I can't go without mentioning this stunning achievement by Barack Obama. I am incredibly happy he is our nominee, and I’m eager to see him take on John McCain, for whom I have a great deal of respect.
Any bets on when/if Hillary will concede? This lady does not quit. Her supporters believe that's a virtue, but there’s much to be said for having the grace to bow out when the times comes.
Meanwhile, I checked out Bob Barr, the recently named Libertarian candidate for president. I have always said I’d be a Libertarian if the party (which in theory makes the absolute most sense) would stop putting up bizarre candidates. The first thing you see on his website, though, is that he was the main author of the Defense of Marriage Act. Fantastic. Apparently it’s personal liberty for everyone but gays and lesbians. Guess I won’t be voting Libertarian this year.
Photo by T.C. Worley for The New York Times
Any bets on when/if Hillary will concede? This lady does not quit. Her supporters believe that's a virtue, but there’s much to be said for having the grace to bow out when the times comes.
Meanwhile, I checked out Bob Barr, the recently named Libertarian candidate for president. I have always said I’d be a Libertarian if the party (which in theory makes the absolute most sense) would stop putting up bizarre candidates. The first thing you see on his website, though, is that he was the main author of the Defense of Marriage Act. Fantastic. Apparently it’s personal liberty for everyone but gays and lesbians. Guess I won’t be voting Libertarian this year.
Photo by T.C. Worley for The New York Times
15 comments:
A well-deserved victory. I'm on the Obama train. Consider it official.
Bob Barr was a congressman for GA. I can tell you a lot about him. For instance, he's friends with Ted Nugent.
Anyhow, if the Clintons (yes, both) don't give it up, Howard Dean is going to lay down the law, so I'd expect her to suspend the campaign by the end of the week.
Can we make Clinton the prime minister? We don't have a prime minister yet, do we?
She gets my vote for Prime Minister. Or Town Crier. Do we have one of those?
Does Libertarianism really make the absolute most sense in theory? A lot of idealized political systems claim to make the most sense in theory.
Libertarianism is a shifty term, but I think Libertarianism fails because it's isn't really defined ideologically. It's something like having the smallest government necessary while upholding personal liberties. It doesn't offer a complete lack of government like anarchism, but is opposed to governments that tell people what to do like authoritarianism or socialism.
As a reactionary political system then, libertarianism has to be defined by exactly what it presently is. There is no "real idealized libertarianism" because it is continuously being redefined based on whatever is the minimal government needed at that time to provide personal liberties. The present libertarianism, then, IS the libertarianism in theory. (It's not like socialism, where there is a strict definition, and its present form is a modified version of it.) And in its present form, Libertarianism doesn't work. (But then neither does anything else.)
Interesting that Barr is now back peddling as fast as he can, saying that he would repeal the second part of the Defense of Marriage Act. He "never intended" for the law to disallow federal benefits to gay spouses. How else could yu read the law? How else could you intend it, with the way it is written? I don't understand.
But I did like his suggestions for correcting the oil crisis.
At any rate, he doesn't seem like the worst choice, possilby not the best. But realistically, does he have a fighting chance in hell against Obama or McCain with the deeper pockets? I guess we shall soon see.
No, of course not. It's been a long while since there was a viable third party in the U.S. (Ross Perot does not count.) And any time we do—Ralph Nader—people complain that he’s taking votes from one of the “real” candidates.
And, Andy, the problem is not with the core ideal of the Libertarian party but that they don't go far enough in distancing themselves from either of the other two parties. Barr was an avowed Republican until 2 years ago, so it's not surprising he leans more conservative than the party's usual platforms. However, a few years ago I voted for a Libertarian governor in California who was a practicing Druid and much more to the liberal side of the spectrum. So, no, I won't say the party is embodied by whichever candidate it currently has up. But maybe it should focus its goals and then find candidates who could best achieve them, instead of taking any old schmoe who says he's Libertarian now.
In a first past the post voting system like in the US, it is inevitable that there is a tendency towards two parties as per Duverger's Law which simply states people will vote tactically and therefore the person he likes least who has the best chance of winning. So even if there is a viable third party candidate in a particular instance, that party's principles will get usurped by one or both of the dominant parties later on. (e.g. Bill Clinton's Third Way economic conservatism moved the Democrats to the right to take Libertarian votes.)
that should say: vote tactically and therefore the person he DISlikes least who has the best chance of winning.
Barr was an avowed Republican until 2 years ago, so it's not surprising he leans more conservative than the party's usual platforms.
I heard more than my share of Libertarian rants when I lived in GA, and I have to say, they loved Bob Barr. Now, that was GA, which is more conservative than average, but Barr's not that far out of the Libertarian mainstream (to the extent that there is one). My understanding of Libertarianism has always been that it can be summed up thusly: "We believe whatever Grover Norquist is saying, plus we don't hate gay people and probably believe pot should be legal." That's pretty wide open. I have to agree with Andy. It's always seemed like a catch-all for anyone who didn't like social conservativism but couldn't abide economic liberalism either.
My problem with Libertarianism, though, is that while I at least understand the arguments against government-run social programs in the abstract, I can't conceive of why anyone but the super rich would think they could benefit from regressive taxation.
It's always seemed like a catch-all for anyone who didn't like social conservativism but couldn't abide economic liberalism either.
That could also refer to what we're now calling "swing voters," which is a gigantic portion of the electorate--roughly a third of American voters. So maybe we do need a better party than Libertarian to fill in that gap b/w Democrats and Republicans. Or even more than one party. Or perhaps the millions of us, like myself, who identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative are seen as too fickle or hard to pin down for there ever to be a real drive at cohesion by one party or candidate.
Where is my brother in this debate? He's the only one here who I think is a registered member of the Libertarian party.
And don't get me started on taxes, Mr. Tanner. I used to have a love for Steve Forbes on that subject, and there could never be enough room for me to discuss it (however unfoundedly) here.
And Jesus, Andy, when did you become a political science major?
:)
"Or perhaps the millions of us, like myself, who identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative are seen as too fickle or hard to pin down for there ever to be a real drive at cohesion by one party or candidate."
I too would fit into this category. I have a simple love hate relationship wth voitng and this is exactly the reason. There is never a third party candidate that has any shot in hell of winning. Take for example Libertarian Ron Paul. He had to run on the Republican ticket just to get his name on a Primary to reach voters.
"vote tactically and therefore the person he DISlikes least who has the best chance of winning."
This is so true Andy. I pratice this voting strategy. But I know personally, as I would assume many Americans do, I feel I have no choice. There is NO good candidate. I don't think thee has ben a "good" candidate since I have been of voting age.
My opinion is that the problem with American politics (of the too numerous to mention) is that politicians lack integrity. They are so driven by special interest groups that the voice of the average American gets lost in the shuffle. It's a lip service game. I'm so sick of hearing lip service. Don't tell me about it, just shut up and f***ing do it. Stop patting yourself on the back for some half-assed attepmt at some reform or another. Put your money where your mouth is for a change. Stand up and demonstrate some integrity and honor. Bring back ethics and morality in the government. But good grief, stop lying to me.
BTW... If you would like an education about the blunders of the Bush administration, the conspiracy behind 9/11 and other such topics, visit http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/ Scroll through the old posts and you will find many about the conspiracies surrounding the Bush administration. This one is particularly interesting. http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/10/all-conspiracy-theories-about-george-w.html
And, might I add, that anyone who has any plausibile ideas as to how to fix our economy, our political arena, and our energy crisis can't even be heard by our elected representatives. What do our future generations have in store for them? I shudder to think. I ask myself often, "What kidnof world have I brought my innocent children into?"
I missed this post until late. I am so weary of Republicans and Democrats. Taxes and government regulations on businesses are so smothering it is almost impossible to make it now.
As for those taxes, how about a proportional tax? Why punish people for doing well or reward them for not? Equality seems fairly equal.
The right to do what you like as long as you are not hurting anyone seems pretty basic to me, and no matter how touchy-feely some Democrats pretend to be, I certainly don't see them stripping away the stifling rules and punishments that have built up over the years. They just continue to add more.
It seems that unless you are are gay, have ten kids, or are a minority, the Democrats are not on your side. I am missing a whole lot of my civil liberties but I am a single, white, male, small business owner so I don't count.
I want a strong military and a healthy free market system with reasonable taxes and regulations, much reduced welfare benefits, and tort reform, but also want nothing to do with telling people what to do with their own bodies, mixing religion and politics, condemning personal relationships, or filling our prisons with non-violent offenders.
I personally would love the chance to vote for someone like that.
Post a Comment