WHY NO SELF-RESPECTING LIBERTARIAN SHOULD VOTE FOR BARACK
As Published On
→The Human Conspiracy Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog3 →The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.comAll contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost always routinely given.]
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
SATURDAY
Why No Self-respecting Libertarian Should Vote For Obama
Why No Self-respecting Libertarian Should Vote For Obama
A Personal Note:
The last presidential Libertarian candidate I voted for was Ed Clark in 1980; he was a very appealing nominee who was at least nominally qualified for the job of POTUS.
But – while I’ve been periodically attracted to major features of libertarian theory – I’ve never been a “pure” libertarian.
I recall Albert Einstein’s explanation for his socialist inclinations. Socialism, for him, was the only political theory based on an ethical principle. The same can now be said of libertarianism, the favorite of the new Einsteins who work in the information technology & science sector.
The founding ethical principle of libertarianism is human dignity defined by an ethos of universal respect for individual volitional integrity. But even Ayn Rand, a libertarian folk hero, strongly disliked libertarians because, in practice, they tended towards a morally ungrounded libertine world view. [One did not mock heroes in front of Ayn Rand!]
But all these competing doctrines are but fragments of wise policy. They and their ideological variations founder on the two rocks called prudential policy and common sense.
Without a strong government, strong predators always gobble up our liberties. Without checks and balances, any good government does the same.
So my real world politics remain rooted …in the real world.
BUT, MY LIBERTARIAN FRIENDS, THIS IS FOR YOU….Michael Barone (Senior writer for U.S. News) writes about the Obama campaign's use of litigation to shut down free speech. This is a chilling pattern and one that presages OB's approach to dissent. [“The Coming Thugocracy” Link: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUwZWIwZTNhY2Y0YTFkYzFmZTIyZWUwZWNkYjk4ZGM= .
Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg’s WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago — papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.
Obama fans jammed WGN’s phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg’s example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were “false.” I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals.
Many observers detect the psychological profile of “megalomania lite” in Obama’s pattern of over-the-top self aggrandizement. Frankly, it's too painfully obvious to miss and carries unpleasant echoes of Nixon's similar quirks. See Jack Kelly’s piece on Obama’s narcissism at this link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/obamas_narcissism.html . And compare Senator Obama’s faux presidential seal, the Greek columns & all the rest with Richard Nixon’s “special” White house guard uniforms. See Time’s piece from that era at this link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876538,00.html .
The coming ‘one party rules all” convergence in 2009 makes the “fairness doctrine” threat to radio free speech too close for comfort. Again from the above referenced Barone piece.
Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the “fairness doctrine” on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can’t abide having citizens hear contrary views.
To their credit, some liberal old-timers — like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey — voted against the “fairness doctrine,” in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the “fairness doctrine” to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.
Obama’s anti-deregulation rhetoric discloses a profound misunderstanding of free market capitalism and his tax policy betrays full-on ignorance of the dynamics of the wellsprings of free market innovation. This is requires an extended discussion, mostly omitted, but my libertarian friends will understand. The de-regulated airlines and our less-than-properly regulated mega financial institutions are not pure free market systems at all, but quasi-monopolies for which regulations are designed to reign in monopolistic abuses but often have the opposite consequence. Democrats strongly resisted greater regulation of the sub-prime lending institutions because their social agenda – lending to the poor in below market deals – would have been derailed. The quasi free market world of Obama and friends involves socialization of failure and the political exploitation of success. [Just follow the sub-prime money flow to politicians, including the junior Senator form Illinois.]
Obama’s “national service” rhetoric coupled with his infatuation with the morally based use of military power – so far decoupled from national security constraints - cuts uncomfortably close to the compulsory version of these things. This is the current liberal fad. See Jonah Goldberg’s new book. “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”.A protest vote for the libertarian candidate is a de facto vote for Obama.
JBG
