Response to Comments

To Parker: Woo-hoo! 35% sales tax! (that's about what it would have to be to replace the income tax). Do you have ANY idea what that would do to consumption and the economy???
At best, it would be a major income shift from families with children to old misers, at *immense* implementation costs. At worst, it would send the economy into a depression-esque tailspin, with jobs, businesses and sales moving to Canada and elsewhere - and mostly just evaporating - before you could say "Franklin Delano Roosevelt".

As far as Dubya's critiques, here's the thing: Saddam Hussein was a bad man. However, if we get rid of him, why not all the guys in Africa who do much worse things to their people? Why not North Korea? One word: oil. Now, this wasn't an "oil war" in the classic sense; I've argued that all along. It is, however, a war motivated by the importance of oil. Only someone with an M.D. in Spin can effectively argue that we went after Saddam because he deserved it.
On the diplomacy thing, I really shouldn't have to argue with you, Dubya, but you seem to have bought into the administration's rhetoric wholeheartedly. However, unlike you I have spent time in Europe, Africa and the Middle East since Bush became president, and I've seen what it's done to the perception of America among even our allies. If you really think this is only about liberal Europeans you are very sadly misinformed. This is about any country that wants to control its own destiny. When the U.S. sets the parameters within which the world can operate, that's a serious threat to everyone else.

Here's how I define the liberal elite (which is quite distinct from classical liberalism). A liberal elitist is someone who believes that he knows better than the common man what the common man should do. The implications of this worldview are principally:
- Big government
- Decisions made centrally, not by referendum or with close accountability
- The end justifies the means, since the goal is a society in line with their vision. The vision may be good (no racism, healthy environment, full health coverage), but any standard can be sidelined in the name of the vision.
- The elite believe that they themselves have a fundamental (God-given?) right to govern.

This flies in the face of American democracy. The foundations of that tradition are based in the supremacy of the individual over the whole, and the equality of people regardless of knowledge and "enlightenment", not only regardless of skin color. What's important to the democrat (little "d") is:
- Civil liberties and rights. If the government can take these, it owns you.
- Size of government fluctuating according to need
- Decisions made locally and by referendum, often beginning with grassroots campaigns (e.g. prohibition, abolition, civil rights, women's suffrage)
- The government affirms its subordinance to the people and, in the supreme act of submission, leaves office when voted out. This is the forgotten keystone of democracy.

When applied to foreign affairs, the conflict between liberalism and democracy takes on a different tone, and a lot of democrats become elitists - the Great White Hope. Today we exhibit many similarities to colonial Europeans in our attitudes towards other cultures. Our values have changed, but know anyone who doesn't see the world through postmodern eyes is regarded as backwards.

Bush has become more and more a liberal elitist. He began well, but seems to have been corrupted by power or fear (of more 9/11's). Like the Steward of Gondor, he seeks the weapon of the Enemy.

Foreign affairs: Bush has been the ultimate elitist, writing off those who disagree with him, never stopping to consider that other countries' interests may actually be in the long-run interest of the United States or that other leaders' opinions may in fact be correct. Liberal Europe, incidentally, was his biggest supporter. England, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and a bevy of others all signed on against the will of their populations, as their liberal elitist leaders did what was best for nations that don't know what's good for them.

Education: I agree that schools need cash. But does Washington really know how to control these boards? Sure you need to guard against corruption, but if you don't trust towns and cities to want the best for their children, isn't the battle already lost? And if you believe that a pointy-eared politician in D.C. knows better than Ma and Pa Schoolboard what to do with Junior, aren't you a liberal elitist?

Civil Rights: The liberal elitist Bush says that security is more important than anything. Security for the whole, security for the government, security for the economy. The Patriot Act, unconstitutional detainments of American citizens, and the erosion of privacy rights all make it much easier for the government to impose its will on the people, as opposed to vice versa. The spirit of the Second Amendment is that the people need to have ultimate power on their side. The constitution protects local armies from the Federals; it makes no provision for a Federal army. The government may be able to protect us better if they control us, but a gilded cage is not freedom, and the ends do not justify the means.

Budget/tax cuts: Here the Congress is at fault, but with Bush's strong leadership, ultimately all bucks stop in the Oval Office. Tax cuts are fine - they help contract government, which is much tougher than expanding it. However, Bush has allowed spending to ooze in all sectors in unrestrained growth policy. Now, this is great for the economy - but only in the short run. It's a double dose of stimulants. However, the long term effects are poison, and every advisor in D.C. knows this. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to project debt and debt service rising if the deficit remains. Rather than serving the people with a sober fiscal policy, this government is giving itself job security by making sure everyone votes for them in November. People will dimple chads for Bush all over America because the economy is up, despite 9/11. However, if they could see into the future, I don't know that they'd be so sure, and the Republicans are betraying both their own beliefs and the American people in order to preserve the unique power they have in Washington.

Shameful.