Re: Why we need John McCain, and why he doesn't have a chance
Topics: Campaign2008
03 Nov 2008
From: Ervan Darnell
Your correct vote is obvious: Bob Barr. Obama is clearly going to win. A Libertarian protest vote is therefore free. If 10 million people followed my recommendation it would be different (but if 50M did, it would be the same!).
The Economist editorial is interesting and I take some heart from the fact that they don't think Obama is the evil bastard that I do. Their knock on McCain is that he is not displaying on the campaign trail the fiscal sense he once had. This is true. But I don't make much of it. His handlers understand the country is having a socialist fever right now and in order to win, he has to play into that by bashing business and offering more welfare. I think that's all a PR ploy. McCain's ham-handed enthusiasm for such makes me think all the more so it's a ploy. OTOH, Obama's voting record and rhetoric both point towards economic folly at every turn.
The Economist also notes that single party rule by the Democrats is asking for trouble, which is my primary argument why we need McCain. Were McCain elected, he'd get nothing he wants, but block a lot of Democratic excess.
The other aspect of this is that The Economist is relatively more interested in American foreign policy and less in internal American economic well being. Clearly the rest of the world wants Obama (however, Iraq voted in The Economist's straw poll or McCain). Whether making them happy is good for the U.S. or not is a tricky question.
Both Liberty and Reason were split offering endorsements for each of the four possibilities (the fourth being "don't vote"). I don't make much out of this because clearly both McCain and Obama are anti-freedom and the situation is hopeless.
Bailey (in Reason) sums up the libertarian argument for Obama:
>The Republicans must be punished and punished hard.
which is not actually an argument for Obama at all. There are several things wrong with this argument:
1) A vote for Obama punishes the country more than it does the Republicans.
2) Most of the ire against Republicans is actually against Bush, but Bush is not running.
3) The Republicans _are_ being punished as they are likely losing House and Senate seats.
4) Most important: "Punish the Republicans" makes sense only if the punishment results in improved behavior in the future. It does not. Were the Democrats to say "oh, look the voters hate corruption, abusive authority, reckless spending, trampling of civil liberties, etc." and fix those things, then I'd be more inclined to accept this argument. But, the Democrats are not thinking any of those things. They are thinking "Wow, we have a mandate to tax every productive person into oblivion and run amok socializing everything left standing." This is especially so as the looming recession has buoyed their poll numbers. The take away message will be all economic (and exactly backward). Conversely, if the message were to the Republicans "You need to return to being a party of fiscal sanity." that might be useful. But their strategists know that the voting bloc for fiscal sanity is tiny, the social conservatives are their base, and they will re-tailor their message to move fu
rther anti-freedom instead of more. I see Huckabee, the perfect anti-libertarian, socially intolerant, scientifically ignorant, "populist" (i.e. nativist) on trade, as their future. This is not an improvement.
On a personal note, I've invested all of my time in "no on 8" here in California, as my effort has a chance of making a difference. So, you all have been spared my last minute campaign thoughts on Messiah Obama. I have about 10 essays in various stages of writing that I'll have to delete come tomorrow ;-)
At 04:21 AM 11/3/2008, Vincent Kargatis wrote:
>Thought some recent endorsements were interesting:
>
>The Economist for Obama:
>http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12511171
>
>"Reason" writers' endorsements:
>http://www.reason.com/news/show/129640.html
>
>Obama 14
>Barr 13
>McCain 4
>Nader 1
>
>One common thread is that many are not policy-based, like Ervan's arguments have been. I suppose Republican punishment could be a form of policy-based decision, in terms of focusing future policy in the Republican party.
>
>v
>_______________________________________________
>Ragnar mailing list
>Ragnar@ragnar.kelvinist.com
>http://ragnar.kelvinist.com/mailman/listinfo/ragnar
====================================================
Ervan Darnell, http://www.kelvinist.com
"An election is nothing more than the advanced
auction of stolen goods." --- Ambrose Bierce
_______________________________________________
Ragnar mailing list
Ragnar@ragnar.kelvinist.com
http://ragnar.kelvinist.com/mailman/listinfo/ragnar
Home