A reader sends along a link to this article from Cato's Michael Tanner on Obama, saying "As a fellow 'libertarian tepidly for Obama', I ask myself more and more if it's a sound position. This latest Cato makes me cringe a little more . . . "
Obama's rhetoric about trade, and his insanely bad economic "patriot act" have certainly given me pause. But do I have buyer's remorse? No. For starters, I clearly prefer Obama to Hillary as president; on the assumption that there's a very good chance that Generic Democrat will win the election, the primary outcome suits me.
In the general? I might not vote for Obama; I will not vote for McCain. There are some things more important than the economy, and free speech is among them. Yes, I don't like Obama's stance on the Second Amendment, but the difference is, the president has little wiggle room right now on the second, while McCain might do serious further damage to the first, or the fourth. I dislike the steps Obama is willing to take in order to achieve his goals of economic equality. But these are as nothing to the notion that citizens have to be protected from information because Big Daddy John thinks we'll get bad ideas in our heads.
Moreover, Obama is running left right now to try to win the nomination. I expect he will tack right in the primaries . . . and he will probably have to govern as the fellow in the general election, because that will be his actual mandate.
Um... Obama is a firm Leftie and with a Democratic Congress he's likely to run the country as a hard Leftie. Politicians like to make up their own "mandate" so I wouldn't count on moderates voting for him actually having an affect on his positions.
Besides, he'll bring great "hope" and "change" and is "The One" to "fix our souls."
I think I'm more afraid of his wife than I am of him. She's completely insane.
Thanks for the nameless plug! Yeah, I'll probably still vote for him...or I may just skip that part of the ballot. I dunno. I still prefer him overall to the other two....because as you say, there are other factors besides economics (foreign policy, free speech etc.) . THAT is what keeps me lukewarm and "tepidly" supporting him. But that's more of a testament about the others and not really about Obama specifically.
McCain is DOA for me and my feelings on Hillary are similar to yours. However, I think Will Wilkinson's logic leaning Hillary has merit as well. Hillary would mobilized the GOP to win congress in 2010...more so than Obama. And she is vague enough about policy in many respects that she doesn't seem to be promising anything.
Good points by Will. But I'm still leaning Obama...for now.
If Obama wins in November, I expect to be reading a lot of buyer's remorse in the coming years.
I also consider myself a Libertarian. And, I too find myself for Obama. Perhaps more strongly than Michael Tanner.
I also think he is much more of a realist than HRC. For example, he could pander to the soon to be foreclosed by pushing for "a halt of rate adjustments for five years" but he didn't. Why? Because it would shut down the mortgage industry for all. HRC knows she would never get this through congress, regardless of how far "left" they are. But, she also knows it will get her votes.
Give me the candidate that doesn't change her tune everytime she changes a city. In my book, that's Barack Obama.
I also believe he will restore some of the first amendment rights that have been destroyed by the current administration. Perhaps if Michael Tanner thought about those he'd be more excited?
While I would love to see a more economically sound policy from Obama, like unrestricted free trade and open borders, I am pleased that he will adress such issues as Social security and our defense spending, and while taxes are unpleasant, I don't believe we are anywhere near the optimum tax point on the Laffer curve, nor do we really have a choice at this point, the bankrupt policies of the GOP have left us drowning in debt. And while free trade is an economic positive in the long run, in the short run it produces losers and try telling a person whose job went overseas that globalization is good, you probably won't get much support, and so policies are needed to shield those who are the short term losers so as to avoid a call for protectionism
Love the sound of those "re-education camps" he spoke about last night to force his health care plan and how last night's debate settled in on whom and how many folk would be fined or go to jail if they don't sign up. Obama's got this idea, he explained, that personal responsibility kicks in at the point where the government has paid for your health care and forced you to sign up for his health care and re-educated you how to use his health care and will even take your children to the doctor, so if you don't, then you're obviously irresponsible. Socialism lite this is not.
PhilM,
I'm sure Tanner has thought about that. He's just focusing on economic policy specifics in this article.
However, and if you're a libt, you'll know this:
It's generally hard for libt's to get genuinely excited about any candidate.
It's like a lover of Filet Mignon in the mood for juicy steak choosing between McDonalds or BK hamburgers. Sure, one will be chosen but not with much enthusiasm.
axt113 - actually sounds like Social Security will be bankrupt given Obama's pledge last night to simply start chopping $1000 per person from those payroll taxes.
What specifically do you think a Pres. McCain might or would do to restrict First Amendment protections?
I am not a McCain fan but pragmatically I don't see how a Libertarian can vote for Obama.
Obama will have a Democratic congress pushing him to the left if he really is a centrist or not restraining him if he really is a lefty.
McCain on the other hand will have a democratic congress opposing him on many issues (some times just because he is a republican) to keep him in line and he will be able to keep the democratic congress from getting carried away.
Divided government has historically been one of the best times for Libertarians/Limite Government.
Were this four years ago and we had a republican congress I probably would vote for Obama. But as it is I don't trust what he and his party mates would do with only a senate fillibuster standing in the way.
Is Obama the American Mandela? Obama brings a message of hope and change to a country at the crossroads. It is choice between the past and the future. But is Obama the American Mandela who could inspire Americans to a better future at home? And a future where America takes it rightful place at the global table? Is he the one? The question of whether Obama is the American Mandela is discussed in my blog Angry African on the Loose at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/is-obama-the-american-mandela/
here are some things more important than the economy, and free speech is among them. Yes, I don't like Obama's stance on the Second Amendment, but the difference is, the president has little wiggle room right now on the second, while McCain might do serious further damage to the first, or the fourth.
How can anyone pretend that Obama will be better than McCain? All of the annoying lefty legislation that McCain is known for is warmly endorsed by Obama. You are getting all of the things you don't like about McCain with Obama.
axt113:
We must have protectionism to prevent calls for protectionism?
Obama has always voted with the left, when he's voted at all; what reason is there to believe he'd govern differently?
I might vote for Obama for president and, rather blindly, the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Obama as president with a Republican Congress...that's about as good as it can realistically get.
At some point Ms. Megan, you will need to recall what you were saying about divided government before the midterms (or I will be happy to remind you).
Then you will need to confront the real choice. It is not Obama (or Clinton) vs. McCain. Your choice of government will be:
Obama + Reid + Pelosi
- vs -
McCain + Reid + Pelosi
JoshK's comment at 2:35 is spot on.
The only rationale that I can see for voting for Obama over McCain is that Obama is far less likely to get us involved in another war/democracy building exercise in the Middle East or continuing the one in progress in Iraq. However, with this, one must be prepared to accept responsibility for the chaos and likely increasing murder that will take place on withdrawl from Iraq.
I don't get it. People who would never vote for Ted Kennedy will vote for Obama. What's the difference? That Obama is cooler? Obama-mania seems very juvenile to me.
McCain is not very cool and he's not really offering much. But that suits well with any one who believes that the government can't really deliver much (good).
I don't get it. People who would never vote for Ted Kennedy will vote for Obama. What's the difference? That Obama is cooler? Obama-mania seems very juvenile to me.
McCain is not very cool and he's not really offering much. But that suits well with any one who believes that the government can't really deliver much (good).
"There are some things more important than the economy, and free speech is among them. Yes, I don't like Obama's stance on the Second Amendment, but the difference is, the president has little wiggle room right now on the second, while McCain might do serious further damage to the first, or the fourth. I dislike the steps Obama is willing to take in order to achieve his goals of economic equality. But these are as nothing to the notion that citizens have to be protected from information because Big Daddy John thinks we'll get bad ideas in our heads.
Moreover, Obama is running left right now to try to win the nomination. I expect he will tack right in the primaries . . . and he will probably have to govern as the fellow in the general election, because that will be his actual mandate."
Really? Was Obabma against McCain Feingold? Would he repeal it? I have not heard him say either. My guess is that he probably was rather fond of it but I don't know. I think it was a terrible bill, but my sense is that the democrats were all for it.
And what in his reccord makes you think he will move to the center? He wasn't in the center in the Senate. His proposals are not in the center.
My guess is that he will move to the center in the genral election and then promptly move back where he has allways been when he governs and will have a congress that is all to pleased to help him do so.
Now if you are a liberal/progressive/democarat I can see you being pretty cool about all that. But why would a libertarian?
"Obama is running left right now to try to win the nomination. I expect he will tack right in the primaries . . . and he will probably have to govern as the fellow in the general election, because that will be his actual mandate."
How would we know?
Susan Sarandon: Well, I’m going to back Obama. ...
I think he definitely has convinced people that he stands for change and for hope, and I can’t wait to see what he stands for.
I find it hard to believe any libertarian in today's climate going for Obama.
1. Libertarians get the best shake on divided government. If Obama wins he will probably pull in some Democratic coat tails. We will have no check on new programs.
2. You worry about free speech. A Democratic administration + a Democratic Congress is recipe for the re-establishment of the fairness doctrine. How would that square with your support of free speech.
There are many, many more substantial arguments that others have made. Please do not support Obams.
Megan,
You really should address the question that the other posters have brought up: How is Obama different from McCain on campaign finance reform and other issues related to the first amendment?
I agree Yancey. The main thing that worries me about McCain is that he might get us into another stupid war.
But at this point does anyone think a democratic congress will allow that?
For libertarians, one part of Obama's platform is like a dream: his immigration stance. He's even gone as far as marching for illegal activity at an event organized by those linked to the Mexican government and Mexican political parties, so you know he's going to toe the libertarian line on that issue.
Hillary isn't a slouch, but her support isn't as far-left and as Mexico-linked.
One of McCain's outreach directors is a former cabinet-level official in the Mexican government: youtube.com/watch?v=YRWRzZ_yPnk
So, libertarianism - or at least the collaborationist/open borders variety thereof - is quite well represented this time around.
Reid? What Reid? HRC will finally gracefully withdraw, there will a love-in, and HRC will emerge as the Senate Majority Leader. From her cockpit in the Senate, she can live to fight another day if Pres. Obama is a disaster (or loses to McCain.)
"But at this point does anyone think a democratic congress will allow that?"
What say would the current Congress have if Bush ordered the invasion of Iran? The fact remains that currently a president can go to war, and if Congress refuses to fund it our troops die and they aren't supporting the troops. It's the situation we are currently in and Congress doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it. Getting out of Iraq is a priority for me and the savings to our troops and budget will help. And, let's not forget George W. Bush and a Republican Congress are the ones to see one of the largest expansions in government spending and personnel our country has seen.
Second, a lot of Democrats in Congress are fairly right wing and will likely help put a check on any Democratic president. And unless Democrats achieve 60 in the Senate the Republicans will be able to block any new spending program they want. IMO, we are much more likely to have a check of power on a Democrat as the president than if a Republican is re-elected.
Would love to see some more blogging on why you would not vote for McCain. I know a lot of people struggling right now with this choice so some more perspective from someone whose writings I respect would be great.
Many thanks.
Why is it better to support Obama, who believes we need to be exposed to the information he and the other lefties think important? The fairness doctrine is as corrosive as McCain Feingold. And of course Obama supports it, and more.
The problem is that if ol' Barack was just a wee bit older, the law may well have been called the McCain-Obama Act.
I think I'm sittin' this one out, and for those hoping for divided government, recall the last time we had a uber-statist Republican and a Democratic Congress. How'dja like those wage/price controls? Is Arthur Burns still alive?
I don't get all this gloom-and-doom hand-wringing from you libertarians.
ONE OF YOURS IS STILL RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! VOTE FOR HIM! CONVINCE HIM TO MAKE A THIRD-PARTY RUN!
Woody, I don't get the tribal thinking involved in instinctively supporting someone because he is associated with a certain label.
MM is way off base here, I think she has unfortunately bought into the Obama hype hook, line and sinker. Obama is a token liberal, but he has been able to mask it with his hope nonsense and eloquent public speaking ability. I like the guy, he is not acerbic, nor an elitist asshole like most prominent liberals, but when you peel back the rhetoric, he is just another liberal preaching the same old tired policies of class warfare and victimization.
Obama with a democrat congress would be no different than Ted Kennedy with a democrat congress. Single party government is a disaster, as we have recently learned. He may tack right in the GE, but there is zero evidence that he would govern as a centrist. I can't see how any true libertarian could support him, even though he is the best thing democrats have been able to produce in 30 years.
Again, JBJB, I'm waiting for someone to explain to me what was so great about an uber-statist Republican President and a Democratic Congress, like we had from January 1969 to August 1974.
A libertarian for Obama?!? I am almost at a loss for words -- it is simply not possible to be a libertarian and be "for" Mr. O. Anyone writing such drivel must be truly misinformed about libertarianism, and the ZAP principle in particular. Hard to believe what people write....
If I didn't have so much respect for Megan for her previous posts, I would find this funny. As it is, it is just sad.
I don't know of any reason to think that Barack "Arugula" Obama would be better on free speech than McCain -- and many reasons to think that he would not.
Then there is this troubling fact: When ever a newspaper takes the trouble to compare what Obama says about his past with what others who were there say, they find discrepancies. I haven't decided whether Obama believes his own stories, or not, but I do know that you can't trust what he says, without a lot of verification.
I would also like Megan to elaborate on exactly how Obama and McCain differ on campaign fincance reform.
Yes McCain had his name on the thing, but Obama seems to have given it his full support, and I've never heard Obama say anything that indicates that he sees a First Amendment problem with it.
Unless there's a big difference that I'm unaware of if you "Will not vote for McCain" for this reason, then you should say the same about Obama.
"A libertarian for Obama?!? I am almost at a loss for words -- it is simply not possible to be a libertarian and be "for" Mr. O. Anyone writing such drivel must be truly misinformed about libertarianism..."
--Henry Bowman | February 22, 2008 6:28 PM
Henry,
it isn't, necessarily, that she's misinformed..
she needs, chooses to, to conform to the constraints of her pay voucher--she can claim loving revere for Hayek until the Cows come Home, but, you'll never hear her reference his 'Constitution of Liberty'--Chapter 8-- where he's lays out, unimpeachably, his thesis: Employees are a Threat to Liberty.
Funny, those from Stato (CATO) nor TReason are never found doing so, either..
Obama describes himself with words like "hope", "peace", "change" and I don't know what the hell he is talking about because these words have no meaning unless you can identify the problems facing this country and ask if Obama has a realistic plan to solve them. I have heard Obama speak and I am not impressed because his policies are about the same as the other CFR candidates. There is not a dimes worth of difference between Hillary, Obama, and McCain. Megan has a lifetime of blond moments and never has astute political commentary to discuss. First let us define some of the real problems facing this country. It is not just the Second or First Amendment dilemma. We are in a financial crisis. Our monetary system has been hijacked by the Federal Reserve, a group of private bankers that are not federal and are not a "Reserve". They control the interest rate and print money out of thin air and charge the U.S. citizens interest on the "money" they create. We are trillions of dollars in debt and we are borrowing money from China to fight an illegal, undeclared war. We can never get out of debt until we have a form of sound money. Obama does really not have a plan for this monetary crisis, In fact if all of his "plans" are enacted he will spend 280 billion dollars more then the currant budget when this country is facing bankruptcy. On the other hand Dr. Ron Paul would save the country 150 billion dollars by enacting his policies. Dr. Paul would end the war immediately, not just give lip service to it as does Clinton and Obama. Neither Clinton or Obama would commit to ending the war in their first term if elected president. Not only would Dr. Paul end the war, he would bring the troops home from all over the world so that they can defend our shores rather then use our solders to protect oil and for nation building for corporate interest. Obama also wants the U.S. citizens to pay taxes to the U.N.. Another great danger facing U.S. citizens is the loss of our civil liberties. Our Constitution and our Bill of Rights have been destroyed by Treaties, like Nafta and Gatt and by the "Patriot Act and the "War Commission Act". At this point in time a U.S. citizen can be searched, seized, jailed and held without being told what they are accused of, without being brought before a judge, tortured and secluded for an indefinite period of time. The War on Drugs another assault on our civil liberties jails drug possessors with a medical problem, who have not harmed the life, liberty or property of another and then uses these non violent prisoners as slave labor in prison factories. The largest population incarcerated by the War on Drugs are young black men. In the age group between 20 and 24, 1 out of 4 is in jail. The only presidential candidate that wants to free the modern day slaves immediately and restore our civil liberties and legalize the Constitution is not your Obama, but Dr. Ron Paul. He is more concerned about inner city justice then Obahama. Why doesn't Obama care that the Federal government lacks jurisdiction over drug possession, as it did alcohol back in Prohibition when people understood the Constitution and required an Amendment to prohibit the possession of a substance? Dr. Paul would end Nafta GATT and other unfair treaties that caused jobs to move overseas. Dr. Paul would end the IRS and put money back in the peoples pocket. Dr. Paul would end policies that give money to other countries, as the U.S. is giving $800,000 a day in Iraq to keep from being attacked, so they can say the "Surge" is working. As you can see, I do not believe that Obama is the man for the job. What change will he make that will strengthen the dollar, restore liberty, or create peace or prosperity in this country. Obama is listed in the top ten of corrupt politicians according to Judicial Watch. He is just another corporate owned CFR One Worlder who will lead this country to destruction. I value politicians, not by how well they speak, but by the policies they make and by their integrity. Dr. Ron Paul in the most honorable man in Washington. All I have to know about Obahama is that he is Chaney's cousin to know he would NEVER get my vote!
Quite the contrary, a Democrat President – particularly one as hard left as Obama – with a Democrat-controlled Senate who gets to fill numerous vacancies on the federal district courts, courts of appeals, and probably at least two spots on the Supreme Court can do quite a bit of damage to the Second Amendment.
Well Megan’s not really a libertarian, she occasionally writes something pro-market but is just as likely to write something in favor of ever-growing government paternalism. Whatever her motivations are for supporting Obama, it seems that her paternalism side is what’s driving her vote because pretty much every knock she’s made against McCain is equally true of Obama or more so. The other clue is that she has studiously avoided addressing the fact that McCain is undeniably better on trade, entitlement reform, earmarks, and farm subsidies – issues that Megan has written quite prolifically in the past.
I'm hesitant to suggest this, but some things she says makes me think she's more uncomfortable with McCain specifically because he was in the military for a fairly long time. Therefore he is more untrustworthy on issues of freedom regardless of any specific policy views. That's probably not it, but I could see a certain logic if it was it. I'm not saying I'd necessarily agree, but historically there might be something to the idea military men are a bit more proned to value order and security. Heinlein was libertarian, but "Starship Troopers" was seen by many as praising a fairly repressive system. (I've not read it myself) Eisenhower presided during the McCarthy era.
Granted there are many counterexamples as well.
Eisenhower was actually the best President we have had in the post war period, in terms of not being bamboozled by the military-industrial complex, while maintaining a realistic stance on matters relating to national security. He wasn't perfect by any means, but still somewhat underrated in many areas, by my estimation. How many Presidents would have the courage to send the 101st Airborne Division to ensure that local governments didn't abuse citizens on the basis of race? Eisenhower actually subverted McCarthy with some skill. Would that someone worthy of being mentioned with Eisenhower was running.
I'm mostly pro-Eisenhower in truth. I've just been reading some of the criticism of him lately to understand that perspective. And I think a libertarian, of whatever stripe, could have reasons to dislike him. It seems like taxes in Eisenhower's second-term were higher than under JFK's. He wasn't interested in totally undoing the New Deal.
However on saying this you should understand I'm very much not a libertarian. So even if there are better libertarian reasons to reject him than the ones I've stated that doesn't have much impact on how I view him.
Megan is not a libertarian in any meaningful sense... she's spoken for government interventions in many areas.
After reading some of the transcripts of the "debate" between Clinton and Obama, I'm even more convinced that he's HARD left and planning on staying there. I don't see either of them moving towards the middle... Clinton might if she had to to get more power...
EI,
you should remember that MM is from the Pro-State wing of Libertarian polity.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polity
after a different Eclipse, she'd be known as a LINO..
see also:
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=liz+mair
as another self-proclaimed 'Libertarian', this one having the distinction of being pro-Ghouliani..
Obama can't wait to surrender in Iraq. He's determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. No surrender monkey will ever get my vote.
(Note to idiots who think that we can 'end the war' by unilaterally withdrawing - you're on crack. All that does is hand the field to our enemies and allow them to focus combat power on raping, torturing and killing those who stuck their necks out for us in Iraq and their families. Then again, the Kurds know all about abandonment already.
If you abandon them, good luck getting someone to accept an American promise ever again.
And enjoy the special spot in Hell you'll have earned by betraying our allies, who risked their lives for freedom in a tough spot in 2006-2007. Particularly the sheikhs responsible for the Anbar Awakening.
No, I won't be casting a ballot for Obama, or any other surrender monkey. I don't care how hopeful he is at convincing the hopeless that there is hope in hoping.
Obama's an empty suit, anyway. A silver-tongued socialist, discernable from Hillary only in that he is occasionally possessed of a sense of humor and might actually be a decent person to be around.
Unlike Hillary, he also is consistent about embracing stupid policy positions. Hillary would love to be consistently stupid, but she can't bring herself to admit that she's an out-and-out socialist. Obama has an earnestness that Clinton lacks.
Megan -
Like several others above, I would like to hear in more detail why you think Obama might be better than McCain. You seem to have a strong emotional objection to one or two specific compromises McCain has made, whereas Obama is largely unencumbered by choices or accomplishments and thus allows you to hope that he'll only make choices that you prefer, regardless of all that he has said.
But if you get a chance, I'd like to hear, issue by issue, whether you genuinely believe that Obama would make better choices than McCain. I'd especially like to hear your opinion on the progress that has been made in Iraq, and whether you think we owe it to the Iraqis (and to ourselves) to give them a reasonable chance at a stable country. There's no reason to rehash how we got there originally, but given that we're in Iraq, and given that the surge has lead to progress, who do you think would handle the situation better going forward?
It's your blog, of course, so you're free to write about whatever you want (and I greatly enjoy reading it). But I found your coded discussion above rather confusing and incomplete, and would like to understand your reasoning in more detail.