Case for Hands-Off Government
James P. Pinkerton
May 16, 2002
Do you know anyone who opposes the government giving welfare to millionaire farmers, or jailing people who dope up their own private lives, or preparing to invade countries that haven't attacked us? Maybe that describes you. If so, you might be outnumbered, but at least you're not alone. Indeed, a bright line of consistency runs through all those positions, a line best drawn by a libertarian think tank in Washington, the Cato Institute. It is a belief in hands-off government.
By contrast, most elected politicians, who pride themselves on being "problem-solvers," go along with the current hands-on - and, all too often, hands-on-throat - solutions to issues at home and abroad. They define their pragmatism by not asking questions about established meddling policies.
Let's consider three news items that could use some questioning:
First, President George W. Bush signs farm legislation that proposes to spend $190 billion over 10 years, much of which goes to subsidize large corporate farms.
Second, singer Dionne Warwick is arrested at a Miami airport after screeners find 11 suspected marijuana cigarettes in her luggage. Most likely, Warwick's alleged crime will be handled by fancy lawyers, not jailers - although not all of the 5.2 million Americans arrested on marijuana charges since 1992 have been so fortunate.
Third, the Bush administration continues to press ahead with plans for invading Iraq, alone if necessary. We've come a long way, in other words, since the days of John Quincy Adams, the secretary of state and president, who in 1821 declared of his nation: "She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Maybe such 19th-century sentiments aren't applicable to the 21st century, but perhaps Americans should be applying more scrutiny to their country's military ventures abroad. For example, earlier this month a CIA Predator robot aircraft fired a cruise missile at Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Afghan factional leader. Officials say that Hekmatyar was plotting to kill Americans - but isn't that the sort of politico-military escalation that led to debacle in Somalia, not to mention Vietnam?
So where do our political leaders, and the two major parties, stand on these issues? Mostly, they stand together.
Happily, there's an organized alternative, however small. The Cato Institute, currently celebrating its 25th anniversary, offers principled devotion to limited government and non-intervention. In the Catonian world, farmers, pot smokers and Afghans would be on their own. Uncle Sam wouldn't be there to make them "better."
Cato Instituters trace their intellectual roots to the American Revolution, although even the minimal-government Founders were soon compelled to write a centralizing Constitution. Indeed, a purely libertarian ideology would be impossible to put into practice. But today Uncle Sam has bulked up almost beyond recognition. He is strong enough to transfer wealth to wealthy farmers, bust unlucky potheads and, most consequentially, plunge the country into new quagmires.
So it's refreshing to hear Cato Fellow Doug Bandow challenge American military and economic aid around the world, including in Mideast war zones. Bandow supported American action against al-Qaida, but he warns against a continuing commitment of American forces throughout the region, especially in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, he would go further, phasing out all but humanitarian assistance to Israel, Egypt and other countries.
Bandow knows that he is dismissed by both political parties, twinned as they are in common interventionism. "It's hard to say we're winning the policy debate," he observes. But arguments about the size and role of the state are ongoing. Cato's singular contribution is its intellectual consistency.
To libertarians, state power is always to be feared, whether it is used domestically or internationally. And, while it is too much to expect pragmatic politicians to embrace Cato's ideological purity, they might at least ask some of the same searching questions.
Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.
James P. Pinkerton
May 16, 2002
Do you know anyone who opposes the government giving welfare to millionaire farmers, or jailing people who dope up their own private lives, or preparing to invade countries that haven't attacked us? Maybe that describes you. If so, you might be outnumbered, but at least you're not alone. Indeed, a bright line of consistency runs through all those positions, a line best drawn by a libertarian think tank in Washington, the Cato Institute. It is a belief in hands-off government.
By contrast, most elected politicians, who pride themselves on being "problem-solvers," go along with the current hands-on - and, all too often, hands-on-throat - solutions to issues at home and abroad. They define their pragmatism by not asking questions about established meddling policies.
Let's consider three news items that could use some questioning:
First, President George W. Bush signs farm legislation that proposes to spend $190 billion over 10 years, much of which goes to subsidize large corporate farms.
Second, singer Dionne Warwick is arrested at a Miami airport after screeners find 11 suspected marijuana cigarettes in her luggage. Most likely, Warwick's alleged crime will be handled by fancy lawyers, not jailers - although not all of the 5.2 million Americans arrested on marijuana charges since 1992 have been so fortunate.
Third, the Bush administration continues to press ahead with plans for invading Iraq, alone if necessary. We've come a long way, in other words, since the days of John Quincy Adams, the secretary of state and president, who in 1821 declared of his nation: "She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Maybe such 19th-century sentiments aren't applicable to the 21st century, but perhaps Americans should be applying more scrutiny to their country's military ventures abroad. For example, earlier this month a CIA Predator robot aircraft fired a cruise missile at Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Afghan factional leader. Officials say that Hekmatyar was plotting to kill Americans - but isn't that the sort of politico-military escalation that led to debacle in Somalia, not to mention Vietnam?
So where do our political leaders, and the two major parties, stand on these issues? Mostly, they stand together.
Happily, there's an organized alternative, however small. The Cato Institute, currently celebrating its 25th anniversary, offers principled devotion to limited government and non-intervention. In the Catonian world, farmers, pot smokers and Afghans would be on their own. Uncle Sam wouldn't be there to make them "better."
Cato Instituters trace their intellectual roots to the American Revolution, although even the minimal-government Founders were soon compelled to write a centralizing Constitution. Indeed, a purely libertarian ideology would be impossible to put into practice. But today Uncle Sam has bulked up almost beyond recognition. He is strong enough to transfer wealth to wealthy farmers, bust unlucky potheads and, most consequentially, plunge the country into new quagmires.
So it's refreshing to hear Cato Fellow Doug Bandow challenge American military and economic aid around the world, including in Mideast war zones. Bandow supported American action against al-Qaida, but he warns against a continuing commitment of American forces throughout the region, especially in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, he would go further, phasing out all but humanitarian assistance to Israel, Egypt and other countries.
Bandow knows that he is dismissed by both political parties, twinned as they are in common interventionism. "It's hard to say we're winning the policy debate," he observes. But arguments about the size and role of the state are ongoing. Cato's singular contribution is its intellectual consistency.
To libertarians, state power is always to be feared, whether it is used domestically or internationally. And, while it is too much to expect pragmatic politicians to embrace Cato's ideological purity, they might at least ask some of the same searching questions.
Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.