In past election cycles, I really haven't had a strong preference among the candidates. I voted for the Bernstein/Bernstein ticket in 2004, and can't really remember who I voted for, or for that matter whether I voted, from 1988 to 2000. But I'm much more of a Republican partisan this time, for a few reasons:
(1) Libertarians have been heavily involved in some of the most important constitutional Supreme Court litigation of the last two decades, either in terms of bringing the case, being among the most important advocates of one side's constitutional theory, or both. Among the cases in this category are Lopez, Morrison, Boy Scouts v. Dale, U.S. Term Limits, Grutter, Gratz, Kelo, Raich, Heller, and probably a few more that I'm not thinking of offhand. With the minor exception of Justice Breyers' vote in Gratz, in each of these cases, the ONLY votes the libertarian side received were from Republican appointees, and all of the Democrat appointees, plus the more liberal Republican appointees, ALWAYS voted against the libertarian side. The latter did so even in cases in which their political preferences were either irrelevant (Term Limits), or should have led them to sympathize with the plaintiff (Lopez, Kelo, Raich).
The only exception to this pattern is Lawrence v. Texas, in which Justice Kennedy seems to have been influenced by the Cato Institute's brief. But if the liberals had been able to muster five votes without Kennedy, I'm sure the opinion would have been quite different, less libertarian and more about "tiers of scrutiny" and whatnot. I'm a law professor, teach constitutional law, and the subject is dear to my heart. I'd much rather have the side that tends to take my ideological compatriots' constitutional arguments seriously on the Court. And Raich and Kelo, respectively, suggest that the liberals on the Court not only don't take libertarian arguments seriously, they don't believe in (a) any limits in federal regulatory power, whatsoever; or in (b) property rights, even when big corporations are using the political process to screw over the little guy.
(2) I'm not exactly a huge McCain fan. Indeed, other than Huckabee, he was probably my least-favorite choice in the Republican field. But as things have turned out, and despite some absurd, statist, campaign planks, in the home stretch he's running the most rhetorically libertarian presidential campaign I can remember since Reagan's 1980 campaign. Every time I hear a clip on the news, he's denouncing Obama for being a big spender and a taxer. He pledges to freeze most federal spending, and to take on entitlements and the grotesque reverse Robin Hood farm programs that Obama and almost all Congressional Democrats support. If he pulls out a victory, it will be seen as a stunning come from behind victory for those ideas. If he loses, and especially if loses badly, it will look like Americans are okay with "spreading the wealth."
(3) I think there are two great moral issues in American politics today, the disastrous War on Drugs, and free trade. The War on Drugs, for now, is hopeless. Free trade though, is not. Over the past couple of decades, a (statistical) billion people, more or less, have moved from poverty to the local middle-class because of globalization and free trade, far more people than have been aided by all the liberal do-goodism Obama, or any else, has or can muster. McCain is the candidate of free trade; Obama is the candidate of "fair trade," which in practice means protectionism. McCain's policies have the potential to rescue tens of millions of additional people from poverty, who will stay mired there under Obama. (And I always had at least one soft spot for Bill Clinton, for standing up to the unions and the know nothing wing of his party in favor of free trade and NAFTA).
(4) Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid. Filibuster-proof majority. 'nuff said.
(5) I really still don't have any idea of what Obama is about. Is he the moderate, utilitarian, empiricist that Cass Sunstein raves about? Or is really quite far to the left ideologically, as various aspects of his biography suggest, but just skilled at hiding it for electoral advantage, with his very steady, moderate personality serving as a mask? The last thing the U.S. needs is a left-wing Ronald Reagan, but that might well be what we get.
Having said that, this libertarian is more convinced by the libertarians-for-Obama arguments. (I'm thinking of Bernstein's GMU colleague Alex Tabarrok more than anyone else). I believe he posted it at marginalrevolution.com.
I make sure to choose a major party candidate these days in any close election that matters, so voting for Bob Barr is not an option.
So this is not an easy one, particularly with the specter of full Democratic control at issue. But more than anything else, the Republicans need to be punished for 8 years of gross mismanagement and the abandonment of any truly conservative Republican principles. And I'll just have to hope that we get Sunstein's Obama and not the guy who served in the Illinois Senate.
Point (4) gives me the shivers, especially as I think Obama is quite liberal and hiding it well. I hope I'm wrong and we'll know for sure soon enough.
Funny, I would think the systematic slaughter of 1.3 million babies every year would make the top-two list of "great moral issues in American politics today." Why do I suspect it isn't even number three?
McCain is an anti-free speech warmonger. Obama is a left-wing collectivist and the most anti-gun major party presidential candidate ever.
A McCain presidency would have the advantage of gridlock with Congress and the likelihood of only a single term. But a McCain victory would vindicate the neocons, who really need to be run out of town on a rail politically after the way they destroyed the bright prospects this country had only 8 years ago. There is no lesser of two evils. There are differences between McCain and Obama, but they don't add up to a dime's worth.
The bona fide Libertarian candidate is the only option for this voter, and has been since 1980.
Remember, this is a discussion about which candidate would best further (or to put it frankly, be less damaging to) libertarian principles.
Sorry, your abortion argument belongs in a different thread.
Going to Iowa and publicly opposing federal ethanol during a campaign when your candidacy is on the line is rare political courage.
About the only thing that makes me think Obama won't be that bad is his lack of political courage. He'll likely stay within the bounds of the American mainstream because he won't like the reaction he gets when he strays.
A significant portion of liberals, among whom I include Obama, are personally very radical if not socialist at heart. They will impose on the American people as much as they are able to. The current fiscal crisis and rock-solid Congressional majorities could potentially allow Obama to take this country farther left than any President since LBJ if not FDR.
How any libertarian can vote for Obama is absolutely beyond me, even those who are doing it simply to send the Republicans a message (which I agree with in theory and would do as well if the stakes were not so high).
Okay, fine, I'll vote for the non-socialist. Your code words convinced me.
Is this just a way of saying that one does not care at all about the outcome of the election? It seems hard to believe that even the average American would forget this, but completely inconceivable that someone would blogs about politics on a daily basis would.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to threadjack. But the statement was that "there are two great moral issues in American politics today." Like Loophole1998, I take great exception to Prof. Bernstein's list (much as I respect him). Perhaps if these were simply the "two great libertarian issues in American politics today," I could come closer to buying it.
But if, as classic libertarians enunciated, the government's sole purpose should be to protect life, liberty, and property - see e.g., Frederic Bastiat, The Law - then a government that fails in that most basic duty to protect life, while at the same time exceeding its purpose by restricting other liberties, is the very definition of a crisis of libertarian principles.
"Funny, I would think the systematic slaughter of 1.3 million babies every year would make the top-two list of "great moral issues in American politics today." Why do I suspect it isn't even number three?"
Because you're too suspicious? Because everyone who thinks it is is already voting for McPalin?
I know "fair trade" is usually code word for protectionism, but it does not have to be. EU uses the promise of membership to induce reforms in the countries that aspire to join in. It has improved matters in almost every country, eastern Europe, Balkans, Turkey... I don't think it is "bad" to use the carrot of free trade to push for democratic and social reforms or basic environmental protections, as well as economic reforms. Are you against it in principle or are you just afraid that Obama would just use it as a pretext to put up trade barriers?
Thx for highlighting the moral angle on free trade. Should International Law become ascendant, I expect those billion to have no little influence in how it is crafted long term. It may not be long until emigration becomes an appealing prospect.
Anyone who has a problem with "spread the wealth" also has a problem with Palin, since she likes the idea that Alaskans "collectively … share in the wealth."
So just decide which socialist you want to vote for.
This isn't the McCain Campaign. Selective quoting isn't going to get you anywhere. DB's full quote states that, "all of the Democrat appointees, plus the more liberal Republican appointees, ALWAYS voted against the libertarian side." Are you saying O'Connor wasn't among the more liberal Republican appointees?
I see roughly two competing threats on individual liberty in this country:
1) The tendency of the left (mostly) to want to take care of everyone-- this necessarily creates intrusive government by closely tying the individual and the state. This is what Bernstein seems to be worried about.
However... consider this too:
2) The tendency from the right to ask us to give up civil liberties (freedom of speech and association, due process, protection against unreasonable search and siezure, etc) in the name of temporary security.
However..... After GWB who seems only slightly less fiscally conservative than LBJ, I don't think you can treat #1 as the sole problem of the left anymore. Instead I think that we need:
1) Strong commitment to civil liberties (Obama is *far* stronger than McCain here based on their records)
2) Institutional conservatism with a plan of baby steps to reduce some of the damage. I don't know. McCain *might* be stronger than Obama here, but you wouldn't know it from the way he runs his campaign. Based on their records too, I think Obama probably has a slight edge.
3) Proposals that can be corrected in Congress with a net decrease in federal government. Many of McCain's proposals could be corrected in Congress by adding a lot of regulation (regarding medical insurance again, remind me *who* according to our Constitution regulates interstate commerce, on the other hand, I think the most objectionable parts of Obama's proposals could be weeded out in congress if we actually make our voices heard in the congressional offices).
Note too that independent review of proposed budgets suggests that McCain's budget has such of a big gap that the McCain campaign has said that McCain's speeches should not be seen as official statements. Maybe he can be more fiscally conservative than GWB and make it to the ranking of, say, LBJ.... Obama seems to win on the balanced budget (or close to it), fiscally conservative side too.
This being said, I think they are both qualified, capable, candidates who are likely to reverse some of the damage of the last 8 (or actually 16) years. However, at this point I don't believe the McCain campaign will do anything it is promising to do (which is probably fortunate, in the even they win).
McCain has promised more Scalias and Alitos, one of whom sided with the majority in Raich, and the other who most certainly would have.
[Editor: Vitriolic, obnoxious, rest of post deleted. And by the way, the available choices are not just voting for Obama or McCain, and I agree it was unlikely I'd do the former, but voting for a third-party candidate or not bothering to vote. I don't recall all the wildly enthusiastic pro-McCain posts that you seem to, perhaps because they don't exist.]
Still seems like a cherry-picked set of decisions. But perhaps I don't really understand why conservative libertarians care more about Morrison than, say, Rasul.
Seems to me there is a world of difference between "spreading" a state's natural "wealth" equally between its citizens, rich and poor, and having government confiscate the "wealth" the group that produced it and "spreading" it to another that has not.
That is probably one of the most dishonest attempts at moral equivalence I have ever seen, and this election has produced a lot of them.
One guy pushes an old lady into the path of a speeding bus, and another guy pushes an old lady out of the path of a speeding bus. JBG, would you then conclude that both guys are equally evil because they both push old ladies around?
I'm not certain where you get that the right wants us to give up freedom of speech. This right is already being trampled by the left with university PC codes that have spread to many other areas of life, and with "human rights commissions" already set up in many states to promote the "right" to not be offended. Wait until the left has the real power to punish critics, with the IRS, the Justice Department, and a veto-proof majority.
Or isn't freedom of speech considered a civil right?
Similarly, where is the right trying to limit freedom of association? Because we think "associating" with nothing but Marxists, Black Liberation Theologists, Muslim extremists and outright communists your whole life might give you the tendency to think and act like them?
You can "associate" with anyone you like, just don't expect others not to judge you by them.
I'm afraid I don't see your characterization of the left as just this warm and fuzzy desire to take care of everybody.
I had an appointment with a doctor today. He said his practice was unusually busy since one of the other doctors in his practice group is a reservist who has been deployed to Iraq. My doctor explained that he regularly shares e-mails with his partner, and the he is very proud of the work his partner is doing in Iraq:
His primary task is providing medical care to Iraqi children suffering from a whole variety of infectious diseases and other maladies.
Noble goal? Yes. Spreading the wealth of American taxpayers to Iraqis who lack access to health care is, indeed, noble. Or so everyone thought.
Here's what's amazing to me: why should anyone be expected to pay any attention to the tortuous arguments that follow DB's opening paragraph after he makes the confession quoted above?
It is incredible that someone who professes to care so much about the choices for president has cared so little about voting in a way that could actually affect the outcome of any presidential election in the past 20 years. Writing in his own name on the ballot in 2004 makes a cute story, but there were important issues separating the main candidates even back then -- as there are now. When we are asked to vote for politicians, we are always faced with the need to choose between two (or more) "evils." I'm afraid that DB's comments on his own voting record since 1988 raise serious questions about his commitment and judgment as a voter.
I'm unconvinced that Obama's fair trade talk isn't just campaign rhetoric, and from the very, very little I read on the subject, I gather that new trade agreements aren't really going anywhere and that, practically speaking, Obama would have a much better chance of getting trade agreements through a Democratic Congress.
Constitutional law is a subject dear to my heart too, but a lot of the cases you mention are more interesting than they are important. Should I really vote on the basis of how Grutter and Gratz were decided? Is that really such an important issue? Or take Kelo. Bad decision, but haven't state legislatures largely canceled out its effects - couldn't you even argue that Kelo was a positive impetus to eminent domain reform? I just don't believe that the Court has enough power to cast my vote on the basis of who would make better appointments.
If McCain won, it would be seen as a stunning, come from behind victory for the school of thought that thinks (a) spending freezes during recessions make economic sense, and (b) taxes are a one-way ratchet - they only can be lowered, and to ever raise them for anyone is tantamount to creeping socialism. But are these good ideas? I'm very unconvinced that they are. I would rather see McCain lose so that the Republican Party might realize that they need to campaign on something more than a purely negative platform - that they're not going to be an electorally viable party in a nation that's demographically running away from them if they don't start taking education, healthcare, and stagnant middle-class wages seriously.
Actually, the oil in Alaska's ground is properly the property of the oil companies who pumped it out, not the citizens of Alaska as a whole or Ms. Palin. No moral difference between stealing wealth from the oil companies and redistributing it and stealing from your wallet and redistributing it. Nice try though.
McCain seems likely to follow in these Big Government Conservative footsteps. Even if he might be marginally better than Obama on some issues, the Republican party's abandonment of limited government needs to be decisively repudiated, and so they need to lose big.
.
Repudiating "big government" by giving the "bigger government" side a more decisive win is illogical. The signal will be, "the people have spoken - have given a mandate, and that mandate is bigger government."
Exactly how does one write in a vote for President, given that one actually votes for electors and not for the candidates for President/Vice President? When I voted in Virginia, there was a write-in option for every race except President/Vice President.
Back to the state of nature for me! No one steals from the naked guy scrounging for berries nuts in the woods!
What have the Romans ever done for us?
They are guided totally by their policy preferences.
Since it is a lifetime seat on the super senate, the president and senate are only important because of their ability to appoint new members. The congress as a whole is only important because of its ability to pass a budget (and I predict even that power will be taken from it in the next decade).
My fear is that the political class will recall, when their senate and pres are in power, that a 'lifetime' appointment is only held while the member is still alive. I can see some seats being opened in my lifetime.
Umm, yeah, I think we figured that out.
While I don't doubt the honesty of this post, David, I'm pretty surprised to see nothing about religion in it. You've spent an awful lot of time and energy posting about Obama from the Jewish perspective over the last couple of months. But I see nothing about how your Judiasm is influencing your decision in this post. If that doesn't play into your decision, why so many posts on the topic?
So did you ask yourself this question? Cause you like, did.
Please provide an example of the last time a common thief stole money from you and then used it to fix the road to your home.
I think you missed the point of my question. I asked why DB would presume that it would be reasonable for anyone to listen to his arguments after showing himself to have a history of such careless voting over the last 20 years. That is why I didn't waste further time discussing the rest of DB's post.
Well also, Ayers. I mean, I assume an issue is important to your vote if you bring it up that many times.
Of the Supreme Court cases David mentioned, two stand out. Heller came out right simply because of the whim of Anthony Kennedy, but, as Obama's record shows, he is solidly anti-Second Amendment. Grutter, however, is a stain on the Court in the same way that Dred Scott and Plessy are. Does anyone think that Obama would appoint someone who would vote to overrule Grutter?
The nation on Tuesday may choose to have the most left-wing government since 1933, but it certainly won't be with my help
If the GOP ever decides to get over its disdain for lawyers and representative government, they will have a shot at getting my vote. But only a shot.
Or if the GOP could invent a useful blog editing tool ...
But with Congress solidly in the hands of Pelosi and Reid, I really doubt a McCain presidency would result in much adventurism.
Sort of, only without the 'acting', and with the president figuring out that the power to pardon is the power to have people killed.
"Will no one rid me of this troublesome chief justice?"
Seriously, I have seen better characters and acting in a scooby doo episode from 1969.
I've always enjoyed watching leftists play this moral equovaction game. What Obama said is allegedly not bad because Palin said something dissimilar. To wit: In Alaska, the people own the oil. Which is nothing like taking my money and giving it to someone who did nothing to earn it.
But pretend it does.
One other point, remember all those on the left here denying Obama benefitted from Affirmative Action?
Well, here is "the one" in his own words:
The truth marches on...
2) You misunderstand - the Obama victory will be an endorsement of stability and sanity, not spending. McCain is unstable and Palin is wierd - that's the whole shebang. Besides, another supply-sided fool cutting upper bracket taxes right now and putting Gramm in Treasury could really sink the economy.
3) good points, but I would rank defeating Islamofascism (awkward short hand, I know) ahead of those issues. Obama has the right policies for that, and he's not a hot-head lacking in good judgment.
4) We have to take the risk.
5) It's the risk we take with every election - at least he ought to be competent, so its a big step up.
So, I may not be too happy, but it's not a hard choice.
HGB
Actually, the oil in Alaska's ground is properly the property of the oil companies who pumped it out, not the citizens of Alaska as a whole or Ms. Palin.
The Alaska oil wealth savings account was in place before Palin was elected. Voters created the trust fund in 1976.
Those funds are invested and citizens are paid dividends.
This isn't at all comparable to the federal income tax either in structure, intent, or function.
You can't name a single instance in American history where raising marginal tax rates led to economic growth.
Obama has the right policies for that,
Invading nuclear Pakistan?
Really?
If I go dig on your lawn and strike oil, can I keep it for free?
If I do all the work involved in finding the oil and drilling the well and pumping the oil out of the ground and finding customers and delivering it to them, and then the government takes some of that money away from me and gives it to you, someone who has done nothing whatsoever to get that oil out of the ground and turn it into money, then that is indeed an example of "having government confiscate the 'wealth' the group that produced it and 'spreading' it to another that has not."
But it's perfectly fine when Palin spreads the wealth around (and she drastically boosted the payments, which is probably one of the main reasons she was getting high approval ratings). Here's why: IOKIYAR.
And of course that's the same reason that no one accused McCain of being a socialist when he opposed the Bush tax cuts a few years ago.
There are a bunch of things popping up that have been well-hidden for a long time. For example, suddenly 'conservatives' are talking about the merits of a divided government. Where was that principle in 2004?
Good point. Of course, if were using the wealth of American taxpayers to take care of Americans who lack access to health care, that wouldn't be noble. It would be socialism.
The GOP seems to be all for nation-building, but only if it's someone else's nation. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that colossal contract shenanigans are much easier to hide when they happen on the other side of the planet and are obscured by the fog of war.
Which pinko came up with the idea the government should own all that land, and all that oil? Doesn't Palin believe in free markets, and private ownership? Why would anyone think the government can manage that land more efficiently than a private company would? If it's OK for the government to own all that land, why not just let the government own all the land in the whole state? What's the difference? Because it's a good idea to "share in the wealth," right? That's what Palin said: "share in the wealth."
And she greatly escalated the payment. If she was something other than a socialist, she would have gone in the other direction, and sold that land to private companies.
That reminds me. Here's a scenario I've heard no one mention. McCain wins. McCain dies in office. Palin takes over. She proceeds to quickly do a bunch of really dumb and corrupt things, a la Troopergate. Her approval ratings dive below Dubya's. Ds have a huge majority in Congress. They vote overwhelmingly to impeach her. Nancy Pelosi becomes our second female president. Yay!
Not in intent?
Aren't the collective property rights that Alaskan residents have over the oil in the ground a matter of social convention (as opposed to natural law)? The land in Manhattan is not collectively owned, and revenues generated on the land in Manhattan are thought to belong purely to the private entities that own buildings, shares in corporations, etc. Why collective ownership instead of private ownership?
You can say that "voters created the trust fund" but didn't voters also "create the federal income tax"?
BTW, marginal tax rates increased during the 1990s, when socialist dictator Bill Clinton ruled America with an iron fist. It's unfortunate that his vicious rule left so few survivors who have a clear memory of those dark days.
It's even harder to remember the dark days of socialist dictator Ike, when the highest marginal rate was 91%.
Let's compare Obama's plan to what we had under Pinko Ike and Pinko JFK (rates were unchanged from 1954 to 1964; pdf). $250K in today's dollars is the equivalent of $37,800 in 1964. The marginal rate on that income would have been 53%. Obama proposes 39%, what we had under Clinton. If 39% makes Obama a socialist, I guess Ike and JFK were uber-socialists.
You can keep any precious metals or gemstones you find too.
Such a deal!
This video proves that McCain thinks you're right.
The Alaska oil wealth savings account was in place before Palin was elected. Voters created the trust fund in 1976.
Those funds are invested and citizens are paid dividends.
This isn't at all comparable to the federal income tax either in structure, intent, or function.
I mean, I believe she raised the tax and gave people a bigger dividend. It's all very analogous, really; the income tax was created in, what, 1913? It will have been in place before he gets elected too. All Obama's doing is raising the top rate three points.
Alaska owned the North Slope land before oil was discovered. It's one of those dumb luck things. Had Alaska and not the Federal government owned ANWR, there'd be wells all over that place.
Alaska is not charging BP et al money to pump BP's oil. Alaska is charging BP to pump Alaska's oil. Seems fair to me.
Is the one billion number you quote the total number of people who have moved out of poverty in "the last couple of decades?"
If so, on what basis can you attribute this entirely to "globalization and free trade?" Surely there are lots of other factors - technology advances, changes in Chinese economic policies, etc?
I do generally support free trade, it's just that I think some of the claimed benefits are overstated.
> and another guy pushes an old lady out of the path of a
> speeding bus. JBG, would you then conclude that both guys
> are equally evil because they both push old ladies around?
Please stand at the top of the stairs.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwL5Yr1Ks9I
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-10ewA5pZsg
As soon as you say "Alaska's oil," you are describing the collective ownership of resources. You're saying the people of Alaska collectively own "Alaska's oil." But what's special about that land? If it makes sense for that land to be owned collectively by the people of Alaska, then why shouldn't that principle be applied to all the land in the state?
The situation is summed up pretty nicely here:
And speaking of Karl the Marxist, which pinko came up with the idea the government should own all that land, and all that oil? Doesn't Palin believe in free markets, and private ownership? Why would anyone think the government can manage that land more efficiently than a private company would? If it's OK for the government to own all that land, why not just let the government own all the land in the whole state? What's the difference? Because it's a good idea to "share in the wealth," right?