This is Part 2 of my response to Terry Michael's "The Libertarian Case for Obama". You can read Part 1 here.
"Obama is the best hope for keeping government out of your bedroom and away from your body ... the senator from Illinois represents the pro-choice, pro-gay rights side of the cultural divide. And he has at least made interesting soundings about reducing America's status as the world's number one jailer, much of which is tied to ... crimes without victims."
Terry opens with a good sales tactic - using of very broad language that allows the reader to interpret it as they wish it to be when he states, "Obama is the best hope for keeping government out of your bedroom ...".
Let's face it ... this statement could mean almost anything! Seriously, who wants a paramilitary police raid on your bedroom during that rare night you and your spouse are alone without the kids?
What he's really referring to here, as he eventually says, is "pro-choice, pro-gay rights".
First and foremost, any Libertarian should fully understand rights are inalienable. Rights are not given by the state, nor by the politician. Neither Obama or McCain can give you rights. Now that that's out of the way ...
Barack Obama and John McCain are both personally opposed to gay marriage. Each candidate also believes this is an issue that should be up to the individual states, not the federal government. So let's take a look at their positions involving recent legislation to see how they might govern.
Back in 2000, the citizens of the state of California voted and approved (by a wide margin) Proposition 22, a ballot measure stating that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." In May of this year however, the California Supreme Court struck down the will of the people, and over-turned Proposition 22 in yet another decision legitimizing judges who govern by fiat.
Whether you agree or disagree with the ruling, as a Libertarian, I'd think you'd be more concerned with the fact that a handful of judges arbitrarily gave themselves the authority to oppose a decision made by the electorate. In this case, the court's decision equates to a series of "bunker-busters" being dropped on the idea of limited-government in the middle of the night after it had celebrated the signing of a peace treaty.
Even though marriage shouldn't be a matter of government in the first place, both candidates are correct that gay marriage should thus be left for the individual states to decide. This ruling by the California Supreme Court however, gives a deeper look into their philosophical view regarding the role of the federal government.
In response to the ruling, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying, "[Obama] respects the decision of the California Supreme Court ..." The McCain campaign responded with, "McCain supports the right of the people of California ... [He] doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."
McCain's VP nominee may also oppose gay marriage, but as Governor of Alaska, she vetoed legislation that would ban same-sex couples from receiving benefits, deeming it unconstitutional after reviewing the Alaska Constitution.
Also, in direct opposition to his rhetoric about abortion being a state matter, Barack Obama has promised to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act," a bill that would eliminate all state laws concerning abortion. A slippery slope indeed.
I think the reality of the differences between the two candidates are clear. Barack Obama favors the power of activist judges to decide law regardless of the will of the people, and the federal governments ability to run roughshod over the individual states. In contrast, John McCain supports decisions made by the people, while his VP candidate adheres to the rule of law, as evidenced by her making a constitutional decision.
McCain also (correctly) voted against amending the Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Not because of his personal beliefs, but because of his correct understanding of our republican form of government.
The abortion issue is a whole topic of its own, so I'll leave that to it's own post at another time.
"The hidden hand did well this month punishing stupidity. But libertarians committed to free markets, not corporate oligarchs, must pause to consider the need for field-leveling regulation ... my modest retirement fund may be safer with Democratic regulators in charge than rogue elephants."
I'm sure Terry meant to say "the invisible hand", but I won't hold that against him. First of all, we all know what "field-leveling regulation" means ... MORE expensive, Rube Goldberg regulatory bureaucracies, that will not only fail at their stated mission, but exacerbate the problems down the road. What's worse, is that not only will these regulatory schemes never go away, but they will grow both in size and scope, giving themselves more power over our individual lives.
McCain is really no better when it comes to Rube Goldberg regulatory schemes, but what about Terry's "modest retirement fund"?
John McCain has long been a supporter of adding "private accounts", which would take a portion of your payroll tax and put it in an account giving you control over the investments. While not perfect, this accomplishes three very important things. 1) Congress can no longer spend the money allocated to your "private account", thus providing a real asset for you in retirement. 2) While social security would still remain a compulsory program, it does give you some control back over your hard-earned money. And 3) Real assets produce real returns over the long-run. Even if you choose short-term treasuries or a safe money market fund, you'll be further ahead than if you simply relied on the promises of the politicians in Congress.
Barack Obama simply wants to raise taxes - a politicians favorite pastime. Funny though ... throughout history, raising taxes has never eliminated government debt, its only spurred increased spending, which of course means ... higher taxes again down the road. Social security is a bad train wreck waiting to happen ... raising your taxes will only make your retirement that much more difficult.
"R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, we need to restore America's reputation around the world. Anybody who's traveled beyond the Atlantic and Pacific in the past eight years knows America needs a makeover. Whatever you think of Barack Obama-unless, like the mindless U!S!A! crowd, you don't care what the world thinks-he will restore much of the goodwill we have lost when he raises his hand on January 20, 2009. That's significant for libertarians who believe in the importance of the nation most committed to free markets ..."
Uh? "Mindless U!S!A! crowd"?
Born out of revolution, the United States of America is built on the foundation of inalienable rights and government by consent of the governed. For whatever sins we've made along the way, America is still the beacon of hope ... that "shining city upon a hill".
Americans are more individualistic, self-reliant, anti-state, pro-immigration and charitable than the citizens of any other country. People around the globe (mostly in Europe) struggle with the fact that antagonism between capital and labor are relatively low in America, and that a socialist movement has never taken hold. Our egalitarian culture and anti-state creed has made America a unique exception in all of history.
Our national identity, as stated in our Declaration and Bill of Rights, is indeed a source of pride! It ought to command love and admiration, and never be swept under the rug for the "approval" of statists anywhere.
"Finally, Barack Obama is smart enough to follow the aspirations of the Gen Y, Millenials, and Echo Boomers next up on the American political stage. They want choices in both their bank accounts and their bedrooms. I don't have much empirical evidence for that, though the college students I teach suggest that such libertarian leanings are on the rise."
So let me get this straight. Because younger generations appear to be more Libertarian (without much empirical evidence as well, I agree with his assessment), we should believe the class-antagonist Obama will throw out his entire statist platform?
To quote Mike Myers' famous character Wayne Campbell:
"It might happen, tsshyeah, right, and monkeys might fly out of my butt."
In summary, Barack Obama IS the best case for Libertarians to vote for John McCain. While there's no illusion of McCain being perfect, Obama is in fact, the antithesis of Libertarian.
