« Sports figures favor Republicans | Main | Sentences of interest »
Why Libertarians Should Vote for Obama (1)
First, war. War is the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy of consent, voluntarism and trade. With every war in American history Leviathan has grown larger and our liberties have withered. War is the health of the state. And now, fulfilling the dreams of Big Brother, we are in a perpetual war.
A country cannot long combine unlimited government abroad and limited government at home. The Republican party has become the party of war and thus the party of unlimited government.
With war has come FEAR, magnified many times over by the governing party. Fear is pulling Americans into the arms of the state. If only we were better at resisting. Alas, we Americans say that we love liberty but we are fair-weather lovers. Liberty will flourish only with peace.
Have libertarians gained on other margins in the past eight years? Not at all. Under the Republicans we have been sailing due South-West on the Nolan Chart – fewer civil liberties and more government, including the largest new government program in a generation, the Medicare prescription drug plan, and the biggest nationalization since the Great Depression. Tax cuts, the summum bonum of Republican economic policy, are a sham. The only way to cut taxes is to cut spending and that has not happened.
The libertarian voice has not been listened to in Republican politics for a long time. The Republicans take the libertarian wing of the party for granted and with phony rhetoric and empty phrases have bought our support on the cheap. Thus - since voice has failed - it is time for exit. Remember that if a political party can count on you then you cannot count on it.
Exit is the right strategy because if there is any hope for reform it is by casting the Republicans out of power and into the wilderness where they may relearn virtue. Libertarians understand better than anyone that power corrupts. The Republican party illustrates. Lack of power is no guarantee of virtue but Republicans are a far better - more libertarian - party out-of-power than they are in power. When in the wilderness, Republicans turn naturally to a critique of power and they ratchet up libertarian rhetoric about free trade, free enterprise, abuse of government power and even the defense of civil liberties. We can hope that new leaders will arise in this libertarian milieu.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on September 9, 2008 at 07:41 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
In my view the current priority is avoiding a war with Iran.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Sep 9, 2008 7:42:29 AM
Right on, Alex.
Posted by: odograph at Sep 9, 2008 7:50:39 AM
"Apotheosis" or "antithesis"?
Posted by: Harry Walden at Sep 9, 2008 7:51:20 AM
Your comments re: war are right on.
Every day I ask myself why responsible fiscal policy and responsible foreign policy must be mutually exclusive.
Posted by: pinnacle at Sep 9, 2008 7:54:28 AM
exactly.
Posted by: will perkins at Sep 9, 2008 7:55:40 AM
I guess it depends on which type of Libertarian you are.
Are you an "All Republicans are facists!" Libertrian?
Or are you an "All Democrats are Socialists!" Libertarian?
All Libertarians believe a little of both, but are more scared by one.
Posted by: Chris Spangle at Sep 9, 2008 7:57:00 AM
I think if McCain had gotten elected in 2000 instead of Bush, we probably would never have invaded Iraq. That was a neocon pet project and they used 9/11 to justify it.
Its even possible that a McCain administration might have paid more attention to the intelligence about the threat to airplanes. If you'll recall, Bush and company were focused on wiggling out of the strategic arms treaties with the Russians, which probably helped kill democracy there, not on terrorism. This despite the fact that the threat has been developing for years.
Would Obama be better? Its very tough to say. But he certainly would build better relationships with the rest of the world. And we definitely need that.
Posted by: Al Brown at Sep 9, 2008 8:12:29 AM
Best MR post in a long time. Excellent! The only unfortunate thing is that I'm not American and so can't vote.
Posted by: Joe T at Sep 9, 2008 8:14:01 AM
I hope someone does a counter-post on why libertarians should vote for McCain, since there's a very strong case to be made that (1) Obama is a huge collectivist and (2) McCain's policies are at least somewhat libertarian.
Posted by: bbbakbkbe at Sep 9, 2008 8:14:43 AM
Way to go, Alex. I have all kinds of reservations about Obama and about letting one party control both the Congress and the Presidency, but the need to prevent stupid wars trumps everything, and McCain doesn't seem to have met a potential war he didn't like.
Posted by: Michael Alexeev at Sep 9, 2008 8:23:29 AM
The Republicans have been terrible at implementing Libertarian policy at any level during the last eight years. However, it does not logically follow that the Democrats will be better.
Indeed, other then getting out of Iraq there is no indication that they will. However it is worth remembering that during Bill Clinton's tenure we invaded, bombed, and interfered with several small countries, albeit for different reasons. There is no guarantee we will not find ourselves back in the same mess 'for humanitarian reasons' under a Democrat administration.
Posted by: Tom at Sep 9, 2008 8:26:38 AM
Why Libertarians Should Vote For Obama (2):
In discussions about changing the size and activity of government, libertarians tend to focus on the "supply" side, that is, how much government is being made available, and in what domains. But let us not forget the "demand" side, that is, the extent to which the people ask for or make use of government services.
Many people believe that cultures of victimhood and dependency are great barriers to personal flourishing. A lack of personal flourishing puts people in a position to ask for and make use of government services, and government grows. If we can help change those harmful cultural attributes, we can improve the lives of many of the worst off while reducing the demand for nonlibertarian government activity. I think that an Obama presidency could strike a blow against the culture of victimhood and dependency that is so prevalent in poor black communities. To what extent could racism really be an excuse for one's troubles when a black man is president? Please note, none of this is to deny that there is racism today, and that even under an Obama presidency there would be racism. Rather, it is just a point about political psychology: the idea of one being held back because one is a victim of racism will psychologically have less traction under an Obama presidency. Those who consider themselves such victims are worse off for doing so, and could be benefited by abandoning that mindset. Insofar as they are benefited, the demand on government may go down.
So, yes, perhaps it is ironic, but the bottom line is that one reason libertarians should vote for Obama is because he is black.
(Also, please note that this is a post on a comments thread on a blog, and certain qualifying comments and subtleties may have been omitted on the principle that one's effort should be proportional to the medium.)
Posted by: J at Sep 9, 2008 8:32:36 AM
I would agree that another war must be avoided at all costs. I'm skeptical that putting Obama in place would really provide this guarantee. I think at the end of the day, divided government has the best track record for preventing lots of things libertarians dislike - including war.
Obama is more of a traditional Democrat/Neo-Con on Foreign Policy than many of us would like to admit. He strongly supports war in Afghanistan, and I can imagine a host of Darfur-like crusades in the name of repairing America's image abroad. His rhetorical ability combined with a lack of restraint in Congress make for a dangerous pair.
Posted by: Charlie at Sep 9, 2008 8:33:22 AM
If I recall, Bill Clinton had a non-UN sanctioned military campaign in the former Yugoslavia. I'm curious how the area is doing now.
It would seem that Obama winning the election would send a sign to all politicians that the American people favor collectivism. Perhaps they do on some things. I understand the goal but I don't agree that the strategy will give you what you want when it comes to smaller government.
Overall, the president only has so much power. The Dems in Congress rejected Bush's plan to privatize parts of social security. The plan was a step in the right direction but Congress wasn't interested in fixing the problem. Furthermore, the Dems in Congress protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and assured us they were solvent. Perhaps if the voters of Massachusetts threw out Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, Congress would have been able to look into the GSE problem. The problem of solving of our massive government lies in the people replacing members of Congress with those who are inclined towards smaller government. I'm sure you can find people like that on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by: Ed at Sep 9, 2008 8:36:09 AM
"Libertarians" should not vote for Obama. We should vote for Obama and a Republican majority in Congress. Or, we should vote for McCain and a huge Democrat majority in Congress. The latter is more likely. War with Iran is unlikely.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 9, 2008 8:38:41 AM
"including the largest new government program in a generation, the Medicare prescription drug plan"
What about the proposed health care plans, do we really want our government taking control of health care?
Posted by: Andy at Sep 9, 2008 8:39:21 AM
Not all libertarians agree about the War on Terror or the Iraq part of it. Obama's interest in increasing the state is far more troubling to me and frankly, I'd rather be fighting terrorists over there than over here, thank you. I agree that some aspects of Leviathan need to be trimmed back, Bush's failure to veto spending items for six years was far worse for us than the War was in that respect. Nothing Obama says has convinced me that he wants to sail south on the Nolan chart slower than the GOP.
Posted by: Joshua Poulson at Sep 9, 2008 8:39:29 AM
Oh, and by the way, the most important point is to know that this election will swing by the libertarian vote. If I'm right, what does that knowledge mean? Knowing that is more important than knowing what me or Alex interpret it to mean.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 9, 2008 8:43:46 AM
Well, done. It's odd how the party that speaks the loudest about loving freedom consistently does the most to curtail it.
Likewise, on economic policy there's a huge gap between rhetoric and reality. Your article pointing out that there have been no tax cuts, only a tax SHIFT, under the GOP should be required reading for all Americans.
Posted by: a student of economics at Sep 9, 2008 8:44:11 AM
This seems mostly a retrospective negative evaluation of the last most recent regime. But we've had lots of regimes over centuries - shouldn't we use that entire dataset to infer what the next candidate will do, and not just cue off of the political party of the last regime?
Posted by: Robin Hanson at Sep 9, 2008 8:44:59 AM
Speaking of Obama supporters, Where is Andrew Sullivan?
I'm honestly kind of worried.
Posted by: thehova at Sep 9, 2008 8:45:44 AM
That is where I am at Charlie.
Stand alone there is a libertarian case for Obama (there is also one for McCain).
But given that the congress will be nearly totally dominated by the democrats, I don't see how a libertarian can vote for Obama.
Divided government has produced some of the best libertarian results in history. And most of our wars have been started by unified governments. I am not so sure that a Obama+Democratic congress is less likely to take us to war than a McCain+Democratic congress.
Stand alone McCain is more bellicose (although Obama did say he would bomb Pakistan), but I trust the dynamic more than the man and the dynamic will be much better with a McCain presidency.
Also the Republicans will already need to rebuild. They will be out of power in the congress and McCain is not exaclty their guy in the White House
Posted by: eccdogg at Sep 9, 2008 8:47:14 AM
Alex,
An excellent summary of the failure of the Republican party in both the Legislative and Executive branches that I absolutely agree with.
However, you have not shown how the Democratic party, with control of both the Legislative and Executive branches (I'm assuming Dems control Congress after this election irrespective of which party wins the White House) will be any better; do you expect them to sail north-east on the Nolan Chart?
I still believe Voice is the more appropriate choice, the damage done by the acknowledged big government-statists of the Democratic party will be irreparable after our journey to the desert.
Posted by: Dave Richardson at Sep 9, 2008 8:47:17 AM
One of the things I really hate about George Bush is how much he makes me miss Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Sep 9, 2008 8:50:16 AM
I agree with the majority of this post, especially the part about the GOP taking the libertarian wing for granted. But while Obama may be correct about the Iraq war, he does not oppose the use of military force throughout the world. As recently as 2007, he advocated redeployment of troops from Iraq to other conflicts. http://obama.senate.gov/press/070718-obama_statement_76/
Opposing a wildly unpopular war (Iraq) is a nice benefit, but it's not enough to inspire a libertarian following. A true anti-war politician would oppose any war except perhaps that which is fought in self-defense.
Posted by: Matt at Sep 9, 2008 8:55:19 AM
