MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Vivek Ramaswamy’

Hey, Republicans! America Doesn’t Need a Second “Government Party”

Posted by M. C. on November 13, 2023

Meanwhile, it just so happened that Wednesday was also the day on which the run rate of interest on the public debt crossed the $1 trillionper year mark. That implies a fiscal catastrophe of staggering dimensions is fast barreling down the pike.

Yet in their closing statements did even one of the five candidates address this issue? Did these wanna be standard bearers for the Republican Party even know that the safeguarding of fiscal sobriety in the tussle of American democracy is the very reason for the GOP’s existence?

By David Stockman

David Stockman’s Contra Corner

The GOP debaters in Miami Wednesday night might as well have been swathed in war paint. After two hours of endless blathering about Foreign Wars, Border Wars, Culture Wars, Drug Wars, China Wars etc. it was hard to form any other impression about the agenda of today’s GOP.

To be sure, Vivek Ramaswamy gets a hall pass on the matter because he did nail the worst warmonger in the group, Nikki Haley, with his “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels” zinger. Indeed, the entire quote is worth replicating because it’s obvious that as a Republican no one ever heard of, Vivek hadn’t gotten the neocon memo about Washington’s duty to police the planet:

I want to be careful to avoid making the mistakes from the neocon establishment of the past. Corrupt politicians in both parties spent trillions, killed millions, made billions for themselves in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting wars that sent thousands of our sons and daughters, people my age to die in wars that did not advance anyone’s interests. Adding $7 trillion to our national debt. And Joe Biden sold off our foreign policy. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, got a $5 million bribe from Ukraine. That’s why we’re sending $200 billion back to that same country.

The fact of the matter is, the Republican Party is not that much better. You have the likes of Nikki Haley, who stepped down from her time at the UN, bankrupt or in debt, as was her family. Then she becomes a military contractor. She joins the board of Boeing and otherwise and is now a multi-millionaire. So I think that that’s wrong when Republicans do it or Democrats do it. That’s the choice we face. Do you want a leader from a different generation who’s going to put this country first, or do you want Dick Cheney in three-inch heels?

Still, there is actually something more deeply awry in Republican land than merely its zealous embrace of the neocon Forever Wars. The modus operandi that all the above-mentioned GOP wars have in common is the active deployment of government power to purportedly do good and thwart evil.

That is to say, the pitch amounts to “elect Republicans and we will power-up the state to make domestic society better and the world safer because we are more virtuous than the Dems”.

Yet what in the world does that have to do with the core anti-state mission of the Opposition Party in the contest of democratic politics?

After all, the do-gooder agenda has already been pre-empted by the Dems’ Government Party with its legions of liberal pols, well-fed interest groups and statist constituencies of every shape and form. There is no point now, and never has been, in me-tooism, RINO fakery and junior status in the Washington Uniparty.

So by definition, the Opposition Party needs to ground itself in conservative constitutionalism and advocacy for personal liberty and free markets at home and peaceful commerce abroad. Everywhere and always, therefore, the first priority of the Opposition Party must be shackling, minimizing, draining and constraining the power and resources of the state because by the very nature of the beast, government is self-aggrandizing and expansionary. And that’s most especially true on the Warfare State side of the equation.

Moreover, in the case of whatever societal problems the state might productively address, if any, the “Government Party” of the Dems will inherently grab first dibs. The Opposition Party will never out-bid them and shouldn’t try. As a matter of political competition, therefore, its strategy should be to throw endless shade on government and all its misbegotten works.

Accordingly, the Opposition Party’s brand should center on:

  • Celebrating the capacity of private society, free markets, civil institutions, families, citizens and other non-government actors to achieve the goods things of life, which humans in all their varieties and stations inherently strive for.
  • Debunking, exposing, attacking and ridiculing the inherent tendency of the state and its agencies and apparatchiks to abuse government power, waste the resources its has extracted from the public and to succumb to capture by nefarious actors, ranging from the military-industrial complex to Big Pharma, the farm lobby, the teachers’ unions and all the other feeders at the public trough.

Needless to say, the “war against….” rhetoric of today’s GOP embodies exactly the wrong tone and message. It essentially involves a misguided attempt by the putative “conservative” party to identify an alternative slate of societal problems which require government ministrations, albeit in a business-like Republican-style.

For instance, nearly to a man and woman, the five candidates took turns declaiming against the plague of fentanyl, promising to bring down the wrath of Washington on the alleged Chinese suppliers of the precursor components and the Mexican cartels which formulate it and bring it across the border. DeSantis even said he would “smoke” them on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande—the implied invasion of another country to the contrary notwithstanding.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stone Cold Dead Republic: When Everything is Cast as a War

Posted by M. C. on September 29, 2023

“Among other things, calling something a “war” opens up the possibility of endless emergency measures and executive powers permitting the president to circumvent the legislature altogether and enact whichever laws he prefers. At the same time, widespread propaganda campaigns are used during wartime to secure the support and the obedience of the populace under the assumption that “You’re either with us, or you’re against us.” Sound familiar? It should.”

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/stone-cold-dead-republic-when-everything-is-cast-as-a-war/

by Laurie Calhoun

kyiv, ukraine december, 2019: injection of fentanyl medical glass ampoule.

Several politicians have vaunted a muscular but myopic plan for dealing with the fentanyl crisis: to eliminate sources of the drug near the U.S.-Mexico border through the use of military force. The fentanyl crisis is being portrayed as an international conflict, not a failure of domestic policy, but a problem entirely caused by the evil members of Mexican cartels who, it is being claimed, deserve to die, along with, apparently, anyone who happens to be at their side. But even assuming, against an abundance of evidence from history, that the deployment of military force would have any effect beyond persuading traffickers to move their operations elsewhere, the proposal to whack anyone at the border who appears to be involved in the illegal drug trade threatens the most basic principles at the heart of what remains of the U.S. republic.

As in the U.S. drone program deployed so ruthlessly against thousands of tribesmen throughout the Middle East, the proposed plan to summarily execute suspected fentanyl dealers assumes that they are guilty and that the presumption of innocence is a “quaint” notion which can and should be inverted when it comes to matters of national defense. Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has observed that more than thirty times more Americans now die of overdose deaths each year than died on September 11, 2001. From this he infers, fallaciously, that the use of military force has become necessary in order to stem the tide of the crisis. Apparently unaware or unconcerned that the Global War on Terror culminated in the deaths of many thousands more innocent people than died on 9/11, Ramaswamy sophistically suggests that because the sheer magnitude of overdose victims within the United States is so high, this implies that it is time for yet another war.

For what should be obvious reasons, government leaders love to paint every new problem as necessitating a new war. Among other things, calling something a “war” opens up the possibility of endless emergency measures and executive powers permitting the president to circumvent the legislature altogether and enact whichever laws he prefers. At the same time, widespread propaganda campaigns are used during wartime to secure the support and the obedience of the populace under the assumption that “You’re either with us, or you’re against us.” Sound familiar? It should.

Such dynamics are fresh memories in the minds of many people because we only recently witnessed and survived the “War on COVID-19,” which, like every other recent U.S. war, left only a crime scene in its wake. No matter, politicians are calling for a new War on Drugs, a “War on Fentanyl,” which implies, among other things, that “collateral damage” will be unavoidable. This is taken by war supporters to follow from the platitudes that “What must be done must be done!” and, in wartime, “Stuff happens.” The tactical parallels with 9/11 and the COVID-19 crisis are telling as well. People were so traumatized by what happened on September 11, 2001, that they agreed to anything the government proposed in order to protect themselves and their loved ones from the possibility of further terrorist acts. Likewise, having been propagandized to believe that everyone was in serious danger of death by virus, much of the populace agreed to severe limitations on their liberty, and some went even so far as to call for the injection of an experimental substance into the bodies of people who declined voluntarily to roll up their sleeves.

Self-proclaimed “libertarian-leaning” Ramaswamy says, on the one hand, that, as president, he will eliminate the Deep State, deleting entire departments of an undeniably bloated federal government. Unfortunately, however, his disdain for the bureaucratic state does not extend to the minimalist form of government better known as tyranny, wherein a single leader, the only remaining office holder, replaces the legislative branch of government and asserts his own power to issue executive orders binding on the people of the land. Ramaswamy’s populist rhetoric notwithstanding, by asserting the right to kill persons designated by himself as enemies of the state who are guilty of capital crimes, he would be appointing himself the king.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Vivek Ramaswamy Is Just Another Disgusting Warmonger

Posted by M. C. on September 7, 2023

Stop buying into this bogus song and dance. Stop buying into this schtick where opportunistic faux populists play into widespread anti-war sentiment while slyly advancing the agendas of the war machine. People bought into it with Trump for four years, and they’re buying into it with Vivek Ramaswamy again.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/136750825

Caitlin Johnstone

I’m seeing Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy building up a lot of credibility in some antiwar circles, which is ridiculous because he’s clearly just another disgusting warmonger. He is not meaningfully different from all the other warmongers in the DC swamp.

I say this not because I’m some kind of purity police zealot who lets the perfect become the enemy of the good, nor because I don’t understand Ramaswamy’s appeal among those who oppose war and militarism. I totally get why it would look sparkly and interesting to see someone on the debate stage decrying neocons and wishing professional warmonger Nikki Haley the best of luck on the boards of Lockheed and Raytheon, and on the surface his support for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine looks admirable.

In reality, however, Ramaswamy is just one side of the dynamic we were discussing recently in which the populace is artificially manipulated into a power-serving debate over whether we should support warmongering against Russia or warmongering against China, thereby duping the public into arguing over how warmongering should occur rather than if it should. Ramaswamy is a virulent China hawk whose extreme militarism would greatly increase the risk of war with China if he became president, and the only reason he wants to end the war in Ukraine is to hamstring the PRC while rapidly increasing aggressions against Beijing.

Ramaswamy supports using Ukraine as a negotiating chip to pull Moscow away from Beijing, favorably comparing this approach to the way Richard Nixon exploited the Sino-Soviet split in negotiating to pull Beijing away from Moscow during the last cold war. Ramaswamy says he would negotiate to let the Russian Federation keep the Ukrainian territories it already controls and guarantee no future NATO membership for Ukraine in exchange for Moscow ending its military partnership with China. Ramaswamy doesn’t attempt to address the plot hole that there is no split between Moscow and Beijing to exploit today and that Putin would be an idiot to abandon his carefully cultivated relationship with Xi, but that’s an argument for another day.

The reason Ramaswamy is so eager to uncouple Moscow from Beijing is because he wants to focus the US empire’s firepower on aggressively confronting China (which he ominously refers to as “Communist China” as often as opportunity presents). He wants to rapidly increase the US empire’s encirclement of China, endorsing an “AUKUS-style deal” with India, calling for an increased military presence in the Pacific by France and the UK, and pushing allies surrounding China like Japan, Australia and the Philippines to increase their military budgets in preparation for war.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Is Vivek Ramaswamy the Only Republican Presidential Candidate Who Understands the Constitution?

Posted by M. C. on September 1, 2023

By Laurence M. Vance

I can’t pronounce his name, but I think I’ll just call him Mr. Constitution.

Vivek Ramaswamy is “unapologetically pro-life,” but won’t sign a federal abortion ban on constitutional grounds.

Good for him.

Said Ramaswamy:

My view, as someone who is running for U.S. president, responding to the question about the Supreme Court case, was that Roe v. Wade was correct to be turned on constitutional grounds. It was made-up jurisprudence … it leads also to the path to moving forward, which is, that I think the federal government should stay out of it.

I think I’m the only Republican candidate in this field who has come out and said, “I would not support a federal abortion ban of any kind.” On principled ground, because I am grounded in constitutional principles, and I think there’s no legal basis for the federal government to legislate.

I don’t believe a federal abortion ban makes any sense, and I say this as somebody who is pro-life. This is not an issue for the federal government. It is an issue for the states. I think we need to be explicit about that. If murder laws are handled at the state level, and abortion is a form of murder, the pro-life view, then it makes no sense for that to be the one federal law.

Like Ramaswamy, I am unapologetically pro-life, but have been saying these things for many years.

And so has Ron Paul:

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »