Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

January 12, 2004

The Doctor is Out: Debunking the libertarian fascination with Dean

By Steve Damerell

A great thing is happening in the fight for liberty. Advocates of limited government, who have frequently been written off as a mere conservative subset, are leaving in droves from the Bush camp. And with offensive policies of warmongering, privacy invasion and budget busting, who can blame them? But a disturbing subtext to this trend has been equally fast to catch hold across America. As libertarians begin to explore ground outside of the Republican camp, they have become all too willing to embrace the candidacy of former Vermont governor Howard Dean, fooling themselves into believing that one big-government candidate can heal the offenses of another.

Dean has been lauded on several fronts, principally in the realms of foreign policy, civil liberties and even economics. And on the surface, each seems to make sense, but each crumbles equally quickly under any form of scrutiny.

Dean has been praised by non-interventionists for his longtime opposition to the Iraq war, and perhaps more notably for his call toward an “evenhanded” policy in the Israel-Palestine dispute. Truly, these policies are abnormally laudable for a mainstream politician, but are they all that libertarians should be seeking in a foreign policy? Dean has stated in no uncertain terms that he does not support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, nor has he provided a clear long-term exit plan to rival Bush’s. And when Dean sparked criticism for his comments on Israel, he backpedaled from them in mere days. This leaves advocates of non-interventionism with but one positive quality for which to laud Dean, namely that he opposed in theory a war that he has provided no plan to end.

Many have said that Dean also bests Bush on civil liberties turf. First of all, this is hardly a giant feat. Even Clinton, with Janet Reno and the scandals of Waco and Elian Gonzales to his name, could not have dreamed to rival Bush’s Orwellian schemes. But Dean has not advocated the repeal, nor even the serious re-examination of the egregious Patriot Act. Like every other Democrat in the field, he has simply criticized Ashcroft (and rightly so) and called for a re-examination of some of the Act’s most offensive passages. To simply claim that Dean might undo the very worst of Bush’s nightmarish domestic policy, and then to advocate his election, is akin to prescribing Tylenol for a spinal fracture. The good doctor himself should realize the error of such ways.

Lastly, well-intentioned libertarians have made every effort to delude themselves into thinking that Dean is not the northeastern liberal that he is. Lauding his “fiscal conservatism,” Dean supporters from the libertarian camp have been willing to overlook Dean’s militant commitment to overturning the Bush tax cuts and implementing a state-run health care system.

While serving as governor of Vermont, Dean received a “D” from the Cato Institute on his fiscal policy -- 34th of the 50 governors ranked. Say what you like about Dean’s foreign and civil policies, but an “economic moderate” he is not. If Dean succeeds Bush, repeals the tax cuts and attempts to implement universal health care, then he will still be left with a gaping budget hole to pay for the “war on terror” that he has promised to fight and to fund the thousands of troops that he has vowed not to withdraw.

If they were to paint an honest picture of Dr. Dean, advocates of limited government would see that it is tarnished. Perhaps Dean’s planned indiscretions are frequently different than those of the Bush administration, but they are no less offensive to people of conscience who seek a better America. Rosy-eyed “Dean libertarians” seem to be incapable of seeing anything but Dean’s insubstantial objections to a war that’s already begun (and a war he now refuses to end) and an abstract promise that some of their civil liberties may be returned. Such voters have the right to demand much more; they should have learned all too well in 2000 that a vote for the “lesser of two evils” can still deliver an awful lot of evil.





Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

Share Your Thoughts About This Article, Send a Letter to the Editor.

supportus.png

Advertisement
Free For All -- The Free Liberal Blog


Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

Your E-Mail Address: