Another one of those conservative anti-deficit articles that would have been very timely if it appeared before the war started, but of course it appears after the war and the incredible amount of money it is costing us.
Why did I never hear conservatives decrying deficit spending during the Bush years, when deficit spending ballooned. No, then you had conservatives talking about how the deficit does not really matter.
Now it is too late, the cat is out of the bag. We need deficit spending just to keep the damn economy from collapsing, and no politician will have the guts to just exit the wars.
I don't see this as Conservative as much as it's Libertarian (See the anti-War on Drugs part for example). From that stand point Libertarians have always been vehemently against not only the war in Iraq (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Vox/?20030310-0) but in many cases the one in Afghanistan as well (http://libertarians4peace.net/). Libertarians in general are non-interventionist in regards to foreign policy.
Libertarians have always been vehemently against not only the war in Iraq ...
Certainly not all of them though. ESR is the prototypical Libertarian in my mind, and has written about how awesome he thinks the Iraq was is/was (for example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=651).
You might pick a more representative prototype. Even someone as iffy as Ron Paul makes more sense.
But yes, like every single other political group outside of pacifists, you could find pro-Iraq libertarians. However, the huge majority of libertarians were vehemently against the war in Iraq. Many of them balked at the war in Afghanistan.
(Also, a footnote: Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, libertarians are people who have libertarian views.)
Note: I'm a registered independent and little "l" libertarian.
I supported the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan based on utilitarian principles -- I felt (and still feel) that less people will die and less pain would be inflicted by the use of violence in those areas) I find that the careful and appropriate use of force by the state does not conflict with my libertarian views.
There is no such "vast majority of independents who have strong libertarian leanings" outside of LP propaganda, just a small fraction of "independents" who don't want to admit they consistently vote for one party or the other.
(Oh, yes, and a tiny, tiny fraction of libertarians, some minority of whom care about the LP.)
Really? Last I checked both major parties in the states heavily competed for about 20% of the electorate who self-identified as independents.
Can't comment much on "fake" libertarians, though. I haven't seen much evidence that they either vote the same way each time or not. It might be that different candidates draw out different groups of these middle-grounders.
I'm not much on big-L libertarianism, mainly because so many of them are all over the board on policies, usually taking the core ideas beyond where they are practical. Libertarianism is best practiced when it has a healthy respect for the social contract, such as the use of national force on occasion.
As for "fake libertarians", I really don't know whether you are or not, and I'm not highly concerned - though many of your lines are reminiscent of the typical Team Red "if you guys were just a little closer to our ideas, you'd do such much better" shtick.
The simple truth is that actual, consistent libertarians predominantly opposed the war. I'm no more interested in historical revisionism on that point than I am in revisionism on the war itself.
Nice link. True, but perhaps a little overstated. Independents are who they are -- if they routinely vote one way or the other I'm not sure that takes away from their self-identified independent status. Seems like splitting hairs to me.
I'm not interested in revisionism either, and looks like you've failed to make any kind of point at all here. I was simply providing another piece of anecdotal data for your discussion -- which I've done.
The Institute characterizes itself as libertarian and expresses antiwar and non-interventionist positions on American foreign policy, asserting that war is a violation of rights to life, liberty, and property, with destructive effects on the market economy, and tends to increase the power of government.
If by conservatives you mean libertarians (Austrian economists tend to be libertarian), you only have check out Peter Schiff or do a search on mises.org to hear the "decrying of deficit spending".
Also, you may want to check out some more articles on mises.org to fully understand what deficit spending does to the economy.
> Why did I never hear conservatives decrying deficit spending during the Bush years, when deficit spending ballooned. No, then you had conservatives talking about how the deficit does not really matter.
The Mises institute (as others have rightly pointed out) is not conservative, but libertarian. Fiscal conservatism and libertarianism are similar, but there is a distinction.
The Mises institute has been talking about deficit spending for well over 50 years now, regardless of who has been in power. If you haven't read Mises' Human Action (c. 1940) which deals extensively with this, I would recommend you to do so.
Please investigate a bit about what you're saying before you try to write off a writer as "well the cat's out of the bag now".
Why did I never hear conservatives decrying deficit spending during the Bush years, when deficit spending ballooned. No, then you had conservatives talking about how the deficit does not really matter.
Now it is too late, the cat is out of the bag. We need deficit spending just to keep the damn economy from collapsing, and no politician will have the guts to just exit the wars.