Posted on 10/21/2004 8:42:46 AM PDT by the_devils_advocate_666
Like most "small L" libertarians, I'd like to see a constitutionally limited government, a humble but formidable foreign policy, unfettered free markets, and a premium on personal freedom.
Which is why I tend to get despondent around Election Day, and am again this year stuck with the classic "lesser of two evils" dilemma. The problem is that it's getting more and more difficult to discern which "evil" is lesser.
Let's look first at the incumbent.
From a libertarian perspective, the case against re-electing President Bush is extensive. The Cliff's Notes version:
President Bush has grown government more than any administration in four decades, even when you subtract for defense and homeland security spending. He and the Republican Congress have given us massive, pork-laden energy, farm subsidy, highway, and corporate tax bills.
Despite his reputed stern resolve, President Bush shown no political backbone on domestic issues, save for some modest tax cuts. He gave ground on free trade, capitulated on campaign finance reform, expanded the regulatory state and passed the largest new federal entitlement since the Great Society.
...
John Kerry wouldn't be any better.
Kerry's plan for Iraq — like his plans for most domestic issues — is to throw more money and resources at the problem. It's naïve to think Kerry would pull us out of Iraq. What better way to show the good government can do than to build an entire society from scratch?
And though the claim that Kerry would submit U.S. foreign policy to a United Nations veto is exaggerated, there's no question that he would lead us into a variety of foreign treaties and agreements at odds with American sovereignty (the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol are two particularly bad ideas).
...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Sure. But anybody with a full deck and a remote understanding about what is happening in the world knows that for the good of the republic there is only one viable choice. The other way leads to madness. Just go to DU and read the vitriolic postings of complete loons. Its not a difficult choice for me to make, despite the fact that I am a "small l" libertarian.
I don't like the big spending, but can't stand the fascism emanating from the Democratic core.
Today the Democratic party cannot appreciate that most Americans do not agree with them. I fear that they will anoint themselves as "interpreter" and destroy the republic to gain power.
It's an easier choice to make, where I sit.
Good wishes, friend.
No doubt I'm voting for Bush and the whole Republican ticket this election, but it would be refreshing to see more ponies in the race for president.
"It would be refreshing to see more ponies in the race for president."
Agreed. And several lines in the article posted make sense, but many points also do not give the President credit, where credit is due.
That helped elect Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Clinton, twice, and almost elected Gore!
Not voting for Bush, thereby helping Kerry win, is the worst thing one can do.
Of course Bush has done plenty that I don't like but Kerry would do a LOT worse. Nader and the other candidates are simply jokes yapping in the background.
Speaking as one whose advocacies are not represented by
any existing political party (including whatever the
Libertarians might stand for this year), the choice is
clear: Bush.
If Kerry is elected, the opportunities for a serious
shift to a more agreeable culture are seriously impaired,
if not ended for generations.
Once the Democratic Party disintegrates into its myriad
special interest groups, the real debate can begin.
I would rather have libertarians influence the existing parties.
Those libertarians that want a smaller, less intrusive government should join the Republican party. If you don't the country club Republicans will continue to dominate and will turn it into the Democrat-lite party.
Those libertine libertarians whose major decision making is controlled from the waist down, can join the Democrats and push them toward a more libertine stance on social issues.
To continue in the Libertarian party is to race toward obscurity. You might as well be a Whig or a Bull Moose'er.
BS! The way we got into the 'two party system' is by NOT voting for the candidate of our choice but allowing ourselves to be convinced that there are only two viable alternatives.
We've allowed ourselves to be driven into a self fulfilling cycle.
I hear it every day. "Vote Republican, or Democrat, or your vote will be wasted."
Once again, BS! A vote is never wasted if it is cast.
If more people voted their conscience instead of their party we might not have a 'two party system' where there ARE only two viable alternatives.
Uh-huh. Democrats say, "Let's spend $50 billion today on education".
Republicans say, "Let's spend $48B on education over the next three years". And we're proud of that!!!
And since it is Congress that is doing the spending, I could give a FF who sits in the Oval Office -- a Libertarian would be worse because he'd have both sides conspiring to override any veto.
Another way is for third party candidates to run for lower offices, rather than once every four years for the Presidency.
I agree with your thought completely about third partys having to start at the local level.
The grass roots will have to be there for ANY third party to make an appreciable showing in a national, especially, election.
From a Libertarian viewpoint, the fact that Bush is standing for the partial privatization of Social InSecurity should overwhelm the other sins - especially since John Kerry is, as noted, an even worse sinner than Bush.
I'm not saying Bush is perfect, even though I applaud his Iraq effort as sincere and an almost certain long-term success. But it's Kerry, with his lack of military knowledge and pandering, who's more likely to give us the draft :-).
D
If enough people become disgusted.......
-"a humble but formidable foreign policy"-
Oxymoron. Take the Oxy out of it, and there you have the Leftytarians.
No candidate will turn out exactly the way you want. Put the leftytarians in charge, and they'll turn out just as bad. It's the whole power thing, and we're ALL human. Leftytarians are less virtuous than typical conservatives, so I'll be sticking with the Republicans for the time being, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.