Interesting discussion going on here.....first off, let me say that I think some folks are getting things a bit mixed up here. No one - at least not me - is advocating a "vote" for anyone, as Chris may have indicated. Instead, the conundrum is: who would we rather be stuck with?
As Jesse Walker put it to me, in an email exchange, we "root" or "cheer" for one jerk over the other. Indeed we do. All of us non-voters. (The only votes I have cast, in a zillion years, is for my local Macomb County Sheriffs, Bill Hackel and Mark Hackel, who have (had) the cojones to fight off the entire state of Michigan, while consistently supporting [and lobbying for] the right for me to pack a weapon.)
Said Jesse Walker on Bush vs. Kerry:
There's really two reasons to prefer Kerry to Bush. One I mentioned in my piece: to punish the incumbent. If you think Bush is insufferable now, just imagine what he'd be like with a clear electoral mandate. (I have to admit that this seems to be the chief factor each election in who I root for -- not vote for, but root for. In 2000 I preferred Bush, in '96 I preferred Dole, and in '92 I preferred Clinton. All with full awareness of how bad they were, all because I wanted to punish the party in power.)
The other reason to prefer him is divided government. Looking back on
the '90s, I think the best of the immediately possible worlds is a Democratic president with a Republican legislature. Kerry's preferences could very well be worse than Bush's. But a Republican Congress would restrain the worst impulses of President Kerry, as opposed to ratifying
the worst impulses of President Bush.So I find myself cheering for the liberal. I won't vote for him. But I'd
rather he win.
On the point of electoral mandate, I could not agree with him more. This is the gist of the "Bush problem." His entrenchment, as I would call it. Eight years of Bush is a cancerous growth of magnificent proportions.
He's also got a good point on the divided government conundrum. I *can* be swayed on this issue, and this is one area that can do it for me, but I have yet to be completely convinced to root for Kerry, as I did Bush 4 years ago. Here's why, and let me ask y'all.......doesn't the very fact that Kerry will open our wallets to the wind scare the dickens out of you?
As a CPA, perhaps my experiences, and my inside view, influences me toward tax-oriented decisions. In spite of all the variables that Jesse mentions, and that I have long considered, I see no greater destruction than a huge step-up in tax-and-spend policy that can never - as Bob Higgs would say - be "ratcheted" backwards. Social engineering via redistribution (theft) is perhaps the most powerful and dangerous aspect of government.
Almost immediately post-9/11, I was one of the few libertarians I know of that took the immediate view that the modern-day conservatives were far more dangerous than the liberals to our general well-being as a free nation. Many libertarian friends thought I was nuts. They vehemently disagreed with me. I haven't changed those thoughts, especially post-Iraq war, but I haven't yet been swayed to "root" for a pocket picker like John Kerry.
I think Adam Young slips up a bit when he refers to deeply-rooted tax policy as "short-term pain." As Robert Higgs, and others, have explained, the growth of government - via tax policy or whatever - is never "short-term," because the major effects of such are never fully ratcheted back after said "crisis" has ended. Major advances in redistribution/social engineering/freebies, if they come under Kerry, will never go away. It will be more like long-term hell. Think back to social security, tax withholding, etc........
And if anyone thinks that State-building, and ultimately, fascism (ie, Patriot Acts, Homeland Security), will be "more controlled" under Kerry, I'd like to hear their reasoning.
