Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Libertarian Case for McCain
Seven potential upsides to a maverick presidency
Lord knows, there is a libertarian case to be made against John McCain. Whether it's his hyper-interventionist foreign policy, disregard for constitutional liberties and individualism, or his up-front opposition to "the 'leave us alone' libertarian philosophy that dominated Republican debates in the 1990s," the 2008 Republican nominee has drawn fire from many free-marketeers through (as the Club for Growth has put it), his "philosophical ambivalence, if not hostility, about limited government and personal freedom."
But it would be inaccurate at best to claim that a McCain presidency offers zero potential upside for libertarians. After two years of studying the Arizona senator's habits (and coming to mostly critical conclusions), I can identify seven plausible reasons why a limited-government type might consider voting for the guy, even if I for one won't. Each reason, as you'll see, has as least one serious caveat.
The list:
1) He's a principled free trader, in a year that Democrats and Barack Obama are principled "fair" traders.
If you pore over John McCain's five books (each co-written by longtime aide and alter ego Mark Salter) you will see very little in the way of political philosophy and even less having to do with economic ideas. A notable and timely exception to that is free trade, where McCain for decades has been anti-protectionist and pro just about every trade agreement imaginable. Considering that Democrats have all but killed off their 1990s support for trade agreements, and are being rewarded by increased majorities in Congress, 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.
Caveat: He's also one of the biggest Washington enthusiasts for economic sanctions, which is the opposite of "free trade."
2) Divided government!
As George Will put it in his Washington Post column today, "Divided government compels compromises that curb each party's excesses, especially both parties' proclivities for excessive spending when unconstrained by an institution controlled by the other party. William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, notes that in the past 50 years, 'government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government.'"
Caveat: McCain, who has a long history of cross-party dealmaking, would surely cooperate with the Democratic majority on any number of potentially questionable measures. Including but not remotely limited to overreactive Wall Street regulation, expensive and ineffective climate change schema, and overly bureaucratic immigration reform.
3) He would veto the crap out of spending bills, particularly those laden with pork.
From a purely theatrical point of view, the specter of McCain using the bully pulpit to shame porkariffic legislators ranks as one of the single greatest prospects of a GOP victory. He has a long and honorable record of at least rhetorically going after unnecessary earmarks, avoiding them in Arizona, and rooting out contractor abuse in defense spending. And he's arguably the Senate's biggest booster of a line item veto, which if nothing else indicates a willingness to use a pen that George W. Bush let gather cobwebs.
Caveat: Pork only amounts to so much of the federal budget. If McCain is successful in increasing U.S. troop levels by 150,000, and boosting defense spending to 4 percent of GDP, he could remove every last slice of pork in the federal budget and still come out deep in the red. And given the way that McCain is now demagoguing any vote against "emergency" supplemental war spending as a Vote Against Our Troops, you can bet that the ahistorical and wildly irresponsible funding of our trillion-dollar wars will continue unabated.
4) He's against torture, and wants to close down Guantanamo Bay.
McCain rightly believes that having Washington condone torture reduces America's moral high ground, puts U.S. troops at risk, and produces reams of useless and inaccurate information. He understands that such a policy greatly reduces the country's already-diminishing stock of "soft power," for no appreciable benefit.
Caveat: As a legislator, most of McCain's handful of "reforms" that became law ended up enabling as much as reforming the stated practice. So it was with torture, where McCain's reform legislation ended up jeopardizing habeas corpus, an eight-century-old legal concept he's gone on to officially condemn.
kinnath|9.18.08 @ 4:10PM|#
The only upside that I see is having an ornery, old-coot Republican in the white house when the Dems control both the house and senate. I don't want to see what Obama will do with a unified government.
Carl|9.18.08 @ 4:12PM|#
A McCain Presidency helps sell copies of "Myth of a Maverick," and what could be more libertarian than capitalism?
|9.18.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Thanks, Matt, and I appreciate each of the caveats as well. While I look forward to a counterpoint on Obama, I'm feeling not unclean about pulling the lever for McCain. I want to vote for Barr, but here in Ohio my vote actually has a chance to matter, and I can't waste it on the change that Obama wins.
|9.18.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Regarding point 2, I see McCain as a principled believer in
managed trade agreements, not free trade. Remember, free trade
means no government interference with imports, no government
interference with exports; not a document that runs into the
thousands of pages.
Regarding point 6, this is an argument that would interest the open
borders (or no borders) lobby, some of which are also libertarians.
Point 6 would also horrify other libertarians. Reason has a very
nasty habit of essentially lying about this, and pretending that
every libertarian by definition is in favor of unrestricted
immigration, which simply isn't so.
The Extispicator|9.18.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Good article. Given that both want to spend us into oblivion and would both favor (if the technology were ready) legislation to implant chips into everyone's brain so DHS could monitor our every thought, we libertarians need to focus on the few positives that could come out of the 08 Nightmare election.
|9.18.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Wow, John-David thinks Ohio may be decided by his one vote? What are the odds? (Unless his dad happens to own Diebold or something.)
Brandybuck|9.18.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Gridlock! I want a return of Gridlock! Obama allied with a Pelosi-led Democrat congress scares the shit out of me. McCain scares me too, but not quite as much.
♪|9.18.08 @ 4:25PM|#
1) He's a principled free trader, in a year that Democrats and Barack Obama are principled "fair" traders.
Caveat: He's also one of the biggest Washington enthusiasts for economic sanctions, which is the opposite of "free trade."
WTPF?
That made me laugh.
3) He would veto the crap out of spending bills, particularly those laden with pork.
File that under, "I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it."
|9.18.08 @ 4:27PM|#
For those who want gridlock, realize that Congress' approval
rating is so low that Hermes Conrad couldn't limbo underneath it.
It might end up flipping over to the Republicans and then you'd
want Obama as president, because McCain would then be free to
war-war rather than jaw-jaw.
Just a thought.
|9.18.08 @ 4:28PM|#
A good honest article. I'm looking forward to the Libertarian Case for Obama. It should be equally difficult.
Gene Berkman|9.18.08 @ 4:29PM|#
The Libertarian Case for McCain is that he is not Obama.
The Libertarian case for Obama is that he is not McCain.
The Libertarian case for Bob Barr is that he is not Obama or
McCain.
The Libertarian case for Chuck Baldwin is that he is not Obama,
McCain or Bob Barr.
The Libertarian case for Ralph Nader is that he is not Obama,
McCain, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin.
I guess I don't have to state the Libertarian case for Cynthia
McKinney...
St. V|9.18.08 @ 4:36PM|#
The man voted for the Patriot Act and the FISA bill. There is no
libertarian case for him. The same can be said of Obama.
Well, the whole "at least we won't have a monoithic government" may
be appealing... but still... McCain? EW!
Fluffy|9.18.08 @ 4:38PM|#
OK, I suppose this is a fair article, but I have to tell you
that I hate one part:
4) He's against torture, and wants to close down Guantanamo Bay.
McCain rightly believes that having Washington condone torture reduces America's moral high ground, puts U.S. troops at risk, and produces reams of useless and inaccurate information. He understands that such a policy greatly reduces the country's already-diminishing stock of "soft power," for no appreciable benefit.
Caveat: As a legislator, most of McCain's handful of "reforms" that became law ended up enabling as much as reforming the stated practice. So it was with torture, where McCain's reform legislation ended up jeopardizing habeas corpus, an eight-century-old legal concept he's gone on to officially condemn.
Matt, dude, you can't use caveats like this. I hate this Andrew
Sullivan type crap.
You simply cannot say John McCain is against torture after his role
in the passage of the Military Commissions Act. Sorry. The third
paragraph is not a caveat, it's a total rebuttal of the premise of
the first two paragraphs. John McCain is pro-torture and
pro-torturer. Repeat it, learn it.
|9.18.08 @ 4:41PM|#
St V....Obama didn't vote for the Patriot Act.
Of course that is only because he wasn't in the Senate at the
time.
|9.18.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Caveat: George W. Bush believed the same thing, had a
Republican Congress for more than half his presidency, and couldn't
do squat about it.
You are cutting him WAY too much slack. Remember Bush saddled us
with, a brand new, four hundred bazillion dollar, economy
destroying, prescription drug entitilement. And that was before
9/11. This is just one of the many ways that GWB is lying piece of
fucking shit.
|9.18.08 @ 4:44PM|#
If there is a libertarian case for McCain it is one that it is
in the negative. McCain and his supporters don't
1. hack into the private emails of opponents and gleefully publish
the contents
2. send mobs of cyber brown shirts out to shout down legit critics
of McCaim. Imagine if McCain supporters bombarded a radio station
with complaints if it allowed Matt Welch to speak.
3. A McCain presidency would have to answer to the mainstream media
as opposed to an Obama Presidency that wouldn't. At this point is
there anything short of locking people up in camps that obama could
do that the likes of the big three networks and NYT wouldn't defend
him? Obama wants to bring back the fairness doctrine and his
supporters clearly have no regard for anyone's free speech but
their own. He has told them to "go out and get in people's faces".
Between the fairness doctrine to go after talk radio and the
finance laws to go after bloggers and with total media support and
cover, Obama could do real damage to freedom of speech in this
country.
Kolohe|9.18.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Matt Welch Makes the Libertarian Case for McCain
Wow, had the check this
to be sure.
|9.18.08 @ 4:48PM|#
creech,
In Ohio, anything is possible ;) Actually, as close as Ohio was in
2004, and as close as the RCP polls are for Ohio, I'm not taking
any chances. Here, a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama (and trust
me, I hate that cliche as much as anyone else).
Hogan|9.18.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Good article. I understand and agree with the complaints about McCain but will happily vote for him in the face of the alternative - a leftist lightweight of questionable ethics with an adulatory media base, a fanatical cult following, a Messiah complex, majorities in the House and Senate, a quasi-socialist agenda, no experience of governance or accomplishment, poor judgment about foreign affairs and a FUNNY NAME!
|9.18.08 @ 4:58PM|#
The anarcho-capitalist case for Obama is that there's a slightly
greater chance his presidency will hasten the collapse of the US
government (in its present monolithic and leviathanic form). McCain
will also bring us further down that path, but gridlock might slow
it a bit, and his warmongering might make the future slightly more
radioactive than we'd prefer. I'm not sure if there's enough
distinction there to justify going to the polling place and
standing in line, but we all do things that aren't rational, it's
what makes us human.
Rock the Vote!
Fluffy|9.18.08 @ 5:04PM|#
3. A McCain presidency would have to answer to the
mainstream media as opposed to an Obama Presidency that
wouldn't.
John, do you ever stop smoking crack? Even for like, two minutes a
day?
Let's examine the difference between the press treatment of Bill
Clinton and of George Bush.
How many years was Whitewater a story? How doggedly did the press
stay with the Monica Lewinsky story?
Now compare that to the press' completely lackadaisacal attitude
about W scandals.
When was the last time you saw an evening newscast talk about the
mountain of subpoenas executive branch figures are ignoring? When
was the last time you saw an evening newscast talk about the fact
that the general in charge of the Abu Ghraib investigation now
claims it was a whitewash? When was the last time you saw an
evening newcast talk about the Downing Street Memo? When was the
last time you saw an evening newscast devote any time to the
Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign involving military analysts?
When was the last time you saw an evening newscast devote any time
to the deaths at military prisons in Afghanistan?
W's scandals get covered for three days and then dropped. Clinton's
scandals were exhaustively covered for YEARS AT A TIME, and never
dropped, not even for a second, ever.
John McCain could rape and murder girl scouts in the White House
every night for 8 years and no one in the media would give a
shit.
|9.18.08 @ 5:08PM|#
1. hack into the private emails of opponents and gleefully
publish the contents
instead it will be McCains DOJ hacking into you private accounts
and spying emails and listening to your phone calls. To keep us all
safe of course.
And really how pathetic an attempt is this to tar the Obama
campaign because someone unrelated to the campaign did this. Sad
really.
send mobs of cyber brown shirts out to shout down legit critics
of McCaim. Imagine if McCain supporters bombarded a radio station
with complaints if it allowed Matt Welch to speak.
As opposed to McCain who actually has his secret service detail
order local police to block access to protesters and trample on
your 1st amendment rights to assemble and protest your
government.
And really, "cyber brown shirts" ? Do you refer to the Dobsons and
the Perkinses of the right wing nut jobs who petition the FCC to
protest and demand action on things they didn't even watch???
A McCain presidency would have to answer to the mainstream
media as opposed to an Obama Presidency that wouldn't.
Are you fucking kidding? The same McCain who gets labeled a
"maverick" and straight talker whenever he is mentioned in the
media?
The same press that only recently has been admitting that they were
McCain fan boys (see Richard Cohen and Joe Klein) and have been
giving him a free pass cuz they have a crush on him and only
because after they fact-check his bullshit and he still repeats it
over and over do they finally step up and call McCain out (but only
just a little) ? Is that the press he is gonna answer to?
What a warped world view the wingnuts have.
It's like those people who go around spouting off about how
minorities and people have been routinely discriminated against are
running this country and wield the most power. So sad.
Fluffy|9.18.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Between the fairness doctrine to go after talk radio and the
finance laws to go after bloggers and with total media support and
cover, Obama could do real damage to freedom of speech in this
country.
This also made me laugh a little.
John McCain, friend of free speech.
Give me a fucking break.
|9.18.08 @ 5:09PM|#
John McCain could rape and murder girl scouts in the White
House every night for 8 years and no one in the media would give a
shit.
They'd just say that it's understandable since he was a POW for so
many years.
BDB|9.18.08 @ 5:09PM|#
TheMedia* is the Diebold machine of the right.
*TheMedia is not the actual media. TheMedia is the uber-powerful
conspiracy in conservative's heads that they blame for every single
election loss.
SIV|9.18.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Can we expect the pro-Obama piece from Weigel later
today?
Sure, if today is like any other day here.
BDB|9.18.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Doesn't the "fairness doctrine" apply soley to broadcast TV? How
many people here still get their news from the three networks?
Seriously?
If they go after talk radio hosts, they'll move over to satellite
radio real fast.
|9.18.08 @ 5:12PM|#
I have to give Matt credit here. Being able to understand and
articulate the good things about some one you oppose in an
analytical fashion is a hallmark of intellectual maturity, and
something that's extremely lacking in our childish sound-bite
politics.
Having said that, McCain is the personification of burning the
bridge between libertarians and conservatives. The Goldwater-Reagan
strain of libertarian conservatism is dead within the GOP, and
libertarians have nothing to benefit from continuing to try to ally
themselves with conservatives (which we never really gained much
from any way). Fusionism is dead, and deservedly so.
The only semi-convincing argument for McCain from a libertarian
perspective is that divided government tends to grow slower than
unified government. That really has nothing to do with putting
McCain or what he advocates in a positive light, though. It's
simply hoping neither him nor the Dems will be able to do what they
want.
Joel|9.18.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Er...before I RTFA...it doesn't involve Sarah Palin, does it?
Because I can't take any more Reason articles about her.
Seriously, I need reassurance here.
Ska|9.18.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Fluffy -
It's dangerous to have the words Clinton, George, and smoking crack
in such close proximity when posting.
|9.18.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Gridlock! I want a return of Gridlock! Obama allied with a
Pelosi-led Democrat congress scares the shit out of me.
Old Man McCain starting a senility-fueled war with NATO by
dispatching troops to destroy Coca fields in
Spain scares me more.
|9.18.08 @ 5:19PM|#
"unnecessary earmarks"
McCain and Palin have taken to condemning earmark abuse,
which is meaningless.
It allows McCain to approve every earmark he's sent, unless it
makes him uncomfortable.
Rather than being a principled stand against log-rolling, it's a
defense of a purely subjective execution of the law. As long as he
likes the earmark, it's necessary.
|9.18.08 @ 5:19PM|#
I don't see why there has to be a 'libertarian case' made for
Obama or McCain. You might have a shot with Bob Barr, but I don't
think you could get there.
After reading the article, I'm not convinced. I don't just mean the
issues mentioned in the first paragraph, but the items listed
(except for the last) probably won't happen. He might sign a couple
free trade deals with countries, but that's sort of weak.
The caveat of #2 is pretty much it. He will enthusiastically
embrace Democrat dumbness on a whole host of issues. Maybe he'll
veto a couple bill, but if Democrats put a bunch of pork in defense
appropriations, I don't see him vetoing it. With the possibility of
a veto-proof Congress, it's even more unlikely. Vetoing pork is a
perfect example of an empty campaign promise.
He caved on tortue in the Military Commissions Act, and I don't
believe he'll close Gitmo.
The country won't accept a more humane and open immigration system,
and we'll go through that business again like we did with
McCain-Kennedy.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I don't trust a word that comes out
of McCain's mouth.
|9.18.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Doesn't the "fairness doctrine" apply soley to broadcast
TV?
The fairness doctrine hasn't applied to anyone since 1987, when it
was repealed. And back then yes, it only applied to broadcast TV.
And, somehow, free speech survived those 40-odd years with it in
place, though sucky the regulations were. John is just trying to
work himself up into Partisan Frenzy. It's hard for him, since
McCain shares so many of Obama's flaws. Makes cognitive dissonance
that much worse.
BDB|9.18.08 @ 5:24PM|#
So unless you're so white trash you actually still use bunny ears to get your tv, it doesn't mean shit.
Robert|9.18.08 @ 5:28PM|#
I see McCain as a principled believer in managed trade agreements, not free trade. Remember, free trade means no government interference with imports, no government interference with exports; not a document that runs into the thousands of pages.
So what are you supposed to do, oppose such
agreements? Those thousands of pages only constitute
qualifiers on provisions to
reduce costs & other barriers to trade, not
increase them. Would you not rather have to jump thru hoops to
redeem the prize rather than have no prize at all?
SIV|9.18.08 @ 5:29PM|#
So unless you're so white trash you actually still use bunny
ears to get your tv, it doesn't mean shit.
Are all Obama supporters so elitist?
BDB|9.18.08 @ 5:29PM|#
SIV-
I'm not an Obama supporter, but it's 2008 and if you can't afford
even basic cable you're either a cheep ass or extremely, extremely
poor.
jasno|9.18.08 @ 5:31PM|#
So rather than having two articles detailing why I should vote
for asshole 'a' or asshole 'b', why doesn't reason just assemble a
list of issues important to libertarians and show each candidate's
position on each one?
And while your at it, stop with the notion that because a candidate
SAYS something he actually BELIEVES it(see McCain on torture for an
example).
BDB|9.18.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Besides, NBC, ABC, and CBS are leftist according to you so you should welcome the "fairness doctrine" if you're being consistent.
Robert|9.18.08 @ 5:36PM|#
The fairness doctrine hasn't applied to anyone since 1987, when it was repealed. And back then yes, it only applied to broadcast TV.
But it had applied to broadcast radio as well until about 2-3 years
earlier. It began to be applied before there commonly was broadcast
TV. And it's hard to say "repealed" to such a flimsy doctrine,
which was never enacted in statute or even regulation. Rather, it
was a semi-formal statement by the FCC as to how they would
interpret the vague "public service" requirement in the
Communications Act for licensure decisions in light of the Red Lion
case.
Note also that the Fairness Doctrine was separate from the
statutory equal time-equal access provisions regarding political
campaigns, and from the statutory provision re personal
attacks.
|9.18.08 @ 5:37PM|#
So unless you're so white trash you actually still use bunny
ears to get your tv, it doesn't mean shit.
Now that's uncalled for.
Some people just don't watch enough TV to justify the high cost of
pay television -- and with Digital TV many people that had cable
because they couldn't get decent reception might be able to drop
cable.
BDB|9.18.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Chicago Tom--
You're right, some people don't watch a lot of TV.
They get their news from the internet, which doesn't follow the
fairness doctrine. They couldn't make the internet follow the
fairness doctrine if they WANTED to.
My point is technology always outpaces government regulation.
Elemenope|9.18.08 @ 5:39PM|#
McCain and his supporters don't
1. hack into the private emails of opponents and gleefully publish
the contents
Heh. Because his supporters are too old to know how to use a
computer? Ba-zing!
But seriously, it's absolutely fucking *hilarious* to hear GOPers
and their apologists say peep about privacy. I think Glen Greenwald
over at Salon had a punchy article to that effect today.
SIV|9.18.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Yeah BDB, as an anarchist I should support the "fairness doctrine" to keep the MSM from being so leftist.They let you comment on H&R at high school?
|9.18.08 @ 5:45PM|#
You're right, some people don't watch a lot of TV.
They get their news from the internet, which doesn't follow the
fairness doctrine. They couldn't make the internet follow the
fairness doctrine if they WANTED to.
My point is technology always outpaces government
regulation.
I don't think you and I agree on a lot of stuff politically, but I
love that you made that point. Technology will always trump
attempts to stifle discussion.
BDB|9.18.08 @ 5:47PM|#
That's not what I was saying. People on the right imply that the
fairness doctrines would put the right at a disadvantage, while
simultaneously saying the big three networks (which it would apply
to) are hotbeds of leftism. Both can't be true.
BTW, if you're an anarchist, why do you vote?
BDB|9.18.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Right, if the Dems actually re-instate the fairness doctrine and try to run Rush Limbaugh off the air with it, they won't be very successful because he will just go over to Sirius (and make a lot of shareholders very happy) as soon as they try it.
idiotface|9.18.08 @ 5:57PM|#
threadjack warning: Fluffy, can you find me a link to Paul
saying there were no WMDs in iraq?
Thanks.
I can only find the following: "Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other
chemical and biological agents.
Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's chief
weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that
remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are
likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed
some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the
U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s."
SIV|9.18.08 @ 6:02PM|#
People on the right imply that the fairness doctrines would
put the right at a disadvantage
BDB
No, they oppose it because it is wrong to let the government
control political speech. The "Right" doesn't like McCain for the
same reason (CFR).
The Constitution puts it rather unambiguously in the First
Amendment.
Matt Welch|9.18.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Re: the Fairness Doctrine, Jesse Walker has a piece about that in the November issue, and one nugget that may surprise folks is that Obama apparently had his main FCC-type adviser announce this summer that he would *not* reimpose the Fairness Doctrine. Which would make total sense on any kind of practical level.
BDB|9.18.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Heh, CFR is another regulation technology has rendered
irrelevant.
Who needs 250k/plate dinners and the K Street project when you can
raise obscene amounts from normal people via email?
Obama Action Wire|9.18.08 @ 6:07PM|#
If anyone says Obama will restrict free speech get right in their face.Shout them down so the lies won't be heard. Key their cars and poor their pets a nice drink of anti-freeze.
Elemenope|9.18.08 @ 6:07PM|#
SIV --
You're the funniest "anarchist" I know.
And yeah, it's true, right-wingers just trip over each other to
support the First Amendment. It's what they're known for!
Call it their schtick.
Hah!
|9.18.08 @ 6:08PM|#
The Fairness Doctrine only applied to political opinion stuff on
TV and radio. In other words, Walter Cronkite was free to slant his
newscasts all he wanted (with no requirement for 'equal time')
because he was "reporting".
Regardless of who would benefit, the Fairness Doctrine should stay
in the dustbin of history. And yes, a hell of a lot of people still
watch broadcast news.
As to the libertarian case for McCain--it all comes down to a
'lesser of two evils' situation. There isn't a real libertarian
case to be made for either McCain or Obama.
Stat boy|9.18.08 @ 6:09PM|#
(as of 2005)
Three-quarters
of those with incomes of at least $75,000 have Internet access, pay
television (cable or satellite) and a wireless phone, while only 19
percent of those with incomes below $25,000 have all three
services, and 33 percent of those with incomes between $25,000 and
$50,000.
(as of 2007)
US
Television Households 112,275,000
Basic Cable Subscribers 64,800,000
Cable Penetration of TV Households 58.0%
Subscribers to Non-Cable Multichannel Video Program Distributors
32,000,000 (28.5%)
No multi-channel video program distribution (rednecks w/ rabbit
ears) -> 15,000,000 (13.5%)
jtuf|9.18.08 @ 6:14PM|#
McCain is not libertarian enough to get my vote, but reasons 1-6 are why I hope he wins.
Matt Welch|9.18.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Yeah Matt, and he won't raise taxes on those earning less
than 250 k either.
I agree with the skeptical scorn, but I think from a strategic
point of view it makes zero sense for him to needlessly organize
both his Republican opposition and the broadcast industry against
him, for something that has no real intellectual justification or
populist payoff.
dirty little bastard|9.18.08 @ 6:30PM|#
If Obamahooer-I mean, Obamagirl-gives me a bj I might vote for Obama.
SIV|9.18.08 @ 6:30PM|#
Matt, the Left outright worships "fairness" so I think there is a constituency there.Look at the Assault Weapons ban for an example of them doing something politically counter-productive.
SIV|9.18.08 @ 6:33PM|#
jtuf | September 18, 2008, 6:14pm | #
McCain is not libertarian enough to get my vote, but reasons 1-6 are why I hope he wins.
I agree with jtuf. He must be a Republican shill too.
Palin Action Wire|9.18.08 @ 6:35PM|#
If anyone in the media talks shit about our saint, here's there
cell phone numbers. Send em death threats! Call them baby killing
Commies!
(This actually happened in Alaska).
BDB|9.18.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Come on, LMNOP. Aren't you worried by the coming of Libruh
Fascism and how Der Schwarze Führer will lock people like
SIV in concentration camps?
You better start stocking canned food now.
|9.18.08 @ 6:40PM|#
I don't use rabbit ears cuz I don't even own a TV - gave em all
away. A widescreen PC monitor and projector (84" screen) meet all
my needs just fine. No tuner card either. Fug it. I get enough
moron box time when I'm at friends' houses.
The girlfriend does have a TV in our bedroom though. She only
watches Thai language shows on it (DVD, VCD, and VHS - no antenna
or cable), and I on "rare" occasion watch "romantic" movies on it,
but only for a few minutes at a time when she isn't home...
I'm not income-impaired, but I am natural born white trash. I'd be
trailer trash, but those trailer parks usually have too many rules.
No cars allow up on blocks? Screw that.
Miller|9.18.08 @ 7:27PM|#
Matt,
Kudos! Let's not forget that it is absolutely vital for
libertarians to support McCain and Palin. I'd rather win in Iraq
than lose at home.
|9.18.08 @ 7:29PM|#
It's really fun to be a libertarian. We get to stand on the sidelines smugly critiquing both major parties, pissing on their ideas and just talking about our own, among ourselves. We get to feel morally and intellectually superior without having to exert any effort really to implement our ideas, beyond chattering or supporting the laughable and pointless LP. In our own eyes, we're in the know, sort of intellectual and cultural elites, all without any effort beyond running our mouths. That'll work!
Fluffy|9.18.08 @ 7:59PM|#
To the person who asked for a link on Ron Paul and WMD's:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+bill+moyers&search_type=&aq=1&oq=ron+paul+bill+mo
YouTube has a 2002 interview Paul did with Moyers where he states
that he doesn't think Saddam has WMD, that he doesn't think his
military is a threat to anyone, and that claims to the contrary are
war propaganda.
Fluffy|9.18.08 @ 8:04PM|#
We get to feel morally and intellectually superior without
having to exert any effort really to implement our ideas, beyond
chattering or supporting the laughable and pointless LP. In our own
eyes, we're in the know, sort of intellectual and cultural elites,
all without any effort beyond running our mouths.
No, we can do something else.
We can not vote for that cocksucker McCain, and we can do
everything we can to undermine attempts by his lackeys to get
support for the GOP from advocates of limited government.
By so doing we can help the GOP go down to flaming and humiliating
defeat - their just punishment for their ongoing lies to the public
about their limited government positions.
After the absolutely obscene growth of government - its size, its
cost, its power, its contempt for the rights of man - over the last
8 years, nothing is more important than beating every last
Republican officeholder in the skull with the baseball bat of
defeat.
THAT'S what we can do.
|9.18.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Over at the lefto website "TruthDig.com" they have a "top story"
on how Capitalism is dead and how "Marx was right" with a picture
of the Marx and Engels monument in Berlin.
It's communist propaganda at its worst. Total crap. But too many
people take it seriously and believe that sort of stuff.
There is your best reason for voting not necessarily for McCain,
but against Obama.
Stop Karl Obama and his Neo-Bolshevik wannabe's.
|9.18.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Viewing the "fairness doctrine" as a non-issue is somewhat
dangerous. It would after all be Congress who would bring the
subject up and its current leadership has been quite amenable to
the subject in the past.
So the question isn't so much whether Obama would push for it but
whether he'd veto it if it came across his desk. I suspect he would
not, partially because it would inevitably be tied into a whole
bunch of other communications stuff which he could hide behind as
"vitally important."
It's difficult not to point fingers at the Democratic party on this
particular subject. The support for it is virtually entirely in
their camp, and the chances of it or something like it becoming law
are non-zero.
Obviously you can point fingers squarely at Republicans on a host
of other issues too, but that doesn't excuse many of the Democrats
here.
|9.18.08 @ 8:17PM|#
Now compare that to the press' completely lackadaisacal
attitude about W scandals.
They backed off a bit after Dan Rather got caught making shit
up.
-jcr
edna|9.18.08 @ 8:18PM|#
For those who want gridlock, realize that Congress' approval
rating is so low that Hermes Conrad couldn't limbo underneath it.
It might end up flipping over to the Republicans and then you'd
want Obama as president, because McCain would then be free to
war-war rather than jaw-jaw.
everyone loves their own congressman, it's those other
pork-grubbin' assholes they can't stand.
congress flip republican? suuuuuuuuuure.
vote mccain, vote gridlock!
|9.18.08 @ 8:27PM|#
BDB,
I know the difference between a Keynesian and a Marxist. These
particular people at "Truth Dig" were blatantly Marxist. Try not to
take sarcasm so literally.
|9.18.08 @ 8:34PM|#
Amazing how many comments on this site seem to involve sexual and/or violent fantasies. Apparently many "libertarians" tend to be expert at typing with one hand.
|9.18.08 @ 8:44PM|#
You know what I like most about Reason.com? They don't "moderate" blog comments like the "liberal" websites do.
Potts|9.18.08 @ 8:49PM|#
Over at the lefto website "TruthDig.com" they have a "top
story" on how Capitalism is dead and how "Marx was right" with a
picture of the Marx and Engels monument in Berlin...
So, Marxists misunderstand capitalism. Guess they've got something
in common with Republicans after all.
Tsu Dho Nihm|9.18.08 @ 9:25PM|#
WTF? McCain strikes me as a disciple of Mussolini. There's
absolutely nothing "libertarian" in that.
C'mon folks. There are no libertarian candidates. Not even
libertarianish candidates. Just forget about the
lesser evil and vote Cthulhu.
|9.18.08 @ 9:25PM|#
NAFTA isn't free trade. Once McCain starts endorsing a trade policy similar to that of Hong Kong's and supports ending the sanctions on Cuba and other countries then he can rightfully be called a free trader. But supporting increased bureaucracy and the evolution of supranational forms of governance is not the same as supporting free trade.
|9.18.08 @ 9:29PM|#
The statists have made most of their advances by consistently supporting the most "liberal" candidate in any every election, from dogcatcher on up. Few of these candidates were overtly Marxist, but each one tended to move the dial a bit toward the statist direction and away from the libertarian. This incrementalism has worked pretty well for them. What has prevented them from winning the whole thing was the occasional election of "conservatives" who, while not really libertarian themselves were accompanied by aides, staffers and supporters who have had a bit of Goldwater, or Rand or Rothbard in their backgrounds. These are the people who have slowed or tempered the march to socialism. If you're waiting for a truly "libertarian" candidate to emerge and succeed on a national level, please don't hold your breath. If you want to truly help prevent the US from becoming more like France or the UK, I suggest holding your nose and voting Republican.
|9.18.08 @ 9:35PM|#
The only thing that will make me vote for mccain is an obama
supporter.
I don't think a nastier, more conceited, double standard having
group of people ever existed.
People may think of obama as a socialist but his supporters would
likely make him blush. There is nothing an obama supporter doesn't
think is entitled him/her and it doesn't matter how the entitlement
is acquired.
It's as though obama supporters seek to replicate the children
programs they grew up watching.
As little difference as there is between obama and mccain at least
there is some restraint from mccain.
Tsu Dho Nihm|9.18.08 @ 9:37PM|#
Wow, JohnL, you've got to be fucking kidding. Republicans are
even worse than the Democrats because they consistently
claim to be for smaller government but consistently
increase the scope of government. At least the Democrats
are honest enough to say they're going to get all up in your
business.
McCain is one serious statist, and I'd not want him in charge of a
box of crayons.
Tsu Dho Nihm|9.18.08 @ 9:43PM|#
As little difference as there is between obama and mccain at
least there is some restraint from mccain.
There's virtually no restraint in either of these
jackasses. It just depends on exactly where you'd like to
see the minuscule amount of restraint.
I think they both go entirely too far, but that's just me. Maybe
you like McCain's "restraint" in perhaps not using nukes
when he bombs 3 or 4 different countries. Maybe you like Obama's
"restraint" in not nationalizing every profitable industry. Either
way, you're enabling some serious increase in government.
Miller|9.18.08 @ 9:44PM|#
@Fluffy:
Um, yeah. Let's join the whiny teenagers, nanny-staters and
Marxists and vote for Hussein Obama. Because the Republicans
haven't saved the world yet. Great strategy. Enjoy your temper
tantrum, and thanks for the taxes and regulations!
If you care about capitalism and freedom, you'll vote McCain/Palin.
End of story. It does matter.
Tsu Dho Nihm|9.18.08 @ 9:49PM|#
If you care about capitalism and freedom, you'll vote
McCain/Palin.
If you have a clue about what capitalism and freedom really are,
you'll realize that McCain/Palin will potentially be worse for
capitalism/freedom than George Bush the Lesser. First, Palin is
completely irrelevant unless you expect McCain to die in the very
near future. Second, McCain's voting record (and signature
legislation) indicate that he does not respect freedom or
capitalism in any way, shape, or form.
SIV|9.18.08 @ 9:56PM|#
First, Palin is completely irrelevant unless you expect
McCain to die in the very near future.
The preeminent criticism of Palin is that she will assume the
Presidency as McCain is a cancer-ridden old man.
Miller|9.18.08 @ 9:57PM|#
@JohnL:
You are right, of course. I just hope people realize it before they
let Obama socialize the country. The GOP isn't perfect, but it's
the party of Reagan and Palin, A lot of libertarians won't support
it because, hell, we're an arrogant bunch. But we need to get real.
When the Berlin Wall came down, I was ready to say goodnight to the
American left. Funny how far people will go to feel like victims.
If McCain wins, it will humilate the liberals. Let's put the
kiddies to bed, and maybe we can get some real work done.
Miller|9.18.08 @ 10:04PM|#
@Tsu Dho Nihm,
The Republicans' inclusion of Palin means that they're willing to
take libertarian principles seriously. If McCain wins, he will owe
it to her, and she will have the administration's ear. Do you
really think Obama is better than Bush? Who knows... maybe if you
vote for Obama, he'll return your phone calls and explain all those
taxes. Let's get real.
Conservative Wahoo|9.18.08 @ 10:10PM|#
How is being against torture and wanting to close Guantanamo Libertarian?
Tsu Dho Nihm|9.18.08 @ 10:13PM|#
The Republicans' inclusion of Palin means that they're
willing to take libertarian principles seriously.
No, it means they're willing to pay lip service to libertarian
principles to win an election. The Republicans never have and never
will consider libertarian principles as a part of their party
platform.
I'm not saying that the Democratic party is any better, because it
isn't. But as long as libertarians are willing to accept the dried
up bone that is a Palin VP nomination, they will never be anything
more than the neglected dog out in the yard - kicked when it
doesn't lick the Republican master's crotch or bark at the
Democratic Boogyman.
Seriously, until libertarians (and really anyone) actually vote for
someone who actually represents their values rather than the
"lesser of two evils", we'll be stuck with the same crap that the
Republicrats have been feeding us for the last century.
|9.18.08 @ 10:15PM|#
"A McCain presidency would have to answer to the mainstream
media as opposed to an Obama Presidency that wouldn't."
Yeah, because during the Clinton Presideny I never read an
unfavorable word about him in the mainstream press...
Oh, I mean replace Clinton with "Bush" and "mainstream press" with
"Fox" and now it makes some fucking sense. John, you see everything
through hack-colored glasses...
"The Republicans' inclusion of Palin means that they're willing to
take libertarian principles seriously."
That's hilarious. What is supposed to be libertarian about Palin?
Palin is not the libertarian Obama, she's the libertarian Bill
Clinton (where libertarians read their fondest desires into this
figure, as liberals did for BC, that has no proven record of giving
a shit about them).
Have some fun, tool, and google "Republican Party Platform Alaska."
Read. Enjoy. Libertarian? LOL!
|9.18.08 @ 10:17PM|#
Palin must be libertarian, b/c she has been photographed
shooting a gun.
Are you guys that easily bought? LOL!
Will she speak in tongues at the swearing in?
|9.18.08 @ 10:22PM|#
"How is being against torture and wanting to close Guantanamo
Libertarian?"
Uhh, I'm not a libertarian, but maybe their answer would be that
bodily integrity and liberty is a fundamental right that cannot be
violated by a state upon mere supposition?
|9.18.08 @ 10:22PM|#
The GOP isn't perfect, but it's the party of Reagan and
Palin,
It's also the party of Nixon and Bush. The former instituted price
controls and the latter instituted the largest expansion of the
government since the New Deal. Those guys make Jimmy Carter look
like a libertarian*. McCain is more Bush and Nixon than he is
Reagan. Palin is no libertarian.
* Airline, rail and trucking deregulation, Voelker
|9.18.08 @ 10:38PM|#
McCain is one serious statist, and I'd not want him in
charge of a box of crayons.
Not to worry. At most, he will be elected president.
Tsu Dho Nihm|9.18.08 @ 10:49PM|#
Not to worry. At most, he will be elected
president.
Ah, true. My crayons should survive that. Thanks for allaying my
fears!
|9.18.08 @ 11:03PM|#
Wow! There sure is a lot of poorly suppressed rage, spit-flecked
posturing and infantile logic on display around here. Very ironic,
considering the site's called "Reason"! Or maybe people just assume
it's called "Hit and Run?"
For those "libertarians" here who don't know of him, I suggest that
you learn about, and perhaps try to emulate, John Hospers, the
first LP presidential candidate. He was definitely the real deal
and personified "Reason."
The Wine Commonsewer|9.19.08 @ 12:44AM|#
Those guys make Jimmy Carter look like a
libertarian
I was alive to live under Jimmy Carter. He ain't no libertarian and
he cost me my business with his bullshit voo doo economic policies,
double digit stagflation, and other assorted idiotic shit. Not to
mention those trendy gas lines.
No Thank You!
The Wine Commonsewer|9.19.08 @ 12:48AM|#
Ah Hospers. My first libertarian vote and I've never looked
back.
Unlike many of my back-slidden brethren, I have never voted for a
Republican or a Democrat. That's because, contrary to popular
belief, there is no libertarian case for McCain or Obama.
Drink!
Sam Grove|9.19.08 @ 1:00AM|#
the Libertarian Case for McCain
1 heart attack
2 cerebral hemorrage
3 etc.
just kidding
voxpo|9.19.08 @ 1:19AM|#
"the Republicans haven't saved the world yet"
You know who else hasn't saved the world yet? Lex Luthor*.
*I assume.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|9.19.08 @ 1:34AM|#
Remember Bush saddled us with, a brand new, four hundred
bazillion dollar, economy destroying, prescription drug
entitilement. And that was before 9/11.
Uh, no. Not a Bush fan here, but he did that after 9/11.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|9.19.08 @ 1:45AM|#
Seriously, until libertarians (and really anyone) actually
vote for someone who actually represents their values rather than
the "lesser of two evils", we'll be stuck with the same crap that
the Republicrats have been feeding us for the last
century.
How thick thou art.
If all the libertarians in the US voted for "someone who actually
represents their values", there would be 1.53 presidential
candidates per libertarian (best current statistical
estimate).
And after the libertarian elite had all voted their conscience,
they would still all "be stuck with the same crap that the
Republicrats have been feeding us for the last century."
Neither "Libertarian" nor "libertarian" has any popular appeal, nor
does anarchism. None of them is ever going to win the popular vote
in this country.
As I always say, when the libertarians figure this out and start
looking for alternative ways to get what they want, then maybe
something will change. Like holding the nation itself for ransom,
and forcing their way upon the American public.
Oh I forgot, we're talking libertarians here and not
Marxists.
Well, at least libertarians can console themselves with their moral
superiority, because it's all they'll ever have. When it comes to
politics, libertarians will sooner compromise with anarchists than
the American mainstream. And that is why libertarians are never
ever gonna matter. Or win.
Seriously, get ready for a whole lot more of "the same crap that
the Republicrats have been feeding us for the last century",
because no matter how you vote, that's what you're going to
get.
Ghengis Kahn|9.19.08 @ 1:58AM|#
Vote for me.
I am certain that in today's world classical liberal values can
only be imposed, at gun point, by a determined and ruthless
dictator.
I am not afraid, and will not shirk this noble task. I am your
dictator, The One you have dreamed of.
Vote for me.
Oregon Scott|9.19.08 @ 3:36AM|#
"One of the more attractive aspects to McCain as a human is his
transparent allergy to racism..."
Are we talking about the same John "I hate the gooks" McCain? He
made it abundantly clear that the only reason he quit using that
word is political pressure.
Wine Commonsewer: I wouldn't call Carter a libertarian, either, but
most of his economic woes came from decades of easy-money policies
from the Fed. His late-term Fed nominee Volker actually gets some
credit for curing our woes by adopting a hard money stance (causing
a real recession to stop the inflation). (Reagan's Treasury
Secretary James Baker III tried to counteract this with increased
government spending, but the two eventually came to terms.) The
phrase "voo-doo economics" was coined by a candidate for the
Republican party's 1980 presidential nomination, George Bush,
referring to the ideas of his rival, Ronald Reagan.
S
|9.19.08 @ 8:24AM|#
I don't want to see what Obama will do with a unified government.
Fortunately, as the current Congress has demonstrated, the
Democratic party is far from unified.
Fluffy|9.19.08 @ 8:25AM|#
@Fluffy:
Um, yeah. Let's join the whiny teenagers, nanny-staters and
Marxists and vote for Hussein Obama. Because the Republicans
haven't saved the world yet. Great strategy. Enjoy your temper
tantrum, and thanks for the taxes and regulations!
If you care about capitalism and freedom, you'll vote McCain/Palin.
End of story. It does matter.
W grew the size of government at a rate on a par with LBJ.
W was the greatest enemy of libertarianism since FDR. And at least
FDR was an open enemy - W was a liar and betrayer, on virtually
every issue of any importance whatsoever to libertarians.
McCain has signed on to the entire W package, but dresses it up
with a brazen Peronism and a hatred and contempt for anyone who
doesn't want to live in a barracks society.
Palin has shown her true colors by even being willing to accept the
VP slot and deliver the speeches McCain's people write for
her.
After the W Presidency, there are no grounds - none - for believing
that the GOP will be better for libertarian or limited-government
issues than the Democrats. None.
Face it - we have two big government parties. This has almost
always been true, broken only by brief interludes where the GOP
hewed closer to libertarian principles under the influence of some
particularly dynamic or compelling figure. So we have two big
government parties, but one of them lies and pretends to not be a
big government party. Their counterfeit limited government
principles, like anything counterfeit, crowd out and drown
real ones. In that set of circumstances the first and most
important thing to do is to smite the counterfeiters.
Libertarians have to learn from Willie Stark. Smash the guys who
lied to you first. If that lets the other guy win and he
gets in office and fucks up, go after his failures later. But
you'll never get that chance if we keep letting our place in the
political landscape be usurped by men who lie, claim to subscribe
to our principles, and then govern in the exact opposite way.
|9.19.08 @ 9:25AM|#
TWC,
A lot of those stagflation problems were the result of getting rid
of the atrocious Nixon economic policies of wage and price
controls. That was the price of getting bad policies. I'm not
saying that he was a libertarian, I'm saying that relative to Nixon
and Bush, who are as big government as it gets, he was.
Nick M|9.19.08 @ 9:48AM|#
As far as the media being hard on Clinton, isn't that attributable to the fact that the Republicans controlled Congress, and were thereby well positioned to make an issue in the media about his every deed?
JohnD|9.19.08 @ 9:58AM|#
Fluffy wins the prize for being the biggest DUMB FUCK on the
forum.
What a moron!
Fluffy|9.19.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Fluffy wins the prize for being the biggest DUMB FUCK on the
forum.
Rebut any of the points I have made. Any one.
To do that, you'd have to show that W was not an enemy of limited
government, that McCain is not at bottom a Peronist, etc. And you
can't do that.
|9.19.08 @ 10:15AM|#
"Gooks" is kinda like "white trash" - only marginally unacceptable in polite soceity.
nj|9.19.08 @ 10:28AM|#
I'll take a honest statist (Obama) over a dishonest statist ( McCain) any day of the week. Every republican administration gets associated with practicing laissez faire, despite the fact they are just as statist and anti-market as the dems. So naturally when shit goes haywire with republicans in charge, laissez-faire gets blamed.
|9.19.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Gosh, since when are libertarians endorsing 100 year occupations of countries that don't and never did threaten us? Maybe it started with manifest destiny.
|9.19.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Gosh, since when are libertarians endorsing 100 year
occupations of countries that don't and never did threaten
us?
Who is talking about 100 year occupations of anyone?
For that matter, is it still appropriate to speak of Iraq as if it
is still "occupied" by American troops? It has an elected
government, has at least some international recognition, has
"security" control over most of its provinces, etc.
If not now, what about after the status of forces agreements now
being negotiated are signed?
Eric Dondero|9.19.08 @ 12:51PM|#
These are among the weakest of Libertarian arguments to vote for
McCain. It's almost like Welch did this deliberately, ignoring the
much stronger Libertarian arguments in his favor.
Look, the NUMBER ONE REASON FOR A LIBERTARIAN TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN IS
THAT HIS VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SARAH PALIN ATTENDED TWO
MEETINGS OF THE LIBERARIAN PARTY IN 2005/06 AND WAS SUPPORTED BY
THE LEADERSHIP OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY FOR GOVERNOR!!!
Can you imagine, Sarah Palin will be the very first, President or
Vice-President EVER!!! in history to have an association with the
Libertarian Party.
Reagan never attended a Libertarian Party meeting. Bush I or Bush
II Nope! Certainly not Clinton or Carter. And Goldwater was around
before the formation of the LP.
Dan Quayle? There were scattered reports very early on back in the
1990s that he might have attended some Cato Inst. meetings?
But nothing I remember about the Libertarian Party.
Cheyney? Nope. Nothing.
Sarah Palin is it.
That is hugely historic, and for Matt Welch to completely ignore
that in his article is entirely disingenuous, and just goes to show
his extreme anti-Republican bias.
|9.19.08 @ 1:06PM|#
You can't be serious!!! Do they pay you for this hooey?
There is a virtual coup occurring in Washington, literally as I
write this, and Reason is arguing about who is the best puppet to
put a friendly face on it?
You aren't libertarians; you're apologists.
|9.19.08 @ 1:25PM|#
I agree with fluffy....but Matt's article wasn't too bad....all of his caveats completely eliminated any validity in his 7 reasons to vote for McCain. I thought the article was jsut kinda tounge-in-cheek. If your libertarian and read it you'll say "ya, matt shows why there are no good reasons to vote McCain" and if you are a neo-con and read it you'll say "ya, 7 good reasons to vote McCain".
Lou Barlow|9.19.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Matt's article is written up, sort of, here. It will be
interesting to see what explicitly libertarian Republicans have to
say about it.
http://www.rlc.org/2008/09/19/the-libertarian-case-for-mccain/
Lee Cruz|9.19.08 @ 6:21PM|#
The Article could have been summarized as 7 potentials reasons to vote for McCain followed by 7 rebuttals why the potential is not really there.
|9.19.08 @ 9:25PM|#
I think a case can be made that Palin, historically, looks at least some libertarian. That was then, what about now? She's trying to make people wrongly believe that she wasn't for the infamous bridge, yet when cornered she claims she was doing her job of getting goverment money for her state. She's flipped on her position about the troopergate investigation, and she's allowing the republican spin machine to call it partisan when the republicans on the committee out number the democrats two to one. Deception and avoiding accountability is what we got over the last 8 years.
|9.19.08 @ 9:28PM|#
"""There is a virtual coup occurring in Washington, literally as
I write this, and Reason is arguing about who is the best puppet to
put a friendly face on it?"""
What do you expect? It's the year that we elect the puppet.
mw|9.20.08 @ 10:47AM|#
I have been beating the divided government drum for two years on
my blog. I voted for John Kerry to get divided government in 2004
and lost. I supported a straight Dem ticket in 2006 to get divided
government and won. This year I will vote to re-elect divided
government by supporting John McCain.
This
scholarly article from a Constitutional lawyer puts more than a
little academic cred behind the divided government thesis.
There is also a case to be made that libertarians could cure their
chronic political impotence by voting consistently for divided
government and establishing themselves as a critical swing vote in
close federal elections.
Anyway, Matt - FWIW I recently initiated a "Coalition of the
Divided" blogroll for anyone who says anything vaguely positive
about divided government. You are now a member in good
standing.
Miller|9.20.08 @ 10:20PM|#
@mw:
Libertarians can cure their "chronic political impotence" by
supporting the party that adheres more closely to their principles,
and putting the Democratic party out of its whining, gimme-gimme
misery.
Fraketrain|9.21.08 @ 11:14AM|#
The article didn't mention two other issues: school choice and labor unions. Per his convention speech, Sen. McCain advocates school choice, whereas Sen. Obama doesn't. (The American Federation of Teachers, who are very anti-school choice, strongly support Sen. Obama.) Also, Sen. Obama supports card-check legislation that would seriously impinge on an individual's right to associate or not associate in labor unions. Sen. McCain, on other hand, opposes such legislation.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Matt Welch
- Are Tea Parties Racist?, Matt Welch, November 16, 2009
- Briefly Noted: Commie Art, Matt Welch, November 3, 2009
- 'The Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs', Matt Welch, October 28, 2009
Related Articles (Campaigns/Elections, John McCain)
- The Five Faces of Jerry Brown, Jesse Walker, October 14, 2009
- The Hopeless Opposition, Michael C. Moynihan, September 4, 2009
- The Cost of Doing Something, Matt Welch, July 1, 2009
- McCain's Iranian Game of Chicken, Matt Welch, June 23, 2009
- Would You Wear a Serial Killer's Sweater?, Katherine Mangu-Ward, June 12, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245