The Libertarian Case for Mitt Romney
I have a Libertarian friend who’s likely to vote for Gary Johnson, but is open to supporting the GOP — if someone can convince her why Romney should get her vote. With just five weeks left, I suppose it’s time for somebody to make the libertarian case for Mitt Romney.
Before we begin, a few words about the actual Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson. Johnson is almost everything you’d want. He’s a solid libertarian without being weird about it — and you know exactly what I mean. He doesn’t come with the baggage of Ron Paul’s cult of personality. Best of all, Johnson has real executive experience as the governor of New Mexico. And he won’t be elected president of these United States in a millionty-billion years.
In fact, he’ll be lucky to break one-half of one percent of the popular vote.
Look, I like Johnson. I find him endearingly goofy, although that’s probably not a trait most Americans look for in their commander-in-chief. But he’s a good man and a solid libertarian, so if I fail to make the case for Romney — then absolutely please do vote for Johnson. Afterwords, you won’t have to do the Walk of Shame back to your car, like I will.
Since the father of RomneyCare isn’t exactly an easy sell to libertarians, first we have to look at the man already sitting in the Oval Office. And it’s safe to say that unlike 2008, in 2012 there is absolutely zero Libertarian case to be made for Barack Obama.
“Liberaltarians,” remember them? I’m not sure even if their charter member, Will Wilkinson, is still using the word. If you don’t remember, the Liberaltarians were hipper-than-thou libertarians who fell for Obama’s promise to protect civil liberties and cut the deficit in half, and if there are any of these people left after four years, they must be neck-deep in the Kool-Aid. Every policy we hated from George W. Bush, Obama has doubled down on, big-time.
See, those promises were just things Obama said to separate himself from the despised Chimpy McBushHitler. Fact is, Obama is fundamentally opposed to liberty, and he’s fundamentally opposed to the limitations placed on the federal government, and especially to the limitations placed on the executive branch.
I believe this makes Barack Obama a uniquely dangerous figure in American political history.
We have a younger Obama on tape, saying that welfare recipients and “the working poor” are a “majority coalition.” And don’t fool yourself into thinking that by “welfare recipients” he just means the huddled masses getting their “Obama bucks” and food stamp billions and disability checks. Under Obama, Wall Street is a welfare queen, too. So is our banking system. Half our domestic auto industry is on the take, too. Obama has gutted work requirements for individual welfare recipients, and gutted the profit requirement for big business and big banking and big finance.
The masses won’t give up their checks, and the crony capitalists won’t suffer any competition. The squeeze is on, and you’re in the middle of it. That’s the Permanent Progressive Majority.
This squeeze fundamentally transforms what America means, and what it means to be an American — from citizen to subject. It took a century to take us this far along the Progressive path to a Technocratic State of high-tech feudalism, but we’re almost at the end of the line. Another four years is probably all that’s needed to get there.
China currency manipulation, the Afghanistan surge, the civil war in Syria, the Drone War over the Middle East, gay marriage, the Life of Julia, the War on Women, Republicans want your father to take away your free birth control then impregnate you and force you to carry the child to term even if it kills you — these are largely distractions. The only thing that matters in this election is stopping the Progressives from completing their task, and to give ourselves the breathing room necessary to enact real reforms.
So is Mitt Romney the man to save us?
Well… no.
But he can buy us time.
We’re libertarians, big-L and small, and so we know what it means to be the tiniest of minorities. We lose, because we don’t deliver the goods to our constituents, nor do we want to. The very idea appalls us. But the high-speed gravy train is beginning to derail. We’re sitting on $16,000,000,000,000 of existing debt, we’re adding another trillion every 12 months, entitlements are exploding, our job-creation machine has been broken, and when that train derails it’s going to take the nation with it.
Some of you are nodding your heads at this, with a grim approval. I know, because I’ve done it, too. We have this phoenix fantasy, that after the Federal Leviathan comes crashing down, it will be we, the libertarians, who pick up the pieces. Our predictions of disaster will have come true, we will have been vindicated, and a better America will emerge from the ashes.
It’s a theme that dates back at least to Atlas Shrugged, but it’s become a recurring theme in popular speculative fiction. Think of John Ringo’s The Last Centurion or John Birmingham’s Without Warning, and others too numerous to count. In each, some terrible apocalypse befalls America and/or the world, and then we somehow put the pieces back together to form a more perfect union, in harmony with our founding principles.
Only I don’t see it that way.
Let’s look at France. Late in the 18th century, the monarchy was overthrown, and a republic established. The French Republic succumbed to the temptation of empire, but then the emperor was overthrown and the monarchy restored. France has had two republics, just since the end of the Second World War. Take away the kings, you still have France. Take away the emperor, and France is still there. Put in a president, and the French are still French.
In just the last hundred years, Germany has had a kaiser, a republic, a Nazi dictatorship, two Germanys (one drearily Communist), and now a unified Federal Republic. Through it all, the Germans remained German because they’re German.
Most nation-states are built on a common culture, language, and ethnicity. This gives them a simple, hardy core of commonality, from which cohesion emerges naturally. Governments, entire political systems, may come and go, but the people are always there.
America has none of those things.
America is an idea, and an ideal. Take away that idea, crush it under the weight of a failure unprecedented in its scale and scope… and what’s left?
Anything?
What we need is breathing room, a chance to get the economy growing again, to get people back to work again. It’s no coincidence that when we reformed welfare, it was during an economic boom. Wealth papers over lots of differences, and allows people to get things done. And there’s lots that needs doing. We can start by repealing ObamaCare, repealing Dodd-Frank, and just generally undoing the last four years. These are things Romney has promised to do.
Will he do it? I hope so, and if he wins it will be our job to ride him and ride him hard to live up to those promises. What I do know for certain is that Romney isn’t Obama Lite, despite what you might think. Romney won’t dial back Washington to 18% of our GDP. But he might get it down to 20%, which, believe it or not, is a big — and absolutely necessary — improvement.
We’ll see no such improvement from a second Obama administration, which aims to ramp up Washington to something like 110% of our economy.
Obama sees it as his job to add every day to the Rube Goldberg device that Washington has grown into, while simultaneously throwing sand into its gears. If that seems like a contradictory notion, or even a sick notion — it is. But we’ve watched Obama do just that for four years now. How much more can it, can we, take?
But the simplest reason is this: If Obama’s Cloward-Piven crash does come in the next four years, a turnaround artist like Romney might just be the right person to have at the helm. It’s no scare tactic to remind you what a dedicated Progressive does with a crisis, especially an engineered one.
I’ll leave you with one last thought from one of libertarianism’s accidental founding fathers, Robert Heinlein. In Stranger in a Strange Land, Jubal Harshaw has some words of wisdom for his friend Ben Caxton. Ben, a columnist, is considering writing a piece that will bring down the administration of Secretary-General Joe Douglas. But Jubal cautions Ben to
“Look at Douglas and ponder that, in his ignorance, stupidity, and self-seeking, he resembles his fellow Americans but is a notch or two above average. Then look at the man who will replace him if his government topples.”
“There’s little difference.”
“There’s always a difference! This is between ‘bad’ and ‘worse’ — which is much sharper than between ‘good’ and ‘better.’” [Emphasis added]
We don’t get to choose this year between “good” and “better’” — have we ever enjoyed that choice? But we do get a sharp distinction this year between “bad” and “worse.”
I’m going with “bad” because I’m not sure we’ll survive another term of the worst.
You’re pretty much right on, Steve. I forget where I read this, but there was a great quote from a columnist on the (I think) the Washington Times, “We’re not choosing our savior, we’re choosing our OPPONENT.”
“Afterwords, you won’t have to do the Walk of Shame back to your car, like I will.”
W. T. F. Steve???? Just damn.
Absolutely spot-on article, Steve.
According to some polls in Ohio, libertarian votes for Johnson could cost Mitt the state, and with it, the presidency.
http://libertariosusa.org/2012/09/28/gary-johnson-gains-support-and-may-take-ohio-out-of-play-for-romney/
I know, I take those polls with a generous payload of salt. However, if Ohio libertarians are willing to do that, they richly deserve four more years of Obama.
And HERE is where the conservatives lose me, every time. Conservatives fail to make the sale, and rather than being principled about it like Steve (who’s simply presenting the traditional Republican “vote for us, we suck ever so slightly less” argument), they turn around and blame the customer for not buying the product.
As a small-l libertarian, I can tell you quite handily that I’ve gotten six times as much outright hate and disdain from conservative-land as I ever have from Team Blue. Want my vote? Do something to convince me that Romney would be any better than Bush or McCain. But don’t blame US if YOU can’t close the sale.
Russ, our best shot at reducing the size and role of government is to get people who truly believe in those principles elected in those areas of the country where those ideas have majority support. In 2012, put your effort into Operation Counterweight. The big innovation of the various Tea Party groups is to influence the primary elections. They don’t win every time, but they’ve claimed enough scalps to make safe seat Republicans no longer feel so safe. We just need a President Romney not to veto the budget that these scared straight Republicans produce.
Whenever I have a free vote where there is no danger that the Democrat will win, I cast a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate. However, this time I will vote for Romney to do my part to prevent Obama from claiming a popular vote win.
This. Operation Counterweight.
The plain fact is that democratic (small d) politics is a game of numbers. It is a count of votes, to try and get the greatest #. When it comes to the Presidency, third parties are at a great disadvantage. Largest being that much larger swathes of people, many with little to no political knowledge, are either Democrats or Republican. Probably due to heredity; your family is in a party, you grow up in those values. A kid rebels? More likely than not they’re just going to switch between D and R, with only a fraction leaking through that sieve to a third party. So the numbers aren’t going to change too much, relative to new people being born.
You want to break that cycle? Start low, build up. Go for more local, either in your county, or perhaps in your state. Build a base, and work to set the foundation for the party so that, down the road, you become viable. You’ll have people taking this stuff seriously, and your party seriously. Get a dozen seats in the House, and a few on the Senate.
And if the big two see that as a threat? Well, good for them. Competition helps; either they’re going to try harder for constituents, or they’ll cheat more often, which provides more opportunity to be caught and hoisted by their own petards.
“…our best shot at reducing the size and role of government is to get people who truly believe in those principles…”
I would take it that you are not going to vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket, since they do not fit this sentence?
People, such as libertarians, would have to ignore the entirity of these mens past to believe that they will even attempt to reduce federal spending.
A protest vote in a safe district is less than meaningless. A protest vote only matters when it hurts.
Exactly! If Romney doesn’t win it’s the fault of the RNC for not getting better people to run. They’ve played the same card for decades and every “lessor evil” just buys more time for the GOP to slide to the left, sucked in by the vacuum left by the dems as they slide left even faster.
Many, many of us warned from day one that the GOP needed to field a better candidate but the “Mr. Inevitable” crowd swayed the day. . . and are now trying to find scape goats if their victory is a Pyrrhic one.
There is NOTHING in Romney’s record to show he would be appreciably less bad than the current resident. Just like McCain who wanted to arm the Libyan rebels. Today’s GOP is nothing but democrat lite and insist on lying about it instead of changing.
The ONLY hope this country has is if the TEA party completely takes over the GOP.
R U nuts or just an “0″ sychophant! There is nothing in these 2 men that are alike. Let’s just start with: Mitt loves this country! Mitt loves the flag and the service men/women who have died for it! Mitt has been a business man who has turned 80% of businesses around to be succedssful! Mitt loves God & his family! He is a man who has helped many people on his own without tax deductions! He donates 30% of his income to his Church & to charities! He has raised a great family who are all doing their part to pay taxes & support this country! I could go on and on and on.
Compared to “0″ he missed most of the senate in Illinois. He voted present more than he voted for or against! He voted to make sure that babies born of a botched abortion were left to die alone in a closet, no medical help provided. He lied about the Amb’s death! Stonewalled fast and furious! First speech and visit was to the muslims. Then he went to Israel, oh wait, no he has no time to visit Israel as president, nor has he time to talk to Netanyahu face to face! And BTW, his brother could not ask his help for a medical bill for his child!
Well I have other things to do, besides respond to someone who is in “0″‘s pocket.
If you want to see a vid that might help explain the difference:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-real-mitt-romney-beck-interviews-people-whose-lives-have-been-touched-by-the-gop-candidate/
I will not vote for anyone who proclaims himself a “progressive” as Mitt Romney did. I will not vote for anyone who proclaims he is “Proud” of how Massachusetts wipes it’s behind with the 2nd amendment. I will not vote for someone who was “proud” to have signed socialist healthcare (at any level) into law.
You can keep cheering on the good ship GOP as it slips beneath the waves if you like. Many, many of us never gave any of you reason to believe we would once again settle for the “lessor of two evils”. Now you have the gall to suggest that if your progressive candidate looses it’s because of us? It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. You folks who insisted on running a limp piece of spaghetti against the communist in office are the ones to blame.
JustAl, I am not in the least concerned about whose fault it will be, my objective is to do whatever I can to get that Communist out of office. Pointing fingers doesn’t justify wasting your vote, if that is your actual objective as well. The math is so simple that I suspect that your objective must really be to get Obama re-elected. Focus on your Senate and House races and get your kind of conservative into the Congress. That appears to be just as important. I don’t like my options either, but only one option will get the Communist Obama out of office and I will, by God, exercise that one option. It may be the last chance I get. ABO2012
Come on, Al. Have you read none of J. Christian Adams’ columns on the Obama’s DoJ, or followed any of the fetid anti-Americanism coming out of Obama’s Dept of State? Do you really think Romney is no different than Obama here? His cleaning up of the DoJ and the DoS alone are enough to vote for Romney.
As I said, there is NOTHING in Romney’s record to show he’d be much better, as for what he’s said, you can pretty much pick whatever you like if you look back far enough.
Al… do you know ANYTHING about Mitt’s record at Ma.? came in with the state at 51st in job creation, left at 28th with 4.6 unemployment (can you say full-employment?). Inherited 3.5 billion in debt, left a surplus. All while not taking a dime in salary. And with a 85% democrat legislator. R-Care? It’s not my favorite but IT IS AS STATES RIGHTS issue!. The state wanted it, the state got it. O-Care? A far different critter.
So, JustAl, if Romney is admitted by you to be at least infinitesimally better than Obama, you have just made the argument for voting for him. As with anything else in life, a bad choice is the one we make when the alternative is even worse. You cannot change the facts by wishing you have other options. No Libertarian will win this election and that is a fact. With that fact in hand, you have to look at the options you have. One option is a President who has surrounded himself with most of the leading members of the Communist Party of America. The other option is an out of touch rich guy who has different reasons than you and I, but nevertheless supports free enterprise. Another fact is that failure to vote for the rich guy will help the Communist get re-elected. This is not a hard decision to make. First we get the Communist out of our White House. We get the less dangerous rich guy out of there later. Gary Johnson won’t win anything and a vote for him, while highly principled, is to give a bigger boost towards the destruction of our country. Take your medicine and vote like you care about our country this time. Having made that decision, I have discovered that unlike Obama, Romney actually supports many of the most important things that I support. In politics, after exhausting all of our options, it isn’t pretty but we take what we can get. ABO2012
I disagree. It’s all Ron Paul’s fault. And the RNC’s job isn’t to pick who runs for the GOP nomination.
Wrong. There’s at least one other hope: that this country imposes a basic citizen knowledge test to weed the lazy and ignorant like JustAl from the voter rolls.
P.S. I’m always impressed by the strong urge to collectivism in the libertarian mindset as demonstrated by JustAl’s talk about “the GOP” and “the GOP” that.
Indeed, the readily stated ad homonym attacks and school yard name calling should certainly reassure everyone that those who think like YOU are to be trusted with making everyone’s decision. You seem to be long on insult and very, very short on arguments other than “well, he’s got to be better than Obama”.
And this is where Libertarians lose me, every single time, even though I’m sympathetic to Libertarianism generally and desperately want that philosophy to have greater purchase in the GOP. This reaction screams, “It’s all about me me me!!!” “I deserve to just sit around and be convinced! Republicans are too mean – they need to kiss may ass more! They aren’t making me feel special enough! Bwaaahhh!!!!” Good God – has the entitlement mentality really pervaded so deep in this country? I thought libertarians prided themselves on making their own rational choices, doing their own research, and coming to their own conclusions, not that they have to be “sold.” Surely you can see the political landscape right now for what it is, and not what you’d wish it to be?
It’s not about a preferable candidate for a lot of these folks, it’s about wanting to sit around and pretend you aren’t part of the problem because you chose not to participate. Honestly, I believe there is a contingent of self-described libertarians that actually LIKE to lose, because they like sitting back and smugly saying “I told you so” without ever having to shoulder the burden of actually leading or governing. Even Gary Johnson, for all the Kudos Steve gives him, has to know he’s making an Obama victory more likely, which means you have to wonder where his priorities really lie.
No one will pay attention to libertarians until they start winning elections with their candidates at ANY level (including libertarian-leaning Republicans in primary elections who can then go on and win generals). And if Obama wins by a smaller margin than the Libertarian vote, your philosophy will be reviled for generations of conservatives to come – is that really what you want? Look around, man – THIS IS NOT THE YEAR FOR A GOD DAMNED PROTEST VOTE!!!
But oh, I’m sorry – Republicans are being mean to you. Carry on then.
> No one will pay attention to libertarians until they start winning elections with their candidates at ANY level
That’s not at all what libertarians are going for. We’re happy to vote for Red Team or Blue Team *when they promote fiscal conservatism or social liberalism* (and preferably both).
For reasons that make no sense to me, Red Team chose to nominate a former Massachusetts Governor who is about as far from being fiscally conservative as you can get, and isn’t socially liberal.
That’s the ONLY reason we’re not voting for him. IOW, you did it to yourself if you wanted our votes.
So we’ll vote for Johnson, get 1% nationally and public funding, work hard to get into the debates in ’16, and hope that we’ll get another Perot situation where Red Team two years later responds, and Blue Team four years later finally gets the message and starts acting responsibly.
It can happen again, and will, if libertarians vote their conscious. We’re the best chance you’ve got at actually limited government.
Oh, and we’re not afraid the sky is falling because Obama might be elected, instead of Obama-lite. Sorry.
Fabulous comment. The libertarians, while I feel alignment with many of their views, don’t seem to possess very much political prudence or sense. They remind me of a bunch of teenagers at a fantasy gaming tournament. They put their particular brand of resentment above the well-being of the nation.
Whereas those who court our votes display great “prudence and sense” by insulting us at every opportunity. I bow down to your superior “sense”.
Great post, Orrin. I am convinced that one of the reasons Ron Paul didn’t get more support from average republicans and independents is because of his rabid, whiny followers. They’ve now turned on Romney with the same ferocity.
Aw yes, “it’s not the year”, it’s never “the year” let’s just hold hands, sing Cum By Ya and kick the can down the road. Every election is “the most important in history” every election “means the future of the court”, every election it’s “abandon principles and settle for someone who may, theoretically, be slightly the lessor evil”.
I suppose it’ll be fine when Mittens “sacrifices free market principles to save them” because at least, by gosh, he’s an establishment republican.
Russ, no one can give you a definitive answer but I’ll ask you to consider some probabilities:
1. When it comes to nominating judges, who do you think is more likely to put up people who favor limited government, Obama or Romney?
2. When it comes to cutting back on government spending, who do you think is more likely to try, Obama or Romney?
3. When it comes to taking actions in government, who do you think is more likely to do things that you favor, Obama or Romney?
Romney is far from the perfect candidate but then, that person doesn’t exist. You can vote for a Libertarian and be guaranteed he won’t win. You can vote for Obama and be guaranteed to get none of the things you want. Or you can vote for Romney and at least have a chance of getting some of the things you want. The choices are really as simple as that – get some of what you want or none of what you want.
1. When it comes to nominating judges, who do you think is more likely to put up people who favor limited government, Obama or Romney?
- Neither. Nothing in Romney’s past shows him favoring less government. He does not even campaign on it. 2of his 3 judicial appointments were Libs, when they did not have to be.
2. When it comes to cutting back on government spending, who do you think is more likely to try, Obama or Romney?
- I expect Romeny to try to slow the growth of spending, but he will not reduce it. You are projecting onto Romney, not analyzing Romney. You are just hoping.
3. When it comes to taking actions in government, who do you think is more likely to do things that you favor, Obama or Romney?
- Again, neither. Will he repeal ObamaCare? If he can, but he’ll replace it with the kinder, gentler, more-competent, Republican version… and his version will become permanent. He has said this all along, but no one was listening!
“We don’t get to choose this year between “good” and “better’” — have we ever enjoyed that choice? But we do get a sharp distinction this year between “bad” and “worse.””
Steve, we always get the choice between bad and worse, because we are always willing to settle for bad. It’s a sucker game. “The only winning strategy is to not play.” As long as the Repubs keep offering us Dem-lite, I will not vote for them, regardless of how bad the Dems are.
Maybe another four years of Obama will cure the Repubs of the stupids. Probably not, but I am not going to reward their game-playing. Will it wreck the country? Dunno. Maybe the Repubs will have a majority in Congress. Maybe the pain will become so great for them, that they will actually try impeachment and people will finally start to get it. Maybe the suffering is not bad enough yet for people to be willing to abandon their comfort zones and face reality? Dunno.
Will Romney be worse? Probably. Anything Dems do will always be opposed by the real Right. Anything Repubs do becomes permanent, because the Dems take whatever it is, once they get power, and they super-size it. Wars, drones, rendition, TSA, taxes, spending, corruption, etc…. super-sized.
The last thing I want is another Establishment Republican with a compliant Republican Congress. 8 years of Bush was enough for me. I would prefer Obama with an opposition Congress. May they rip out and feast upon each other’s guts.
The sucker game is being played on you, Malone. Given that both Bad and Worse are the choices you have been given, you would waste your vote so that Worse will win. If the choice is Worse or Worse, you would be free to vote for a clown like Gary Johnson without having to worry about how much Worse Worse would be than Worse. But, since you cannot identify Worse without having also identified someone who is a little bit better than Worse. Bad would be that person in your vernacular. So, you have to vote for Bad for Better than Worse. You savvy? ABO2012
1. Who is more likely to appoint a new Robert Bork?
2. Who is more likely to pander to the entitlement-greedy gerontocracy?
3. Who do you think is more likely NOT to do things that you DO NOT favor?
Remember always: Once you vote, you have no right to complain.
Good-faith questions demand good-faith answers.
1. Romney appears to be more or less in the same vein as Bush when it comes to legalities. Bush’s nominees gave us Kelo vs. New London, and signed off on McCain-Feingold, one of the most blatant violations of the 1st amendment since Woodrow Wilson was in office. These are instances where the Constitution got thoroughly raped on the Republicans’ watch.
2. McCain would have double-down on Bush’s insane fiscal liberalism. Romney appears to possess the power of math, but everything Romney and Ryan have proposed is distinctly small-ball, while still protecting bloated Republican items like Ag subsidies, etcetera. While the Tea Party folks in Congress might push back hard on Obama, it’s an open question whether they’d push back hard on a Republican president, rather than simply pass things and declare victory. Even the so-called fiscal conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity consistently provided air cover here. Romney’s a through-and-through Establishment man, and I haven’t seen anything to provide me with faith in the Republican Establishment. (Congress is a different affair. I would vote for tea-party guys if they were running in my district instantly)
3. That depends entirely upon how a President Romney would govern. Obama will be socially and fiscally liberal. I’m more or less okay with half of that (as a typical libertarian, I’m moderate-to-liberal on social issues; pro-life, but also 100% pro-gay-marriage, for instance). Bush did, and McCain threatened to, govern as a social conservative and a fiscal liberal — the diametric opposite of what I as a libertarian want out of my politics. Romney’s instincts socially are moderate, so that’s a wash. IFFI Romney were to govern as an actual fiscal conservative, he’d be my preference: if the Republican Party (not merely its voters) demonstrated that it wanted to renew the Reagan Coalition, I’d be on-board. However, nothing in his record suggests that this is the case.
Again, my question remains (and I am not a political bigot, but very much open to persuasion): demonstrate to me that Romney is superior to and will actually fulfill his rhetoric as a fiscal conservative, and he’ll get my vote.
Russ –
Go look at some of the responses farther down, and then tell me that the bile libertarianism receives from conservatives is not deserved.
These folks don’t want to win. They want to keep their hands clean of dirty compromise and be able to say “I told you so” as the world falls apart around them.
> These folks don’t want to win. They want to keep their hands clean of dirty compromise and be able to say “I told you so” as the world falls apart around them.
Nonsense. We simply don’t share your view that the world will “fall apart around us”, if Obama is elected instead of Obama-lite. To us, it’s a non-choice, a pointless choice. Team Blue, Team Red, there’s very little difference that matters TO US.
You might want to attack teh gays. Fine. You might want to bomb Iran. Fine. You might want to due bailouts (just smaller ones). Fine.
But libertarians are about, essentially, two things: social liberalism (a Blue Team issue) and fiscal conservatism (supposed to be a Red Team issue, but they’ve dropped the ball four four candidate straight now).
You want libertarians to vote for Red Team? Nominate a fiscal conservative! That’s it. You can keep all the petty religious crap. You can run your wars. You can do your Dem-mini social programs. But at least do it in a fiscally-conservative way (note: you won’t be able to do 2 out of 3 of those things if you do).
It has nothing to do with “spite”, or “wanting to lose”, or any of the other nonsense that Red Team wants to come up with.
If we don’t make our two primary issues front and center, NO ONE WILL. And that isn’t acceptable.
If we vote for Gary Johnson this election, the LP will reach 1% nationwide and get public funding. With funding, we’ll reach enough in the polls to participate in the debates in 2016. And THAT will get our ideas public air time and support. Both parties will have to adjust to both of the things we care about.
It’s not the libertarian’s job to elect Red/Blue Team candidates. It’s our job to promote liberty wherever it shows up. This year, neither party gives a shit about either of our issues. If they did, we’d vote for them.
I’ll make the same point that others have made: Libertarians are not that interested in winning. Their primary objective is to make a point. They are disinclined to soil themselves by voting for a candidate that may be less than pure. How many times have you heard a libertarian say this: “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans!” Oh, really? None?
As long as they have the opportunity to make a point, it doesn’t matter to Libertarians that the actual winner of an election may drag the country nearer to totalitarianism. As the armed agents of tyrants knock on a Libertarian’s door, he comforts himself by saying, “Well, at least I didn’t vote for Romney”, or “At least I didn’t vote for McCain”.
I would love to win. But why should I vote for any candidate who has (at least) half a platform that I don’t believe in?
If everybody who believed in libertarianism would just vote for it instead of worrying about wasting their vote, we just might have a chance.
Richie, you would vote for that person because he has close to half a platform you believe in and the alternative is a platform that has nowhere close to half of what you believe in. If you only get a small handful of M&Ms out of the whole bag, that is still much better than nothing at all. A vote for a Libertarian will get you nothing besides the satisfaction of saying you refused to take any M&Ms if you couldn’t have most of them. When it comes to my freedom, I’m not planning to go hungry to feel self righteous. Simply put, stupid is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Now, this election will come right down to the wire, and your vote will count. If the Communists win because of your poor critical thinking skills, they will be laughing and calling you a “useful idiot”. ABO2012
‘Things can always get worse.’ – Bill Cosby (Wish _he_ were President)
Many commenters here, including Russ, seem to think that a distasteful
US administration is the lower bound on ‘worse’. They are due for a rude
awakening in the near future, so near (1 year max) that it requires little
vision to see it coming or to predict its results:
Bad = Romney holds the nation together through a 2nd Great Depression.
Worse = Obama continues policies which weaken and divide the nation,
with the intention of using the crisis to establish a Fascist State,
and the result of fracturing the nation into its component States.
Worst = Weapons of mass destruction are used in the US; Casualties are
unevenly distributed, averaging 5% dead, 20% injured, and 50% poor.
Funny, as another small-l libertarian, I’ve experienced exactly the opposite.
So, exactly what have these experiences been, Obama troll?
In my younger days, when I volunteered for the Libertarian party I beleived that the majority of Americans prized freedom and that if only we could.share the message we could field viable candidates. Later when it became apparent that we had no opportunity to win I thought that remaining in the party would force republicans to move our direction to gain our votes. I beleive I was wrong again. Most people despise freedom (though they pretend otherwise) and our numbers are so few that we could never make an impact in a national election. The only chance we have to win in the field of ideas is to create a strong and influential ARM of the republican party, ie the tea party or something similar. To stay within the Libertarian party is to sit out of the process and allow all our freedoms to be stripped.
No one deserves four more years of Obama, not even the Obamabots.
He’s been indoctrinated to believe when he takes out America everything will prosper. He wasn’t reasoned into it, and he can’t change.
If America as we love it falls, those of us who hold to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness will be as much people without a country as the Jews have been and over a thousand years in the wilderness is very long to wait. I’m tired of all the idiots who keep saying “we have all the guns” as though everyone on our side will be simon pure and as though, once civilization disintegrates bringing back the constitution would work fine. Mind you, the US military might be an organization that does it — but I wouldn’t want to bet the farm. They’re the best we have, but read Totten on how they too have been infiltrated and watered down, particularly when it comes to what a friend calls Rear Echelon Mother…*farmers* I’d still trust them more than any other institution to take the republic in hand and then give it back to us — but I don’t trust any institution very much. We the people is about all we got.
He’s been indoctrinated to believe when he takes out America everything will prosper. He wasn’t reasoned into it, and he can’t change.
This. Yes.
Sarah comes from a country that is socialist at best. She knows what Obama means when he uses words like “together”, “community”, “fair share”, or “leadership”. Obama is a red-diaper baby, pure and simple. Forget what Dinesh D’Souza thinks–Obama is an entirely American phenomenon, it’s just that they’re a rare breed. Few Americans have ever spoken with anyone like him for long enough to understand that he’s not using the same dictionary as the rest of us. The dictionary he is using is designed to allow his type of people to speak plainly amongst themselves while using words with positive connotations to the uninitiated.
It took me years of in-depth debate with a few of these folks to finally understand what they were saying. Once I did understand, I was horrified by what they were implying.
I’m still horrified. And watching the Intrade numbers, I’m starting to get terrified.
Don’t get so terrified that you don’t vote. These Communists know they are set back by a generation if they lose this one. They are at least as terrified as we are. Such is the nature of any battle in a war. ABO2012
The US federal debt is 105% of GDP. That’s not counting state or local debt, and it ignores future pension commitments, which if included would expand the number enormously.
Countries don’t recover from that. They simply don’t.
I’m voting Romney, but I’m not even certain that it’s possible to crisis-manage our way out of this mess. Whoever wins, we’re on a path that many, many countries have been on before, and IMO it’s too late to stop it. I’m voting Romney mainly out of principle, and the principle is this: to fight to keep our constitutional system afloat, putting aside all other considerations. Obama’s desperate to avoid the argument, but if he wins he’ll immediately argue (as he did in 2008) that the argument was fought and won and The People are Behind Him.
Voting Libertarian this year is a luxury.
Just the fact that Romney doesn’t hate us is a huge difference.
Sarah Hoyt, you are right again! The fact that Romney doesn’t hate us is a big difference!
I think the libertarian critique includes a lot of good points. But the fact that Romney doesn’t hate us tips the balance.
And Ryan has been trying to reduce government spending FOR YEARS.
Sarah Hoyt, I appreciate you so much! Thank you for being a bright light!
We should be telling our Democrat friends that they will have to vote as Americans this time if they are to ever wrestle the control of their own party back from these Communists. ABO2012
Can somebody send that to all the Ron Paul people?
Well Im a “Paulbot” and I am even more convinced after reading this that my vote goes to Johnson. I wont be doing the walk of shame back to my car. Why would I vote for Romney? He has no principles. Remember Romney supported the auto bailouts, TARP, stimulus, and no longer wants to repeal Obamacare in full. He is certified Keynesian. No true libertarian could ever get behind Romney. I guess you could be the Paul Ryan type though: “madam speaker this bill offends my principles. But Im gonna vote for this bill to preserve my principles”. I would never waste my vote to continue the downward spiral we will get from Romney or Obama. Be honest with yourself and stop claiming to be a libertarian if you vote for this clown.
I’m of the opinion that everybody gets to vote however they want — that’s why the voting booth is private. But you don’t get to make up “facts” to rationalize why you are voting for Johnson — i.e., not one thing you wrote is true — Romney didn’t support the auto bailout (hence all the ads from Obama that “Romney wanted to let GM go bankrupt” and he has 100% promised to repeal Obamacare.
Obama, OTOH, is the one who has actually been POTUS for the last 4 years & in addition to the auto AND bank bailouts, shoved Obamacare down the throats of the half of the population that didn’t want it (in & of itself a HUGE difference between it & Romneycare that had the support of an 87% Dem state congress, which you so-called Libertarians pretend doesn’t matter), made habeas corpus disappear and stood in front of the UN & tacitly endorsed blasphemy laws. A true Libertarian would be horrified at the prospect of the re-election of Obama.
Like I wrote — you want to vote for Johnson & you don’t care if Obama is re-elected as a consequence — that’s fine — own it. Don’t try to pretend that Romney is the same as Obama, because he isn’t & saying he is just exposes you as either completely ignorant or a total liar.
Romney tried to take credit for the auto bailouts after the fact. Yes, he origonally opposed them. Yes he said he saw need for stimulus. Yes he recently said he didnt want to repeal all of Obamacare. Yes he supported TARP so to claim I am a liar makes you look like the idiot. I can back mine up with truth. On the otherhand you cant. I never claimed Romney was the same as Obama. Luckily I believe you should have the freedom to also do the walk of shame.
So, try to get control of the Republican or Democrat Party if you want more Libertarian principles. Voting for a Libertarian will bode very poorly for your freedom to vote for a Libertarian in the future since the Communists have already gotten control of the Democrat Party. No time left for high minded principles and feeling good about walking back to your last car, bub. ABO2012
eleventy-million billion? if BHO can make it, why not the Libertarian party?
What difference does it make?
In 2012, the LP’s candidate will not win the Presidency. You can ponder “why” all you want, but in the meantime, the world keeps turning.
Now if you ask me, I think there’s a really good reason.
The LP keeps wanting to start at the top. Even if people DO want a libertarian America, which I’m not sure enough do, local government and Congress are places to start. School board members, mayors, governors.
What the douchebags in DC have in common — even Obama — is prior political experience at lower levels of government, 99% of the time with the same party.
I’d love to see the LP being the majority party! It’s not happening. It’s not on the verge of happening. Ross Perot (not a libertarian of course) did better WITHOUT a party, by an order of magnitude, than LP candidates at their best.
Sad, perhaps, but true. A is A, denial ain’t a river in Egypt, TANSTAAFL, and all that.
Great point, like Perot and his later named “Reform” movement the Libertarians don’t work at the grass root level like the major parties do. One huge difference between “Occupy” and “Tea Party” was the evolution of T-party activism to political power in targeting and defeating RINO’s during the primary process of 2010, and cleary giving the Republicans their house majority. “Occupy” just composted into anarchy and confusion. I think the T-Party wing of the Republican Party is the closest to libertarian power we’ve seen in my lifetime. If the Libertarian Party were as serious as a national party they would put more effort into targeting local elections, even state assmeblies and perhaps a Govenorship, and build from there.
Libertarians are not serious as a national party, and never will be — by choice.
The US has the oldest, and worst, known method for voting — “first past the post”. The mathematical result of such a system is that after 2-3 elections, you’ll have exactly two parties, with most people voting *against* the other party, not voting *for* their own party.
That’s exactly why Stephen Green wrote this article — he understands (perhaps not consciously) how first-past-the-post voting works.
Libertarians are, generally, fairly rational. We don’t have any illusions that we’ll ever win anything, really, ever. That’s not the point.
The point is act as a voting bloc that isn’t easily bought, and that causes positive change in both parties. We pull the Blue Team towards a more socially-liberal stance — gay marriage, no more war on drug users, etc. We pull the Red Team towards fiscal conservatism/small government.
Sometimes, it works, as it did in the 90s.
This cycle, Obama has been terrible on social issues, and Obama-lite is just a slightly smaller spender than Obama, so we’re unrepresented.
So we’ll vote for Gary Johnson as a bloc, and in 2016, one or both sides will be forced to actually move our direction.
Hint: you could have gotten our vote this cycle if you’d actually nominated a fiscal conservative. Please do so next time.
It pains me to have to say this, but in the ’90s, Ross Perot had far more to do with moving both parties towards fiscal sanity than the Libertarians did. By about a jillion to one.
> It pains me to have to say this, but in the ’90s, Ross Perot had far more to do with moving both parties towards fiscal sanity than the Libertarians did. By about a jillion to one.
Small ‘L’ Stephen, small ‘L’. Ross Perot (and it saddens me to say this) is the closest thing we’ve had to an actual libertarian candidate on the fiscal side in a long, long time, and he moved both parties a ton. Libertarians get full credit.
I really could care less for the LP, it a plate to vote when neither Red Team or Blue Team want’s our vote, like this cycle. Blue Team wanted the libertarian vote pretty bad last cycle, and picked up a lot of it. I have no idea why Red Team thinks they can win without us. (The Ron Paul thing at the convention was particularly stupid.)
Why do you assume that you will be getting to vote again in 2016?
In 2008, I still assumed — to pick three issues at random from a list of dozens — that bankruptcy law was settled over which creditors got paid first; that anyone proven to have committed tax fraud couldn’t remain as Secretary of the Treasury; that the government of the United States would stand up for the first amendment.
I was wrong. Many things that I would never have believed possible — that would never have occurred to me to even question — are, in fact, quite possible under the governance of Obama and his party, because they want to “fundamentally transform” the rules under which we are governed.
Why do you assume that the rules you rely on today, in 2012, will still be in place in 2016 if Obama retains his office for another four years?
Right.
The only way that the LP could become a major party is by REPLACING an existing party.
There can be only… two.
Now I’m not suggesting that the LP as it exists is poised to do that; I’m suggesting that, if it’s not, it’s not going to get very far.
The corollary of the two-party system is that so few people vote Libertarian, or Green, or Constitution, or Peace and Freedom, or whatever, that there’s no reason for either major party to try to woo them. What if Gary Johnson, Peace be upon him, should get 2% of the vote, and the even more obscure Jill Stein gets another 1%? Do you think that anyone in either party will look at that and say, “Man, we could have won if we had those people!”?
All the things you “hope” Romney will do, I believe he won’t even attempt. Romney is a politician like any other, saying the things that will get him elected. Does it really matter which road we take to hell? Why not plant your flag in the ground right now and say, “No further!” You go ahead and vote for evil and “do the Walk of Shame back to your car”.
You can plant you flag in the road and say, “No further!” all you want. However, if you can’t sway a big enough block of votes to make an incumbent afraid the will lose his job, then Uncle Sugar the steamroller isn’t going to slow down or change direction for you even the slightest little bitsy bit.
And no one will ever believe that the libertarian vote is bigger than any of a hundred better organized, more vocal, and more effective issue groups that already exist out there.
Your one or two percent will continue to spoil lots of elections in favor of the leftists. But because you suck at organizing, and you are too righteous in your self-regard to form alliances with anyone else, you are never going to win anything yourselves, and you are never going to even incrementally advance the fiscal and negative liberty components of your agendas.
Then man up and join us. If enough do we will advance liberty and limited government, because I guarantee you that neither will be advanced by the GOP or the dems, never have been.
Your idea of manning up seems to consist entirely of making protest votes and hoping that this will encourage the others.
Protest votes are really butch, but because incremental improvement is better than the status quo and much better than continued devolution, I’ll pass just the same.
Sort of like the toll bridge in the middle of the desert in “Blazing Saddles”, right? The Communists will be stopped because they will need “a whole shitload of dimes”. Sheesh. ABO2012
I am supremely pleased that someone with a substantial audience has decided to make this case. I was beginning to think all the rationality had been leached from the libertarian community. It’s cheering to discover that that is not the case.
It would help if conservatives would dial back on the insulting tones when courting libertarians. The contempt is mutual. Indulging in expressing yours will not help anyone swallow the bitter pill.
Were Party and “movement” libertarians to recognize a few realities:
– That the War on Drugs cannot and will not be ended by flicking a switch;
– That same-sex marriage is a perversion of an institution that’s properly above politics;
– That the abortion contretemps is not a freedom issue, but an argument over the right to life;
– That children and madmen do need to be protected from themselves;
– That war, military institutions, foreign policy, and immigration law are inherently interactions between collectivities, that involve supra-individual national interests;
– And that allowing marginal characters and outright lunatics to characterize the libertarian movement is politically counterproductive;
…the insults would be far fewer in number and far lower in volume. As I’m a former state chairman of the New York Libertarian Party, who left the party in disgust over the matters enumerated above (among others), I know whereof I speak.
Your 2nd and 3rd points about same sex marriage and abortion is why conservatives keep losing libertarians. True libertarians don’t want the socialist agenda of the religious right imposed on society. Oh, and you left out opposition to contraception, Paul Ryan’s comment that rape is a form of conception, etc.
Romney is just a different kind of big spending liberal. At a time of annual trillion dollar deficits in D.C., both he and Ryan support massive increases in defense spending. They just don’t get it that in order to “cure” the deficit, ALL programs need to be cut back.
I think you might be confusing Ryan for Missouri’s reprehensible Tod Akin, and his comments about women’s magical rape-proof uteri.
Just because the “religious right” agrees with and vociferously argues against abortion and same sex marriage does not mean that those two issues are only religious issues.
Some people believe that the life of a human in the womb should be accorded no less deference and legal protection than the life of any full-grown, non-felon human simply because that is a consistent application of justice. That the mother’s life is inextricably linked to the unborn human is, in 99.99% of all cases (to invent a plausible statistic), the mother’s fault entirely, and in no way justifies permitting her to kill the unborn human because it would be inconvenient for her to wait the additional less-than-nine-months for the unborn human to naturally sever that inextricable link. If she wants choice, she should choose to keep her knees closed. She is no less responsible for her unborn child’s safety that an airline captain is for the safety of his passengers.
If the libertarian position is that the unborn human should have no societal protection from being killed, then please completely explain — with reference to the above discussion of the mother and also to the allegedly libertarian value of responsibility for one’s own actions — why born humans do have such societal protections, and why the unborn child’s mother is permitted to kill him, but no one else is permitted to.
As for same sex marriage, marriage is a tradition pre-dating both Western government and Western religion. Your beef is with tradition, not religion.
There you go again, SteveB Environista. Nice to hear from you again, I’m sure. Sheesh. ABO2012
> However, if Ohio libertarians are willing to do that, they richly deserve four more years of Obama.
Actually, what libertarians deserve is a third-party in the presidential debates, and in the news in general, that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That’ll happen once Johnson gets 1% of the votes, nationwide, which he damn well should this election.
Romney == Obama-lite, and no amount of last minute op-eds is going to change that.
It’s not the libertarian’s fault republicans nominated a loser candidate, in an election that was there’s to lose. Next time, pick a better candidate.
Arguing that an extraordinary capitalist is no different from a Marxian community organizer is why big-L Libertarians enjoy the same reputation for practicality as a remote-control toaster, and enjoy the same influence in American politics as… a remote-control toaster.
Hilarious and dead-on accurate, as usual, Stephen.
Wow! Youre claming Romney is a capitalist. That speaks for youre credibility. Since when did supporting TARP, auto bailouts, stimulus, Obamacare , the Fed make you a capitalist?
Politically, Romney is a big-spending Republican. We’ve endured those before, and we might yet again. Where did I ever claim otherwise?
But in his private life, Romney is simply one of the best businessmen of his generation.
So, yeah, capitalist. I’m hoping Romney will bring some of that to the White House if he wins, but I’m not counting on it. That’s why it’s so important to send more men like Rand Paul and Mike Lee to Capitol Hill.
Private sector and public sector are two different things. I have and never will criticize his accomplishments as a businessman. We have seen how he governs. Big spending republicans are called liberals. I agree Romney is better than Obama but voting for Romney is like trying to put a bigger bandaid on when youre bleeding to death.
As some others here have also said, I’ve walked the neighborhoods getting signatures to keep an LP president on the ballot. I was a paper candidate. I gave money to the LP. I’m even a lifetime member. But if you think 1% is going to affect anything then you haven’t read election laws. The ONLY way the current system is going to allow a non-Democrat or Republican on the ballot is after significant amounts of bloodshed. The system won’t allow it and about 45% of the country won’t allow it. Thinking that “Oh if we get 1% we’ll they’ll pay attention to us” is ridiculous silver-bullet-ism. The only think it will get you is a handful of press reports making fun of the candidate. Perot got 39% and he’s now just a punchline.
> Perot got 39% and he’s now just a punchline.
I can live with that “punchline”, which a I recall, resulted in the Contract for America in 1994, and Clinton getting fiscal conservatism and the small gov. religion in 1996 (Perot got a 10% vote then).
Libertarians don’t have to win, or even get close to win, to positive affect both parties.
The only chance Red Team has of actually getting the limited government they say they want is if the libertarians actually deny them the presidency. Full stop. The rest of you are so afraid of Blue Team that they can ignore you. Nice going.
Libertarians are not so easily bought.
You still have yet to demonstrate when the Libertarians have moved things, ever.
Again, as a former LP member and a frequent LP voter, this is quite discouraging. But it’s also true.
Again, not “Libertarian” but ‘libertarian’ (small L).
It just so happens that, on occasion, like this cycle, the LP candidate is the best choice for furthering social liberalism and/or fiscal conservatism. It has nothing to do with the *party* doing any good at all.
All that matters is that *both* parties know (and are reminded, occasionally, like 1992 and 1996, and soon, 2012) that there is a substantial enough block of voters that care about two things: social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.
We can be convince to vote for either party, if they want to move either of those issue forward. If not, we ARE organized enough to have a reasonable fallback candidate, like Gary Johnson. Sometimes, we even get a candidate like Ross Perot to vote for.
I don’t know why so many people equate libertarianism with the LP. The vast majority of libertarians I know vote Red Team or Blue Team, depending on the election (usually Red Team, it seems, since other than the WoD, the country is already pretty socially liberal).
Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative is somewhat of a contradiction. It is the socially liberal attitude (anything goes/if it feels good, do it) that leads to the problems that require social spending.
Require? I’m not certain you know what that word means.
Fair enough…bad word choice. How about, “that produce the consumers of the social spending liberals feel obligated to help.” Is that better?
Well, no. I’ve heard this argument from conservatives before, that if we don’t accept their social conservatism in the form of laws, then by golly they’ll just have to abandon their beliefs about limiting spending and limited government.
It’s a cheap — and ultimately dangerous — form of blackmail.
Steve, call it blackmail if you like, but it is what it is. We believe that social conservatism is more important than balancing the budget, and you can’t win without us, so you either give us what we want, or we take our ball and go home, and you can stew in irrelevance. Yes, we are willing to let the Democrats rule for a generation, even to the point of collapsing the country, because we find no benefit in the Republicans running things if they will not defend those among us who are targeted for extermination. If keeping abortion legal is more important to you than saving the country, go ahead and let the country be destroyed, because we don’t care.
Funny thing is, I didn’t mention abortion — and hadn’t really thought of it in this context, because it doesn’t really apply. I was thinking more along the line of the Drug War, which is stupidly expensive and destructive of our rights. (See James Bovard for full details on the latter.)
The SoCon argument is, to reiterate, “join us in our crusade or we’ll abandon our principles and the Constitution in order to pay for all the druggies!’
Well, fine. Except there are always social ills. Work in your community to help. Do things on the state level. Having seen close up what drugs can do, I’m happy to help.
But you’ve shown here that your devotion to your political principles is skin-deep.
Myth Buster, if making abortion illegal is more important to you than getting the Communists out of our government then that is your business. But if, in trying to do so, you help take my freedom away from me, the Communists will be laughing and calling you a “useful idiot”. Plus, as a payment for your stupidity, you will have lost any chance of making abortions illegal in your lifetime. You savvy? By the way, I have been counting the myths you have busted and I am still in the low single digits. Sheesh. ABO2012
Jeebus. Think much?
Being “Socially Liberal” and “Fiscally Conservative” is actually about as consistent a philosophical approach to governance as exists. They both rely quite heavily on the attitude of “keep the f*ck out of my life!”, directed specifically towards the federal government.
Being socially liberal (not as the Left portrays it, but as it is actually understood by true libertarians) means I am responsible for my own actions, and don’t need a nanny to watch over me and powder my bottom every time I screw up. I sleep with whomever I want. I do business with whomever I want. I socialize with whomever I want. I worship with whomever I want.
Period.
There is no fundamental underlying philosophical difference between the Left and the Right on social issues today. None. The only difference is in implementation. You both want to govern our every move. You both want to regulate our bodies (there really is no difference between “you can’t purchase a 32 oz Big Gulp” and “you can’t purchase birth control”). You both take a totalitarian view that we, the salt of the earth, the lesser beings breathing your air, are incapable of deciding what is right and what is wrong with respect to how we live our lives and how we use our bodies.
Which is why the Right is pretty much just as dangerous to liberty-loving people as the Left is.
So. Go away. Leave me be. Let me f*ck up. In my personal life as well as my business life. Because, after all, there is no fundamental difference between the two. They’re both mine.
I’m still voting for Romney, by the way, but it’s very much based on Steve’s analysis (said conclusions I’d already reached on my own). I don’t hold any illusions that the Republican Party is any where nearly occupied enough by the Tea Party yet to hope that true libertarianism has taken root. But Romney is certainly lightyears to the right of Obama in a lot of ways. And there is hope that enough of the grassroots movement has taken hold that the House and Senate may take some actions to stem the oncoming fiscal tsunami.
We’re still in for hard times. But fiscal/economic collapse is a near certainty if 0 gets another nod. Romney/Ryan at least understand the issue and seem to be willing to take it on.
The vast majority (better that 95%, to be inventively plausible) of people on the right are not particularly opposed to birth control, but they are opposed to:
1. being forced to pay for birth control for someone else,
2. abortion
3. being forced to pay for abortions
The “banning birth control” meme began on the left as a smear of the right, same as the “bring back the draft” idiocy.
This is not a libertarian argument FOR Romney. It is a libertarian argument AGAINST Obama. The libertarian argument against Obama does not need to be made. All libertarians know what a disaster Obama was. To say that Romney will be less of a disaster (the lesser of two evils) isn’t really a ringing endorsement.
I’m not sure I see much substantive difference between the Romney and Obama. To claim Romney is good because he’s more like Bush is not the way to go either. Bush’s legacy is the betrayal of conservative principles, always seeing the government as the solution to the problem, instead of wisely recognizing that government is the problem. I think of Romney as Bush and possibly Bush lite at best. Bush turned out to be a disgrace because under him conservativism, and libertarianism (how often do you hear that deregulation is the cause of the latest crises), lost credibility. I think Romney discredits conservatives and libertarians as well. Of course, the discrediting is weak because Bush and Romney are not conservatives. They are “compassionate conservatives”, i.e., big government progressives – lefties.
The main thing I like about Obama is that he actually discredits modern liberalism. He pushed it to the max and failed spectacularly. If your alternative is simply another Bush, you are asking for the non-left to be discredited, again.
I’d really like to get excited about Romney, but I can’t bring myself to be excited about him. I do get excited about not having Obama as president, though.
I’d prefer an Obama presidency and a strong GOP presence (majority) in the house and senate.
I agree Ken — I do not see a case FOR Romney but AGINST Obama. No wmaybe that is an argument. This is unlike the “liberaltarian” case made in 2008. I did not buy it, but it was a positive case for libertarians to vote for Obama.
The libertarian case for Romney is that he will do less harm than Obama. Truthfully, I am not so sure.
Hence, I am voting for Johnson.
No doubt, Johnson will do no harm whatsoever as President.
BarryD,
This is a fatuous comment. All presidents to harm and good. Bush and Obama did more harm than good. I suspect Romney will do the same. Johnson would likely do more good than harm.
The argument that Romney will do less harm than good is no better than Obama’s current platform slogan “Things could’ve been worse.” I’m not a fan of Obama’s slogan, not because Obama’s using it, but because it sucks as a message. If you think that’s a solid argument for Romney, but not Obama, then you are stuck in shortsighted partisanship, rather than what’s good for the country long term.
What’s going to be your argument in 2016, when Romney made things worse, just not as worse as you think Obama would’ve done? Are you really going to run ads that it’s still Obama’s fault?
I’m not sure if you just wanted an excuse for posting a rant, or if you missed my point completely.
Either way, that was one stupid “reply”.
BarryD,
Of course, the “you’re stupid” response is where commenters with no coherent response reside.
Ken,
In general you’re right, but in this case your response genuinely was stupid. Barry’s comment that Johnson could do no harm as President was clearly a barb… Johnson can do no harm as President because there’s no chance whatsoever he can actually become President. You missed his (pretty obvious) point entirely and posted a lengthy reply to something he didn’t say.
Spoken like a typical self-styled libertarian or “true conservative” who doesn’t know jacksh*t about government. You people are constantly whining and bitching about those all-consuming bureaucrats that are responsible for growing the federal leviathan, yet you think it is OK for an open communist to control the executive branch and be the one who hires all those bureaucrats. And don’t be thinking that having the Senate will keep him from appointing his cronies. The Senate could put some brakes on potential judiciary appointments, but the other jobs that require confirmation are meaningless; you could leave a cabinet position vacant for a whole term and the only people who’d notice would be hostesses, lobbyists, and reporters; somebody else would just run the department, as is the case with Comrade Obama’s czars now.
Do you have any idea how long it is going to take to get all the bureaucratic sleeper cells and IEDs out of the executive branch? Hell, there’s still plenty of them left over from Clinton’s administration because the only thing GWB did, unfortunately like most Republicans at all levels of government, was applique a few buddies into the cabinet and most visible positions and leave the Democrats in charge of the rest of the government. Then he wondered why he was constantly leaked, thwarted, and sabotaged.
As long as it has a budget, the Executive Branch can do as it damn well pleases without so much as a by your leave to Congress. The only tool the Congress has is to totally cut off funding to an agency if it doesn’t like what that agency is doing or doesn’t like somebody the President put in charge. Sorry, not even your newly minted Tea Party approved conservatives have the guts to stand up to the furor that would ensue if a whole federal agency were shut down. The Democrats will have the whole Country convinced that you’ve destroyed the World before sundown on the day you do it. Obama has played the continueing resolution game very skillfully; he’s confronted the House with either giving him the CR or shutting down big chunks of the government. Gingrich getting his a** whipped by Clinton over the “shutdown” is seared in the minds of Congressional Republicans. There’s a way to do it, but it has to be in the first year or third year; doing it in an election year guarantees that the Democrats will destroy Republicans in the Congressional elections.
I don’t know that Romney has it in him to go in and disassemble the Democrat sleeper cells and defuse the IEDs, but I know he won’t add new ones. And maybe, just maybe, Republicans in Congress and the ones hopefully appointed to Romney’s Administration will have learned from the Bush years that giving the Democrats what they want so you can get what you want does not work. The new-found power of the unions and the Democrat front groups goes all the way back to when Clinton took advantage of Republican porking proclivities and in concert with Democrats in Congress bulked up Democrat interests with federal funding. That continued through GWB and is in the main responsible for the unprecedented power that the Left had in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Maybe we’ll stop feeding the hand that bites us in a Romney Administration.
“I’d prefer an Obama presidency and a strong GOP presence (majority) in the house and senate.”
Ken, there is a flaw in your argument. There is a very good chance the Republicans will not take the Senate and most certainly will not have a veto proof majority. Obama has governed since 2010 basically by fiat. The Republican house is not effective and the Democrat Senate has abetted this by not passing a budget. This will continue if Obama is reelected. If the Republicans do not get a veto proof majority in the Senate, Obama will veto any budget and dare the Republicans not to give him the budget he wants. with no budget, Obama will have the power to spend incoming revenues anyway he wants.
If you care about freedom for the next four years (and beyond), then Romney is your only chance to preserve it. Think about this. The MSM press gives Obama a free ride, but you know they will not do that for Romney. Romney will not have the same power that Obama has. Romney does provide a possible break in the unrelenting power grab of the Progressive State.
And, there is this. Romney may just surprise everyone and keep his promises to negate Obamacare (if he can’t repeal it with a Democrat Senate). He just may give you far more than you can imagine. This is opposed to the certainty that Obama will consolidate his lock on power and steal the liberty that is your most concern.
There is another flaw — the assumption that a president’s only impact is legislation passed under his watch.
That’s never true and certainly has not been true of this president. He didn’t need congress to:
-Have the EEOC decide employers might not be able to ask applicants for their criminal history.
-Insert him into the White House biographies of the former presidents.
-go after a guy because he made a movie.
-host a silly beer summit (made necessary by him inserting himself into a local police matter — without knowing the facts)
-bow to foreign leaders
A republican congress couldnt stop these things. Or anything else having to do with regulation, enforcement, diplomacy, or the bully pulpit. That’s a pretty important list, dontcha think?
One piece of the case for Romney is that he’s not a media darling and he is a traditionalist.
So I think he would right-size the presidency.
And, since Obama has demonstrated that he has no respect for the rule of law if a law doesn’t suit him, how would a Republican Congress stop him from doing whatever he wants? Divided government is a nice idea as long as our President is not already a Communist. Using your logic, wouldn’t a divided Congress be a better deal if Romney got elected, notwithstanding the fact that we will still be saddled with Obamacare and would still have no budget, much less a balance one. The only way this damage can be undone is to trust that Romney will be forced to stick to his promises to undo it with the help of a Republican Congress. If he doesn’t, we are left with the specter of Hillary Clinton as our President. I don’t trust politicians any more than you do, and this choice is bad, but at least it is a choice. I didn’t get us into this pickle either, but I will take ANY opportunity to get us out of it. ABO2012
I’ve always viewed Real Libertarianism in much the same way I view Communism.
What?! The H E double hockey sticks you say? Even though I am quite the libertarian thinking person, it will not work in The Real World. TRW is also what will always trip up utopian communism or utopian anything. Mad Mike Williamson’s Freehold is a case in point…a perfect little Libertarian way of life going along happily until acted on by nefarious outside agents. Think of what some rat bastard like Soros could do to in a world like that. As much as I’d love living in Mikes pre-UN mess Freehold or Sara’s Eden not inside an asteroid, I’d really hate the mess the 0bama types and the Soros types would make of things.
I am increasingly hating living in the mess people are making of this Republic and to knowingly vote in a predominantly two party system for some small party with no chance of winning and thereby allowing the exact opposite of everything you claim to stand for to win power to remove evermore of the Rights you claim to hold dear is, sorry, just plain {expletive deleted} ignorant.0bama is on tape complaining about the COTUS being full of “Negative Rights”…who in their right mind thinks that is someone who any libertarian minded person wants in charge? So the best course is to bite the bullet, vote for Romney/Ryan, and fight within the Republican party to return this Republic to the standards it was founded on. It is not the perfect style of Government there is, just the best we have found so far.
Well said…..we are in trouble and I believe everyone knows it. We need to unite to stop this ship from rolling over
I voted for Clark in 1980 because I was too lazy to try to choose a winner. I’ve sobered up since.
I voted for Bob Barr in 2008, because I really didn’t see a difference between McCain and Obama. I voted for Browne in 1996, because I generally refuse to vote for incumbents (Clinton), but couldn’t bring myself to vote for President Archer-Daniels-Midland (Dole).
I really would like to vote for Johnson this year, but I live in a swing state.
I voted Libertarian from 1980 through 2000 (yup, I didn’t vote for Reagan and I did vote for Ron Paul in 1988.) Then a certain event happened, and I had to put that luxury away. I’d love to get back to those days, but right now we have a very dangerous marxist (and by that, it simply means he has the world view of class warfare; positive The State given “rights”, e.g. entitlements, etc.) and we have to get the office out of his hands.
When the Democrats take their party back from the marxists, I’ll be able to go back to voting Libertarian.
Well said, rbj!
Stephen,
Because getting a GOP president that does worse than Bush discredits conservatism and libertarianism (in the minds of modern liberals and independents, anyway) and will likely return power to the Dems in the house and senate in 2016. If the same thing happens in 2016 that happened in 2008 (two out of three branches of the gov democrat), all you’re calling for is a Pyrrhic victory in 2012.
I’m starting to think you might not have read big chunks of the column.
See above, where Ken failed to read big chunks of my one-sentence gallows humor.
Indeed. And I’m not going to waste my time repeating things I spent about 1,700 words saying already.
Stephen,
I read your whole article before posting a single comment, including your link to the Cloward-Piven crash. I understand what you are saying. And I made comments on your main article and the response you made above.
The “you didn’t understand what I was writing” doesn’t really fly as an excuse. You can use it if you want. I don’t mind. It’s possible I misunderstood, just as it’s possible you’re not as good a writer as you think and have a jumbled message.
I didn’t say you didn’t understand. In fact, I was quite careful to not say that, to not even hint at it, because I don’t worry at all about your reading comprehension.
That said, you continue to ignore big parts of what I did write, while accusing me now of writing things I didn’t write.
Not because we disagree, mind you, but because you’re simply ignoring big chunks of what I wrote.
I can’t understand why ANY Libertarians would toss their vote away when there is so much hanging in the balance in this election. Sure, you can vote for some guy nobody has heard of, like Gary Johnson. But remember, the presidential election in 2000 came down to roughly 600 votes in Florida. Only 600 votes. So if you think your vote doesn’t matter, think again, especially in the crucial swing states. Obama has ACORN and SEIU and countless other thugs and bullies trying to fix the election for him. Romney is going to need every vote to beat the Chicago machine. THEY are the real enemies to your precious liberty.
Is Romney perfect? Certainly not. But he’s A LOT better than the other guy, and you know it. Strike a real blow for liberty and throw a tyrant like Obama out of office. THAT is what Libertarianism should be all about and you will have a chance to show it on November 6. And once Romney is elected, who knows, maybe your influence will help guide the Republicans into adopting more Libertarian views. If the Tea Parties did it, why can’t you?
You don’t need to sell libertarians that Romney would be better than Obama. A barrel of foetid dingo’s kidneys would be better than Obama. You need to sell us on the idea that Romney would be better than *Bush.*
I’m not always as up-to-speed with these things as I should be, but I’m not aware that Bush is running this year.
I think what he means is that he worries another Bush-type Republican may be more dangerous than another Obama term in that we end up with a more subtle decline into government running our lives, so the frog stays in the hot water until it boils. For my part, I will hold my nose and vote Romney. But this is what folks are worried about. It would be better if people would acknowledge and address this worry rather than indulge in cheap insults of the libertarian point of view as well as the leaders of the libertarian cause, as so many posts here indulge in doing.
This good article attempts to address this concern by suggesting that we “buy time,” hope that Romney is not a total disaster, and live to fight another day. It is not much on which to hang our hopes. But it seems better than just letting Obama finish us off in hopes that this will precipitate a heroic resurrection, as the frog jumps out of the water and takes its revenge. This would be great. But I am not staking my hopes on it.
“I’m not always as up-to-speed with these things as I should be, but I’m not aware that Bush is running this year.”
This may be my favorite thing you have said all month! All fortnight, even!
I moved from Iowa to California this year. Two benefits of my relocation are a) I missed the political advertisement saturation bombing in a swing state during a Presidential Election Year and b) I can vote for Johnson.
The following questions must be kept in mind by every Democrat federal government officer or employee:
“QUESTIONS FOR DEMOCRAT DAYS”
[Private and personal questions for every democrat federal appointee, employee, or staffer].
We’ll admit that you had a h#ll of a run
That you gave it your “very best shot”
We’ll assume you believed when you started,
That Obama was something he’s not.
We’ll concede “arguendo”* that your motives were pure
We’ll trust, for the moment, your vow,
That all those “ideal” plans, schemes, and demands,
Were intended to help us…somehow.
But those glorious “hopes” are now victims,
To a history both costly and grim,
Still, you’ll ALWAYS deny that your “savior’s” a lie,
And that we’re now imperiled by him.
We don’t ask that you renounce your “master”,
We’d as soon hope the leopard change spots.
But we have gotten so close to “crunch time”
THAT SOME QUESTIONS ARE NOW BURNING HOT:
1. If you are asked to violate your own oath of office or conscience, “for Obama”, will you?
2. If you are asked to violate rights and rules of our CONSTITUTION, “for Obama”, will you?
3. If you are asked to conceive of, carry out, support, or hide any act reasonably deemed illegal under existing law, “for Obama”, will you?
* Arguendo = Hypothetically; for the purpose or sake of argument. A term used to assume a fact without waiving the right to question it later on.
Alternatively framed: Between now and January 21, 2013 (inauguration day) are you so personally committed to Barack Obama (whether you are a White House staff member; a Member of Congress; a photo copy expert; or …whatever) that HIS DEMAND FOR RE-ELECTION WILL LEAD YOU TO VIOLATE THE LAW?
UP FRONT, WE ADMIT THIS “ASSUMES” ROMNEY & RYAN’S ELECTION on November 6. Again, “arguendo” we never expect you to even believe this possible. We expect you to lobby for Obama with every lawful power at your disposal. BUT, IF ROMNEY & RYAN ARE ELECTED, WILL YOU STILL DEEM YOURSELF AMERICANS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE? WILL YOU STILL SUPPORT THE RULE OF LAW? TO YOU, WILL THE ENDURANCE OF OUR NATION AS A REPUBLIC BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT-IF HE IS VOTED OUT OF OFFICE?
Everyone who supports Obama as President of our country should MAKE VERY SURE THEY LOVE OUR COUNTRY AND WILL NOT VIOLATE OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. Then we vote and we all live with the decision of the majority.
The case for Romney was NOT made in this blog post. Obama lied his ass off while campaigning in 2008. That was no surprise to anyone who bothered to look at his record. However, Romney already has shown that he will change his stripes to become more electable. We cannot know what he will do as President based on what he says as candidate. If the economy gets worse in 2013 or later, Romney may act as badly as Obama did in 2009. Romney believes in big, nanny-state, ‘foreign wars are just fine’ government just as much as Obama.
If libertarians vote for Gary Johnson, and if Romney is narrowly defeated because of that, the Republican Party might choose to dump some of its liberty-destroying stances and adopt some libertarian policies. Libertarians would lose ground in the next 2-4 years but might gain more ground after the 2014 and 2016 elections.
The worst outcome would be for libertarians to vote for Romney who still loses to Obama. After that catastrophe, both parties would believe that libertarians should be ignored.
Normally, I’d agree with you. As I’ve stated elsewhere, I’ve voted Libertarian for President before, and I’ll do so again. But one of the main points of this column was my conviction that we don’t have four more years to train the Republicans. And I’d rather not cut off my country’s nose to spite its face.
This, this, Oh. My. G-d. This.
Team Red has been using EXACTLY THAT EXCUSE since 2000.
It’s getting old.
Every election is now of the “we can’t survive 4 more years” variety.
And yet, here we are, four years later. And Stephen Green will be writing another editorial four years from now, on why, this time, it’s different. No really. Sure, Obama one last time and we’re having another election. But, REALLY GUYS, it’s DIFFERENT. Guys? Where are you going? Hello?
Don’t sell out your values for Mitt Romney, of all people. Sack up people. Red Team produced the worst possible candidate they could fine — a former Massachusetts Governor as the “fiscally conservative” option. Snort.
Red Team isn’t socially liberal, so all they’ve got is fiscal conservatism to tempt libertarians. And they chose not to do that this cycle, nor the last three cycles.
Wise up. They’ll continue to spend, spend, spend until you stop voting for them. So stop. Put an end to it.
While I appreciate the rabid accusations, the exact kind of thing I avoided using towards my big-L Libertarian friends, it’s almost certainly a done deal that I’ll be voting for the LP candidate, sight unseen, in 2016.
Assuming there is an election in 2016. If there is, and I do believe there will be, I expect it to mean even less than this election. Very dangerously so.
Now that he has the nomination the true colors are starting to peek out. Romney = McAmnesty 2.0:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Romney-Young-Immigrants/2012/10/02/id/458328
I continue to be amazed that Libertarians think that the Republicans are more likely to turn their direction in the case of a Republican loss in elections like these. I think that they will be more likely to see that great group of independents in the middle and decide that they need to inch a bit to the left to pick up a larger portion of that vote. Libertarians make up a small portion of the voting public and signing on to too many libertarian positions could be seen as a way of alienating a similar group of left-leaning independents.
From the GOP’s side, courting the libertarian vote directly is a losing proposition. An election in which Obama beats Romney doesn’t teach them that they need to be less liberal; it teaches them the opposite.
What libertarian revolution might take place in the Republican ranks is happening from the bottom up and folks like Rand Paul will ultimately lead that charge.
Rand Paul wants to audit the Pentagon. Romney & Ryan want to shovel billions more into the defense budget. Interesting contrast: a real libertarian vs. more big spending liberals.
I continue to be amazed that people believe the GOP will actually work for smaller government when they are rewarded time after time after time with votes and continue to do nothing but try to stay just a step to the right of the dems.
You don’t reward failure and expect something better to come from it, unless your a liberal school teacher.
Please continue to be amazed, JustAl. Meanwhile I will continue to fight against Communism and, in that matter, you could turn out to be one of my enemies. I really don’t give a damn what your high minded philosophy is until I can help rebuild a country that will allow for your high mindedness. ABO2012
Moderator: I screwed up while editing the previous comment. Please disregard it.
Steve:
I gave Sarah Hoyt a copy of an article from Saturday’s WSJ discussing the “cold, calculating” nature of libertarians. Frankly, if it were true (it’s based on flawed interpretation of neuroscience research) I would think that libertarians (big “L” or small “l”) would be able to calculate the benefits of Romney-Ryan vs. Obama-Biden. In addition, they would certainly understand the math of not throwing away their votes in a critical election year.
But seeing as libertarians are human – with human emotion, empathy and understanding – the logic sometimes has to be made very clear in order to cut through the emotion and expectation.
Thanks for a great essay.
Spot on, Steve.
And Jubal is one of my most favoritist curmudgeons ever. I think RAH was probably acting about as auto-biographically as he possibly could with that character. And projecting all of his adolescent fantasies onto Michael while he was at it!
We have a younger Obama on tape, saying that welfare recipients and “the working poor” are a “majority coalition.” And don’t fool yourself into thinking that by “welfare recipients” he just means the huddled masses getting their “Obama bucks” and food stamp billions and disability checks. Under Obama, Wall Street is a welfare queen, too. So is our banking system. Half our domestic auto industry is on the take, too. Obama has gutted work requirements for individual welfare recipients, and gutted the profit requirement for big business and big banking and big finance.
Oh, this is too good. Thanks. Also very depressing.
One small matter, repeal Dodd-Frank you say? OK. But I hope we also reinstate Glass-Steagall. That might be enough, then again it might not. Fannie, Freddie, and AIG all need to be shut down, for various reasons. Is Romney really the guy to do this? Are the Republicans the ones to do this? I dunno.
And then there’s the Fed. Not to go all Luap Nor on you, but what about them guys? I frankly don’t know that Romney or even Ryan has faced up to the structural problems of globalization, or for that matter that the President has the responsibility for macroeconomics anyway.
So where am I going with all this? Dunno. Just not looking for any quick turnaround from R/R even if we do manage (sic) to elect them.
“Fannie, Freddie, and AIG all need to be shut down, for various reasons. Is Romney really the guy to do this? Are the Republicans the ones to do this? I dunno.”
Well, Josh, ask yourself the following question: Are the Democrats the ones to do this? Once you wipe the tears of laughter away, you’ll realize why people are urging you to vote Republican.
And then we remind the Libertarians to quit betting everything on the President and go out and start organizing at the local level! Work within the Republican party and shift it!
Repeal of Glass-Stegall wasn’t the problem (Bear, Lehman, etc. were strictly investment banks and would have been even under GS). The (biggest) problem was the strengthening of the CRA when Graham-Leach-Bliley (which included repeal of GS) was signed.
Have you actually read “Atlas Shrugged” all the way through? Is that the book you really want to invoke?
If you haven’t made it all the way through the book, let me SPOIL it for you, as my party will SPOIL this election. The antagonists realize that the system is about to collapse. They are so desperate that they ask John Galt for help. He blows them off, and it all finally falls apart.
Republican and Democrats alike are looters. There is no need for us to waste our energy helping either of you. If you’re correct and Obama’s second term will be the straw (or log) that breaks the camel’s back, then your readers’ time will best spent gathering canned goods and other supplies. Consider libertarian voters to be on strike, just like the men of ability in “Atlas Shrugged”.
Gosh, I just love it when I write a very polite column, completely devoid of finger-pointing or rancor, and folks like you come along with the finger-wagging snark.
That aside, remember the part at the end of Atlas Shrugged, where John and Dagny and Hank and Francisco and everybody are all set to re-enter the country and save it?
Yeah, that part doesn’t happen. Which is why I’d rather avoid the rest, if at all possible.
Not only that, Stephen, but why does Robert Enders want three hundred million people to suffer through a societal breakdown? Isn’t that taking character-building a little far? Isn’t it more likely that the US will turn into Argentina?
Balkanization, warlordism, Argentine-style petite fascism — who can say? But any or all is more far likely than John & Dagny returning from Galt’s Gulch to save us.
Every election I hear about how our city, state, or country is headed for disaster if this or that candidate is elected. Other Western countries have survived much worse leaders than Obama. I think capitalism will survive Obama much in the same way that liquor survived Prohibition. The average American has as much respect for the law as the average politician has for the Constitution.
Politics is fueled by drama. I doubt that I’ll ever hear a campaign say “My policies are a modest improvement over the other candidate.” So I’m taking doomsday predictions with a grain of salt the same way I did in 2008 when McCain, Obama, Biden, and Ryan were trying to get TARP passed.
But if you truly believe that a second Obama term will lead to dictatorship and/or anarchy, then the best thing for an individual to do is to devote his time and energy to gathering supplies for his loved ones.
And this is why lowering the voting age to 18 probably wasn’t such a great idea.
Ken – “I’d prefer an Obama presidency and a strong GOP presence (majority) in the house and senate.”
We must remember we have a president who has almost neutralized our Representative Republic with his appointed czars and executive orders.
For those of you that say there isn’t much difference between Romney and Obama are not looking very hard. It is part of the ages old theme “They’re both bad it is the lesser of two evils” or “I hate politics, they’re all crooked.” The translation is “I’m better than those two.”
CHARACTER COUNTS…If you cannot see the vast difference between a serial liar and an honorable man than you are indeed blind. Who among you is a better man than Romney in accomplishment, thought or deed? Or do our egos need to be fed by having a man of poor character such as Clinton so we can think “at least I’m better than the president>
The most assailable premise of the argument is that economic collapse is coming and it will be very bad. If you don’t think economic collapse could happen or you don’t think it would result in the cessation of food shipment, of the operation of power plants, and of law enforcement, with the resulting deaths of most of us by hunger, cold, and violence during the first year, then the argument fails because we don’t need any breathing room.
So, libertarians skeptical of this argument need to examine their risk-management chops and their grasp of the economic situation in which we find ourselves. But that’s the trouble with a philosophy which places one value on a pedestal. All other considerations are trumped by it and it becomes very difficult to weigh them in. Here VP even finds himself having to argue that it is the likelihood of a post-collapse oppressive regime that should worry the libertarian and not the likelihood that he would perish along with most Americans during the first winter. That consideration would require balancing other values (for example, one’s own life, the deaths of millions of innocent children, etc.) against liberty. But libertarians are reluctant to do that, by definition.
So, how likely is economic collapse? How likely is there to be a system of food transport, power for heating, and law enforcement after the collapse? How likely are you to survive without food, heat and police? Alternatively, you could just dismiss these considerations as scare tactics and let that count as your risk management. For my own part, I tend to be more risk averse. You could read that as “more easily cowed by tyrants such as Romney” I guess. But that begs all three questions.
This.
Okay, I’ll bite.
The US government will run up another $4 trillion in deficits over the next four years, REGARDLESS of which team wins the presidency.
And you know what? There won’t be mass starvation, riots, or any of the other things I’m supposed to be scared of.
Yes, we have 20 million blue collar workers and under(over?)educated college students who can’t find work, and won’t, for a long time. Structural unemployment that will only slowly dissipate, if ever.
The truth is, as a country, we could easily sustain 8% unemployment for decades if growth got back to normal, and that’ll happen as Obamacare is phased in, despite its massive cost, because it’ll reduce uncertainty.
Neither party can undo Obamacare, but only one party want’s to start another war (Team Red, c.f. Rubin’s column today).
Seriously, the doom and gloom crowd (Zerohedge, is that you?) has been going since 2008. We’re still here, and we’ll still be here in 2016, and we’ll still be pitched the same doom and gloom story.
Do people really vote for Red Team out of fear they’ll starve? Really? When Obama is basically Bush++, and Romney is Obama-lite?
“Neither party can undo Obamacare, but only one party want’s to start another war (Team Red, c.f. Rubin’s column today).”
Really, Internet Guy? I must have missed the notice that it was President McCain who invaded Libya.
“I’m going with “bad” because I’m not sure we’ll survive another term of the worst.”
And THAT, in a nutshell, is all anyone needs to know.
I’m a Libertarian who’s going to vote for Johnson for one simple reason–I live in California. Obama’s going to win here anyway, so why not make a statement and vote for the candidate I really want. Every vote counts for the Libertarian cause.
Yes. If I lived in California (or any safe Romney state), I’d be voting for Johnson, too.
I’m probably voting for Johnson, myself, for that reason.
I have no delusions that he’ll end up in the White House, though. And unlike Ken above, I know the difference between the words “will” and “would”.
At the end of the day I think I would vote for Romney, but I will be unable to vote because I live in Oklahoma. I am currently registered as an independent, and due to state law I will be unable to vote in the two party system.
Unfortunately, this is being upheld by the majority republicans in this state.
On top of disgust I feel towards the RNC for what they did to Ron Paul, this continuing transgression on my right to vote leaves me with no other choice than to abstain.
What? Since when are Independents unable to vote in general elections?
You may not have been able to vote in the primaries for Romney, if you’re a registered Independent. Lots of states are like that. I’m a registered Dem here in the Socialist Republic of Maryland, only because I then get to have some say in the primaries. But I can’t vote for any Republican candidates at that time. But I can certainly vote for whoever is on the ballot in November.
I think you’ve got some wires crossed here….
Nothing like the disgust I felt for the hundreds of Ron Paul supporters who crashed our State Convention and tried to steal the remaining 12 Colorado delegates when their guy couldn’t even come in third in our State’s primary. This was done by Ron Paul supporters in several states. We managed to prevent them from getting the majority of our remaining delegates even though they represented only a small minority of our State’s Republican voters. Failing to hijack a political party by infiltrating the delegate selection process is not a good reason to be pissed off. Watching your own chances to become a national delegate go up in smoke because of this was a reason, I says. Now, we have to watch while you idiots continue to whine about not getting a break at the Republican national convention. Why would you get treated well by the Republicans when they know you will just run your own candidate against them anyway? Do you assume they are stupid? I wonder why you guys didn’t manage even one delegate at the Democrat Convention even though you claim the Republicans are a non-inclusive party. By the way, Ron Paul was once my representative in Congress down in Texas and I have voted for him more times than most of you have. Just not for President. You figure out why while you watch the middle east turn into a religious caliphate that wants you and me eliminated for the high crime of being infidel. ABO2012
I’ll take a Mormon over a Muslim Marxists scumbag any day.
Kinda sad that it has to come to this though.
I hope the debates finally Vet the poser POS in the WH. Hope & Change indeed. *voms*
Well, when a muslim marxist enters the race then you will be able to make this statement with confidence.
0bama is Marxist (BLT is literally Marx with god and race identity added)but I think he was as religious as Marx himself (or me for that matter) … until he came across a god tinged version in Wright’s ‘church’. Wrights anti-American race baiting Marxist rantings are what brought 0bama to Jesus.
+++++++ kazillion (I had to use a ‘kazillion’ because our debt is so deep that a ‘trillion’ just doesn’t seem ‘worthy’ any longer).
I live in New Mexico the race here is between Johnson and Obama and I will be voting for Johnson. Romney and Obama are two sides of the same coin. Thanks for trying your best to sway support away from third parties something all major countries but ours has.
But Tim, which of those other major countries got as major as we got with only two parties? Multiple parties is not a virtue, it is a plague. The winners in most multiple party elections must form political alliances with other parties in order to gain a governing majority. Once that happens, tell me what the difference still is. On nearly all issues there is two positions, affirmative or negative, yin and yang if you will. Two big tent parties will invariably choose opposite sides on any new issue in the hope of siding with more voters(unless the vast majority are on the same side of the issue, in which case, it is all good). In this political tap dance we hope to end up electing the party that represents the point of view of the most people each election cycle. That party is afforded the luxury of being the governing party. But they can’t stray very far from their adopted positions because they will soon lose too much support to make it through the next election as a governing party. In this way the majority govern but the minority always have a strong voice on the issue in question.
What I have described is how our two party system used to work before Communists took control of one of the two parties. We are now in deep poo poo because Communists do not care whether the loyal opposition can muster enough voters to thwart them. They try to rule by giving unelected officials legislative powers and by Presidential fiat. The rules of law do not matter to them. This is why we have to throw them out of our government before they use their power to eliminate our liberties, including our right to remove them from our government. The re-election of Obama will free him to rule by fiat and “completely transform” this country. And now your big concern is that other big time countries with second rate economies are better off with multiple parties? Multiple parties is not a solution to our problems. We are infested with vermin right now. We have to get rid of them before they take complete control of our lives. Liberty is what God gave us as a birthright(at least that is one of these truths we based our system of limited government on) and only unlimited government can take that away from us. I am pretty sure that Gary Johnson would be a total unknown to you except for the part where he became New Mexico’s Governor by running as a Republican. Same for Ron Paul and Congress, same for Bob Barr. I am pretty much sure no Libertarian candidate was a Democrat before he was a Libertarian so I conclude that a vote for a Libertarian is nearly always a vote that hurts the Republicans. A vote for Gary Johnson can be a vote for the death of the idea of limited government. This time we need your help and we can’t afford any more hand wringing from Libertarians about it. And I submit that neither can you and your brethren. Vote for Gary Johnson and Gary Johnson’s ego will get a short lived boost and you will feel good about yourself for about the same short period of time. Vote for Mitt Romney and you can buy the time you need to push more of your ideas into the mainstream of a party that CAN win. You might like the sound of the word Libertarian better, but Benjamin Franklin and the gang gave us a Republican form of government. Lets get that back first. ABO2012
I agree with other comments that you have made the case against Obama not the case for Romney. I didn’t need that as I am already there. I think the argument that Romney will buy time is not valid because the Republicans have already proved that they will waste the time, at best, if not outright betray us. We have got to play the long game here because the short game is lose-lose. While I think that Obama is ideologically more incompatible with liberty, I think Romney is more dangerous because he will preserve the status quo within the Republican party. The Republicans need to be transformed or a new party formed. As they are now constituted there is no real opposition to the collectivists. Therefore, I am voting for Gary Johnson and I do live in a swing state.
One thing no one has mentioned: Obama is the devil everyone already knows; Romney is an unknown. After all, this guy supported abortion rights 10-12 years ago, but changed his mind when it became politically expedient. He was for RomneyCare; then was against its son known as ObamaCare; now he doesn’t know.
Paul Ryan had some good budget ideas, but didn’t go far enough. His so-called “wonder budget” has deficits stretching as far as the eye can see. On the social issues, he’s walked in lockstep with Todd Akin from Missouri. Somehow, I don’t see libertarians wanting to see a return of a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition.
I live in the same swing state as the author of this piece. Obama won’t get my vote; Romney has done nothing to earn it either. Sorry Stephen, your article just isn’t convincing. But, Gary Johnson is on the ballot here……….
“The Republicans need to be transformed or a new party formed.”
Yeah, how ’bout giving the tea parties (for example) a little longer than one Congressional term?
The Tea Party accomplished more in 2010 than the LP has since 1970.
That makes me sad for the LP, because that’s where my heart is.
Michael Badnarik soured me on the LP. If you’re busy running around getting arrested because you think drivers’ licenses are an affront to nature, you’re not ready for prime time.
I mean, that’s a discussion that might be worth having, but not for a guy who’s running for President.
(I may not have the details entirely correct. He may have been arrested for something else. I did check him on Wikipedia as I was composing this comment, and he IS a guy who apparently doesn’t believe in DLs. My point here is not about them per se: my point is that his behavior was so silly that here it is 8 years later and I can still remember his name and spell it correctly because he was such a doofus he seared–seared–his name into my memory, and, like I said, as the face of the LP, he’s turned me on it, although to be fair to him, he was just the last straw.)
Yeah…
I have been a member of the LP. I may be again. I even tend to agree with Badnarik about drivers’ licenses, among other things (can’t remember his exact stance, though, so don’t hold me to it).
But… Per the old Marines’ wisdom: is that the hill you want to die on?
I mean, the other case for Romney, in my opinion, is that we’d have the grownups in charge, again. They might not be my favorite grownups, but they seem like they are grownups — enough that I’d rather give them a shot at it than stick with the current regime. For that matter, getting rid of Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano could be worth a lot, by itself, to a libertarian.
The “phoenix fantasy” mentioned in this (excellent) article brings to mind something that I have been feeling since the cartoon jihad, but haven’t been able to express clearly.
But let’s try once more. Forget the distinction between natural-law libertarians and utilitarians, and forget the distinction between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists.
The real distinction is between the libertarians who take history seriously, and those who look at history only to find support for their pet theories, if at all. Only the latter could take the phoenix fantasy seriously.
I saw Johnson debate a comedian playing Obama on Stossel. He couldn’t even beat the comedian. How good would he be against the real Obama?
You’ve convinced me not to vote for Romney.
All he’ll do is cut social services for the people who need it, just like Republican Gov. Corbett is doing (with a GOP majority in both houses) in Pennsylvania. Oh, and make sure his supporters get their cut of the pie they paid for.
(And if any of you still believe in Tinkerbell, let me point you to a recent GQ article quoting Betsy DeVos, who wrote in a 1997 Roll Call op-ed: “I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party. I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. we do expect some things in return.”)
In other words, this election is a mug’s game. I have the choice between having Obama burn down my house or Romney having me evicted. Some choice.
Assuming your (laughably ridiculous) analogy had any merit, at least Romney would simply evict you. In Obama’s world, you are still inside the house when it burns.
I mean, really, WTH is wrong with about half of you? Obama is a known, but Romney is an unknown? Let’s see, my choice is between a guy I know will shoot me in the head (metaphorically), or the nice man on the other side of the room, who has never threatened to shoot me? I should choose the bullet I know over the possibility of no bullet of all. Yeah, that’s the logical choice.
I have nothing but scorn and disdain for any of you who would choose to assist Obama in his destruction of this country just to make a childish point that “the meanies in the GOP don’t listen to us *sniff*”. I thought libertarians were supposed to be grown ups. Then grow up.
Stephen is right on the money with this article.
/rant
That’s great, Bill. Way to stand on principle. I salute you.
So where are we moving to after Obama’s re-elected?
I think a better Libertarian argument would be a more realistic consideration for what would actually rise from the ashes. As you say, the popular theme is that “we somehow put the pieces back together to form a more perfect union, in harmony with our founding principles”. The probably of that is about zero, barring a cataclysmic event that kills 90% of the world’s population. “Sudden Libertarianism” will only result from a meteor strike, a global pandemic, or a super volcano exploding with the resulting near extinction giving us the paradigm shift necessary to revert to first principles. The much more likely possibility, around 99.999999999%, is the rise of absolute, totalitarian thug state standing tall on the corpses of its enemies (and a lot of former allies).
The idea of America, that Rights exist outside of government and that power resides with the people, is the exception. The norm throughout history is various forms of totalitarianism. The idea that the rampaging mob would opt to be the exceptional is ludicrous.
Totalitarian states never stand tall. They just pretend to. The Soviet Union put on a good show, but they were hollow, and they fell as soon as that hollowness became obvious to their people. Totalitarians are nothing but bullies, and bullies are never as tough as their victims think they are. At some point, and it always happens, the facade starts to crack, because the facade itself costs too much to maintain forever. Oh sure, they can kill a lot of people before they fall, but they always fall, because as much as they crave power, there’s a limit to how much you can extract from people even if you threaten their lives. They can’t give what they don’t have, and the facade starts cracking the moment the totalitarians start to demand things that don’t exist.
I must be lucky because I don’t live in a “swing” State. Where I live it is already a foregone conclusion who will win, and I’m permitted to use my vote to vote my actual conscience instead of being forced into a convienient political expediency to vote for the opposition “to prevent a disaster” if the other guy wins it.
The problem I have is the “it will be a disaster” argument is always used by both Democratic and Rebulican operatives to suppress any alternate party voting. Both sides are afraid of a loss of power is they lose their more easily manipulated “two party” system where both parties operate more in cahoots behind the scenes, and only “differ” on essentially relatively unimportant non-issues made overt political hay for the press and public.
Show me either of those parties making real efforts to reform our broken campaign financing process. Show me either party turning away from special interest donations which drive their actual actions much more than any publically announced campaign planks. I don’t have to choose between Corrupt or Corrupter because I luckily live in a forgone conclusion State.
So I’ll vote my own mind doing my own research of the candidates, reviewing their past performance, and their future plans. What I have never done, and don’t plan to do this time is vote for a party. The parties are what makes our current political system corrupt. Our only chance to remove this corruption is to actually vote for individuals willing to go against the corruption of the political parties.
These individuals are few and far between, and the political parties are quick to remove and marginalize them. Just looking at how the Republican party was quick to marginalize the Ron Paul delegates at their convention is proof of this claim. Every other candidate who dropped out of the race at the behest of the party in favor of the party machine favorite is proof of the power of the party to force their choice upon the voters.
It was also so present in the Democratic party that no other potential candidate was even permitted to oppose their party choice in the primaries. It was a Obama or nothing, with no disenting voice allowed. If this trend in politics doesn’t deeply disturb anyone else, then as Stephen indicated, maybe you deserve the system you voted to perpetuate.
I couldn’t disagree more. What has always made our system of government work has been the two party system. What will not work is when one of those parties is dominated by people who believe in one totalitarian party.
Well, I ran for State Rep in Missouri, as a Libertarian in 2010, garnering a massive 260 votes. I’m a paid up, card-carrying member of the party, and I participate in ad hoc (everything in our party is ad hoc) policy discussions. You can’t out-Libertarian me; I’ve knocked on doors pushing our philosophy and put my name on the ballot.
And I will be getting up at 6am, and waiting in line to vote for Mitt Romney. If, as a Libertarian, you genuinely cannot distinguish between a far-left radical with absolute animosity toward America and what she represents, and a squishy center right administrator with no discernible ideology, then you are quite simply too stupid to insult.
And you deserve whatever you get. This pointless intellectual preening and self-admiring vanity, is partly why people think we’re all weird.
Exactly. All the way through.
From a former Libertarian, let me just say – perfect.
I realize that Foreign Policy tends to mean little-to-nothing to Big-L Isolationist Libertarians, but considering Obama’s continued desire to sell the nation out to Political Islam and the South American Drug Cartels, I fail to see how one can feel good about themselves by passive-agressively handing him the keys to keep enacting his “We Can’t Wait” rule-by-fiat for another four years.
Fine, Mitt won’t be an Isolationist. But he also won’t continue to pack the Executive Departments with Ikhwan operatives that desire to cut your head off, the way Obama has.
I voted for Ross Perot in 92. I helped elect Bill Clinton.
On September 11, 2012, Romney stepped up and put out a statement that got the First Amendment exactly right. Obama didn’t.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, It’s the free speech, stupid.
Thank you for voting for Perot. Because you did, we got:
- 6 years of small government (1994-2000)
~ 4 years of balanced budgets, or nearly balanced
- welfare reform
Your candidate does NOT have to win to affect elections – it simply has to make the two parties adjust their positions, and both did, Red Team in 1994 and Blue Team in 1996 (Perot got 10% then).
So thank you, and this is why a vote for Gary Johnson this cycle is the right move. Obama or Obama-lite is no choice at all.
No, I regret my vote. I want to “choose my opponent” and I choose Romney. He gets the “free speech” bit.
Now I’ve got Hillary Clinton jetting around the globe simultaneously promoting gay marriage and Islamic blasphemy laws.
Obama has shown that he has no regard for the rule of law and that changes the entire dynamic. The Communist Party is now in control of our government, not the Democrats. Democrats will adjust their positions to try to gain a majority consensus. Communists will do whatever it takes to hold on to power, including forging an alliance with a middle eastern religious caliphate, if that is what is required. They may even try to form an alliance with gullible Libertarians. A vote for Gary Johnson will only qualify you to be another “useful idiot” in the world of the Communists. We have to remove the Communists before we can start voting for our high minded principles again. ABO2012
Obama is a Liberal/Socialist/Statist/Big Government proponent and has been ever since he reached adulthood. His main goal is not to restore the best of America but to “fundamentally transform” the US into a full blown social welfare state like much of western Europe.
Romney is a Capitalist by profession but is neither a philosopher nor a deep thinker. Instead, he’s a pragmatist, who leaned pretty far left when he was trying to get elected and later governing in Massachusetts but now knows that he needs to position himself farther to the right to hold the more conservative national party.
Romney will not be our savior in terms of turning things around towards smaller government but he might steer the ship a bit more in the right direction. Even Reagan, who was the best we saw in 100 years, allowed government and the debt to grow on his watch.
At this point, a vote for anyone but Romney will do nothing but help reelect Obama. While I’d like to see the philosophy of a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, we have a long way to go to convince a majority of our fellow citizens – let alone convincing the entrenched politicians in Washington.
If you think helping Gary Johnson get .4% of he vote instead of .3% – do your thing. But I’d rather support a decent man with a track record of Capitalism and being able to get things done rather than a dedicated liar whose first four years have been one failed effort at another, from cutting the deficit at home to defeating our enemies abroad.
“[Obama's] main goal is not to restore the best of America but to “fundamentally transform” the US into a full blown social welfare state like much of western Europe.”
Sorry to pick on you (there are others in this thread), but this is the sort of statement that makes me despair of America. I despise Western Europe (except Switzerland): I escaped from Western Europe; but what Obama is bringing to America is much worse than Western Europe.
Exactly, the ship has already sailed and most can’t even seem to grasp where it is headed. ABO2012
“…a better America will emerge from the ashes.”
That some still fall for this “assumption” absolutely and totally boggles the mind.
And also, don’t they realize that their own loved ones live in the same village they’re willing to let burn, just to make their point… and/or have everyone “come to their senses”?
“We don’t have four more years to train the Republicans.”
No, we don’t.
In fact, most of the Tea Partiers and folks like Rand Paul really do get it – don’t split the vote, but become part of the GOP… then reform it.
And who knows… maybe save a nation in the process.
Why don’t the hardcore libertarians at least watch the debates before you make an absolute decision to throw your vote away?
“Why don’t the hardcore libertarians at least watch the debates before you make an absolute decision to throw your vote away?”
If not voting for the winner is throwing your vote away, then shouldn’t you be voting for Barak Obama? The main stream media has already decided he’s the winner. You should be reforming from within the winner’s party, not opposing their point of view from the outside.
That is the same argument the Republicans are giving to the Libertarians at the moment. Why isn’t it working for you?
Because the fat lady hasn’t sung. Any more dumb questions?
Because the debates are a sham set up to ensure that our country will continue to operate as a duopoly.
It worked as a “duopoly” for over 2oo years and it worked pretty well for us. Then one of our parties stood by and watched a bunch of conniving Communists take control of it. Now, unless we throw them out, we will all be saddled with a one party system. Nothing is wrong with a duopoly. Something is very wrong with people being forced to live out their lives at the pleasure of a totalitarian regime. Get it right, Bobby, before you miss the opportunity to do so.
Thanks for the article.
Pro-libertarians are also in public office in several countries, especially at the local level; and in elections they tend to attract independent centrists who otherwise would not vote.
For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-International.org ….
Great article Stephen. I’ll be the first to admit I’m a small l-Libertarian, hell I could probably classified as a conservatarian and while I’m not thrilled about Romney overall I sure will act like it because if Obama wins…Heaven help us all. When I was 15(28 now) and really getting into politics I was fire-breathing libertarian and I remember asking my dad “Why don’t we let the Democrats win and just ruin the country so that we could be the ones to save the day.” and he said something similar to what you wrote and added “you have no idea what ideology could take hold.” Which really changed my mind and got me to understand that it’s better to bring Libertarians into the Elephant Tent to make a case to shift the Republicans more to the founding principles or at least as close as possible.
Some people might consider voting for Romney as a lesser of two evils but would you rather vote for Obama, a guy surely to put his foot on the accelerator as fast as possible? Or Romney, someone who will head in the same general direction at a much slower pace, but could be influenced by the back seat drivers(the Tea Party/Libertarians/Sane People/Etc.)?
I know who/what I’m voting for.
Hmm, I’m not as optimistic as Stephen is that Romney/Ryan would actually avoid the coming debt collapse, so I guess in that sense I disagree that there is time left to buy. But I do think Romney/Ryan will respond to it better. Additionally, here are four more big reasons I’ve been giving out for supporting Romney:
1) Energy liberation. Obama’s war on cheap, affordable energy is out of control. Romney would approve the Keystone pipeline, stop the EPA’s insane coal regulations, and streamline the permit process to develop new energy resources. Energy is probably Romney/Ryan’s strongest area from a free market perspective, and with 4-8 years of their pro-development regulatory administration combined with the awesome power of frac-ing we would likely become a net energy exporter by 2020 which will help us recover from the collapse.
2) Repealing Obamacare. The longer we wait to repeal Obamacare, the harder it will be. And the law really is that bad. I know we all like to criticize Republicans for Medicare Part D, and that’s valid, but anything the Republicans come up with to replace Obamacare would be better than the monstrosity on its way. In particular Ryan’s plan, while indeed doing next to nothing to reduce the debt, does increase the amount of competition within the system and does set the system up for easier dismantling in the future.
3) Standing up for Western values against the Islamists. The Obama administration’s reactions to the events of the past month reinforce the unfortunate fact that he really does not consider radical Islam to be a threat. He apologizes for free speech, calls Islam a religion of peace, and takes a two-bit YouTube video producer in for questioning in the middle of the night instead of demanding justice for the deaths of Americans and calling out the violent ideology for what it is.
4) Taking away the radical egalitarian’s bully pulpit. From “you didn’t build that” to his never-ending calls for the rich to “pay their fair share,” Obama is poisoning the national conversation. He seems to resent success in a way few presidents ever have, and every time he gets in front of a microphone is another chance for him to present this message to the American public as if it’s a valid economic proposal to “solve” “income inequality” by punishing the smartest and most productive among us. I’d take a pragmatist businessman over a destroyer of values any day, even if neither has a clue about Austrian Business Cycle Theory. This is related to how I think they will respond to The Real Crash as well.
I realize I’m conceding the point that we’re going to suffer a major crisis worse than 2008 and on par with the Great Depression. There was a slight hope at one point that Ron Paul could have stopped it, but even that wouldn’t have been painless. The numbers are what they are, and the Ryan plan certainly doesn’t do squat about it. But there are real issues at stake here besides a monetary collapse, and I think it is rational to support Romney against the current President.
Mark,
Thank you for providing four coherent points why we should actually vote for Mitt Romney instead of just saying, he can’t be worse that Barack Obama. We already know that Barack Obama is the worst option, the question has always been what can and will Mitt Romney do to make things better. Not being Barack Obama isn’t enough to bring people to vote for Mitt Romney. Mitt actually clearly communicating how he will try to improve the situation in the US is critical to his success or failure at this juncture.
“Obama’s war on cheap, affordable energy……..” Living here in the intermountain West, I wasn’t aware there is a “war on cheap energy.” Much of our federal public lands has been turned over to the oil & gas industry. I don’t have a problem with energy development, but I do have a concern when it becomes the sole use of the land with millions of acres of leases sitting undeveloped.
An example: a June, 2012 study from the Western Governors Association shows that outdoor recreation is a $255 billon industry just in the West and creates 2.3 million jobs. The economic impact of the energy industry is smaller. Those who want every acre turned over for energy development ignore other values & other economic factors.
Yes, fracking has worked, and worked so well there is now a glut of natural gas in the marketplace with depressed prices (one reason for undeveloped leases and capped wells). As for “insane coal regulations,” you ignore the fact that coal is losing in the marketplace to natural gas, which is cheaper and cleaner. I hope you do believe in the free market system??
There are also the public health impacts of massive coal development and burning. So-called “clean coal” has yet to put in an appearance.
As for the Keystone XL pipeline, I support its construction, but not for the reasons you think. It won’t do anything for pump prices. If you’ve read Trans Canada’s filings as I have, you would know that the purpose of the pipeline is to allow Trans Canada to reach its European and Latin American markets.
SteveB/Colorado wrote “Those who want every acre turned over for energy development ignore other values & other economic factors.”
Steve, the weather was cool this morning. Thanks for providing me a nice fire to warm my hands with, from that strawman you set afire.
No “strawman,” just facts.
There is just one big hole in your tourism argument, assuming though I don’t that you actually believe it. Tourism dollars represent the frivolous spending of wealth, not the production of anything needed by the society, but I won’t argue that point. My point is that your assertion that federal property being used buy the oil and gas industry cannot be also used by the recreation industry. I have recreated all over the inter-mountain west and the only places I am not usually allowed to recreate in are the ever growing designated wilderness areas of that region. Why don’t you compare the acreages used by the oil and gas industry(only after paying extortionist fees to the government) with the amount of acreage that the government will not allow to be exploited by anyone with better transportation than a horse. I think your assertion that the oil and gas industry is preventing tourist recreation is specious. In fact, I might be willing to bet that more federal land is being used by the skiing industry than by the oil and gas industry and I haven’t even gotten to the question of the Constitutionality of the Federal government owning and operating more than half of the land in the inter-mountain west in the first place. None of this does says anything about your biggest misconception which is that there will be any need to expand recreational opportunities when very few of us will have any disposable income to spend on that anyway. If you want to protect your precious recreation industry, you better start thinking about the specter of government ownership of the means of production pretty damned soon, SteveB. ABO2012
Cloward-Piven is probably another manifestation of mental illness common to all radicals and something for researchers—not psychologists—to give a name to at some future time. And there might even be a cure for it by then.
Most radicals make utopian noises, but what they really want is to enjoy being radical in perpetuity. They don’t want to change the country—they want to be in perpetual opposition to it. This is their life’s gig. Many would never run for political office.
But Obama did; lying and cheating his way all the way into the WH. He’s different from other radicals in that he shares their megalomania but he’s also a narcissist. This overlay of psychological dysfunction means that it’s likely he sees his greatest accomplishment in actually carrying through with a strategy that brings the US to its knees and makes him shine like a new dime as the greatest radical of all time—brought down the US, oh wow man. Too bad that such a disreputable, unworthy person is in the WH and it might even be more of a shame that so many will pool together millions of votes for him. But I don’t think it will be enough to get the radical-in-chief reelected. Thank God.
it makes me nervous when those on “our side” (liberty, freedom, limited gov’t, etc) start advocating for someone to “fix” the situation
it is the fixing which gets us into these messes everytime
what is it we want romney “to fix?”
unfortunately, it is the supposed “capitalists” who are first to cozy up to the government if it makes it easier to secure profits and limit competition
unburdening ourselves from excessive regulations and taxes and then getting the hell out of the way is the only “fix” necessary and it is important to make this distinction every day
any other “fixes” are a sham and plod along the path to servitude
Good article. Gary Johnson cannot win, and is therefore irelevant. Romney is clearly better than obama, and if romney even meets his one promise, to get spending below 20% of gdp, that alone will be huge progress. If Mr Perfect Principles was running and had a real chance to win I would vote for him. And if Obama was somewhat better, and therefore closer to Romney, I might vote Johnson as a protest vote. But as it is, if we dont beat Obama now, I dont beleive we will have a country later, and so the next election wont matter anyway.
Other commentators also make a good point about operation conterweight. If the tea party can elect enough libertarian leaning repubs to the house and senate, and they present romney with real libertarian leaning legislation, I think the naturally cautious romney will sign it.
Steve Green, since like snowflakes, no 2 libertarians are alike, here’s all you need to make your case:
1. state’s rights
2. Paul Ryan said he supports state’s rights on medical marijuana
3. Obama ate dog!
BTW I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.
If Obama wins reelection it will lead to only one thing: the end of the age of the Enlightenment.
What comes after the Enlightenment? Darkness. Darkness, where it becomes an age of “might makes right”; rule by those with the most guns; a thugocracy.
America is the embodiment of Enlightenment values. When people talks about American Exceptionalism, this is what they’re referring to whether they grasp that or not. If America is fundamentally transformed, it can only be transformed away from its founding values, those of the Enlightenment.
I don’t wish to sound harsh, but if you don’t know what I’m talking about, do some basic research.
Weren’t you supposed to be making a case FOR Romney? All I saw was a case AGAINST Obama which is not at all convincing as I know that Romney would continue the same failed policies from the Bush/Obama administrations. If all of you people who said “I like Gary, I don’t really care for Romney either but Obama must go” just grew a backbone and voted for him, Gary would win the election in a landslide.
Johnson has my vote in 2012, nothing will change that.
Well, no.
The actual libertarian part of the US population is so vanishingly small that if all of us were to vote for Johnson, he might — might — beat Ed Clark’s 1980 record of 1% of the national vote.
That is incorrect. There are many millions of Americans who are Libertarian who either do not realize it due to lack of information/ignorance, or care more about voting party lines than voting based on the candidate’s views.
I think you are severely underestimating Johnson’s following. I guess he will take around 3%-5% of the vote.
If I believed for one second Johnson could pull that off, I’d be out ringing doorbells for him. As it is… no.
And I believe that assertion is incorrect. There are mor Honey Boo Boo voters out there who don’t even give a damn what any of these candidates believe than there will ever be people who discover in their heart of hearts that they are Libertarians. Not only do we have to vote for Mitt Romney to get the Communists out, but we have to be more concerned about getting those imbeciles to vote with us than we can be about getting the Libertarians among us to vote for him. At least I am saying that I respect your right to be a Libertarian even more than I respect Honey Boo Boo voters right to be completely ignorant. But the Communist has to be defeated before we can get back to discovering our inner philosophical preferences. Study the Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet Union or the Crusades against the Islamist Caliphate to see where Obama is trying to take us. God help us.
I voted for Ron Paul in the Primary as well. I am now beginning to regret it. If Ron Paul approves of idiocy of his supporters, I have no use for Ron Paul.
If these Libertarians really believe that it will make no difference if Romney or Obama win, I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Here are a few things to consider:
Supreme Court nominees.
Their choices to run our megabureaucracies. If Romney wins, we will be retiring more than Obama and Biden. Think about the Justice Department Homeland Security.
And let’s not forget all those Czars that will be packing their bags.
It’s not just Obama you will be helping if you vote third party, it is his entire overly-bloated administration. I do not understand how any real Libertarian could stomach the idea of keeping these power-hungry technocrats in power. Do you really not understand that in a second term they will work to expand a centralized government with unrestrained enthusiasm?
Also, I really do not believe that Romney is out to destroy small business.
Obama’s actions suggest that he is.
Stephen, please tell me that you are covering the debates.
1,500 words just to say “Obama sucks more, we hate that guy”?
Seems tragic that the libertarian case against Romney sounds exactly like GOP talking points, “REPEAL OBAMA LAWS!” without anything else. & which laws will a libertarian choose? Regulatory reforms their industries wants to get rid of?
Why isn’t NDAA on that list? The Patriot Act? Drone warfare? The Obama Kill List? His complete betrayal to his “states rights”-promise regarding medicinal marijuana?
When I first learned about libertarians, through Ron Paul before the ’08 election, I thought it sounded awesome, great principals. Yet the more I hear from libertarians, the less I feel like anything good comes from it. It’s just GOP talking points without the nice Frank Luntz-approved words, and with a little more sanity & crazy mixed in there.
“I’m going with “bad” because I’m not sure we’ll survive another term of the worst.”
Same here. And I’ll do the same walk of shame.
But I just can’t vote for the best anymore when I know they won’t win.
There is no libertarian case for Romney.
OK, all of you Romney people which of the following do you really believe he will do?
1. Undo the bailouts.
2. Provide leadership to repeal Obamneycare.
3 Strictly limit the power of the Fed.
4. End the War on Drugs.
5. Strictly limit the power of the EPA.
6. Abolish the Department of Education, the TSA, and other sundry useless or harmful agencies.
7. Actually appoint Supreme Court Justices who believe in the constitution.
8. Prosecute Eric Holder for denying civil rights to Americans.
9 Pull the US out of the UN, NATO and other international organizations who have outlived their usefulness if they ever had any to begin with.
10. Provide leadership for meaningful entitlement reform.
11. Or anything else useful you can think of.
Then tell me why I should support Romney as opposed to being against Obama.
None of those things are ever going to happen.
But I do think Romney will at least move in the right direction on #3 (no more qualitative easing), #5 (he’ll try to rein them in, but I imagine there is going to be a court battle for any new policies), and #7.
Imagine what Obama will do in his second term, when he has no fear of any repercussions (not that he has much now). $10 gasoline, food prices through the roof, higher taxes on everything, more bailouts to his cronies.
The other thing is human rights. When a Democrat is in office, anything the US does is fine and dandy. Drone strikes that kill dozens of civilians? Not a peep in the press, and the far left anti-war types still try to “arrest” Bush era officials over Iraq.
D’oh. Quantitative easing, I meant. Aka printing money.
I would like to see some evidence on your points. When Romney was Gov in MA, 70% of his judicial appointments were Dems. No data on how many of the rest were RINOs. Romney supported cap and trade in MA. Where is the counter evidence that he will do something about the EPA. Romney supported the bailouts and QE until recently. His economic adviser supports them yet.
You do have a point on human rights but that is really a negative point about the media, not a positive point on Romney.
If 85% of the legislators in your state are Democrats, elected by huge Democrat majorities in nearly every County in the state, I think it would be pretty difficult to find more than 30% of your judicial appointees who would be Republicans. But maybe my math is bad. Please enlighten me and, if you can’t, maybe you should think about statistics before you use them in your arguments. ABO2012
Healthcare, entitlement reform probably to some degree. But it sure would be helpful if we can retake the Senate.
Certainly he will pick better Supreme Court nominees than Obama would. Those who elect Romney will insist upon it, just as the leftist fringe would insist upon judges that suit their agenda.
Romney also understands that regulations are killing small businesses.
Your list points out the reality that it is nearly impossible to make real change once policies are in place. Consider how many more policies will be added to your list after a second-term Obama administration that is not concerned about re-election.
OK Paul and Johnson-Bots,
Just adding my 2 cents:
If you vote or write-in for ANYBODY OTHER THAN Romney/Ryan this year… OBAMA WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU for voting for HIM BY DEFAULT!!!!!
If you think that the country will be here to pick the pieces, or that there wont be 10 different little dictators in charge put in place by Obama after the crash and that you will start a second revolution THINK AGAIN!!!!!
With Obama controlling all media and internet, snooping around with the (UN)patriot act into all your business, you wont get 2 steps into your planning; you’ll start and then wake up one morning and JANET NAPOLITONO will be lying next to you to give you a good morning kiss and then some of her jack-booted followers will give you an m16 enema as they frog-march your tinfoil hat waring arse off to one of those F.E.M.A. camps you people are worrying about so much!
How is Romney better you might ask? when he was Governor of MI didn’t he vote for all those thing liberals wanted like romneycare and gun control?
HELL YES HE DID!!! he was a CENTER conservitive-leaner that was put in charge of running a LIBERAL STATE!!! do you realize how fast he would have been fired if he tried to rule against the will of the people?!?
WE NEED SOMEBODY WHO WILL LISTEN TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE BECAUSE OBAMA HAS PROVEN THAT HE DOESN’T!!!
TIME TO FIRE HIM!!!
Atomic,
I live in California, which is a winner-take-all state for electoral votes. California will go for Obama and so will all of it’s electoral votes. I will vote for Gary Johnson. This is not a vote for Obama. Civics 101, you’re welcome.
I live in Washington state. Washington state is going for Obama. It would go for Obama if he appeared on live television eating a baby while kneeling to a graven image of Mohammed snorting coke off a male prostitute’s belly.
So I am voting for Johnson. He can’t win, but at least he can make a better showing in the popular vote than anyone expects.
David,
This is the same point I made earlier. I live in a State where Barack Obama clearly didn’t win the first time by a fair margin. This State suddenly hasn’t decided Obama’s done a good job since that point. Mitt Romney has an assured victory in my State on the general principal of not being Barack Obama alone. So if I choose to pick another candidate it will not interfere with Mitt Romney winning my State. What it will do is help send a message to the Republican Party that they are ignoring the constitutionalist point of view. Until they make less moves to marginalize us, and more moves to actually listen to our point of view by allowing us to come to the table, I fail to see how they are significantly better than the Democrats.
A slightly less worse outcome is still a bad outcome in my book. Since I can’t interfere with Mitt Romney winning in my state with my one lone vote, I am not going to worry about making sure I join the megablock of defeat Obama at any cost. There are costs which are not worth it. At least I will be able to look anyone in the eye and say I voted for the candidate of my choice, and not the expedient candidate we are expected to accept like a bunch of sour grapes to avoid eating sour apples.
This Gary Johnson, a Libertarian, seems to get a lot of people interested because he is “neither Romney nor Obama”. But who is he? Have you people really done your homework? With an overwheming majority of the people of the United States opposed to illegal immigration, how does this guy even get the “time of day” from anybody? Can anyone explain to me what sort of a country you have left, if any, if you are for open borders and amnesty, as Johnson is, and implements it? What suckers!
RJC,
Neither George W. Bush nor Barack H. Obama has done squat about eliminating illegal immigrants from the US. John McCain also didn’t seem to think that much needed to be done either. So Gary Johnson also thinking the federal government should stop interfering with State’s rights like Barack Obama and Eric Holder have with Arizona bothers you, then yes you should vote for Mitt Romney who will also not make dealing with illegal immigrants a priority.
It is a lose/lose/lose situation with all three candidates on this issue. Why single out Gary Johnson as the worst option when he will at least allow the states decide how they prefer to handle their own problems? When the illegals figure out that California will give them a free ride, and Arizona will give them a hard time, they will choose to go where they are wanted.
I’m a libertarian and I’m voting for Romney. Here’s why: He’s the only chance we have to get rid of Obama.
Now, you can vote your principles, and live with the regret that you helped destroy this country with your vote for Johnson. Or you can cast your vote to get rid of Obama. Period.
Just vote for Romney. In the end, you’ll still be a libertarian, and you may have actually helped save your country.
There is NO Libertarian Case for Mitt Romney.
Saying Obama is 1000 times worse than Romney does not “make the case”. I won’t go into all of the MANY ways Romney fails conservatives, and not just Libertarians.
Romney went out of his way to avoid the Tea Party / 9-12 Project from the very beginning. He can’t possibly expect their support. He’s a fool if he thinks they will abandon their values, and “fall in line”, with the rest of the mindless lemmings in the Republican party. Those days are over.
If Romney loses to Obama, because of Gary Johnson, well, the Republican party only has itself to blame. Maybe four more years of Obama will wake up the Republican party, to nominate a better candidate next time.
And if Romney wins, well, we are still going to have our national debt grow by trillions more. He isn’t even going to trim down the size of government. Cut by attrition? Seriously?
“If Romney loses to Obama, because of Gary Johnson, well, the Republican party only has itself to blame.”
No, we have idiots like you to blame.
Romney has few, if any Libertarian stances. So why should a Libertarian vote for him?
If I have to explain to you why anyone who cherishes freedom should vote for whomever has the best chance of defeating the avowed communist currently President, you’re too stupid to live.
Which is both of them.
Idiot!
Poor Strategy#1 when you lose a debate: Personally insult the other person.
Okay, RKB. Explain to me exactly how Romney is no different from Obama. After you do, I promise I will insult the living hell out of you and anyone else who tries to come to your defense with their own mealy mouthed nonsense. You have to win an argument before you get to say the other guy is resorting to insults. You have made an actual argument to support your thesis before you can start talking about having won with an argument. So far, Art Chance appears to be correct with his abbreviated assessment of this discussion. ABO2012
I bet you libertarians are really happy about death panels too. After all we get rid of any defective baby, and them any female baby because we want males, then at the other end old people cost too much and don’t contribute so let’s off them. But make sure they have pain pills so they can die unlike the babies we left in closets to cry until they die.
With the way the world is going now, all we need is a libertarian who withdraws from the world and thinks like “0″ if we just be nice, no one will hurt us. Good luck females wearing the burkas, cause that’s what it’s coming down to!
What on earth are you talking about? That’s the most disconnected from reality thing I’ve read in quiet a while.
I believe if we can give kids a future and something to look forward to, just maybe we wouldn’t have to have a war on drugs.
Just maybe if families were important to keep together kids would grow up with 2 parents and help solve the poverty problem.
Just maybe if there were jobs for fathers and/or mothers the children would be taken care of.
Maybe if trade schools were touted like universities are we might have jobs for young people who are not interested in sitting behind a desk.
I can’t even get a handle on libertarians, this is a society and we have to have laws so that we can all live together. Not fed laws, not all the regs he has put on businesses.
OH HECK, WHAT’S THE USE, YOU DON’T WANT TO LISTEN TO ANYTHING ABOUT ROMNEY, YOU JUST WANT YOUR OWN TALKING POINTS.
There is a video that might help you look a little different on Romney if you will give yourself a chance and watch it.
But on the other hand, “0″ will kill this country in 4 more years, and I don’t want that for my grandchildren. As for me, I’ll probably be dead because of his death panels. But my grandchildren don’t deserve the loss of freedom.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-real-mitt-romney-beck-interviews-people-whose-lives-have-been-touched-by-the-gop-candidate/
The American Dream is dead.
The big corporations or companies you could work your entire life, earn your retirement with a fancy gold watch, and live a life of peace until death is gone. It was a fantasy and a myth perpetuated by our parents, our schools and out culture.
If first had an idea this was true when my father lost his job and his home was no longer an assest, but a liability that took everything he saved for his family.
We looked around and there was no one to help us. Sure we would not starve, or be homeless for long, but it was a reality check for me. A reality I live now. I have no power to determine my fate. I live a the pleasure of this company or that government program. What am I supposed to do as a person trained to be a cog in a machine? Like many of us are?
There is only one way out and that door is being closed by the Obama Party.
Innovation, invention and salesmnship is dead. Taxed, regulated, and put under a burden of debt. No freedom, no liberty. I am being very cynical since I have to fight so hard, struggle in poverty and maybe if I am lucky I might not have to be a cog. By luck I mean not give up when it would be so easy to be a cog in some else’s machine.
What I know for certain is Barack Obama is bad for business of any kind. Mitt Romney is good for business if not outright great.
Now vote for who ever you want, but there is really only one choice to improve the economy. If you want to improve the social fabric of America there is only working through congress and by ‘entertainment’ to the majority of Americans. Good luck.
Why should I waste my conscience and vote for Romney, since he’s not going to win anyways.
Since Obama is going to win, possibly as much as in 2008, I will hold my head high and vote for the only man who truly deserves to lead this country.
Gary Johnson.
Enjoy that vote. If Obama wins, you may not get too many more.
Nah, never mind. You must be a troll. I can’t imagine that any sentient human being believes that Romney and Obama are equivalents. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.
Lavaux,
I will return your logic with my own statement. A vote for a corrupt Republican candidate is the same as a vote for a corrupt Democratic candidate. You are still voting in favor of corruption, and you are only going to reap more corruption in government as a result. If you happen to like your corruption to be Rebpulican flavored, then I guess that is fine for you. Speaking for myself I don’t like the taste of corruption, so I’m not going to choose to vote for more of it.
It just doesn’t matter to me if Mitt Romney as a mediocre compromise candidate doesn’t win. He would not represent my interests any better that Barack Obama anyway. I do think Barack Obama is a horrible president, but that doesn’t mean I am going to sell my soul to Satan for a chance at the slightly less horrible President. I’d rather stand on my principles and hold tight to my thought that even four more years of Barack Obama can not destory the heart of what American means to its people.
I don’t buy the overinflated argument that American is irrevokably doomed if Barack Obama gets four more years in office. That is simplistic fear mongering no better than the fear mongering used by the Democrats about George Bush. I have more confidence in the American people as a whole which you are selling short with your doomspeaking.
If you really believe Mitt Romney has a plan to improve America, then yes I encourage you to help us understand that plan. Detail what he will do to make America a great place for all its citizens. I will pay attention, and I will compare what you say to what Mitt Romney says he will do, and how he will achieve it using our current system of government.
What I will not do is vote “not-Obama” because people drinking the kool-aid and voting “not-Bush” is what saddled us with Barack Obama in the first place. I will not listen to the doomsayers predicting the end of times. I will not lose my confidence that the very idea of America is vastly stronger than any one President in office for two terms.
Maybe you are fine with compromising any principle to get a “win” for your side. Personally I would rather “lose” this round than compromise my personal integrity in order to “win”. In this case I will research the candidates, and I will vote for who I think best serves the people of America going forward. It doesn’t matter if that candidate wins or loses to me. It only matters that I made the best choice I could.
I believe that if more people were concerned about voting for the best candidate to represent the people, instead of trying to pick the winner, this nation wouldn’t be facing most of the problems it is today.
Kelly, obviously you either don’t believe Obama is a Communist or you don’t believe that a Communist candidate could be a worse deal than a Republican candidate that you suspect is corrupt. I won’t argue with your right to think a corrupt Republican could be worse than a Communist, but I will say that I believe my charge that Obama is a Communist is much more supportable than your charge that Romney is a corrupt Republican. I challenge you to support your case against Romney and I will follow with my case against Obama. Then we can decide whether Stephen Green has the correct prescription for the best course of action for Libertarians at this juncture. ABO2012
I am not a Libertarian, more conservitive Republican. I have read this entire thread and I can appreciate both sides of the issue. I voted for Perot in 1980. I was younger then and thought I would make a difference. I saw him as a change to the status quo and didn’t really think about his positions on anything. I wanted to make a difference. Both political parties basically had the same ideas, but in different forms and neither posed a danger to my country or my way of life.
Today, thirty-two years later, I am scared for my country, for it’s future and the future of my family. I have never seen a government so determined to intergrate every single liberal idea into action regardless of the consequences to the population. A government that wants to regulate and control every facet of American life, to seperate us into genders, races, creeds and colors in order to create hate and distrust among us. To create a national debt so large a trillion has become a household word which most still don’t understand. To transform America into a second rate nation in the eyes of the world and have it’s citizens berated and killed by third world countries because of our beliefs in freedom.
The Whigs were once a powerful political party only to be replaced by the Republicans. Perhaps in time, the Libertarians will rise to power, but today is not the day. Many want to express themselves at the voting booth and be able to hold their heads high when they do. This is not the time. You need to pick your battles and this is one America will loose if you don’t really think about what you are doing..
I cannot “make a case” for Romney many of you want. I will say this for him though, he believes in America. He was raised in a family who believed in and served America. He believes that all Americans have a chance at sucess if they try. That is the America I want for my children and their children, politics be dammed.
Too many enemies, both foreign and domestic are trying to destroy our way of life. We need to stand together this one time, regardless of our political beliefs, for a cause greater than any individual, to defeat the threat of our way of life. We need to stand hand in hand to show, this one time, that we are united for one cause.
Once the battle is over and the smoke clears, we can once again express our different ideals and beliefs to one another in the America , I believe, closer to the one we once knew.
OK Paul and Johnson-Bots,
Just adding my 2 cents:
If you vote or write-in for ANYBODY OTHER THAN Romney/Ryan this year… OBAMA WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU for voting for HIM BY DEFAULT!!!!!
If you think that the country will be here to pick the pieces, or that there wont be 10 different little dictators in charge put in place by Obama after the crash and that you will start a second revolution THINK AGAIN!!!!!
With Obama controlling all media and internet, snooping around with the (UN)patriot act into all your business, you wont get 2 steps into your planning; you’ll start and then wake up one morning and JANET NAPOLITONO will be lying next to you to give you a good morning kiss and then some of her jack-booted followers will give you an m16 enema as they frog-march your tinfoil hat waring arse off to one of those F.E.M.A. camps you people are worrying about so much!
How is Romney better you might ask? when he was Governor of MI didn’t he vote for all those thing liberals wanted like romneycare and gun control?
HELL YES HE DID!!! he was a CENTER conservitive-leaner that was put in charge of running a LIBERAL STATE!!! do you realize how fast he would have been fired if he tried to rule against the will of the people?!?
WE NEED SOMEBODY WHO WILL LISTEN TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE BECAUSE OBAMA HAS PROVEN THAT HE DOESN’T!!!
TIME TO FIRE HIM!!!
The job of the POTUS isn’t to “listen to the will of the people” it’s to enforce the laws passed by congress: the House who are supposed to represent the will of the people, and the Senate who were originally supposed to represent the will of the states, and to serve and CnC of the armed forces.
The POTUS isn’t there to “represent” anybody or even have a legislative agenda, at least that’s how the position was designed. I think we lost the republic when Senate stopped being elected by the state legislatures. If the leftist ever succeed in eliminating the electoral college we’ll loose the whole country.
The key is that Obama has disregarded the Constitutional responsibility to enforce the law. Romney, for his part did not oppose MA running rough shod over the second amendment and just today said if elected he would not reverse Obama’s illegal amnesty for young illegals.
At the end of the day, there’s not much that I like about Romney. If Libertarians aren’t accepted to participate within the Republican party, I feel no requirement to vote for Romney. And yes, I’m in a swing state, that being Virginia.
I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. If Romney wins, I don’t care. If Obama wins, I don’t care. Either one is a loss for America.
“So is Mitt Romney the man to save us?
Well… no.
But he can buy us time.”
Exactly. And he is a turn-around artist. He understands how to manage people to create success out of failure and that is way more than Obama has ever known.
Every vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama.
“Every vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama.”
Really. EVERY vote? Even those by disgruntled Democrats & liberals, whom the polling shows he has as much (if not more) support from as he does from disgruntled Republicans & conservative-leaning voters? I know of at least one ’08 Obama voter who won’t vote for Romney but is seriously considering voting for voting for Johnson in ’12. That would be a vote FROM Obama would it not? Why this unquestioned assumption that every vote that goes to Johnson is a vote that would have otherwise gone to Johnson? The polling strongly suggests otherwise.
Typo correction from my previous post: Why this unquestioned assumption that every vote that goes to Johnson is a vote that would have otherwise gone to ROMNEY?
If you were forced to make a choice between Obama and Romney, which one would you vote for? I would have no choice but to vote for Romney. I also believe that I really only have that option this time around because I believe the difference between a Communist and not a Communist are very large differences. And, I believe Obama is a Communist. My father taught me that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, sounds like a duck, and flies with a bunch of other ducks, I can reasonably assume it is a duck. Since this is what I think I don’t have any choice but to vote for Romney because I value my freedoms too much to vote for a Communist. We can worry about how to deal with Romney if he doesn’t try to keep his promises, but we might never get another chance to deal with a Communist.
Wood,
I live in California which is a winner-take-all state for electoral votes. California will go for Obama and so will all it’s electoral votes. I will vote for Gary Johnson. This is not a vote for Obama. Civics 101, you’re welcome.
Sheesh!
Sorry to hear about your obvious predicament, Gallifet. But you should try to be more positive about California. Soon you will have a shiny new choo choo train to ride wherever the tracks will actually take you and for only 100 billion dollars. Or maybe you should look at getting another address since you don’t think even your vote counts. I have decided to see how many votes Gary Johnson gets in states where Obama wins by more than 10% vs states where the outcome is in doubt. Maybe the effect of the Johnson voters won’t be as bad as I have feared it would be. But if Johnson were to cause Obama to win, your feet will probably be held to that fire right along with your swing state comrades. ABO2012
Jim,
You are something of a political Calvinist, eh? Use your dictionary.
Guilty as charged. You obviously either don’t believe Obama and his handlers are Communists or that Communism is a pretty bad deal to try to live with, or both. But I live in a swing state. I don’t think I can waste my vote on my all or nothing principles, Mr. Pot. ABO2012
Voting Democrat and you get a big government pro-war party that wants to tax and spend.
Voting Republican and you get a big government pro-war party that thinks it can just keep on running up the dept and spending.
Good choice either way.
So which party is more likely to drag the US into another 1 trillion dollar down deposit foreign war with an additional 2 trillion dollar back end cost? yea maybe mitt is a bit more likely but I think obama has it in him too.
The point being is that the end result of voting for M is no better then voting for O. They both have it in us to ignore the elephants in the budget, Social Security, Medicare and the Department of Defense.
Does anyone think either one will try and tame these three elephants? Then why are you even suggesting voting for one of them?
Steve M.
A very well made point about wanting more of a difference between the two major party candidates. It is this very issue which has me exploring the options of every other candidate on the ballot in my State. There is no one perfect candidate for me, but these two are not far enough apart on key issues to see a difference. Their main differences are mostly the non-issues with which the parties try year after year to placate their voter bases. I can care less about where these two claim to differ in most cases on subjects like abortion or gay rights. I want to see less intrusive, less costly, less wasteful, and most importantly less of the corrupt entrenched federal government we have now.
Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama clearly makes a case for solving these issues. They both want to maximise government interference with the States and our daily lives. They both want Federal goverment dictates controling our economy instead of unshackling it and setting it free from artificial government controls. They both want to perpetuate a party controlled electorate which disenfranchises anyone who doesn’t support their entrenched party machine. They both want to project American influence around the globe in pursuit of furthering imperialist ambitions.
I’d like to see a President who actually represents the people of this nation instead of their party and the special interests lining their pockets for favors. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is that President.
Well Steve, one of them has already shown that he won’t do anything about the budget(or the lack of one). The other has not shown you his cards. You are basing your critique of Romney on what you expect he will do and your critique of Obama on what you already know he has done. You could be right in your assessment but I see a big enough difference there. ABO2012
The problem with libertarian fantasy is that it doesn’t work in the real world. It is a fantasy. It is a fantasy that is promoted to the point where those promoting it become as totalitarian about their ideals as any fanatical group of people. It is unreasonable. Sure, we all want as much freedom as possible, but when you begin to study the psychological profile of those promoting libertarian values, they are almost sociopaths about it. They will do anything, say anything, ruin anything, and destroy – just to prove that Rand was Right. Heck, there is more reality in Star Trek than Rand.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
Maybe there is still one more argument for Romney that has not been made.
According to the Cato Institute, the US reached its peak economic freedom in 2000, after 6 years of Clinton with a Republican Congress. (The end of a 30-year period of liberalization.)
Do you really believe that Romney is less libertarian than Clinton?
Honestly I think the litmus test is the stance on the War on Drugs. Note the way Obama & Romney both won’t move on the issue. America itself has moved past “just say no” and into a more complex debate on the subject, wherever you ultimately land. Neither of these guys get my vote because they just fail the basic honesty test on the War on Drugs. You think Johnson might get “one half of one percent”? I think you will be in for a surprise. Mitt Romney and the GOP should NOT have done what they did to the Ron Paul people, and Barrack Obama should NOT have pissed off the Marijuana reform crowd. This will not be the year Gary Johnson wins, but it WILL be the year the Libertarian Party stands up and gets recognized.
And as millions of boomers AGE AND DIE (as is natural and right), the Republican party will also shrink and in time all the old Religious Right nutjobs and Corporate lapdogs will be reduced to a minority, while the Democratic party will continue to balloon in the next few years when immigration reform goes through, and the Libertarians will be the party that is their primary opposition. Yes, the real way to get back to actual conservatism is to abandon the GOP entirely.
ANYBODY BUT MITT!
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!
TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!
SUPPORT THE 99% AND NOT THE 1%!
FREEDOM FOR ALL OR FOR NONE
-Truthspeaker
“Libertarians are not anarchists. Government is like grass and Libertarians are its gardeners. Without adequate cutting both government and grass grow wild and out of control.”
I will say this: if the “big L” Libertarians end up handing Obama the victory, there needs to be neither mercy nor forgiveness. They’ll have proved they’d rather see the nation damaged (and I have yet to see even one of them argue that four more years of Obama wouldn’t damage the nation) than vote for a candidate they don’t like: perfection over patriotism.
And let’s not mince words, folks: a whole lot of the Libertarian posters are saying exactly that, that they want to punish America and see it suffer because they can’t convince anybody to vote their way in the primaries.
Libertarians: the Reverend Wright Party.
DaveP,
I am an independent voter. I have never been associated with a political party since I became old enough to vote in 1985. I am not a “big L Libertarian” as you call it, though I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.
The things I think hurt this country greatly at this juncture in our history are out of control federal goverment deficit spending and a ever growing national debt which is out of control. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney have proposed anything which shows that they intend to actually correct these problems. As far as I can see looking at their platforms they both will end up hurting this nation if they get into office. Barack Obama will simply hurt it somewhat faster is all.
So in my book you are also proving you’d rather see the nation damaged (although at a slightly slower rate) than vote for a candidate who proposes fixing what I see as the greatest problem currently facing our nation. The US Debt Crisis is the elephant in the room for both the Republican and the Democratic party. Neither one knows what to do about it. Both would rather cling onto their own personal political power rather than solve this major problem for everyone in the US.
The biggest problem is the only real solution is going to hurt for every American. The people will eventually suffer through austerity measures at some point in the future. The only question is how long can the pain be put off. Mitt Romney proposes putting it off a little bit longer than Barack Obama is all I see as a difference between them.
I would rather deal with the pain now, and begin a real recovery to fiscal sanity than pretend we can go back to the good old days of ignoring the pain which is eventually comming. This is the only sensible responsible fiscal decision we can make. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both the equivalent of sticking your head down between your legs and hiding under the desk as part of a civil defense drill.
Praying for an economic miracle to somehow manifest may satisfy their followers. I would rather roll up my sleaves and get to the real work of fixing what both political parties have broken over the years. Piling on too much unnecessary federal government onto the back of the taxpayers.
Oh, no, Romney isn’t Obama lite. . . LOL:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-tax-deductions-rich/2012/10/02/id/458460
He’s already joining the class warfare. . . on Obama’s side.
I think Dr. Peikoff makes the case why the urgency is to remove Obama, and the implication is that we must vote for Romney to do it. The election is too close, it seems, to throw away a vote and increase Obama’s re-election.
Here is the link: http://www.peikoff.com/election/
This election is a boolean I/0 election. Either 0 is fired or not. Voting for anybody other than Romney is voting not to fire Obama.
Remember, evil is failing to mitigate evil.
The ones who say “voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil” are fools.
I am ok with it if you think I am a fool. I say in return that choosing evil, even the lesser evil makes you just another person who if fine with evil.
If you are fine with evil, then why even bother going with the lesser evil? If everyone who isn’t evil or didn’t want evil put their foot down and said no more evil, then neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney would win. We would finally stop having evil. The problem is people willing to go down the very slippery slope of saying, “Well, a little evil is a better condition than a little more evil. At least I’m less evil.”
That isn’t mitigating evil, that is justifying evil through half hearted measures. Welcome to the same slope to decline that every nation which has chosen evil over good has eventually gone down in the past. Sell me on the fact that Mitt Romney is actually going to do good for the United States, then I will get behind him without reservation. Just telling me he will be less evil than Barack Obama isn’t enough.
That isn’t mitigating evil, that is justifying evil through half hearted measures.
No it’s not. Voting for a candidate who is not pure to stop a candidate with dreams of tyranny is the only moral choice.
Failing to vote for a candidate who is not pure hence allowing a person with dreams of tyranny into power is surrendering to evil.
And is rather shameful.
Bill,
I live in California which is a winner-take-all state for electoral votes. California will go for Obama and so will all of California’s electoral votes. I will vote for Gary Johnson, this is not a vote for Obama. Those who maintain that a vote for anyone other than Mitt Romney is a vote for Obama only expose the extortionist nature of Romney’s campaign from the beginning.
Civics 101, you’re welcome.
You have a dispensation my child.
I’m pretty sure Green is making the case for those who live in places where the race is being contested. I think I even saw a post from him on the thread that if he lived in a no-contest state he’d vote for Johnson.
Maybe I would too even.
But, yeah, if you live in a state that might be decided by just a few thousand votes and you fail to vote for Romney you are supporting evil.
Now it is my turn. What part of the word Totalitarian do Libertarians not understand. Shut up and get to the polls in November and stop trying to sabotage your only chance for your libertarian principles in the time leading up to the election. Plenty of dumb f@#%s will actually read what you write and actually vote for a Communist because they mostly just want to know they backed the winner. Do your whining about the Communists on their websites and how THEY don’t put up a candidate that you can stomach. Unless, of course, you are whining here because you are afraid of them. In which case, you are gutless and Libertarian. At least if you go to their sites, you will convince a few idiots to vote the way you need them to, even if you don’t understand why you need them to. Sheesh. ABO2012
Jim Baker,
“Shut up and get to the polls” is not a convincing argument. I can certainly do both, but it will not be so I can be an obediant little prole and vote for the candidate you choose for me. I will go vote for the candidate I choose for myself.
If you really think your chosen candidate is the best option then make the case. Saying he’s “not-Obama” is not a valid case for what Mitt Romney represents. The idiocy of “not-Bush” is exactly what got us Barack Obama in the first place. It is lazy and ignorant voting for the “home team” regardless of who they present which gets us these lousy choices of candidates in the first place.
So saying “Shut up and sit down” is pretty much the same as saying, “We don’t want you or need you.” If you don’t want or need big L or little L libertarians, then stop making appeals to their sensibilities. If you do need them, then be prepared to listen to them and address their concerns. Make the case for how your candidate supports libertarian values in actuallity and not just in election season political desparation.
If you don’t care about libertarian concerns, then why even attempt to court their vote? In my personal book someone being “not-obama” is simply not enough.
The entire context of “Shut up and get to the polls in November and stop trying to sabotage your only chance for your libertarian principles in the time leading up to the election.” does indeed make an argument for why you should shut up and get to the polls. I am sorry if I offended you with my comment, but it is what I believe Libertarians are unwittingly doing throughout this thread. At least I saved my most offensive comment for my own opinion, rather than as a reply to your opinion, no? Try this one, which is more politely put, I hope. Please vote for the only chance we have to remove Obama and his comrades from our government. I believe it is vitally important that we all do so. ABO2012
Jim Baker,
I am not saying I was offended, I don’t count myself as a libertarian. I do count myself as an independent with fiscally conservative and socially moderate values. Mitt Romney is a Republican with socially conservative and fiscally moderate values. Barack Obama is a Democrat with Socially liberal and fiscally liberal values. Of the two Barack Obama is the worst match up for my political views.
The problem is that Mitt Romney is also not a good match for my views. The other problem is that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are not the only choices I can make when it comes time for the election. In my state (West Virginia) Barack Obama lost by a heavy margin in 2008 with a democratically dominated federal and state representative set. Barack Obama is clearly anti-coal, and coal is the number one industry in West Virginia. No matter how I vote Barack Obama will not win West Virginia this election cycle.
This gives me an opportunity to send a message to the Republican party that I am also not happy with their promotion of candidates who are not fiscally conservative. No matter how much you claim that not voting for Mitt Romney is a vote for Barack Obama, it just isn’t true for me in West Virginia. It is of potentially greater value to help Gary Johnson or another candidate to get a higher percentage of the vote to get a message across to the Republican party than it is to make Mitt Romney’s margin appear even larger in my state.
In a battle ground state where every district desparately counts you may be able to make your point. If enough people slide away from Romney in those locations, it could cost him the election. The Republican party should have considered this earlier and instead of last minute desparation they should have gone to the Tea Party, Ron Paul’s supporters, and yes, even the Kool-aid drinking libertarians and made a case for how Mitt Romney will support at least some of their core values.
Instead the Republican response has been very much sit down, go away, we don’t need you because we’ve picked the “not-Obama” winner. Now that the election is drawing close, and the Kool-aid drinking Democrats won’t budge off Barack Obama it is desparation panic, and a plea of “vote for Mitt Romney or else.”
The Republican party created this brinksmanship by pushing away fiscally conservative elements in favor of a more main stream middle appeal candidate. They have created this very bed that they don’t now want to lie down inside. Mitt Romney made some noise at the Denver Debates that he would hold to some basic conservative values like support of the constitution, and removing barriers to a successful economy. Yet he also came back with a “big government entitlements” will not be touched stance as well.
These entitlements are the very thing which is bankrupting our government. Mitt Romney’s fiscal plan has some good points, but unfortunately relies upon a remarkable growth in middle class incomes and employment levels which his administration can in no way guarantee through tax rate reductions. It relies upon too many factors outside of the federal government’s control to be a success. If the job growth and increased incomes do not happen to broaden the tax base and provide enough tax revenue, then as Barack Obama’s debate mentioned study suggests, Mitt Romney will also create a situation of deficit spending, and also unacceptablly increase the national debt.
Mitt Romney did a good job of appearing to be presidential material at the first debate. His performance has been much more convincing than desperation pleas from main stream Republicans. Yet his answers have revealed his position to the fiscal conservatives as well. It is more important to get the middle than it is to act in a fiscally responsible manner. That point alone may well cost Mitt Romney and the Republican Party the election. If so it isn’t the fault of the fiscal conservatives, but their fault for casting the fiscal conservatives aside.
And you have misread my point of view. I am not a desperate Republican. I am a pissed off American who wants to get his country back from the Communists who occupy our White House. I have don’t have the luxury of being allowed to play fast and loose with my vote, being a resident of Colorado. My mistake is believing that any fiscal conservative and social moderate would be as pissed off as I am. I see this as a political war between the forces of good and the forces of evil. Do not interpret me as being some intellectual lightweight because of my seeming belligerence toward the Obama administration. In war, we have already given up on the arguments and we are trying to destroy our enemies in a last all out effort to stop their aggression. Yes, I would vote for “Ol’ Yeller” against this Communist and no, prevaricating about the best person to fit the position makes no sense to me anymore. I do have one formulating condition that most on this site don’t seem to have, I am old enough to know what Communism is about.
In a more polite political year, you and I would be much closer on your political scales, providing that I am understanding what you actually mean by fiscal conservative and social moderate. But I see this election as a watershed event in our country’s history. I don’t plan to be on the wrong side in this and I pray that you don’t end up thinking you should have voted differently this time because it very well could be our last time. The bastard falsified the labor statistics today because his handlers will do anything to win and they think this might help drag him across the line. Do some background on his handlers before you vote. And, for some understanding of Communism I suggest you read “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers, if you haven’t already. I will do anything my conscience will allow to see Obama defeated. I just may join with you in trying to defeat the Republican incumbent next time, providing Democrats manage to take their party back and Libertarians run one of their own instead of a disgruntled Republican. ABO2012
““Shut up and get to the polls” is not a convincing argument.” Maybe he was just trying to show an example of what a Totalitarian would say in order educate us poor Kool-aide deprived libertarians.
No, I was just trying to show that no matter how much Kool-Aid you drink, you can’t change reality. I just wasn’t polite enough about it. My bad.
If you goal is to see Rand Paul run for president and win in 4 yeas, Mitt Romney being elected is going to prevent that from happening.
Face it, you can’t make a decent case for Romney no matter how hard you try.
I think Obama and Hillary can prevent that from happening for a good long time. If Romney turns out to be a corrupt President, the media will be all over helping us to know that and Rand Paul should have no trouble four years for now. I think Rand Paul has 20-24 years to become President and Libertarians will need that about that much time to lay the groundwork for him. ABO2012