updated: 09/26/08 @ 2:42pm
Reason Magazine is an excellent source for current political and economic commentary from the Libertarian perspective. In my opinion, they do a great job of standing up for the libertarian principles our country was founded on, while being realistic about the politics of taking our country back. A must read for people of all political stripes.
Making a Libertarian case against both Barack Obama and John McCain would be easy - even for a 5th grader, so on September 18 & 19 of this year, Reason Magazine published two articles making the Libertarian case for both McCain and Obama. In writing the Libertarian case for McCain, each reason in favor of McCain/Palin was balanced with a caveat. The Libertarian case in favor of the Obama/Biden ticket however, included only "upsides".
Is Reason Magazine falling into the anti-Republican trap of the mainstream media?
Matt Welch wrote the case for McCain. Matt is an associate editor of Reason Magazine, and the author of "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick". The case for Obama was written by Terry Michael, former press secretary for the Democratic National Convention. Terry admits to being a partisan Democrat, but I give him credit ... he seems to be the yin to my yang. Like I said, I consider myself Libertarian with Conservative sympathies. While Terry may identify with Libertarianism, he still ardently supports the Democrats. I also identify with Libertarianism, but I certainly can be a partisan Republican.
While I do not have any hallucinations of either ticket offering much respect to the Libertarian philosophies of our Founders, I'd like to achieve some balance in this argument for Libertarian votes. In the following, I'll respond to Terry's case for Obama, and hopefully make the case for McCain as the best "lesser evil" for Libertarians to consider in the process.
"Sen. Obama has met at least one war he doesn't love. His early pronouncements against the criminal enterprise in Iraq are enough reason, in themselves, to vote his way ..."
I certainly appreciate arguments against Pax Americana. I don't see an argument that is Constitutionally-based, or rooted in natural rights that justifies such an expensive (both in blood and money) foreign welfare program, which is what American wars have become since the advent of the Marshall Plan. This however, shouldn't be taken as my support of arbitrary passivity either.
By nature of being human, we have the inalienable right to self defense. We extend this right to the government for the same purpose. Rooted in this natural right also, is the right to use our military in defense of ourselves, and therefore our nation. In the case of going to war to defend our way of life, the proper mission would be to root out and destroy our enemies. Once destroyed, we walk away. Decisive defensive action certainly doesn't involve "rebuilding" what has been destroyed. Did we give Jeffrey Dahmer a bag of money and a new house after he was captured?
Of course, this comment by Terry Michael is really about the current war in Iraq. He's not addressing the larger picture of current foreign policy, just this current "hot button".
The vitriolic hyperbole of calling the war "the criminal enterprise in Iraq" accomplishes nothing. First of all, psychologically, it puts a large percentage of "the people" into the position of defending the war, instead of developing a position open to reasonable debate. Hyperbole is never reasonable.
Second, the statement is factually incorrect. Whether you agree or disagree with the war, Congress DID authorize it. And if you're trying to hang your hat on the lack of "authorization" via the United Nations, you're hanging your hat on a mirage - the United Nations is an illegitimate governing body. "The people" have not authorized to UN to do a single thing ... rendering any UN "authorization" as completely meaningless.
Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government too, was an illegitimate regime. I find it absurd to claim his tyrannical rule to hold the same sovereignty that nature has provided the individual.
All that said ... arguing about whether we should have attacked Iraq is an important philosophical undertaking, but in terms of electing our next president, it's useless. It happened 5 years ago, we're there, and we can't change the past. So the task at hand is what to do now, not what should we have done yesteryear.
Barack Obama may have given an inspiring speech back in 2002 against the war, and he may even claim that his position never changed. It's a nice story to make you feel warm and fuzzy but it's not a story based in fact.
In 2004 for example, the day after the Democrat National Convention, Barack Obama told the Chicago Tribune that "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." He's also talked of (and been ridiculed for) a unilateral attack on Pakistan, and "surgical" strikes on Iran. The best I can tell in regards to Barack Obama and war, is that he knows nothing of what he talks about, and will simply follow the lead of Democrats like Kerry and Pelosi.
An interesting note to add to this observation, is that Rep. Ron Paul said "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote ..." It appears Pelosi is opening the door for an attack on Iran by executive order!
What about "empire building"?
Barack Obama is pushing a bill known as the "Global Poverty Act". This is a program designed to send American taxpayer dollars as "aid" to illegitimate, tyrannical governments all across the globe. This bill will increase foreign "nation building" to the tune of 0.7% of total U.S. GDP! Of course, the allocation of this money will be dictated by the corrupt UN, famous for their oil for food scandal that soaked American citizens for billions.
This bill also aims to put American laws such as gun and parental rights, subservient to the UN, as well as forcing the United States into extreme and economically detrimental pacts including the Kyoto Protocol.
Even if you're totally against ALL war ... I can appreciate your position, but our country will still be at war when our next president gets sworn in next January. You certainly can't wish upon a star to make it go away, and sticking your head in the sand in the name of ideology is no different than what the "war-mongers" you despise are doing right now.
John McCain has unquestionable military experience. He won't hem and haw until he get his cues from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. McCain also has first-hand experience of the horrors of war. McCain may certainly be a hawk, but his decisions will be weighed through the prism of his personal wartime experience. You can see this as true through his position against water-boarding, and he has also shown considerable support for negotiations and sanctions to deter a nuclear Iran vs. "surgical" attacks.
That may not give the Libertarian much to stand on but consider this - McCain was the key supporter of UN ambassador John Bolton, a definitive anti-UN crusader. Among other things, Bolton is famously known for stating that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." McCain also supports creating a "League of Democracies", a competitor to the United Nations. This new alliance, which would exclude tyrannical regimes, could effectively put the United Nations out of business! Considering they soak American taxpayers for more than 25% of their budget, and support creating a world government, this is considerably a better option for protecting American sovereignty vs. Obama's desire to feed them more money and authority.
"The election of an African-American will end liberal racism as we know it. If an overwhelmingly white nation chooses a black leader, the Jesse Jacksons and other Mau Mauers for identity-based group preferences will be put out of business ..."
That has to be a joke!
The Democrats and half the mainstream media are already attempting to claim that if he loses, it will be because of racism. I guess they believe voters can't possibly disagree with is socialist views.
Obama's campaign has also been running Spanish-language ads aiming to incite racism. And do I even need to get into Michelle Obama's black "separatism", or the boldly racist Trinity United Church were Barack was a member for more than 20 years until it became too politically inconvenient. If anything, electing Obama will incite racism anew, instead of putting it in the past where it belongs. All types of racism are destructive.
"One word: Osmosis. You couldn't live in Hyde Park or teach at the University of Chicago with the intellectual curiosity of a Barack Obama without gaining at least some understanding of libertarian economics ... I believe Obama is educable on free markets ..."
Barack Obama considers Frank Marshall Davis his childhood mentor and father figure, and admits to attending "socialist conferences" with Frank, who was a member of the Communist Party USA, a group subservient to the Soviet Union. Barack didn't magically learn laissez-faire via "osmosis", he was too busy both being trained, and training others in Marxist Saul Alinsky's method of political agitation. There is nothing remotely free-market about Barack Obama!
Contrary to dreaming of Obama having an epiphany, John McCain has been a consistent advocate of free trade. Matt Welch even gives John McCain kudos for his support of free trade. Matt also points out that "having a principled free-trader in the White House is one of the last best hopes that the single easiest anti-poverty program ever invented can continue and expand."
To be continued ...
[...] This is Part 2 in my response to Terry Michael’s “The Libertarian Case for Obama“. You can read Part 1 here. [...]