'The Libertarian Case for Mitt Romney': Because 'bad' Is Better Than 'worse'


Over at Pajamas Media, Stephen "Vodkapundit" Green does his level best to convince a libertarian friend why she should for Mitt Romney over Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson (of whom Green says "he's a good man and a solid libertarian, so if I fail to make the case for Romney — then absolutely please do vote for Johnson").

Green's first reason, understandably enough, is sitting in the Oval Office, presiding over lousy economic policy while failing to deliver on most hopes civil libertarians had for the man. "So," he pivots, "is Mitt Romney the man to save us?"

Well… no.

But he can buy us time. […]

What we need is breathing room, a chance to get the economy growing again, to get people back to work again. It's no coincidence that when we reformed welfare, it was during an economic boom. Wealth papers over lots of differences, and allows people to get things done. And there's lots that needs doing. We can start by repealing ObamaCare, repealing Dodd-Frank, and just generally undoing the last four years. These are things Romney has promised to do.

Will he do it? I hope so, and if he wins it will be our job to ride him and ride him hard to live up to those promises. What I do know for certain is that Romney isn't Obama Lite, despite what you might think. Romney won't dial back Washington to 18% of our GDP. But he might get it down to 20%, which, believe it or not, is a big — and absolutely necessary — improvement.

We'll see no such improvement from a second Obama administration […]

We don't get to choose this year between "good" and "better" — have we ever enjoyed that choice? But we do get a sharp distinction this year between "bad" and "worse."

I'm going with "bad" because I'm not sure we'll survive another term of the worst.

Whole thing here.

Related: Four years ago, believe it or not, I made "The Libertarian Case for McCain."