Anarcho-libertarian law and economics and political philosophy thinker David Friedman (author of anarchist political classic The Machinery of Freedom) delivers a refreshingly honest take on how our emotions and our political logic can clash in a world of recognizable political groupings:
I have little reason to want Romney to win, some reason to want him to lose. I am not confident of that conclusion—one can argue that Romney would be likely to appoint better Supreme Court justices, a point some libertarians have been making in his favor. One can speculate that the influence of the tea party Republicans might push Romney into being a better president than he wants to be. But the spectacle of the Bush administration is a strong argument on the other side.
If I switch the question from what I ought to want to what I do want, from reason to emotion, the result changes. I will be happy if Obama loses, unhappy if he wins.
Human beings have a tendency, perhaps unfortunate, to view the world as us vs them. Obama's supporters are, on the whole, people whose political views are more sharply opposed to mine than those of Romney's supporters. Insofar as my hardwired instincts are trying to sort political struggles into the categories of friend and foe, it is clear which side they put me on. If I think of the election as a football match, I may not be cheering one side, but I am definitely booing the other. Obama's defeat will be a crushing blow for a lot of people who I am inclined to disagree with and disapprove of….
Reminds me a bit of my "argument" for term limits. While I'm not sure they will have the political merits that the policy's libertarian fans promise, I do know they really piss off a class of people I am not fond of, politicians.
Friedman's fellow anarcho-theorist Randy Barnett (forgetting his beloved Lysander Spooner) this week made a hearty call for libertarians to vote Romney rather than Gary Johnson. Nick Gillespie took him to task for it earlier today.