MILLER: Obama or Romney? Libertarians must choose
Principles don’t win elections or implement change
It’s depressing to be a libertarian. We usually spend election night with our few friends in a watering hole or in our parents’ basement listening to Rush albums. Libertarians are smarter than voters who blindly vote Democrat or support the Republicans who do more preaching about limited government than actually practicing it — that’s what we tell ourselves. Instead of embracing the candidate who most closely represents our ideals of limited government, free-market economy and personal responsibility, we cast third-party ballots. Driven by stubbornness, we refuse to vote for the lesser of the two evils. But at least we stick to our principles — or do we?
Libertarians are like know-it-all teenagers. It isn’t until we grow up and experience life that we come to accept the reality that America is a two-party system and the only way to implement change is by winning elections. That means our ideals have to be embraced by one of the two major parties, and that is where we get the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.
Still, too many libertarians have decided that there is no difference between the two major parties. Others believe that social conservatives still control the GOP and that Democrats despise capitalism and want to bring European-style socialism to our country. Therefore, they continue to vote for their third party — often becoming part of the problem instead of the solution.
In 2010, true libertarian ideals emerged inside the GOP. The self-proclaimed party of limited government, with the help of Tea Partyers, elected a new wave of free-market idealists. Millions of Americans woke up one morning to the harsh reality that government-controlled health care had arrived. Government was growing at an unprecedented rate, the deficit was out of control and the economic theories of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman were trumped by the Keynesian school of thought.
But this may not be good enough for libertarian ideologues who won’t cast a vote for the GOP unless it embraces legalizing drugs, closing our military bases and eliminating the Transportation Security Administration.
Most polls in America have the race for the White House within a few percentage points. On the day I wrote this commentary, Rasmussen had Mitt Romney up by 4 percentage points, while Gallup has President Obama leading by 2 points. The Rasmussen poll shows that 4 percent are supporting another candidate.
Last month, pollster John Zogby revealed that in a survey conducted in tandem with The Washington Times, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson received more than 5 percent of the vote. That number may seem minuscule, but as Mr. Zogby pointed out, “Sometimes, 5 percent is bigger than 5 percent. It’s bigger than it appears, especially in the battleground states, where it’s very compe ive.”
History tends to repeat itself, especially when it comes to politics. Twenty years ago, many disappointed conservatives could not vote for George H.W. Bush in his bid for re-election. Nineteen percent of the voters cast ballots for independent Ross Perot. Mr. Bush lost to Bill Clinton by less than 6 percentage points. In 2000, Al Gore wasn’t liberal enough for 97,488 Floridians who cast ballots for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. George W. Bush won the state by 537 votes and became president of the United States.
Disgruntled ideologues always help elect the candidate that is furthest from their ideals.
The election of 2012 promises to be no different. Under Mr. Obama, America has experienced relentless expansion of the federal government. Policies that limit economic freedom and promote an en lement society will be the current administration’s legacy — an ideology that represents the very an hesis of libertarian philosophy.
Mr. Romney is obviously not an ideal candidate for libertarians. His record as governor of Massachusetts does not inspire limited-government advocates to jump for joy. But there is little doubt that he would not be the big-government advocate that Mr. Obama has been.
Mr. Romney understands that free-market capitalism is our nation’s only hope if we don’t want an 8 percent unemployment rate to be the new norm. He understands that our nation prospers when government gets out of the way of American ingenuity and — dare I say — exceptionalism.
Simply put, he believes in the power of a free people — not bloated and intrusive government.
Libertarian voters will have a choice this November. They can vote for Mr. Romney, stop the expansion of government and give the marketplace an opportunity to repair our nation. Or they can cast third-party ballots and spend election night in self-righteous consolation about their roles in granting the government greater power.
But they stuck to their principles! No, they didn’t.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak
"he believes in the power of a free people — not bloated and intrusive government."
except begs and grovels the Feds to bail out his NoWhereLand Olympics, and then effusively thanks them when taxpayers cough $B or so.
Washingtontimes.moonbat crazy Moonies
Great article. Some of the peeps in here that claim they will vote for a third party candidate may want to read this article 10-15 times. We only have 2 candidates. We already have had a absolutely terrible experience with the current one. God bless
Ah yes, the quadrennial republican party attempt to guilt trip libertarians into voting for GOP candidates. "But, we're for small government, just like you guys are......"
I read it once, that was enough. If my vote was that important to the GOP they'd actually bother to try and incorporate some of the things that are important to me into their platform. Things like limited government and personal liberty. Sadly, they're not interested.........
Libertarians don't have to choose . They can just stay their disgruntled asses home or write in their vote for who they want. Everyone knows Romney is just another puppet. Republicans have never been small government
It said a few more things then that. You might want to read it again. God bless
No can do. Too busy listening to my Rush albums.
You can go ahead and choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. Personally, I'm going to choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will.
Are you suggesting the libertarian candidate will get no votes?Obama or Romney? Libertarians must choose
The beauty of a representative government is that we can vote for whoever the we want.... sorry, GOP, but libertarians aren't voting for Willard, because he doesn't reflect our desires or goals, suck it up and get over it, tbh.....
That's just the le of the article. I, nor the author, are suggesting any such thing.
Yes that is the beauty of our representative government. You have every right to demand all or nothing.
Looks like Paul Miller converted himself from a libertarian to a republican within this very article.
I thought you weren't going to read it again
teabaggers for limited government
Busted.I thought you weren't going to read it again
A few more reads and Mitt will get his vote. God blessI thought you weren't going to read it again
Nice find c_g.
It could happen. If Miller himself can't resist the power of his own words I certainly don't see how I'd be able to.
every election they say "we can't afford to lose this one."
screw em. The Republicans beltway establishment just want to get all their warmongering friends into power again.
What's in it
I'm not seeing how more tax cuts and more military spending are going to do anything other than explode the debt as they have consistently done since Reagan. I blame Uncle Tom for not letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire so they can keep piling onto the debt. The ACA is garbage (
What's in it
The small biz owners I work with are very uncertain and majorly concerened about not only whether they can hire due to increased taxation but also the the increased cost of compulsory health care now. A promise to take more from the rich is a disincentive to get to that next level. With as many troops as we have deploying to the middle east each day I don't see what current admin is doing to curb the spending.I'm not seeing how more tax cuts and more military spending are going to do anything other than explode the debt as they have consistently done since Reagan. I blame Uncle Tom for not letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire so they can keep piling onto the debt. The ACA is garbage (
Simplle economics though. And I know there are key differencesin macro vs micro but the principles apply. when you have a high debt load, you either do what you can to increase ability to service debt or slowly pay it down and avoid greater debt. Our man at the helm did it wrong. No other way to put it. He shafted the country by reducing the income stream AND increasing debt. Then he vows to tax the out of the rich, further deincentivizing economic recovery
I know no one who gets two chances to screw it up like that. Except maybe pop for keeping Bonner this long
PS: i know this belongs in that other thread, but If Pop really beloved Obama's rhetoric he would take half of selfish ass Tim Tony and Manus salaries and give that money to Dejuan aBlair Cory Joseph and James Anderson
Last edited by 4down; 08-29-2012 at 03:18 AM.
voting against obama is like voting against the black population, ur wasting ur vote like how every casual NBA fan votes when the chinese population tries to vote in a chinese player for the ASG...
dont waste ur vote by going against the majority.....
then again when ur stuck with 2 unworthy candidates, ur force to vote for ...if theres a hot chick on teh voting papers, i usually vote for that lady
Exhibit A of the misuse of common sense when analyzing fiscal and monetary policy. At the individual household level, you're absolutely right that you need to be fiscally austere, to decrease expenditure and pay down debt.
However, if all countries and individuals did it, there will be systemic defaults. You see, in today's world, Money = Debt. The money in your bank account is debt. The only way money is created is by issuing debt. The only way interest on existing debt is serviced is by creating new debt, and so on. Until you change the ability of private banks to create money out of nothing, you have to keep riding this monetary tiger towards either inflation or deflation.
Until the average voter understands this, the false economic rhetoric propagated by both sides of the political divide will continue to mislead Americans by using common-sense catchphrases that do not apply in real life.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
