George W. Bush and Republicans Do Not Represent Capitalism

[Updates below.]

National Review Online: Capitalism Beats Socialism, Once Again

When Jackie Gleason played the character of Joe the Bartender, one of his famous lines was, "Mmmmmmm, how sweet it is!" For Republicans, the outcome of the 2004 national election couldn't be any sweeter. Same for investors. The bull market in stocks is now likely to resume, and it should sustain for some time to come.

Why? Once again, capitalism triumphed over socialism.

I feel a rush of bile arriving.

The confirmation that the 2004 election was a victory for capitalism was reflected in the unexpected victories of Republicans running for the Senate. The split will now be 55 Republican, 44 Democrat, 1 independent. The defeat of obstructionist Democrat Tom Daschle, minority leader in the Senate, signals a "fresh new start" for the Senate minority party. President Bush's ability to get more from a Republican-dominated Senate should not be underestimated - especially by investors.

Yep. I can taste the vomit.

In contrast [to President Clinton's fiscal approach], today we have a confirmed capitalist as our president and a capitalist majority in the Congress. By the middle of 2005, the Iraq war should be winding down, oil prices should be moderating, lower tax rates will be in effect, and global prosperity will be on the rise. The stock market should be moving higher and eclipsing the record highs of the year 2000 as a result of these changes.

Finally, President Bush will be in a position to nominate a number of Supreme Court justices during the next four years, an important factor in keeping capitalism the driving force in America. Ironically, even the beaten socialists will benefit from the capitalist system they detest.

*puke*

Thomas E. Nugent wrote this article and I want to strangle him for it. President Bush is a "confirmed capitalist"?! We have a "capitalist majority" in Congress?! Where the fuck as Mr. Nugent been over the last four years? President Bush and the portions of government that agree with him are against the free trade of:

• drugs
  
• labor
  
• wages
  
• firearms
  
• steel
  
• health care
  
• retirement accounts and pensions
  
• person-to-person association
  
• Canadian lumber
  
• South Korean computer chips
  
• Vietnamese catfish
  
• Chinese and Pakistani textiles
  
• Chinese and Vietnamese shrimp

And that's just off the top of my head and a little Googling. Anyone with a few spare months can dive deeply into the spooky depths of the Federal Register and determine if this government stands for the uninterrupted and untaxed flow of capital, products, and labor amongst the infinite markets around the globe. Under no honest definition of capitalism could you describe the Bush Administration as capitalist.

How fucking sad is it that the superficial differences between the whiny Democrat statism offered this election and the abusive Republican statism that won this election are so beyond being taken for granted that columnists have to resort to baldfaced stupidity to feel good about winning an election.

UPDATE 11/12/2004 3:50pm
Anthony Gregory has some related things to say, as well as a rather convoluted free market anarchist argument for George W. Bush.

UPDATE 11/17/2004 10:28am
Buzzflash contributor Marc McDonald also gets it, even though I have suspicions that if pressed, he wouldn't be as ardent a defender of capitalism as he comes off in this article. Notice how not a word is spent on economic regulation.

Posted by Drizzten at November 05, 2004 04:54 PM