John Laughland misses the point

Email Print

John Laughlin focuses on the warmongering nature of and neocon affection for John Kerry, and says peaceniks should vote Bush. But Kerry voters are voting for healthily hostile legislative and executive branches, as a means of allowing the slow conflicted machine of government to work as designed. Laughlin’s conclusion that peaceniks should vote for Bush is dead wrong. The only thing holding Bush back from more conflict and war is his team’s need for reducing re-election uncertainty, which won’t be an issue in his next term. Thinking Americans, peaceniks included, may vote either Kerry (splitting government and allowing partisan debate on every issue) or Libertarian to send a symbolic message. Or stay home. Now if Laughlin had advocated a vote for Bush/Cheney as a means of accelerating a sharper kind of Constitutional crisis, inciting multigenerational rebellion or fragmentation, or bringing on a fantastic fiscal crisis, than I would agree, and my anarcho-capitalist side might, in a wild moment, pull the Bush lever.

10:28 am on April 10, 2004