Bill Kristol Enrages Libertarians

Stuff likes this cracks me up. It should not, but it does. 😛

NYT Columnist Bill Kristol basically kicks the Libertarians and fiscal Conservative purists square in the jewels.

Money Quotes:

But conservatives should think twice before charging into battle against Obama under the banner of “small-government conservatism.” It’s a banner many Republicans and conservatives have rediscovered since the election and have been waving around energetically. Jeb Bush, now considering a Senate run in 2010, even went so far as to tell Politico last month, “There should not be such a thing as a big-government Republican.”

Really? Jeb Bush was a successful and popular conservative governor of Florida, with tax cuts, policy reforms and privatizations of government services to show for his time in office. Still, in his two terms state spending increased over 50 percent — a rate faster than inflation plus population growth. It turns out, in the real world of Republican governance, that there aren’t a whole lot of small-government Republicans.

Five Republicans have won the presidency since 1932: Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. Only Reagan was even close to being a small-government conservative. And he campaigned in 1980 more as a tax-cutter and national-defense-builder-upper, and less as a small-government enthusiast in the mold of the man he had supported — and who had lost — in 1964, Barry Goldwater. And Reagan’s record as governor and president wasn’t a particularly government-slashing one.

Even the G.O.P.’s 1994 Contract With America made only vague promises to eliminate the budget deficit, and proposed no specific cuts in government programs. It focused far more on crime, taxes, welfare reform and government reform. Indeed, the “Republican Revolution” of 1995 imploded primarily because of the Republican Congress’s one major small-government-type initiative — the attempt to “cut” (i.e., restrain the growth of) Medicare. George W. Bush seemed to learn the lesson. Prior to his re-election, he proposed and signed into law popular (and, it turned out, successful) legislation, opposed by small-government conservatives, adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

So talk of small government may be music to conservative ears, but it’s not to the public as a whole. This isn’t to say the public is fond of big-government liberalism. It’s just that what’s politically vulnerable about big-government liberalism is more the liberalism than the big government. (Besides, the public knows that government’s not going to shrink much no matter who’s in power.)

Well, There are some Libertarians that having none of this. Some Libertarians that I happen to read are quite ticked.

David Donadio basically calls Kristol a “Self Loving Liberal” and lays the smack down, albiet nicely:

This is all quite clarifying. In Kristol’s view, modern conservatism has to have “a strong commitment to limited…government,” while passing trillion-dollar drug entitlements. In other words, Republicans aren’t going to restrain the undue growth of government. So, assuming one thinks Obama has a cooler head and better judgment than the GOP has shown on foreign policy of late, why exactly should he vote for Republicans anymore?

Kristol is surely right that a platform geared toward libertarians would fall flat, but he seems to have missed the memo that a platform geared toward neocons isn’t exactly going anywhere either. If the Republicans are going to alienate economic conservatives, foreign policy realists, and a whole rising generation that’ll eventually get wise to the fact that it’s footing the bill for all these bloated entitlements, what’s left? Somewhat socially conservative, self-identifying liberals who support school choice and tax cuts and Israel?

That’s not the swing vote, it’s the staff of The New Republic.

Stephen Bainbridge was not so nice about it, he basically said, “Excommunicate Kristol”:

Kristol thus reaffirms his position at the heart of the trio of reasons the conservative movement is in trouble: Iraq, K Street, and big government conservatism.

It’s true that government has a role. It’s true that sometimes government needs to do big things (like World Wars and bailing out the financial sector). But Kristol wants us to basically punt on the idea that government can be useful, productive, and effective at doing the big things society needs and still be a limited government.

The USA does not need two parties of big government. It doesn’t need two parties that support the nanny state. It doesn’t need two Mommy parties.

The USA does need at least one Daddy party. It needs at least one party that believes in individual freedom and limited government.

The GOP needs to become that party.

The GOP and the conservative movement don’t need Bill Kristol and his ilk. It’s time to kick his ass out.

Memo to Kristol: Put the pin back in the grenade! Before someone or yourself gets hurt! I mean, turning on your own base, which is mainly fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians is just not smart Bill, really. I thought even you would have known better than this.

To what was said above, let me simply say this. That only people that are getting any sort of anything out of this, is liberals. Hell, if they read this, they would be busting a gut laughing. I mean it cracks me up, because the Republican Party seems to be at a loss as to why their party is in such disarray. I submit this as one of the reasons.

The again, this is the same nimrod who was totally wrong about Iraq.

Others: (Left and Right) – Ross Douthat, Upturned Earth, The Corner, The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Copious Dissent, Below The Beltway, Wonkette, Right Wing Nut House, StephenBainbridge.com, RedState, Washington Monthly, The New Republic and Reason