The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Major parties devalue rights

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Andrew Wagner:

Free speech should not protect bigoted Baptists (November 30, 2007)
Immigration debate truly cultural, not economic (November 16, 2007)
Pakistan nears extremism (November 9, 2007)
ASM grocery store deserves chance (November 2, 2007)
Party identifiers cloud judgment (October 26, 2007)

by Andrew Wagner

Friday, October 27, 2006

In my previous opinion piece two weeks ago, I wrote about Congress' ineffective and encroaching attempt to restrict online gambling. This action to restrict what should be a free civil liberty is just the latest in an increasing number of attempts to legislate the actions and morals of the American people. Whether it attempts to ban gay marriage or prohibit the selling of violent video games, government at the local, state and federal level is interfering to an unconscionable degree with the private and public life of American citizens.

During the middle of the 20th century, a large proportion of the Republican Party supported the fiscal restraint and social liberalism that small government delivers. However, this libertarian streak slowly ebbed through the decades and today is nearly nonexistent. Today, the Republican Party has shed both of these stances and in recent years has overseen one of the largest expansions of the federal government in history. The Democratic Party has been no better in terms of small government. The party agreed with the recent expansion of the federal government and actively supported it. They have also joined the Republicans in their disregard for liberalism, albeit in different ways. Faced with two political parties that promote the growth of government intervention in public and private life, who the heck is a person supposed to vote for?

As I mentioned before, this used to be a simpler choice. A person voting for smaller government generally would vote for the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater, a former Republican presidential candidate and senator once said, "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." Unfortunately for the Republican Party, and indeed for the United States as a whole, this breed of politician has mostly died out. In today's world, neither party has an interest in paring back the power or bureaucracy of government. After all, the power of the government is what makes these political parties the primary forces inside the United States. In the mainstream political parties, libertarianism is either hiding or dead.

So if a voter is interested in voting for libertarian principles, what does that leave? A third-party? There is a Libertarian Party of Wisconsin. In the last gubernatorial election, the party polled slightly more than 10 percent of the total vote. Not too bad for a third-party, but those numbers can only influence elections, not win them. As for this year's gubernatorial election, it does not appear that they are running a candidate. This certainly cuts down possible options.

With no real alternatives to the mainstream, any person who believes in small government, civil liberties or free trade has had to vote for either a third-party candidate with no hope of winning or compromise and vote for a Democrat or Republican, depending on personal preference. The last two decades have shown the inability of the two main political parties to restrict their hunger for power. Each year sees increasingly blatant attempts to establish a nanny state that makes our personal decisions for us or to increase regulations that seek to limit the civil liberties of citizens.

Although the November mid-term elections seem to be leaning toward a transfer of political power from Republicans to Democrats, the status quo in regards to many libertarian issues is likely to remain unchanged. Libertarian ideals are a crucial component of the Constitution. Beyond the Constitution, legislating morals and actions does a great disservice to every citizen. It sends the message that our own government does not trust us, and furthermore, does not believe citizens have the will or intelligence to think for themselves.

After this November, I hope that things will look a little brighter. The expansion of the federal government in Washington has been an expensive and intrusive debacle. The United States proclaims itself as "the land of the free." While this has not always been true throughout history, and to this day is not entirely fulfilled, our country has come closer than any other to achieving this. It would be a grand shame if the next decades see a retreat from the worthy goal of a free and productive society.

Andrew Wagner (aawagner@wisc.edu) is sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (October 27, 2006 @ 7:43am):

The average voter wants a fiscally conservative, socially liberal president. Clinton, no matter how much the conservative disagree, came closest to accomplishing just that. Bush, however, is fiscally liberal (see: Department of Homeland Security, preemptive war) and socially conservative.

I'm sure the conservative feedback will bash Clinton, but I'm pretty sure they're just jealous that their president hasn't lived up to his billing.

Dump the neo-con crap; no one likes big spenders. Next time, raise taxes at a time of war and DON'T add to the debt!

Anonymous (October 27, 2006 @ 8:15am):

Wow, a computer science major who belongs to the Libertarian Party? Color me surprised.

Anonymous (October 27, 2006 @ 12:18pm):

I'm trying to decide which is a bigger conversation killler: admitting you believe in the 9-11 conspiracy crap or mentioning your love for Ayn Rand.

Anonymous (October 27, 2006 @ 12:23pm):

The decline of Goldwater Republicans and absense "Scoop Jackson wing" Democrats are truely a national tradegy.

Anonymous (October 27, 2006 @ 1:21pm):

What's the difference between a Libertarian and Republican? I bet most college republicans don't know and don't care. There's definitely a difference: a Libertarian would never put up with domestic spying, preemptive war, or the department of homeland security.

Bureaucracy gone wild, my friends.

Anonymous (October 27, 2006 @ 1:41pm):

Bush's tax cuts=good for the company.

Anonymous (October 27, 2006 @ 2:45pm):

Didn't we have a good economy in the 1990's without the Bush tax cuts? We did, so what's your point?

Remember, the economy rises and falls in a cycle regardless of presidential policy. At least that's what I'm told every time I bring up the money-makin' 90's.

Gouge the rich, save the middle class. Supply-side is a pipe dream.