Election 2008 - A Libertarian Perspective

m'kay so this hub will just store my excess political ramblings that don't fit any of my other blogs or are not being submitted for publication in magazines and such. I'll be doing ever so much linking to writers better than my self so that this blog will be associated with good writing without actually producing any. And yeah, in case you guessed it, I am a libertarian so I will be complaining about both parties and their twisted nanny-state governing philosophies. However I will make jokes to make it more palatable. Funny jokes. Seriously. Shut up.

With a decisive South Carolina win, Obama has taken the momentum in the democratic primaries. Nevertheless, with Super Tuesday still over a week away, Hillary Clinton has ample time to pull something out of her sleeve and trap the less Machiavellian Obama.

The way the narrative between these two has played out has been very amusing to watch. A couple of years ago, Hillary was 'unelectable' because she had high negatives. Six months ago, she was 'inevitable' because no one could match her in terms of funding or institutional support. Now, she has become like a villain in a PG rated comedy; she has good intentions and is an obvious favorite, but you just know that the plucky upstart is going to come out on top.

But can that really be said of Obama just yet? Having branded the motto of change onto his metaphorical forehead, Obama has taken the lead by distancing himself from a lot of democratic party gospel. His attitude toward diplomacy is unique, his views on healthcare are slightly less socialistic, he's willing to praise Ronald Reagan and, most notably, he doesn't play identity politics like the other democrats, at least not as crudely. Is he a one man revolution? Not entirely, and certainly not by his ideas. His domestic plans are not extremely different from Hillary's or Edwards. Ideologically, he doesn't offer much that is new. But a revolution is occurring because of his candidacy and the way he has run his campaign.

I have never liked Hillary Clinton personally or politically. She has always struck me as someone who had particular designs in mind for wide-reaching authority over other people's lives. People who spend years longing for the day when they can dictate to others what to do with their money and how to run their lives are not to be trusted in my view. Obama on the other hand, seems more concerned about changing the system itself, not just implementing his particular ideas. I am not sure he has the savvy to affect much change, but his premise is better than Hillary's. In this regard, his lack of time in Washington is an advantage.

The 'experience' argument has always been a bit of a red herring any way. Obama and Hillary are among the least experienced senators in congress. Before that, which one was already serving as a representative of the people and which was an over-glorified interior decorator for the White House? Hillary and Obama both have legal experience outside of politics and it is worth while to examine their records. Nevertheless, it doesn't really hurt Obama to not have been stewing in the senate for three decades. Americans don't trust career politicians so much. Spending one's maturity on the public dole making speeches doesn't impress anyone; proven competence and success in the private sector does. This is part of why Chris Dodd and Joe Biden didn't move to many people.

With Ron Paul all but defeated, there are no republicans left whom I really feel I can support. Romney isn't horrible but he has the wrong ideas about foreign policy and he seems so fake that there's no telling what he'll do in office. Huckabee is a joke, Giulliani is a fascist, and McCain...well...McCain is McCain. There's a lot to respect but at his core, he's an authoritarian. I will never forgive him for that campaign finance bill. I could never consider Edwards, and Hillary, well, no way in hell. Obama is the only candidate who would make me get off my lazy ass and get an absentee ballot and vote. A McCain vs. Obama contest would be a bit of a dilemma but I would probably go with Barack.

Even though I am a libertarian and Barack is pretty liberal, I wouldn't mind having him in office. This crop of republicans should not be encouraged by getting control of another branch of government. Let them rediscover their principles by battling someone who unapologetically embraces big government. Barack will reduce the influence of the Christian right and the military lobbyists, and he'll waste less time on bullshit social issues like gay marriage and abortion. He will likely improve our standing around the world, and I doubt his foreign policy will be worse than George Bush's.

McCain will be the republican nominee for president of the United States. That statement should be a sobering one for conservatives, as it signifies just how much the American people have lost faith with the republican party. Primary elections are notoriously partisan, with party loyalty and ideological credentials being key. McCain has little of either. In spite of the spin about his conservative rating from the ACU, McCain is one of the least conservative members of the Senate. Republicans have so little faith in their party, that they came out and voted by the tens of thousands for a non-republican republican.

There are some on the hard right who say that if the choice is between Hillary and McCain, Hillary is the best candidate to support because she will do less damage to the republican party in the long term. Indeed she is a socialist, and to the extent that the congress and American people go along with her policies, the country will suffer. But it will suffer openly at the hands of a liberal democrat with, hopefully, a rejuvinated and unified republican party, battling a Clinton once again as they did in the 90's.

And yet curiously, many conservative republicans don't want Hillary to win. They can't vote for her and they can't vote for McCain. The republican party will try to shore up support for McCain by stoking people's fears about the democrats and urging people not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The problem is, McCain is no good at all, and nobody likes voting for the lesser of two evils.

A vote is an endorsement. It is not a strategic act or some obscure message to be interpreted by pundits. It is a clear 'yes' to one particular candidate. The people who said that Nader voters were actually helping George Bush in 2000 were completely wrong. A vote for Nader was not a vote for Bush, rather it was a vote for Nader. That particular democrat argument was based on the assumption that the democrats were entitled to votes from other left-wingers. The problems with that assumption are A. no they aren't and B. not only left-wingers voted for Nader. Many of Nader's voters would never have wanted Gore to become president.

Right-wingers who vote for Hillary are making a very bold assumption about how her presidency will play out compared to McCain's. If she walks away from the election with any kind of mandate, they will have only themselves to blame. Were I a conservative republican, I would not vote for Hillary nor would I vote for McCain. I would vote for a third party or stay home. Contrary to what some say, not voting is a legitimate political act. ''none of the above'' is a legitimate answer to any rigged survey, which is what our pseudo-democracy essentially is.

In my relatively short career as a voter, I have never been presented with candidates who represent my values, and I can think of no president in the last half century who has come close (Reagan wasn't terrible). By not supporting either major party, I can take away a tiny fraction of their legitimacy. In day to day life, I am not terribly concerned about politics anyway. I try to live honestly, spread my ideas, always stay true to my principles, and let partisans bicker as they like.