Monday, May 31, 2004
Why I'm not voting Libertarian
This past weekend the Libertarian party convention was held. (Nice media coverage of a party that's on the ballot in all 50 states yet again, and had Bush lost Florida by a slim margin, Libertarians would be blamed for the Bush defeat). I've long thought of myself as a Mill-Hayekian libertarian (small government out of my life and my pocketbook). Throughout my adult life, my mix of realism and idealism has lead me to straddle the Republican/Libertarian divide. So in the past, when a vote didn't matter, I would vote Libertarian as a way of nudging the Republican party towards a more Libertarian stance.
However, the Libertarian party's pursuit of ideals has left the realm of reality (and in some cases just appear to be insane). So while I voted for the Libertarian candidate for President the past two elections, I'm not this time. Had Boortz somehow been nominated, (not one of the big three leading into the convention)1., I wouldn't be posting this and would be voting the Libertarian ticket a third time in a row.
Largely my feelings about Bednarik closely tracks my feelings about the Libertarian party in general (and more specifically the "Boot Boortz" crowd). I find their excessively doveish stance on Iraq foolish (we have no right to defend ourselves unless first attacked - Afghanistan was not justified in the party's eyes since Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11), their views of privacy unrealistic (no TIA, you can continue to collect the information as you have been, but don't you dare use it to connect the dots!), their stance on drugs not grounded in reality (legalization will decrease drug use), their stance on the IRS irresponsible (abolish it!), and think they're bogged down in bizzare government techno minutae (Congress can't grant the Executive branch the right to coin money!). It goes on and on. In my opinion, this year the only worthwhile point the party is making is their defense of property rights in response to the epidemic of eminent domain abuses. However, this issue pales in comparison to the other issues (and was a Boortz issue by the way).
So perhaps, I've left the Libertarian party, or perhaps they've left me. In any event, while I found their bold pursuit of ideals attractive previously, I find it foolish now. Whether it's because I've grown up or take things more seriously now that we're at war, I can't say.
Other than the Boortz caveat, Captain Ed expresses similar sentiments over at the Captain's Quarters.
Footnotes
1. Some considered Boortz a quasi serious candidate, but there was also a petition to dump him as a speaker - too pro-Bush for some Libertarians.
Comments(0) |
This past weekend the Libertarian party convention was held. (Nice media coverage of a party that's on the ballot in all 50 states yet again, and had Bush lost Florida by a slim margin, Libertarians would be blamed for the Bush defeat). I've long thought of myself as a Mill-Hayekian libertarian (small government out of my life and my pocketbook). Throughout my adult life, my mix of realism and idealism has lead me to straddle the Republican/Libertarian divide. So in the past, when a vote didn't matter, I would vote Libertarian as a way of nudging the Republican party towards a more Libertarian stance.
However, the Libertarian party's pursuit of ideals has left the realm of reality (and in some cases just appear to be insane). So while I voted for the Libertarian candidate for President the past two elections, I'm not this time. Had Boortz somehow been nominated, (not one of the big three leading into the convention)1., I wouldn't be posting this and would be voting the Libertarian ticket a third time in a row.
Largely my feelings about Bednarik closely tracks my feelings about the Libertarian party in general (and more specifically the "Boot Boortz" crowd). I find their excessively doveish stance on Iraq foolish (we have no right to defend ourselves unless first attacked - Afghanistan was not justified in the party's eyes since Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11), their views of privacy unrealistic (no TIA, you can continue to collect the information as you have been, but don't you dare use it to connect the dots!), their stance on drugs not grounded in reality (legalization will decrease drug use), their stance on the IRS irresponsible (abolish it!), and think they're bogged down in bizzare government techno minutae (Congress can't grant the Executive branch the right to coin money!). It goes on and on. In my opinion, this year the only worthwhile point the party is making is their defense of property rights in response to the epidemic of eminent domain abuses. However, this issue pales in comparison to the other issues (and was a Boortz issue by the way).
So perhaps, I've left the Libertarian party, or perhaps they've left me. In any event, while I found their bold pursuit of ideals attractive previously, I find it foolish now. Whether it's because I've grown up or take things more seriously now that we're at war, I can't say.
Other than the Boortz caveat, Captain Ed expresses similar sentiments over at the Captain's Quarters.
Footnotes
1. Some considered Boortz a quasi serious candidate, but there was also a petition to dump him as a speaker - too pro-Bush for some Libertarians.
Comments(0) |
