Reason Votes

Reason just did its regular pre-election feature.

Do I just not "get" libertarians any more? I think I am one. Maybe I'm not the magazine editor variety, or something.

I can see the merits of a libertarian engaging in "strategic voting", e.g. Kerry in 2004. Kerry was without merit, but the bar was set pretty low in 2004, and divided government certainly has its merits.

I also think there's plenty of evidence of BDS among many of the above libertarians. I'm not a Bush apologist, but I'll miss a few things about the Bush administration, such as a policy of looking after our own interests at the UN instead of pretending the UN is benevolent. The same goes for Kyoto, the ICC, etc. Bush, for all the legitimate complaints about his undermining civil liberties, has not attempted to silence his critics, and those who think the Bush administration is dirty have very short memories. One would think that libertarian journalists could think of a few things -- unless they were just venting their emotions.

Obama has already tried to use the courts to silence his critics. This impulse does not bode well for civil liberties under an Obama administration. He favors "redistribution of wealth," by whatever means necessary, including through SCOTUS. He favors severe restrictions, or bans, on armed self-defense by law-abiding citizens. His major goals include raising taxes, raising government spending, and making health care a Federal program.

For those who believe that Obama is an intellectual, so that makes him better, consider Wilson. Wilson had a PhD, and he'd be my vote for waterboarding. An erudite fascist is what? A more effective fascist? Wilson was quite effective -- in all the worst ways.

McCain's baby, CFR, is an affront to liberty. McCain is a "national greatness conservative" who worships at the altar of TR. As someone who grew up with Goldwater conservatism, I don't see McCain as a conservative at all. I can surely see why a libertarian couldn't vote for McCain.

Bob Barr offers a viable protest vote, without having to vote for either Pepsi or Coke. The GOP will still get their needed drubbing, if one votes for Barr. A vote for Barr (or any 3rd Party candidate, or a blank ballot) will still be a vote against the GOP.

I'd just like to know how can a libertarian vote FOR Obama? I can find little about him that's not the polar opposite of what libertarians would want. We're not talking about a divided government in 2009, either, with a Democrat in the White House.

Perhaps this article in the Guardian gets it right:

Depending on what Kool-Aid you have been drinking, when it comes to Obama your glass is either half full, half empty or overflowing, or you've smashed it lest anybody else imbibes its poison.

People come to Obama with extraordinary amounts of baggage and dump it at his door. For the most part their responses to him tell you far more about them than they do about him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/barackobama.uselections2008 (This article is positive about Obama, by the way.)

It's a bit surprising to see the phenomenon manifested in a magazine called "Reason." Where are rational reasons for a libertarian Obama vote -- not just a vote against McCain or the GOP, but a vote FOR a candidate who is a far-left ideologue and a demagogue, to boot?

Obama "will be very good for business," Craig Newmark says? Huh? Maybe he would be good for Newmark's business (craigslist), but only because on-line ads for cash-payment services and bartering will become more popular... Or does Newmark think that the economy will become so depressed that everyone will be selling off their old crap on craigslist to pay the bills? I'd be interested in hearing what Newmark sees in Obama's policies that will be "very good for business."

Have otherwise smart, mature libertarians fallen under his spell, in that they, like so many naive liberal college kids, see what they want to see, in Barack Obama?