Saturday, October 23, 2004
Why I'm voting Bush
With all the no sh*t endorsements appearing in the blogosphere recently, I was planning on writing my own next week to explain why I was planning on voting Bush (I'm still deciding on the House race). Then arcane from Gene Expression invaded my mind, lifted my thoughts, and posted them. For which I'm eternally grateful as it saved me a couple hours of writing.
Then again maybe arcane didn't invade my mind, and the scary similarities in thought are just a function of us both being conservative libertarians. (Labels sometimes do carry meaning)
Partially, his (our) vote is premised on realistic expectations of what Bush could and could not do. Partially, his (our) vote is premised on what we think Kerry will do if elected. And partially, his (our) vote is premised on the theme I noted at the RNC.
There's a libertarian argument that electing Kerry would split control of government and recreate the governmental gridlock of the 90's that got most libertarians all hot and bothered. (Arcane does address this argument, but only the defense spending aspects of the argument.)
I disagree with this argument because I believe the current Republicans in Congress are very different from the Republicans of the 90's. In the 90's the Republicans were principled small government conservatives. Then the government shutdown occurred (to me marking one of the proudest moments in Republican history) and the Republicans got burned badly by public opinion for their principled stand (which is a sign of why the Libertarian party will always be a third party). The public outcry caused many Republican Congressmen to drop their principles in a bid to retain power. The remaining principled Congressmen had also run on a platform of serving for a limited period (remember term limits?) and retired from Congress when they had promised.
Would the Republicans of the 90's ever have passed such a massive expansion of Medicare? Would they have voted for a massive increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts? While I believe the 90's Republicans would've liked the testing and acountability portions of NCLB, I don't think the party that wanted to abolish the Education department would've entertained the largesse associated with the bill.
Thus I view the current Republican Congress as Democrat-lite. The lesser of two evils, yes. The party of gridlock and small government, no. Coupled with this fact and the Republicans' desire to no longer be associated with gridlock and government shut downs, I don't see how a Republican Congress would be anything other than spending collaborators with a Kerry Presidency. Indeed, I fear a Republican Congress may try to outspend a Kerry Presidency in an attempt to rob Kerry of issues (robbing Democrats of issues was a primary motivator for Medicare).
Anyways, read arcane's post. Maybe it'll influence your choice for President, maybe not. But in the least, you'll know why I'm voting for Bush.
|
Then again maybe arcane didn't invade my mind, and the scary similarities in thought are just a function of us both being conservative libertarians. (Labels sometimes do carry meaning)
Partially, his (our) vote is premised on realistic expectations of what Bush could and could not do. Partially, his (our) vote is premised on what we think Kerry will do if elected. And partially, his (our) vote is premised on the theme I noted at the RNC.
You may disagree with Bush on X and Y, but on the War on Terror, you agree with his approach (perhaps not some details), and at this time, the right approach to the War on Terror trumps everything else.To arcane's lengthy and excellent discussion, I would only add one point to - a point I left in the comments of Agoraphilia.
There's a libertarian argument that electing Kerry would split control of government and recreate the governmental gridlock of the 90's that got most libertarians all hot and bothered. (Arcane does address this argument, but only the defense spending aspects of the argument.)
I disagree with this argument because I believe the current Republicans in Congress are very different from the Republicans of the 90's. In the 90's the Republicans were principled small government conservatives. Then the government shutdown occurred (to me marking one of the proudest moments in Republican history) and the Republicans got burned badly by public opinion for their principled stand (which is a sign of why the Libertarian party will always be a third party). The public outcry caused many Republican Congressmen to drop their principles in a bid to retain power. The remaining principled Congressmen had also run on a platform of serving for a limited period (remember term limits?) and retired from Congress when they had promised.
Would the Republicans of the 90's ever have passed such a massive expansion of Medicare? Would they have voted for a massive increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts? While I believe the 90's Republicans would've liked the testing and acountability portions of NCLB, I don't think the party that wanted to abolish the Education department would've entertained the largesse associated with the bill.
Thus I view the current Republican Congress as Democrat-lite. The lesser of two evils, yes. The party of gridlock and small government, no. Coupled with this fact and the Republicans' desire to no longer be associated with gridlock and government shut downs, I don't see how a Republican Congress would be anything other than spending collaborators with a Kerry Presidency. Indeed, I fear a Republican Congress may try to outspend a Kerry Presidency in an attempt to rob Kerry of issues (robbing Democrats of issues was a primary motivator for Medicare).
Anyways, read arcane's post. Maybe it'll influence your choice for President, maybe not. But in the least, you'll know why I'm voting for Bush.
|
