Who are you voting for?
War for the White House Tagged bill clinton, cass r. sunstein, mccain, obama, presidential campaign, ron paul March 18th, 2008I remember once when I was younger, during Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign, my parents came home from voting and I asked who they voted for. My mom replied that voting was a very private matter and I wasn’t supposed to ask questions like that. I felt quite chastised until I realized a few years later that she only said that because she was embarrassed, as a Republican, about voting for He Clinton.
Today, most people (particularly young people) don’t have this same kind of allegiance to a party. However, allegiance to principles still exists; I was reminded of this today during a discussion about the presidential campaign.
You see, my husband, the devoted libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, has a bit of a man crush on Obama. While he doesn’t agree with a lot of his policies (Obama’s no libertarian, that’s for sure), he admires that Obama represents a new kind of politics. Between the Same Old Failed Republicans (McCain) and the Same Old Failed Democrats (Clinton), he represents—for lack of better word—that change everyone is so crazy about. He calls for working together across the aisle to solve America’s problems, he’s a good listener, and he’s a true leader. So, for these reasons (and more, summed up by Cass R. Sunstein’s Chicago Sun Times commentary), my hubby has given up the dream of a Ron Paul ticket and switched sides. His vote is for Obama.
We have several friends, however, who would not vote for Obama if they were paid to do so. They agree he’s a good man with the ability to move people. They might even agree that he is, more or less, the lesser of three evils. But on principle, they’ll vote their liberty-oriented conscience, writing in Ron Paul or maybe even themselves—anyone who is dedicated to limited government and freedom.
As for me, I haven’t decided yet. I dragged my feet supporting Ron Paul because I knew that as soon as I did, I’d be too invested in hoping he could actually win, could actually make a difference—when I knew the reality was he didn’t have a chance. Ron Paul is the only candidate I really believe in, but writing him in seems like a pointless exercise. (Although it would be interesting to see how much of his tremendous grassroots support would write him in.) Obama is undoubtedly the best option of the three, but voting for a big government guy (no matter how charming or pragmatic) still feels wrong.
So what do we do? As libertarians, do we vote our conscience, come hell or high water? Or do we “make our vote count” by ignoring policy differences and picking the candidate we think can win and do the least amount of damage?
I’d love to hear your thoughts…who are YOU voting for?
Powered by FireStats
March 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I’m writing in Bob Barr…
March 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Well, I guess my one vote wouldn’t matter to Obama. But it would matter to someone with a Ron Paul like-mindedness…someone who would take up his cross…who might look at the vote tallies and say “You know what? I have “X-amount” of people who are with me. How can I mobilize them? Because, they’re obviously dedicated. These are my go-to people. I’m going to build on their good-faith.”
March 18th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It’d be one thing if who you supported was on the ballot (even with no shot), but writing in someone to “show support” doesn’t really do anything.
The measurements of success were already seen, in Paul’s case at least. He raised a crapload of money, and didn’t get many votes. Writing his name in would be an exercise in futility. Paul has already built a solid base of support, and general election voting will not change anything at all.
Will voting for Obama change anything at all? My single vote, no. But then we could just argue about the importance of a voting at all.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Dear Jared,
Respectfully, it does sound as if you’re arguing both sides: that voting is irrelevant, and that it is not (or, it shouldn’t be “wasted” on someone who’s not on the ballot).
One could argue that the candidacy of Ross Perot in 1992 was the wake-up call for the revolution of 1994. Setting aside personal opinions about the long-term effectiveness of the ‘94 revolution: was a vote for Perot irrelevant - did it accomplish nothing? Likewise, wouldn’t votes, coordinated or not, for liberty-minded candidates (Dr. Paul, Bob Barr, the Zombie of Ronald Reagan, etc.) have the effect of mobilizing other liberty-minded people and candidates?
While results may not be readily apparent isn’t to say that there isn’t a favorable outcome to be had.
-MT
P.S. If we decide to write in the re-animated Zombie of Ronald Reagan, I want to be clear about the potentially negative impact this might have on the White House intern program. I’m just sayin’.
Michael Tams’s last blog post..California Ruling
March 19th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Mike,
I was not trying to say voting is ALL irrelevant. I was saying one could make that argument, and that if you take what Crystal said to its logical conclusion, you must conclude that voting is pointless.
Honestly, in my opinion, it is pointless to write in any candidate in a Presidential general election because it will have no impact in mobilizing anyone. As I mentioned before, all the mobilizing has already been done. Support is being built, but writing in any name during the general election will not have any effect, positive or negative. I would rather not vote than write someone in.
Also, you could argue that Perot’s run inspired 1994, but you could also argue that his run prevented Bush from winning reelection. Similarly, you could argue George W. Bush was elected because of Ralph Nader. So…I guess these votes didn’t accomplish nothing, but they were also not write-in’s either, and their true impact (especially Perot’s) is quite dubious.
Does this mean we just stick with the two party system? No, but as with anything else, some amount of compromise is necessary, especially considering Ron Paul couldn’t even get 10% in the Republican primary (which is more of an indictment of the American people than Paul).
So where that leaves me is choosing the best available option of those who have any chance at all in the general election. But, I guess I’m more of pragmatist than an ideologue. Obama has enough positions and says enough things that I agree with that I can vote for him despite my many policy differences with him.
I hope that explains my thought process.
Jared
March 20th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Well, we’re stuck with a 2-party system, like it or not. In a winner-take-all (”first-past-the-post”) system (vs. European parliamentary systems), there’s room for only two parties. One may replace another (Republicans replaced a primarily Whig coalition) but there’ll always be two. I’m glossing over a lot of political and game theory, but it’s a fascinating topic worth googling or looking up on wikipedia.
I might argue that ensuring the loss of the candidate of one’s nominal party affiliation is a fine result of writing in exactly the candidate you want. Repudiation of factions and/or ideology within one’s own party is as important, possibly more so, than beating the other guy.
If you’re not interested in continuing the conversation, I understand, but: you say that Obama has enough positions that you agree with that you can vote for him despite your many policy differences with him. May I ask you to clarify this statement? Thanks.
-MT
Michael Tams’s last blog post..California Ruling
March 20th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Mike,
I don’t mind continuing this at all. I love these conversations.
First, I would agree that repudiation of a party or candidate is very important. However, I don’t feel that writing in a candidate repudiates that candidate more than not voting for that candidate. In my mind, not voting for that candidate has the same effect. This goal is also a far cry from “mobilizing liberty minded individuals” by writing in a candidate, which I still hold would not happen. My overall point is that writing in a candidate has no value that other choices do not have. In my mind, it has the same value as not voting, though with not voting, I don’t waste my time.
As far as Obama goes, the main reason I’m voting for him is because of how he goes about politics, and how he wants to elevate politics, from the scorched earth 51% mentality we’ve seen grow greatly over the past 20 years.
Furthermore, he is one of the most open candidates we’ve seen in a long time, and believes in opening up the government to the people. Regardless of politics, this means a lot to me. I don’t want a candidate that will be secretive and lie to the American people.
Lastly, I believe he has the ability to raise the level of discourse in America, which will only be a good thing. His recent speech on race was one of the most honest that has been given by a person in his position ever. If he were President, I feel that this level of discourse would come to many more areas of policy, and this has not been the case under Bush/Clinton. In the long run, elevated discourse will only help the cause of Liberty. The more people engage in honest discussion, the more that I believe people will be won over by the cause, but it is hard for that to happen in the current political climate.
There are other things as well, such as what he’s said about religion and politics, copyright views, privacy views, views on personal responsibility, etc.
With relatively few differences between the two parties right now, I believe these traits make all the difference in the world, especially moving forward.
Jared
March 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I’m a pretty vivid Paul supporter. Never in my life has a major party candidate so closely match my political ideology. After hearing about Paul, I did something for the very first time in my life – I registered with a party. I had a pie-in-the-sky hope that Paul could get the nomination; that there was a strong but dormant voice of like-minded liberty-loving conservatives. As each day progressed throughout the campaign, I was convinced that the reality of a Paul ticket was truer and truer, and that the dormant voice started to speak once again. Straw polls, online polls, fundraising, the internet phenomenon, surely these would be reflected on Super Tuesday! Now that McCain has sealed the nomination, my feet have landed on the ground. In retrospect, the reality of Ron Paul winning the GOP nod was minimal. He’s ideas and his party’s ideas mix together like oil and water. He took the stage, and argued party fundamentals with 9 other candidates; he was 10%. He attracted 10%.
I guess that most Paul supporters have taken the primary results and have become extremely discouraged. 10% is a very low number. But before he was 10%, he was <1%. The impact of his candidacy really is just laying a foundation for the future of libertarian-minded politics. Right now, the field of November elections is not ready for libertarians. There is nothing wrong with voting your libertarian conscience (Write-in for Paul, or Libertarian Party), but no candidate of that mindset has enough public support for your vote to really be accounted for. The government is chosen, not from the majority of people, but from the majority of people that choose to participate.
For me, there are three generally good ways you can judge a candidate.
1. What they say.
I wouldn’t say this is the best measure, but sometimes that’s all the candidates can offer. What are they talking about? How often do they talk about it? Do they detail out their plans, or is it gray toned? I heard a lot about Clinton’s healthcare plans over the last 15 years. I feel almost brainwashed into thinking she has a great plan, and really knows how she can provide quality health care to everyone. About two months ago, after a debate I caught on CNN, the two democratic candidates were asked to distinguish their plans. Clinton didn’t detail her plan at all. Obama only touched on both, but he did address her criticism, and she never addressed his. I decided to look into Clinton’s plan online. It was too generalized in the questionable areas, and too demanding everywhere else. I don’t support Obama’s plan either, but he at least wants to make it more of an electable, and he wants to focus more on preventive health care, instead of reactive health care. As for McCain, in many debates, he spoke forth as a very knowledgeable person, especially over historical events. He even counter-argued Paul’s claim that Eisenhower promised that would end the war in Korea. McCain’s response to that Eisenhower didn’t campaign that he would end the war in Korea. I looked into this for myself, and roughly about 2 minutes later, I found an audio clip from Eisenhower while on campaign, specifically saying he would end the war in Korea. It wasn’t the most important discussion of the debate, but it highlighted some important things I had noticed about McCain. Between his smug smiles, he approaches many issues as a person with experience and knowledge over the issues, even when he isn’t experienced or knowledgeable. I see that as a very arrogant attitude, and I would rather not have another cowboy in office.
2. How they raise/spend money.
I had a huge distrust and dislike for Romney immediately over this issue. I thought he was reckless and very much on par with how the Republican Party has been over the last 8 years. Early on and throughout most of the campaign, McCain had low fundraising support. He had to be very financially frugal, and he was able to get the nomination in the end. I haven’t checked how he’s spent money since he clinched home field advantage, but he did very well in hard circumstances. I would be more impressed if he raised millions of more dollars than he did, and only spent what was necessary to get the nomination, but I don’t think that would have been the case.
3. How they run their campaign.
This is probably the biggest difference between Obama and Clinton. Instead of putting Clinton in my sights and losing control in a hate filled post, I’ll say what I like about Obama: He has taken an approach that all opinions are valuable. He’s a very open and active listener, and he’s also incredibly honest. He hass addressed concerns of the religious, the political, the young, and the old head on and direct. But above all that, he takes the stance that people should exercise personal responsibility, and that doesn’t just separate him from Clinton, but that separates him from most of the politicians. Not only that, but I believe that personal responsibility is a core issue to libertarians. I know it is to me, and that’s why I am voting for Obama.