War is the health of the State
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken at February 15, 2008 09:41 PM
In 1956, Murray Rothbard came out in favor of Adlai Stevenson against Eisenhower. Why? Because Stevenson was the relatively anti-war candidate.
Eisenhower was the establishment Cold War candidate in favor of war forever, and welfare forever. Stevenson was also in favor of welfare forever, but since he was against endless war, Stevenson was actually the candidate for less government.
Rothbard knew that war is the biggest of big government programs, and the candidate that opposes it is almost inevitably the de facto small-government candidate.
Raimondo's most recent piece shows quite clearly who is the relatively anti-war candidate on the Democratic side. If the contest comes down to McCain vs. Obama. It is clear which candidate will be supporting less government, and which will be supporting more.
In such a contest, it will also be clear why the neo-cons will unleash everything upon Obama and why the libertarians who continue to cling to the GOP and say that Obama is too in favor of welfare or too much of a big spender (charges that are true, but in no way distinguish him from any Republican in the race except Paul) may in fact be helping elect the biggest big-government candidate in the history of the Republic.
Note: I also remember a point Lew once made on this blog- there is only one major party that has any sizable constituency for peace and civil liberties. And that party ain't the GOP.