As I mentioned a while back, I’m not a big fan of the two-party system we have in place in this country. I think we deserve better choices than we get year in and year out. As you know, I also have pretty severe libertarian tendencies. I think the government should get out of the way and let us run our own lives. Finally, Mississippi will almost certainly go Republican in the presidential election, and if we don’t, it means Obama has won in a landslide. Therefore, I have decided to vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for President.
For the record, I’m not a member of the Libertarian party. I’m just a generic libertarian. The Libertarians tend to be extreme on some issues, which is one reason they never get anyone elected. Looking at Barr’s web site, he’s managed to stay away from some of those extreme areas.
Barr himself is a flawed man, not unlike Obama and McCain. Also, until around 2004 he was the antithesis of a libertarian. You can read about all that on his Wikipedia article.
Here are a few of Barr’s stances I agree with:
- Drastically reduce government spending
- Quit trying to manage the free market
- Eliminate ethanol subsidies
- Reduce America’s foreign military presence
- Reduce foreign aid
- Reform the tax system
- Respect the Fourth Amendment
- Better schools through competition
- Respect the Second Amendment
- Immigration reform
If any of those things sound good to you, head over to Barr’s web site and consider voting for him.
I never got around to finishing my “Case for Obama” (it’s about half written as a draft on Wordpress), but my main points for Obama would be his views on science, technology (he has the endorsements of Larry Lessig and Tim O’Reilly), his Iraq withdrawal plan, his pick for VP, his commitment to a bipartisan cabinet, and his promise to change the tone of politics that Bush set for the last eight years.
I’m kinda surprised that you are voting for Barr. Mississippi will probably go to McCain, but I’m not ruling out a surprisingly strong minority vote for Obama to make it close.
James, I know you feel pretty strongly about the war in Iraq. I think it was a mistake, but it’s not a huge issue for me. Yes, Biden was an excellent pick for VP, if you agree with him on the issues, which I don’t. Bipartisan cabinet? I hadn’t heard that. That should be interesting.
I did not care for the closed and secretive nature of the Bush administration. Obama will be a refreshing change in that area.
I’m surprised you’re surprised about me voting for Barr. Had you forgotten about my libertarian streak? McCain will win Mississippi. It’ll be closer than in the past, but not too close. Pretty much every state in the Union would go for Obama before Mississippi, so if I’m wrong, it doesn’t matter.
I’m glad to hear you’re not voting for McCain, even though you’re not voting for my candidate of choice. :) I actually voted libertarian for my state representative and senator. They’re both democrats, so almost certain to be re-elected, but I like to at least reduce the margins when I don’t have strong opinions.
Derek, I’m glad to here that. We need a third or fourth legitimate choice for President, not to mention other offices.
Sometimes I wonder what would happen to the Libertarian party if they became viable. I don’t think they could maintain their die-hard stances on all their issues, so I wonder what they’d give up. Would they give up the stuff I think is stupid, like their opposition to building codes? Unfortunately, it would more likely be some major issue that they would bend on, to bring more voters their way (from either the left or the right), and at the same time lose my vote. That seems to be the nature of politics.
I don’t know. I think they could go a long way toward becoming relevant by dropping their support for: legalization of all drugs, the dismantling of welfare, no building codes, and no zoning laws.
What other Libertarian stances do you think mainstream America would have big problems with?
From the left, I think their stance against government provided healthcare (and other benefits) would hurt them, as would their nonintervention (deregulation) economic polices, opposition to smoking bans and the like, opposition to affirmative action, privatization of social security, etc..
From the right, they would lose support due to their belief in separation of church and state, same-sex marriage rights, gays in the military, abortion rights, etc.
They would also lose support on both sides due to their opposition to all subsidies.
I’m not sure exactly what they would need to drop from their platform in order to cobble together a platform that the majority (or at least 34%) of Americans would prefer to either of the mainstream parties. It could be difficult. There are a disturbing number of single-issue voters on both sides.
I think there’s a pretty large Democratic contingency that’s not gung-ho about government provided health care. They might not be against it, but they’re not for it either. I think the Libertarians are okay with that stance.
Deregulation of the economy is not popular now, but I’m not convinced that the pendulum won’t swing the other way to some degree. I think we could convince 34% of the voters that subsidies are stupid. Am I too optimistic?
Privatization of social security would definitely ruffle some feathers. Neither of the candidates have really addressed that issue this time, which is strange.
I can’t find the official Libertarian position on gay marriage, but they can have my position, which is that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business, but anyone can get a civil union. All but the far right would be happy with that.
Libertarians tend to wiggle out of the abortion issue by saying it should be up to the states.
I agree that getting the LP into the mainstream would be most difficult. Getting any third-party into the mainstream will be most difficult.
I think you’re getting Ron Paul confused with the Libertarian party on the abortion issue. Their platform states that the government should stay out of it, and that it should be a personal, not a state choice. I also don’t think that saying it should be up to the states is really a useful shield, since that requires an overturn of Roe v. Wade, an action that everyone pro-choice agrees is a hostile move against abortion rights.
For the rest of them, I agree that it’s not hard to convince a big chunk of Americans to drop subsidies, or to deregulate, or to avoid government healthcare. The problem is getting a big enough overlap among these groups to form a viable base.
And for the record, I totally agree with your stance on marriage. I think the appropriate thing to do is have the government get out of marriage entirely, and deal with only civil unions. I think that’s a compromise virtually everyone should be able to agree on. Then straight and gay people can get “married” however they want, and the government stays out of it. Short of that, though, I’m all for gays having the right to marry. The idea that somehow the state has an obligation (or an ability) to protect the “sanctity” of marriage is ridiculous. If people want sanctity of marriage, they need to build it in their own marriages. The millions of people who’ve gotten married frivolously throughout history have insured that there is no grand notion of sanctity that can apply to marriage as a whole.
You’re probably right about the LP and abortion. I was unable to find their abortion stance in a quick search of their web site. Your version of it definitely sounds more libertarian though. That would definitely ruffle feathers on the right.
I don’t know. I think it’s entirely possible to find overlap among those groups. After all, all those things fall under “let the free market do its thing.”