HARRY BROWNE SAYS IT ALL!

to: The Editors, The Weekly Standard 

Ladies & Gentlemen: 

A letter from Michael Russo in your March 29, 1999, issue states: ". . . the Democratic Party has become an institution whose sole purpose is to seize and control the powers of government at any price. That means that if they have to break campaign-finance laws while decrying their inadequacy, or defend a man who attacks women while pretending to be the party that protects women's rights, they are more than willing, . . ." 

He could have easily said: ". . . the Republican Party has become an institution whose sole purpose is to seize and control the powers of government at any price. That means that if they have to violate the Bill of Rights (passing gun-control laws, asset forfeiture laws, and trampling on the 9th and 10th amendments) while claiming to be for the Constitution, or pass bloated budgets, promote corporate welfare, and cram obscene highway bills down our throats while pretending to be the party of smaller government, they are more than willing, . . ." 

There is very little you can say about either the Democrats or the Republicans that doesn't apply equally to its opposite number. 

Only the Libertarian Party has remained true to its mission -- to reduce government as fast and as far as possible. Its platform today, unaffected by polls and focus groups, is the same as it was in 1972. And it has grown so fast in the past four years (thanks in large part to the perfidy of the Democrats and Republicans) that it is in position to run a highly visible campaign in 2000 that will show America what smaller government really means: reduce government so far that we don't need an income tax; get government completely and immediately out of your retirement; end the nightmare of Prohibition by stopping the insane War on Drugs. 

Isn't that what you want? Or do you prefer soothing words that conceal a monomania for seizing and controlling the powers of government at any price? 

With best wishes, 

to: The Editors, The American Spectator 

Ladies & Gentlemen: 

Grover Norquist ["Winner Takes All", April 1999] says the 2000 election could be "the most important in a generation." Whether the Republicans or Democrats triumph could affect the future of all three branches of the federal government. 

He believes it matters who wins Congress. Let's see: the final four budgets of the Democratic Congress enlarged the federal government by 3.4% per year, while the first four budgets of the Republican Congress have enlarged it by 3.3% per year. Should we get excited about the difference? What difference? 

He says it matters who wins the Presidency. Under Bill Clinton the federal government has grown by 3.4% per year; under Ronald Reagan (with a Republican Senate for six of his eight years) it grew by 6.8% per year. After adjusting for inflation (which was much higher during the 1980s) government still grew by 2.7% a year under Ronald Reagan, and only 0.7% a year under Clinton. Should those of us who want much smaller government be eager to join either side? 

He says the new President will appoint the Supreme Court judges that will affect our future. Will a Democratic President appoint more Thurgood Marshalls, Stephen Breyers, and Ruth Ginsburgs? Will a Republican President appoint more Earl Warrens, Sandra O'Connors, and David Souters? Should the difference keep us awake nights? 

Whether a Democrat or a Republican is elected President in 2000, we know one thing for certain: government will continue to get bigger and bigger and bigger. Every politician in the running from either party has spent his entire career voting to enlarge the size and oppression of government. And none of the non-politicians in the running (such as Steve Forbes or Gary Bauer) has ever offered a single proposal that would reduce the size and scope of the federal government. 

There is one way the election next year could make a real difference. If the Libertarians get 10% to 15% of the presidential vote, politics will never be the same in America. Both of the old parties will have to start thinking of ways to offer real reductions to the 75% of the American public who believe government is way too big. 

Can Libertarians do it? The party is growing so fast that next year it will most likely be advertising specific proposals to reduce government to its Constitutional limits, to repeal the income tax, to privatize Social Security completely and immediately, to end the insane War on Drugs. In other words, we will finally have a visible, dramatic alternative to the bland, meaningless "we're the party of smaller government" platitudes (ha ha ha) offered by politicians who have never reduced government by a single dollar -- and never will. 

Yes, next year's election can make an enormous difference. But not because of the infinitesimal difference between Democrats and Republicans. Instead, we should be rooting for the Libertarians to make a breakthrough (let's do it!) that will reform the old parties faster than any attempt to elect more career politicians of any stripe. 

With best wishes,