You’ve got yours. Where’s mine?
Mar 9, 2007 Politics and Poker
I’m glad to see Ron has picked a candidate to support already; as for me, the fact that they’re making us discuss this issue two years before the election, a year before the first primaries, is enough to make we want to shoot all of them. (Note to Secret Service: Not a Threat. Just Hyperbole. I would never shoot anyone. Except a terrorist. Or a Yankee fan. (Oops. Rudy’s a Yankee fan, right? And so’s Hillary, supposedly, right? Okay, scratch that last.))
In any case, this is a rather depressing election for those of us on the libertarian end of the spectrum. Yes, there’s Ron Paul. Who has as much chance of getting elected as RuPaul does. Plus, he’s too isolationist for my tastes. Putting him aside, what’s left? As many commentators have noted, George Bush and the Tom Delay Congress have essentially destroyed the conservative-libertarian alliance, but the idea of “liberaltarians” is a joke; even when people like Markos Moulitsas were trying to make a case for a Democratic libertarian alliance, they couldn’t do it. (At least Republicans talk a good game, even if their follow-through is lousy to nonexistent.)
A candidate with a chance to win who believes in limited government? Where is the next Ronald Reagan, anyway? Sadly, I have two years to ponder this question. Makes me almost wish Anna Nicole Smith had some more children of disputed parentage.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Libertarianism isn’t really dead, David. For certain I am a Republican operative. But I simultaneously support:
– the right of Americans to own and keep whatever kinds of guns suits their fancy, to keep them in the cars and on their person for purposes of self-protection;
– the right of american women to control their own reproductive processes, including contraception and morning-after medical prescriptions; RU-486 or clinical abortions any time preceding the actual birth of a fetus; and to have these rights without running gauntlets of religious fanatics trying to murder their physicians, or the need to run off to a foreign country for the treatment;
– termination of our membership in the United Nations Organization and removal of that organization’s main offices from the United States;
– careful and comprehensive land use planning to make America’s sprawling cities and urbanizing rural counties more suitable for daily living;
and many other political stances which render people like me difficult to tag with political labels.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
March 9th, 2007 at 10:11 am
David:
A candidate with a chance to win who believes in limited government? Where is the next Ronald Reagan, anyway?
He’s around. He’s currently going under the name of “Newt Gingrich.”
Seriously, I think the notion of “limited government” is an idea whose time has come and gone, at least in the minds of the American electorate, at least for a couple of election cycles.
Arnold:
Other than the thing about comprehensive land use planning, your bullet points would seem to put you in the Libertarian column, no?
P.S. The “Ron Paul – RuPaul” thing — you crack me up!
March 9th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Is it too early to start talking about 2012?
March 10th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
You know, David, we all hate “one issue” candidates, or the idea of them. But I think you have to decided what you’re going to prioritize. I know libertarians wrestle with this problem all the time. But for me, I don’t love Giuliani on social issues, but I think the fight against terrorism practically qualifies as a single issue on which to vote. I bet McCain would be roughly as good, but I can’t get excited about him. Like most bloggers I don’t think I can forgive him for McCain – Feingold, as well as numerous other things.
You have to ask yourself, what are your alternatives? I don’t think you’re old enough to run and Glenn Reynolds, well, I don’t really trust him around the ladies.
March 11th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Ha. Shows what you know. I’m old enough to run. (Which, incidentally, you really should know, since you know when I graduated.) I’ve been busy forming my exploratory committee. So far, I’ve almost convinced Linda to support my candidacy.
I think the war on terror is very important also, which is why I have such a problem with Ron Paul. But the problem is that people who are tough on terror also tend to be authoritarians at home. As I said: where’s the next Ronald Reagan? I know I’m not going to get a real libertarian, but can’t I get someone who thinks “Government is not the solution, government is the problem?” Can’t I even get someone who says that, even if he doesn’t believe it?
Oh, and Craig? I know someone who has already picked out Elliot Spitzer (ick! yuck! ack!) for 2016.
March 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I think I’d more likely vote for RuPaul than Ron Paul. I bet RuPaul would at least take out an ad or two, and make some sort of effort to act like he/she is actually running for something. More than the kooky views, and the isolationism, I think that’s what bothers me most about the Lazytarian Party.
Look at their views a little more closely. EVERY single one can also just as easily be the result of being too lazy to actually do anything. EVERY one. Their entire “platform” can accurately be described as, “I’m too lazy to do that.”
Give it a try some time. Look at their views, and ask, is that policy congruent with being too lazy to do something about it. If you’re honest, you may be surprised how often the answer is “Yes.”
March 11th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Well, FIAR, I do know some damned lazy libertarians. But quite a few of them are among the most industrious (and successful) people I know.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I was referring to the party itself. Not people who subscribe to a limited role of government. I myself was once a Lazytarian. Then I realized they do exactly zero to grow their party… Well, except for the whining that no one takes them seriously.
For the record, I also hate both the Democrats and the Republicans too (Party, not people) because they both are parties of big government socialism.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Parties are probably inherently socializing, wouldn’t you say?
March 12th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Well, their agenda does seem to revolve much more heavily around getting re-elected, and not at all much around serving their constituency. Except the Libertarians. Their agenda revolves around not getting elected… to anything… at all… ever.