Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Hillary vs. McCain? I'll take Hillary

George Will reports today that Sen. John McCain, a presidential aspirant, recently told radio guy Don Imus:
I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.
In other words, his conception of "clean" government takes precedence over free political speech. As Will asks, if McCain ever takes the oath to defend the Constitution, "what would he mean?" It is amazing that McCain is seen as a refreshing political personality. He's as reactionary and as power-lusting as they get. (And a sanctimonious warmonger to boot.) Will correctly notes that people like McCain, obsessed with campaign finance, hold two propositions at the same time:
Proof that incumbent politicians are highly susceptible to corruption is the fact that the government they control is shot through with it. Yet that government should be regarded as a disinterested arbiter, untainted by politics and therefore qualified to regulate the content, quantity and timing of speech in campaigns that determine who controls the government. In the language of McCain's Imus appearance, the government is very much not "clean," but it is so clean it can be trusted to regulate speech about itself.
If in 2008 it's Hillary versus McCain, I'm for Hillary, for two reasons: It'll keep McCain out of office, and the congressional Republicans will act more like an opposition party. Yeah, anybody but McCain.

Cross-posted at Liberty & Power.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

There exists this underlying message in America that if you don't like the way the country is being run then vote to change it; but I say the vote hardly makes any difference because all the available candidates are similarly corrupt politically and morally. And that the Press refuses to print the truth or all the other options. The Press refuses to inform Americans about other types of candidates, especially about libertarians. The Press also fails to support the public on the one issue that could compel politicians, of any political persuasion, to defend citizens against the government. And the one threat that provides the greatest incentive for politicians to act properly on behalf of citizens (the threat of force and harm) is deliberately subdued by the Press by their opposition to 2nd amendment rights.

Now, which candidate supports gun possession by the public - Hillary or McCain ?

saturdaynightspecial

Sheldon Richman said...

A few years ago McCain sponsored legislation to crack down on guns shows.

Anonymous said...

Anybody but Hillary.