If Wishes Were Horses Then Libertarians Would Vote

From Fox, here's yet another story on whether libertarian-leaning swing voters will decide today's election. I'm not going to count my chickens before they're fried -- and it's far from clear that all those voters are libertarians in even a loosely meaningful sense of the word -- but if the result of all this chatter is to send the next wave of candidates chasing our support rather than the Nascar Stepmoms or the Security Soccerballs or whoever, I suppose it's all to the good.

I don't have strong opinions about the races in my own backyard, but I'm watching several other states with interest. On the Blue side of the ledger, I'm cheering for Jim Webb and Jon Tester, who are better than the average Democrat, over George Allen and Conrad Burns, who are worse than the average Republican. (Give Burns points for honesty: Back in 2000, as the NAB's congressional lackies lined up against a plan to legalize low-power radio, he offered the most straightforward argument against the new stations: "I've had all the diversity I can stand.") I'm also cheering for Bob Casey, Jr., who is not better than the average Democrat, over Rick Santorum, who symbolizes one of the worst sorts of Republican. And I'm cheering for Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, who used to symbolize one of the worst sorts of Democrat but now has split to form his own Connecticut For Lieberman party. Much as I despise Lieberman, there's a side of me that doesn't mind that he's likely to win, partly because I'm pleased whenever independents are elected and partly because I hope the newspapers will refer to him as Sen. Lieberman (CFL-Conn.).

On the Red side of the ledger, I'm hoping the handful of Republicans who have a genuine interest in limiting government power come out ahead. That mostly means Reps. Ron Paul and Jeff Flake, who are expected to be reelected easily today; if Butch Otter becomes the next governor of Idaho, that'll be fine with me too.

Outside the Red-Blue ledger altogether, there's Kinky Friedman. I doubt he'll be elected governor of Texas, but if he can poll a strong second I'll call it a moral victory.

Mostly I'm hoping for divided government. A Republican president with a Democratic Congress isn't as appealing a scenario as a Democratic president with a Republican Congress: Better to have Clinton and Gingrich at each other's throats than to see Bush Sr. and Tom Foley ratifying each other's worst ideas. But as our one-party government mows down our liberties and lurches toward a war with Iran, even a barely effective roadblock is better than nothing at all.

Comments

[John]

Jesse,

Just one question, doesn't Iran get a vote about whether we go to war with them? Do you really think any war with Iran will be entirely the U.S.'s fault? If not, then how does anyone in power "lurch towards war with Iran"? Exactly what would you do about Iran other than let them build a bomb and hope for the best?

[David]

John,

Is there anything that Iran could do to convince you that they are in compliance with whatever demands the U.S. makes and not lying about it?

[Karen]

Jesse, I think the designation for Lieberman should be CFL-Con. One n, like 'con man.'

[kebko]

I appreciate the coverage of Jeff Flake & I like his statements on limited fiscal government, but I wish you guys would ask him harder questions. He's clearly in the social conservative camp, and while he seems to have a healthy skepticism on the war on the Constitution, in the end his votes on renewing the Patriot Act, etc., look to me like they more or less fall in line with the other Republicans.

I'm afraid his focus, demeanor, and rhetoric might lure us into support, when his voting record is only marginally better than most Republicans.

I'd like to know what the staffers think about this.

Thanks

[Jesse Walker]

Kebko: I was under the impression that Flake had recanted his earlier support for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Was I wrong?

[t.j.]

is jim webb really that libertarian friendly beyound a couple issues?

[John]

David,

Yes, just comply and be open about it the way Libya has done. Further, stop threating Israel with destruction and talking about the return of the 12th Imam might help as well. When you talk openly about nuking your neighbors and kick U.N. inspectors out of your reactors, you can't then whine that no one believes you when you say that the reactors are for peaceful purposes. In addition, Iran has been testing missiles and saying that they want to selll this technology to other countries. Question for you, is there anything Iran could do short of nuking New York that would convince you that they are a threat?

[Isaac Bartram]

is jim webb really that libertarian friendly beyound a couple issues?

Is anyone else? (Except Ron Paul)

[Chris S.]

John,

Do you really think any war with Iran will be entirely the U.S.'s fault? If not, then how does anyone in power "lurch towards war with Iran"?

If you accept that "any war with Iran isn't entirely the U.S.'s fault" it doesn't follow that people in the U.S. may not "lurch towards war with Iran." As surely as we American have free will, we are free to determine whether we go to war, and so our more beligerent and reckless politicians can certainly "lurch towards war with Iran."

The "we have no choice if Iran does XYZ" line implies that this country is completely reactionary and utterly beholden to the decisions made by Iranian politicians.

It is certainly possible that both Iranians and Americans have a choice in this matter, right?

[Evan!]

TJ: Not really, but I'd vote for Karl Marx over that scumfuck George Allen. And given how close our race is, Jim Webb got my vote. George Allen represents all that is wrong with this state's inbred political culture. These jerkoffs win every year, just because they have an (R) after their name. He sucks Bush's ballbag on all that is Iraq. He apparently enjoys lynching and hanging teh negroes (his office sports his favorite noose hanging on the wall). He's a social puritan-conservative of the worst kind. And the icing on this big shit-flavored cake is his smugness, his obvious belief that he "deserves" this office just because he's George Allen.

I can't think of a worse candidate---so while Jim Webb may not be a libertarian's wet dream, he's the best option this state has.

Not to mention the gridlock factor that has me voting SPT-Democrat for the first time ever.

[Again]

"Is anyone else? (Except Ron Paul)"

And this is the exact problem. All politicians who aren't 100% pure libertarian certified are equally evil and should be treated accordingly.

The 17 Republican house members who voted against the recent online gambling ban should be praised if you're a libertarian. Instead we get a round of "so what?!? you statist bastard!"

When politicians align themselves with libertarians, particularly in opposition to the majority of their party, libertarians ought to praise them. When a politician clearly takes up far many more libertarian positions than his opponent, libertarians should seriously consider voting for that politician.

Asking them to get an A+ on your personal libertarian litmus test may be emotionally satisfying but for the most part is counterproductive.

[Brian]

I hope you dudes in VA can put a stake in Allen. The terrifying prospect that he's going to get elected president remains plausible to me. I thought he was a lock a year or so ago.

[David]

Question for you, is there anything Iran could do short of nuking New York that would convince you that they are a threat?

Any number of things, including attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, selling missiles to terrorist groups, etc. But they would actually have to do something more than developing weapons, or defying U.S. authority.

Why do you assume that it's a foregone conclusion that if Iran did develop a nuclear weapon, we'd be seeing mushroom clouds over NYC?

[John]

Brian,

Regardless of the outcome today, Allen's presidential chances are dead. His campaign was too amateur and he embarassed himself way to much to ever get the nomination.

Chris S.,

In one sense we are beholden to Iran in that if they attack us or sufficently provoke us to leave the U.S. no choice but to go to war, we are in your words beholden to their actions. Some actions require reactions and some situations are just going to get worse if they are to let fester. To argue that anything we do to deter Iran or to defend ourselves and letting them rule our policy is prepostorous. The underlying assumption seems to be that the whole thing can be solved if we just ask them nicely enough. Unfortunately, some people really are out to get you. Why that is so hard for some to understand is beyond me.

[Evan!]

Brian,

I don't see that happening. He's got too many skeletons in his closet. He's a jackass racist who only appeals to social conservative ignoramuses. While that might play well here in the good Commonwealth of Puritanism, I don't think it will fly in the nation at large.

[Chris S.]

To argue that anything we do to deter Iran or to defend ourselves and letting them rule our policy is prepostorous. The underlying assumption seems to be that the whole thing can be solved if we just ask them nicely enough.

John, is that the "underlying assumption" that anyone is actually making? Honestly? And what counts as "defending ourselves" anyway?

People who actually believe that they have no choice are either truly reactionary and helpless, or insufficiently creative to recognize their various options. Some people also pretend to believe that they have no choice by setting up false dilemmas (e.g. we either go to war or "ask them nicely"). Don't be one of those people John - they're an awfully dishonest lot.

[Evan!]

"Question for you, is there anything Iran could do short of nuking New York that would convince you that they are a threat?

You know, a little bit of common FUCKING sense goes a LONG way.

Think about this for a second, John:

We have the most powerful military complex in the history of mankind. We have no real rivals on the international stage when it comoes to military might. Of anyone were to even think about putting their finger on the launch button, we have scores of submarines lurking around the world, armed with trident nuclear warheads, just waiting to turn said threat into a big crater.

Now, if I, a lowly civilian, know all this, then it also follows that the world leaders also know this. As such, they know that any direct show of aggression towards the United States is tantamount to suicide.

Next, think about our recent track record: we named Iraq, Iran, Syria and DPRK in our "axis of evil". So far, we have eliminated Iraq, unprovoked. Iraq didn't have nukes. DPRK now has nukes, and what's happening there? Diplomacy! So, if you were Iran, and you knew that the biggest world superpower had you on their axis of evil "hit list", wouldn't YOU also be trying to acquire nukes? Not to launch at us, because that would be suicide, but just to have as a deterrent so you don't end up like Saddam.

There's every incentive for DPRK, Iran and Syria to HAVE nukes, but none to actually USE them on us.

Like I said, a little common sense goes a long way.

[Cab]

I don't get it with the hatred for Allen. All in all, he isn't that bad. He supports privatizing Social Security, he is good on taxes, supports parents choosing schools via vouchers, good on free trade, good on gun ownership, good on medical liability lawsuit reform, and fairly pro business.

He's not my knight in shining armor, but I don't think he is as bad as Webb. Webb is against gay marriage (just not the amendment), he is pro Medicare Part D, pro NCLB, his "specific" plan in Iraq is a fucking joke, and he would never vote to privatize even the slightest portion of social security.

[Chris S.]

Cab,

Hmmm, let's see. George Allen voted:

-Ye, on the anti-gay marriage amendment (Federal & State)
-Yes on Part D (we've had this discussion before, no?)
-Yes on loosening restrictions on cellphone wiretapping
-Yes on every security/civil-rights-reducing bill supported by Bush (PATRIOT Act, etc.)
-Yes on everything related to Bush's Iraqi follies
-Yes on every flag burning amendment

In addition, he:
-Is strongly anti-choice on abortion, favoring criminal penalties for anyone harming a fetus
-Actively supports tougher drug laws
-Is strongly anti-immigration, including support for restricting citizenship rights under the 14th Amendment)

[Chris S.]

To add a bit more to my last post: A party or a politician gets absolutely no brownie points from me for being "good on taxes" when they're horrible on spending. I don't need the gov taking out loans from China on my behalf while asking me to congratulate them on taxes.

Allen is also no better on gun rights than Webb.

[Brian]

Yeah but can't Allen say all his skeletons are now old news and we should move forward for America?

The guy is everything bad and nothing good about the contemporary Republican party. He's a Joe Liebermanesque harmonic convergence of suck.

[Cab]

Chris S. I hear you. You make good points. I've tried to sell Webb to myself for three weeks without mentioning Allen and I haven't been able to.

[Chris S.]

Cab,

Yeah, I'll admit that I'm choosing Anti-Allen more than Webb, per se. I guess it's a matter of lesser evils and my hope that a split government will bring some fiscal sanity to this nation. Either way you play it, you'll feel a little bit dirty, but libertarians can't be pure if we want to be relevant.

[John]

"People who actually believe that they have no choice are either truly reactionary and helpless, or insufficiently creative to recognize their various options."

Tell us those options? If you have any, you might want to call the State Department because no one seems to have any good ones.

Evan!

How does all of that military might do us a damn bit of good when someone is able to use nukes on us through terrorism and it is not obvious where it came from? That stuff is great in dealing with a conventional enemy and completely worthless when dealing with terrorists, unless like the case of Afghanistan where you have a clear trail to where is comes from. Use your fucking common sense and think through the other sides options. First, you are assumeing that they are not suicidal lunatics and don't care that we would make Iran a crater. Second, you are assumeing the U.S. has the will do so. Third, you are assumeing that they are not smart enough to attack us in unconventional ways that make retaliation politically impossible. The U.S. cannot just sit around and let aggressive regimes aquire nukes and hope for the best.

[Evan!]

"How does all of that military might do us a damn bit of good when someone is able to use nukes on us through terrorism and it is not obvious where it came from? That stuff is great in dealing with a conventional enemy and completely worthless when dealing with terrorists, unless like the case of Afghanistan where you have a clear trail to where is comes from."

That's obviously a concern, but if you're going to do it to supply terrorists, why would you build a big infrastructure for all the world to see? And if you were a terrorist, you know damn well that it doesn't take a professionally-made nuclear weapon to kill innocent american civilians. Hell, those gaggle of crazies did it with nothing more than box cutters. Why go through all the extra risk, when your ends can be achieved through much more mundane, but still very destructive, measures?

"First, you are assumeing that they are not suicidal lunatics and don't care that we would make Iran a crater."

Suicidal nutbags who don't care whether they live or die, they're the "soldiers" strapping bombs to themselves or flying planes into buildings...not, for the most part, occupying public office. Your point works in theory, but in reality, it's just not very plausible to think that the Iranian government doesn't care whether Iran gets blown to shit or not.

"Second, you are assumeing the U.S. has the will do so."

Answer me this: which country is the ONLY country to use an atom bomb on a civilian population? The will? We have the TRACK RECORD. You want to tell me that if Iran nuked Manhattan, we wouldn't kasplode them within 10 minutes? Jesus christ. What world do YOU live in?

"Third, you are assumeing that they are not smart enough to attack us in unconventional ways that make retaliation politically impossible."

Listen carefully: if a nuclear attack is traced back to Iran in any way, then we will annihilate Iran. I don't care how "unconventional" the tactic...you're just grasping for straws now.

"The U.S. cannot just sit around and let aggressive regimes aquire nukes and hope for the best."

Meanwhile, WE are the nation who is aggressively invading other countries, while we sit on a nuclear stockpile big enough to kasplode scores of Earths. I suppose the irony and the hypocrisy of all that is lost on you?

[Eric the .5b]

if a nuclear attack is traced back to Iran in any way, then we will annihilate Iran.

Don't mistake me for a supporter of gopher-boy, but imagine the following hypothetical. A container ship with a nuke makes it into San Francisco, New York, or Houston and goes in the middle of the business day and ends up killing a million people. It takes some time to figure out who was behind it...say 60 days.

Two (four? six?) months after the fact, would we as a nation (or the administration of the time) really be willing to exterminate the population of Iran with a belated full nuclear strike? Invade and conquer, sure - but annihilate?

I think MAD rather relies on immediate retaliation, as any significant delay makes the response seem less like punishment and more like murder.

[kebko]

Jesse:
Here's Jeff Flake's voting record:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votingrecord.xpd?people=400134

I guess the vote on extending the Patriot Act back in February was by unanimous consent, so I don't know if that counts as a vote for. And, maybe there are other votes I didn't find.

I will say he certainly seemed to be asking the right questions when I saw him in committee on C-SPAN.

[Chris S.]

Tell us those options? If you have any, you might want to call the State Department because no one seems to have any good ones.

First, we're already working with the other members of the U.N. Security Council to devise workable sanctions. As you may or may not know, Russia requires a bit more persuasion, but this option is far from dead, and despite Iran's incessant tough-talk, Russian cooperation could have a significant effect.

Second, we haven't yet attempted bilateral talks -- on principle.

Third, we could simply rely on nuclear and other military deterrence, as suggested by Evan!. You've argued above that we wouldn't know where the terrorists were coming from, making Iran unaccountable. This is a fun little argument for those of us that didn't witness 9/11 and Afghanistan. For everyone else (including Afghanistan's western neighbor), it's pure nonsense. Mullah Omar and Osama aren't dead only because foreign policy ideologues of the "we don't have a choice but to attack Iraq" school dropped the ball.

Finally, you would have to be in a parallel universe to believe that Iran is so crazy that they'll nuke themselves into Armageddon. Iran already has the capability to wreak major havoc. What exactly is stopping these lunatics from waging self-destructive jihad? What stops North Korea? Pakistan? What stopped the U.S.S.R.? If Iranians are so uniquely devoid of any self-preservation instincts, why haven't they already started the bloodshed and unconventional attacks? That's awfully odd for a nation full of lunatics who can't wait to die. They seem to be? what's the proper word? Is it "deterred"?

[Evan!]

Eric,

First of all, it took how long before we knew that al qaida was responsible for 9/11? You really think it'll take 60 days?

Second, in the eyes of the government leaders in Iran, is there really any difference between a nuclear attack on their country, and an invasion and subsequent takeover of the nation by US forces? Either way, they're still left in the shitter at the end of the day. So, whether we nuked them with our warhead stockpiles, or invaded them with more conventional means, it really doesn't change the consequences for them.

[Chris S.]

Finally, let me note that it's pretty sad to know that Iran has convinced some Americans that:

(1) Iran calls all the shots and the U.S. just responds

(2) The U.S. is capable of war (barely -- Iraq?) but not diplomacy or anything else - we have no choice but war!

(3) Iranians are fearless superhumans who would risk a lengthy occupation, a regime change, their economy, and hundreds of thousands or millions of lives just to destroy part of a U.S. or Israeli city.

(4) Iranians are incredibly sneaky and capable of smuggling nuclear bombs into the U.S. without leaving a trail or risking any serious negative repercussions.

[John]

ERic is exactly right. It is one thing to invade Afghanistan, it is quite another to respond to a nuclear attack. If they ever do manage to hit the U.S. with nukes, it is going to be very difficult to figure out who did it and it is very unlikly that the proof would be such that the world would ever support the U.S. responding with a nuclear retaliation.

"4) Iranians are incredibly sneaky and capable of smuggling nuclear bombs into the U.S. without leaving a trail or risking any serious negative repercussions."

Why is that impossilbe to imagine? Iranians are not stupid apes, they are just as smart as we are.

"Iranians are fearless superhumans who would risk a lengthy occupation, a regime change, their economy, and hundreds of thousands or millions of lives just to destroy part of a U.S. or Israeli city."

Their President said that he would sacrifice half of Iran to destroy Israel. Do you think he was kidding? Are we all supposed to take your word for it that he didn't really mean it, just like Hitler didn't really mean it when he said he was going to kill all of the Jews, invade Russia and forcibly remove the lesser races from there so that the Germans could have living space?

"The U.S. is capable of war (barely -- Iraq?) but not diplomacy or anything else - we have no choice but war!"

We have been trying deplomacy for years and the fact is that Russia and China want a Nuclear Iran and are willing to do absolutely nothing to stop Iran. Without their support there will never be anything that gets through the Security Council and without a Security Council resolution, there will be no significant sanctions. Bill Clinton tried diplomacy with the PLO and with the North Koreans and both parties promptly failed to adhere to any agreements and used every agrement as a sign of our weakness and an excuse to act even worse in the future. Diplomacy only works if both sides want an agreement. If one side doesn't, no amount of talking is going to solve things. People act as if "diplomacy" is some kind of magic tailsman. Well, its not. It is only as productive as the two parties invovled want it to be. There has to be some agreeable middle ground between the parties or it won't work and all it will be is an excuse for the aggressive party to take advantage of the other. Absent a regime change in Iran, there isn't a middle ground right now. Period.

[Eric the .5b]

First of all, it took how long before we knew that al qaida was responsible for 9/11? You really think it'll take 60 days?

Every situation is different. John is a lock-step partisan twit, granted, but it's simply not tenable to assume that any plot to harm the US will naturally be traced immediately.

Second, in the eyes of the government leaders in Iran, is there really any difference between a nuclear attack on their country, and an invasion and subsequent takeover of the nation by US forces?

Who cares? That's just not relevant to my response to your talk of annihilating Iran. As I actually said, invasion and conquest strike me as more likely than nuclear retaliation if the response is not immediate.

[Chris S.]

Are we all supposed to take your word for it that he didn't really mean it, just like Hitler didn't really mean it when he said he was going to kill all of the Jews, invade Russia and forcibly remove the lesser races from there so that the Germans could have living space?

Wow, we're already up to Hitler?

It seems I'm wasting my time.

[Eric the .5b]

For instance - who exactly was that guy (girl? group?) who mailed people (including members of Congress) anthrax in the wake of 9/11?

That was five years ago.

So yeah, it strikes me as within the realm of possibility that a future terrorist attack just might take more than 12 hours to trace back to someone we could retaliate against. Might even take days or weeks.

[Chris S.]

So yeah, it strikes me as within the realm of possibility that a future terrorist attack just might take more than 12 hours to trace back to someone we could retaliate against. Might even take days or weeks.

As you said before, each situation is different. There are very very very few players who could orchestrate a nuclear attack, and even fewer players who have both the capability and the desire to open up this particular pandora's box. Contrast this with the anthrax attacks, which we now know involved a relatively common strain of non-weaponized anthrax and the postal system. Moreover, a nuclear attack is likely to receive much more attention both domestically and internationally than the anthrax attacks, which killed fewer people than the average highway pileup.

Finally, would we really wait until we had a 100% open-and-shut case before we attacked, and would the Iranians count on this? Could they count on a peaceful occupation?

[Eric the .5b]

As you said before, each situation is different. There are very very very few players who could orchestrate a nuclear attack, and even fewer players who have both the capability and the desire to open up this particular pandora's box.

Indeed, and I certainly hope there are no players who meet these criteria and think they stand a good chance of getting away with it.

Finally, would we really wait until we had a 100% open-and-shut case before we attacked, and would the Iranians count on this? Could they count on a peaceful occupation?

The more time it took to make any sort of determination, the more people would demand a degree of certainty, particularly for nuclear retaliation. Assume at least a tiny increase in skepticism after the Iraq debacle.

[Chris S.]

The more time it took to make any sort of determination, the more people would demand a degree of certainty, particularly for nuclear retaliation. Assume at least a tiny increase in skepticism after the Iraq debacle.

Yeah, I'll agree that memories of Iraq would likely cause us to be a bit more skeptical. But a nuclear attack on U.S. soil would be a different ballgame than anything we've even seen. My point isn't that we'd immediately send in the stealth bombers -- there would be some degree of uncertainty -- but would there be enough uncertainty that Iran would feel comfortable playing this game? And even if it took a few weeks, a few weeks of conventional bombing followed by nukes isn't really much better than instant annihilation. Even a conventional war + occupation would be a losing outcome for Iran under any imaginable metric.

Finally, all of the above calculus applies equally to North Korea and Pakistan, assuming Musharaf eventually loses power, which he will (I personally think that the situation in Pakistan is more combustible than the situation in Iran, but I guess that's a different topic). The marginal benefit of removing one nuclear (or pre-nuclear) rival is pretty minor compared to the cost of an additional war, particularly given our current state-building record. At the very least, going to war represents a choice -- a routine cost/benefit analysis -- rather than an automatic reaction, as Iran is hardly an unprecedented threat, and a nuclear attack is extremely unlikely given the repercussions, whether they be nuclear or conventional.

[Eric the .5b]

Yeah, I'll agree that memories of Iraq would likely cause us to be a bit more skeptical. But a nuclear attack on U.S. soil would be a different ballgame than anything we've even seen. My point isn't that we'd immediately send in the stealth bombers -- there would be some degree of uncertainty -- but would there be enough uncertainty that Iran would feel comfortable playing this game?

I hope not. I have trepidations about Iran and North Korea, more so than Pakistan. Mind you, I haven't said anything on here to advocate war with anyone - just to question the idea that the perpetrator of a sneak nuclear attack would obviously be quickly detected and retaliated upon and that the retaliation would obviously be anything like "annihilation".

[rob]

'Yeah, I'll agree that memories of Iraq would likely cause us to be a bit more skeptical. But a nuclear attack on U.S. soil would be a different ballgame than anything we've even seen."

Funny, I thought that 9/11 was "a different ballgame than anything we've even seen."

And yet 5 years later people are still arguing about it.

I don't think that it's that great a stretch to envision a group of terrorists getting their hands on a nuke and delivering it to the U.S. I think it's more likely to be a Russian nuke than an Iranian nuke at this point, but a nuclear Iran is seriously scary for the U.S. For Israel it's just plain unacceptable.

But hey, why listen to me? I'm the guy who thinks that invading Iraq was a reasonable action based on the information we had at the time. Of course hindsight shows no WMD's. But if prognostication allowed for perfect knowledge (hindsight) no one would ever have to make the best decision based on limited knowledge.

[rob]

Meant to say: "make the best decision they could based on limited knowledge."