From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue Dec 31 2002 - 17:54:20 MST
Power and Vulnerability
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Worrying about centralized power is the job of all libertarians
everywhere. But not everyone shares this fear of despotism. Sam
Tanenhaus, writing in the Wall Street Journal, seeks to demonstrate that
Bush is no Imperial President, and neither were his predecessors Nixon,
Kennedy, and FDR. They were not imperial or powerful, says Tanenhaus;
they were just presidential.
The crucial thing to ask about a piece like this is: what is his
standard? How can we judge whether a president is imperial or not? There
are three forms of presidential imperialism: being belligerent
internationally, being intrusive domestically, and running roughshod
over another branch of government. In all three ways, it would seem
obvious that the Bush presidency is imperial. From a rhetorical point of
view, it would seem a better tack to admit it and defend the idea, as
Wall Street Journal writers usually do.
For the rest of this article, see
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/imperialbush.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:58 MST