Reason editor Matt Welch takes to the NYT op-ed page to make the libertarian case against John McCain. According to Welch, the common theme to McCain's political outlook is a hostility to individualism, making him a most un-libertarian presidential candidate.
The presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party has seduced the press and the public with frank confessions of his failings, from his hard-living flyboy days to his adulterous first marriage to the Keating Five scandal. But in both legislation and rhetoric, Mr. McCain has consistently sought to restrict the very freedoms he once exercised, in the common national enterprise of “serving a cause greater than self-interest.”
Such sentiment can sound stirring coming from a lone citizen freely choosing public service. But from a potential president, Mr. McCain’s exaltation of sacrifice over the private pursuit of happiness — “I did it out of patriotism, not for profit,” he snarled to Mitt Romney during the final Republican presidential debate — reflects a worryingly militaristic view of citizenship. . . .
Like many country-first, party-second military officers who began second careers in Washington, Mr. McCain is often mischaracterized as a politician without any identifiable ideology. But all of his actions can be seen as an attempt to use the federal government to restore your faith in ... the federal government. Once we all put our shoulder on the same wheel, there’s nothing this country can’t do.
It can be a bracing approach when his issues line up with yours — I, for one, would welcome President McCain’s unilateral wars on pork-barrel spending and waterboarding — but it’s treacherous territory for those of us who consider “the pursuit of happiness” as something best defined by individuals, not crusading presidents-to-be.
Welch previously made the libertarian case against McCain here. He is also the author of a book on the Arizona Senator, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick.
And no one is wearing goatees! What sort of wacky parallel universe is this?!
And if we're going to get a Democratic Congress a Republican president would make it a little harder to get more laws passed.
And I wonder how much of this critique would be softened by a libertarian-friendly VP.
I'm sure it's not intentional, but there's something ironic about these two pieces running in the same paper on the same day.
IMHO, the dems (including Hillary and Barack) are much better than the repubs on "sex" issues and generally better on criminal procedure issues. On anything else, mainstream Rs are much more libertarian than mainstream Ds. Almost the whole D platform can be boiled down to using the power of the state as a sledgehammer to achieve what they view as worthy policy goals.
They (Obama/Clinton) may be more "Libertarian leaning", where the quotations actually indicate 'I've really moved to the left but can't square that to my previously professed limited government ideals, so I hope no one challenges this too much', ala Welch, but I can't see how that argument (McCain is the real lefty!!) works in actual, non-fudge quotations practice.
I think we can safely assume that we will not be seeing regular libertarian criticisms of Democratic candidates and office holders there in the future.
There are two main causes of the size and cost of the federal state. Entitlements and the military. McCain may be better on entitlements but probably will do nothing substantive. McCain will expand the military and perhaps use it as "a sledgehammer to achieve what he views as worthy."
libertarianRepublican bandwagon forgotten about McCain's military policy? It doesn't get much less libertarian than having the government start a bunch more wars, and, presumably, enacting a bunch of new "security" regulations to go along with them. Talk about spending like drunken sailors!As for judges, I suspect that a bunch of you are conflating libertarianism and a (rhetorical) commitment to originalism. Sure, a Court with more conservative judges would get you a stricter regulatory takings jurisprudence and a narrower reading of the Commerce Clause (at least for laws the Justices personally dislike), but getting that in exchange for cracking down on obscenity, the procedural rights of "criminals", etc., seems like a pretty slim improvement at best, from a libertarian perspective.
There really is more to libertarianism than being a Republican who doesn't hate gay people.
[1] Matt Yglesias, who I'll admit is no libertarian, put it really well in observing that while most people think the military exists to make civil society possible, McCain seems to think that civil society exists in order to allow the warrior caste to practice their most honorable of crafts, like the view of the ancient Spartans.
I think I like having the congress with one sort of majority and the executive on the other side of the coin - less rubber stamp, more veto goodness.
It’s not true of libertarians in general, it’s just that there are some “libertarians” who make it their priority to bitch and moan about issues that are rather minor in the grand scheme of things. Hence we have Matt Welch focusing on things that don’t affect the majority of Americans while something like say McCain’s view on health care reform (which I guarantee will be a bigger issue this election than “ultimate fighting” or sports betting) compared to Obama or Clinton’s goes unmentioned.
It's like looking up into a starry night and being able to precisely judge which stars are closer and which more far away. There IS a correct answer to such questions, but to be able to determine it so easily and so casually is a marvel, since they are all so far away.
"I want a liamited government capable of policing the world" is not a statement of patriotism. It is a statement of gross political ignorance, or possibly schizophrenia.
I'm usually the last fella to rise to McCain's defense, but that seems an awful hyperbolic over-reach vis-a-vie McCain as some Heinleinian overlord. McCain has been loud-spoken on foreign affairs because it gives him a 'contrasting brand' to the Democrats, who have been very notably contradictory/wishy-washy in this area. And I think it's the 'selling' aspect of 'clear McVision' vs 'murky Democrat dodge' that's been the primary motivation for military talk (ie. political motivation), rather then some deep-seated 'Spartan World-view'. Wasn't it not that long ago that McCain was portrayed as the worldly, knowledgeable hand compared to Bush's supposed 'blood-lust megalomania'? Now magically McCain steps into that role?
Fairly, you also have to take into account (when looking at the source of some of these 'Dr. StrangeMcCain' accusations) the Lefts long-standing 'Pre-cut Boogeyman Molds' which dominant their world-view. Next to the best-selling "Evil White Christian Extremist" is the classic "Eternal War Tyrant". It seems pretty gosh-darn convenient that as McCain becomes the presumptive Republican nominee, he moves from being depicted as a man with actual first hand knowledge of the price of war and a rational counter-weight to those 'neo-con chickenhawks', to suddenly becoming another 'Military-Industrial Industry Goon' the Left is always hyper-ventilating about. Why, it's almost like a stereotypical meme!
Add my voice to the chorus of people who think that someone who wants to start more wars of choice and will keep the Iraq occupation going for a hundred years or longer doesn't sound at all like a libertarian. And what about McCain/Feingold? Do people really have that short a memory? Yikes.
When he makes comments like the "hundred years" remark and the Iran-training-al-Qaeda gaffe, then yes, he has indeed stepped in something. And how about his embracing of the "agents of intolerance" he once decried? There goes a man of principle.
If the Jeremiah Wrights of the world can be accused of hating America, then hard-core libertarians can fairly be said to hate America too. Their vision of America is every bit as radical as Wright's. When libertarians throw out complete nonsense statements like the government is incapable of doing anything right and private solutions are always preferable to public one, shows a complete disdain for our system of government and this country.
Here’s what McCain actually said:
Because unlike entitlement programs, military spending is a legitimate and constitutionally-enumerated function of the federal government.
Because cutting military spending may result in an impairment in one of the few things that the federal government is supposed to do (and does rather well) whereas cutting entitlement spending merely means that you’re reducing the federal government’s ability to redistribute wealth which in itself is a good thing.
Because for all of the talk about the cost of the military – most of it’s a sunk cost that we’re going to pay regardless of whether we use it in a war. Entitlement programs are on autopilot and set to surpass all other federal spending when the baby boom generation retires.
Because while it’s possible to be a libertarian and support building and maintaining the world’s most powerful military and even use it, being an libertarian and supporting our current federal entitlement programs (much less expanding them like Obama and Clinton want) – not so much.
"IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL IS THE ONLY ANSWER!!!!111one WWII HAS GONE ON TOO LONG."
Seriously, if Ron Paul isn't libertarian enough for them (putting aside the 80's newsletters and focusing on his platform in the 08 election), how on earth could McCain ever win them to his side? NOBODY will ever be pure enough for them.
I think the subtle point being made is that despite McCain's great numbers among so-called 'independents,' a group he desparately needs to win the general; among libertarian leaning independents - he is simply unacceptable. And on that score Reason may be right. I consider myself in that category and I won't vote for McCain under any circumstances.
you somehow managed to complain about the left stereotyping the right while simultaneously stereotyping the left.
It depends on how you go about it. If you’re looking for a candidate who promises to make a whole-sale slashing of Medicare and Social Security, you’ll find their vote total denoted with an asterix. On the other hand, you could build a consensus for something like means-testing particularly with Democrats running around screaming how the “rich” don’t “need” to keep more of their own money with a tax cut (which makes it particularly stupid to say that they “need” to have their retirement and health care paid for by generally poorer younger workers).
The best way to go about it IMO is to give people better options than the current system. Let younger workers build up their own retirement savings by cutting the taxes on investment and/or letting them invest at least a portion of their FICA into a personal account and pretty soon you have a politically-vested investor class* to rival the dependency class and programs based on generational dependency don’t seem quite so popular when people realize that they have better options.
Also a lot of federal spending isn’t just in entitlement programs, it’s for things like corporate welfare, agricultural subsidies, and other discretionary domestic spending. All McCain has to do is use his veto pen and get at least one-third of either House to sustain his veto. Given that neither Obama nor Clinton have shown any interest based on their votes as Senators in trying to stop this spending while McCain has pretty consistently been on the side of the spending cutters, I’d say he’s the best shot we’ve had in a long time of electing a genuine fiscal conservative to the White House.
* FTR I think that some of McCain’s calls for greater transparency in the financial markets are also pro-investor class and in the long run may do more to help make the case for eventually letting younger workers opt out of Social Security for PRA’s.
[snark]
Remember, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism and gay people, who we now know are worse than terrorists.
[/snark]
I think you mean Ramstein. Regardless, when was the last time the U.S. Air Force bombed a German or Japanese Town, the U.S. military was involved in a firefight with insurgents, or a U.S. base in Germany or Japan came under hostile fire. Can U.S. military personnel arrest and detain German or Japanese civilians? The answer is no--even if they come on base and commit a crime, the MPs can only hold them until the local police get there. And if they don't call the local police immediately, there is going to be an international incident.
There is more to libertarianism than how much the government spends on healthcare. McCain might be somewhat better (but not by much!) on spending, fiscal responsibility, taxation and possible supreme court appointments (though I am not sold on this one) but he is MUCH worse on free speech, military spending, civil liberties, foreign policy.
But the fundamental difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain would happily use the federal government to impose his values on the citizens. The point is not whether McCain's values, which are grounded in his military background) are 'good', but whether we want a president who has an overbearing sense of whats morally right ansd would not hesitate to take away our liberties, engage in an unending war or stifle dissent in order to defend those values. I think that for all libertarians, the answer is no.
Those who wish to go through actual facts on this matter would do well to go through Matt Welch's interview with Cato.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8545
Given how often he’s been willing to buck the majority of his party on issues like spending, arguably no matter who controls Congress, with McCain as president you’re going to have “divided government.”
But your point that Clinton or Obama with a Democrat-controlled Congress would be a disaster is a valid one and I’m sure that every Democrat who tried to use “divided government” as an argument for John Kerry in 2004 is kicking themselves.
I think that point that McCain struggles to find strong 'in-the-trenches' support from groups other then a rather nebulous and shifting 'Moderate Middle' is a pretty well-known one by now. The more telling issue is when you evoke the specter of 'never voting for McCain' (which I've previously done and now sadly must break)do you intend to not vote, or vote for one of the Democratic candidates?
That gets to the heart of the debate in this thread, there's a lot of 'Left-liberal in Libertarians clothing' style argument s being made. The linked article states McCain has a somewhat opaque philosophy, but I've honestly never found that to be true. John McCain has always openly worked under the foundations of 'John McCain believes in the inherent righteousness of whatever John McCain believes.' He's a complete prima-donna, but somewhere in his brew of self-satisfaction he seems to reliably express some degree of faith in limited government, however slight. And as a conservative I've got to measure that against a left Democrat/Liberal with a long, abrasive track-record and a pleasant, empty-record Left-liberal whose major skill is being a living 'Magic Mirror' in which admirers apparently see whatever their heart desires. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, and in the interests of limited government, sadly McCain seems the best choice. I've yet to hear any realistic talk as to why supposedly limited government libertarians will chose Obama/Clinton over McCain, other the aforementioned Lefty-in-disguise 'He'll bring eternal War!!!' meme.
Also, while I'm sympathetic to many libertarian pursuits, I'm not sure where some of this 'Pure Libertarian' stuff is going. When your major impact on American culture is as the butt of a notable Ronald Reagen joke, I would think libertarians would tread in more pragmatic ways.
Ending the Iraq War is simple. Leave.
John McCain: 0 for 2. (.000)
I don't know. Sounds like something a character out of heinlen's novels would say, and he's always seemed to have a good gut feel of what "libertarian" meant.
Patriotism, ideallly, should arise out of the happiness and sense of duty one gets from knowing that they live in a state that lets them pursue their goals in as wide a path as possible.
For 2008:
Military 21%
Social Security 21%
Income Security 13%
Medicare 13%
Health care 10%
Education 3%
And you then support the guy who will unquestionably increase military spending and promises to do so for decades by involving us in yet more intractable wars? Do you think that the damage to the U.S. caused by these wars (Iran, China, Russia?) will be "easier to repair later" too?
Personally, I expect Liberty to throw in for Obama, since they seem to share a fondness for wacky conspiracy theories. When Obama uncovers the truth about the secret strike force of FBI agents and space aliens that assassinated MLK, introduced supercrack to the inner cities, travelled through time to destroy all the paintings of Black Jesus, and put sterilization drugs into Church's fried chicken, Liberty readers will be right there cheering him on.
I might even vote for Gravel for his balls to the walls patriotism in reading the Pentagon Papers (top secret no less, in a time of war- SHOCK!! he would get gitmo'd today) into the Congressional Record in a one-man effort to stop the draft. Of course, I realize that neither of the two have a chance of winning. But I REFUSE to vote for McCain - - and the D's, well, I completely disagree with their whole approach to government. This is a failing of the two party system (not represenative democracy)- not enough options for people like me. C'est la vie. Im used to it by now.
How quickly Obama has gone from a closet Muslim to a closet Jihadist sympathizer to a traitor who would turn over nuclear codes to Al Qaida. Do you really believe that???
``I detest war,'' he said. ``Not the valor with which it is fought, nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war.''
In war, ``The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged,'' he said.
Sounds like a real warmonger.
McCain is not starting new wars. He is opening new theaters in the war.
"Real Libertarians" are so ignorant of American history. It's a shanda. To think there was a time when I that they were the only rational party. Sorry guys 9/11 opened my eyes.
Libs are so ignorant of the Military, the art of war, and the history of war that it hurts just to watch.
Say what? Obama is a doctrinaire Leftist. He will happily use the federal government to impose his values on the citizens - that's what Leftists do.
Wrong. That's what statists do. There are equal impositions from Left and Right statists. Libertarians are the ones who leave others generally free from government interference in what they'd like to do, whether it involves guns OR marijuana.
How does the existence of "Right statists" disprove the claim that doctrinaire Leftists use the federal government to impose their values on the citizens? That is indeed what Leftists do, and there really isn't any doubt that both Obama and Hillary would use the federal government to impose their values on the citizens.
If McCain gets his way, I know that I’m not going to be able to (legally) bet on sports over the internet, use steroids, participate in an “ultimate fighting” competition, and pay higher energy costs to combat AGCC. In exchange though, I’ll be able to directly control a greater portion of my income, opt at least partially out of Social Security to better provide for my own retirement, be able to buy a more affordable health insurance plan for my family, buy cheaper goods through free trade, pay less for gasoline and food without ethanol subsidies raising their cost, take my kids and at least part of my tax dollars out of a failing government school into a better school, and keep my guns (although I’ll have to go through a background check if I buy one at a gun show).
If Obama gets his way, I’m going to lose control over a higher portion of my income, my kids will be discriminated against when they apply for school or a job because of “affirmative action,” my health insurance will become even more expensive because of his new mandates, I could lose my right to own a handgun, my kids will be bankrupted by Social Security and Medicare, I’ll continue to pay more for gasoline and food because of farm subsidies, my energy costs will be even higher to combat AGCC, foreign goods will become more expensive, my kids will be stuck in the same schools as more of my tax dollars get put into the pockets of the teacher’s union, and the government will begin to have even more control over my health care decisions. In exchange though, I will be able to smoke pot with an even lower likelihood of going to jail rather than treatment.
Yes, they’re about exactly the same.
Yes it’s not like Obama spent the last 20 years with a “spiritual advisor” who gives us an insight into what those qualities actually are.