Messages and Replies to "Libertarians for Kerry."

Dear Jim,
10/24/04(ish)

Perhaps I should have rephrased my identification with the LP as Old Guard Libertarian, though I am still a card-carrying member.  I fail to see how my advocacy of a presidential vote for Kerry is "arrogant."  You may think it misguided or wrongheaded, but I certainly don't lord my opinion over others.  I'm simply offering it, fully realizing it will not be popular among many of my Libertarian peers.

However, judging by the response of most of my direct LP peers in the neighborhood, I'm taking the correct position.

Also keep in mind, I have not advocated abandoning the LP candidates in other races, solely the presidential race.  This is a unique presidential contest, in my mind, of all the races in which LP candidates have been offered.  The selection of one of the older party candidates (Bush) means almost certain death of freedom, while the selection of the other (Kerry) means continued prospects of life for freedom.

This has nothing really to do with the quality of the LP candidate.  I would take the same position this year even if Murray Rothbard were reanimated and put in the race as the LP candidate.

While I believe the arguments I made in "Libs for Kerry" are strong enough, there are other arguments to be made.  The fundamental case I'm trying to make, Jim, is the argument to "calamity."

And I don't have to make the case that Bush will be calamitous, because he already is:  A $2 trillion increase in the national debt, dramatically increased spending for all government departments, killing innocent people in an unprovoked war, foolishly exposing Americans to terrorism, failing to go after the terrorists, a massive assault on civil liberties through the Justice department and the Patriot Act, failing to remedy the bureaucratic nightmare that enabled 9/11 to occur, imposing massive tariffs in the name of free trade, funding a centralized education bureaucracy in the name of no child left behind, increasing farm subsidies into the hundreds of billions of dollars in the name of free enterprise, prohibiting cheap drugs from across the border in the name of public health, lying about virtually every negative action for which he's responsible--such as reduction of soldiers' pay and benefits--, restricting research into "embryonic" stem cell cloning and fighting to deny women's reproductive freedom, continuation and expansion of the war on drugs (while we're supposedly in the middle of a war on terror), and finally never taking responsibility for his irrational acts.

Bush is the worst president in American history by far.  The $2 trillion increase in debt and the aggression in Iraq are enough to make the case alone.  If he's reelected, I don't believe there will be an election again in 2008, and libertarians face actual, real, physical, pointed oppression.

In contrast, what's the worst that can be said about John Kerry, that he might make the country into a maternalistic image of Massachusetts or New York?!  As offensive and controlled as those states are, they're nothing compared to the bloated state George Bush has created... and expects everyone else to pay for and live in and die for.  Kerry is nothing better nor worse than an average mixed-economy politician.  If he's elected, we have a better chance of getting the war on terror refocused where it belongs, extricating ourselves from the Iraqi quagmire, and, yes, reducing government spending.  Keep in mind, he'll probably have a Republican Congress, which isn't much of a check on spending, I'll grant to you, but I don't think it's physically or politically possible to do anything except reduce government spending in the next four years... unless George stays in power.  And you can't forget the scientific progress argument; Kerry isn't beholden to a bunch of nutty misogynistic Medievalist Christians.  In general, civil liberties prospects are much higher with Kerry than Bush.

So, I'm making my argument with a clear conscience as a practical man of reason.  If we're offered death or arrested death, we must act to do what we can to make sure the former isn't selected.  It is unfortunate, but undeniable, a selection of the third alternative (life) represented by the LP can only increase the chances of death.  Ergo, no more living to fight again.  Jim, that's really what my argument is all about, buying time.  In my judgment, increasing the odds of denying Bush the presidency by voting for Kerry is our best hope for eventual liberty.

Do I like Kerry, personally?  No of course not.  He's made too many bad choices.  I do think he thinks about things, however, and actually reads, writes, and speaks in complete sentences.  I believe he has a mind that can comprehend the nature of freedom, and might even be inclined to make concessions to it.  Bush, on the other hand, is a natural born leader of village idiots.  He identifies with them by continual practice.  I actually think he believes that anything that enters his head is divinely inspired.

Do I like Badnarik, personally?  Yes, I do.  My views on the mistake of his candidacy vis a vis other LP nominees are expressed elsewhere.  But my position on who one should vote for in the presidential race has nothing to do with my feelings about Michael--I even harbor a modicum of respect.

It is simply we must act to assure the lesser of evils if the greater of evils is so evil as to deny us the possibility of eventual good.  It's a calculation based on an honest assessment.  And I didn't flip-flop; I didn't start out with any position in mind. Anyway, thanks for your response; it's helping to further refine my understanding of the importance of this election.