October 31, 2008
Libertarian Case for McCain
David Bernstein at the Volkh Conspiracy will be voting for Senator McCain this year. He provides a few good reasons, but my favorite is the first:
(1) Libertarians have been heavily involved in some of the most important constitutional Supreme Court litigation of the last two decades, either in terms of bringing the case, being among the most important advocates of one side's constitutional theory, or both. Among the cases in this category are Lopez, Morrison, Boy Scouts v. Dale, U.S. Term Limits, Grutter, Gratz, Kelo, Raich, Heller, and probably a few more that I'm not thinking of offhand. With the minor exception of Justice Breyers' vote in Gratz, in each of these cases, the ONLY votes the libertarian side received were from Republican appointees, and all of the Democrat appointees, plus the more liberal Republican appointees, ALWAYS voted against the libertarian side. The latter did so even in cases in which their political preferences were either irrelevant (Term Limits), or should have led them to sympathize with the plaintiff (Lopez, Kelo, Raich).
When Libertarians say "there's no difference" or "I could never vote for the author of McCain Feingold" or whatever excuse du jour they have for doing something pointless, I will trot out this observation. Democratic SCOTUS picks will certainly be anti-liberty; with a Republican you have almost a 50-50 chance!
Hat-tip: Insty yet again (sigh!)
I was making a similar observation to dagny a couple of days ago. The collectivist/egalitarian/altruistic ethics of the Democrat party is NEARLY always opposed to Rand's Objectivist ethics, while the moral code of the religious right has significant overlap. (And Republicans are generally more civil in their disagreements than are those sanctimonious lefties.)
Posted by: johngalt at November 2, 2008 12:22 AMIf you're a homosexual, drug addict, whatever, it's easy to hide your "moral failings" from conservatives' laws.
But just try to hide your paycheck from liberals...
The only problem is when McCain and other Republicans set forth their own socialist programs. There's no way in hell I can vote for McCain when he wants to spend another $300 billion to bail out my neighbors on my dime.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 2, 2008 10:54 AMQuod Erat Demonstratum, Perry. Enjoy the Schumer Court!
Posted by: jk at November 2, 2008 12:52 PMI've given up on choosing between the lesser of two evils. I'm getting tired of being told that I can fellate one or be sodomized by the other.
McCain might have gotten my vote if he'd stuck to conservative principles, not even libertarian ones, but he lost any possible support from me by his one-upping Obama on bailing out irresponsible borrowers and lenders.
This country is going to hell anyway. It doesn't matter who the president is. All the major industries are being nationalized anyway.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 2, 2008 2:43 PMAnd there, Perry, is the one positive I can take from the potential election of Barack Obama as president - that socialist policies, both in existence and their inevitable expansion, will no longer have any cover from "but the Republicans wanted them too."
We'll have four years to find and/or educate Republican candidates who believe in genuine laissez faire economics. While Democrats shifted further left during their absence from the White House, Republicans must shift further right. The "me too" ideas from the collectivist wing of both parties have got to go.
Posted by: johngalt at November 4, 2008 1:29 PMYou guys are great, but you are so completely whacked.
Maybe we'll find and educate candidates who understand "true laissez faire economics." But we won't elect them! Libertarians love to make the perfect the enemy of the good and will find some childish reason to complete the sentence I can't possibly vote for X because ____________...
Meanwhile, evangelicals and populists and union members and minority/gender groups will actually show up to support their candidates, even if in 1974 they signed a position paper that suggested outlawing heroin or some such heterodoxy.
Read Dougherty's book -- these people split off into People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front groups at the drop of a hat. And in the end, any responsible party learns that these wackos are not stable nor reliable enough to count on. Ergo, let's put someone on the ticket that will get the populist, evangelical, union, minority &c. groups excited -- they might actually show up!
Posted by: jk at November 4, 2008 6:24 PMIt's not very often that I think JK has gone overboard but I really think you're putting too much blame on the Libertarians. Bob Barr got less than 8000 votes in Colorado. Obama had 125,000 more votes here than did Mac. The greater cause for this is that 90 plus percent of Obama voters did so "for" him, while only 70% of McCain voters had that motivation. It's hard to win hearts and minds by saying "I'm not as bad as the other guy."
I'm not saying we need Leonard Peikoff or Yaron Brook as the next GOP nominee. I am saying I'm ready to put our fortunes in the hands of candidates who can be heartily endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, and campaign managers like Karl Rove. And during the next several years before the campaign begins, let's advance the IDEAS espoused by libertarians or, as is my personal preference, Objectivists.
I'll do my part on these pages.
Posted by: johngalt at November 5, 2008 12:49 PMYou misread me. I don't "blame" libertarians for Obama's victory over McCain -- I blame them for McCain.
I really don't want to beat on the guy the day after. He is a good man and did a good job. But the 8000 Colorado libertarians could have been decisive in the primaries, and could have provided a candidate that was more lib-friendly than McCain (or perhaps nominated a Democrat that wasn't a socialist).
That's my point: 8000 big-L ballots are a waste of perfectly good paper. Incorporating the IDEAS, with a substantive expectation of support for them is a game changer. I may be overboard, jg, but we're saying much the same thing.
I don't listen to Mister Limbaugh a lot but I am guessing that me and my new 4000 libertarian friends (the other 4K joined the Democrats) will very much seek to nominate a candidate he wouldn't like. Would he like Leonard Peikoff?
Likewise, Karl Rove. I respect him but he brought us "big government conservatism" and is today suggesting that the GOP dedicate itself to solving "kitchen table" economic issues. Is that where you want the party to head?
Posted by: jk at November 5, 2008 1:33 PM | What do you think? [8]