Go Free Yourself

In the group I run with, Obama isn’t exactly getting glowing endorsements. There are the oh-so-witty quips—”Now that’s a change we can believe in,” referring to anything (and therefore nothing of substance)—and the disparaging comments and the snorts of disapproval. Fundamentalist libertarians and conservatives seem to have trouble understanding why one might consider a “tax-and-spend Democrat”…as if that’s any better than a spend-and-spend-and-spend Republican.

Anyway, I read an interesting post today by Andrew Sullivan, narrating why he (a conservative) wants Obama to win. Here’s an excerpt:

I haven’t sat through a single Obama speech without ideologically wincing at something. I fear that in the general election, his recourse to liberal tropes will begin to wear thin.

So why do I find myself still longing for him to win?

Because, I can’t see how domestic policy could become more statist and less responsible than the past eight years. Because I want to see such a record punished with electoral defeat for fear they still don’t know what they did wrong. Because I think Obama’s diplomatic skills and public relations brilliance could serve this country very well. And because of what Obama represents in our collective consciousness.

His candidacy is about renewing what America means to the world and to itself. It is about a collective cultural healing—especially on race. It is about representing the next generation and America’s less domineering but more inspiring place among nations. It is about transparency in government. It is about getting past this brutal cultural polarization for a while. It is about putting reason back into our discourse after the emotional manipulation of the Morris-Rove era. It is about ending torture, restoring Constitutional balance, and adding the power of words, of great words, to restore hope again.

Read Sullivan’s whole piece here. And, as always, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Score another point for libertarians: Mike Gravel is deserting the Democratic party and joining the Libertarian party to continue his bid for president.

I’m not sure how I feel about this, but I do know that this is the weirdest campaign video of all time:

Well, with stunning messaging like this, we libertarians are sure to succeed!

Continuing on earlier discussions here about libertarian voting, here’s a Los Angeles Times op-ed, written by Reason Magazine editor in chief Matt Welch and Reason.tv Editor Nick Gillespie: “Where the votes are.”

They write:

Since the 1970s, the Democrats and Republicans have been leaking market share like a Chevy Nova leaking oil. In 1970, the Harris Poll asked: “Regardless of how you may vote, what do you usually consider yourself — a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or some other party?” Fully 49% of respondents chose Democrat, and 31% called themselves Republicans. In 2006, the latest year for which data are available, those figures were 36% for Democrats and 27% for Republicans. With that gap closing, it’s not surprising that presidential elections have become battles over voters who identify with neither party.

Libertarians, for instance. As David Boaz of the Cato Institute and David Kirby of America’s Future Foundation note in a study of public opinion polls, roughly 15% of the electorate can be considered libertarian. Such folks are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They like gays and guns, low taxes and free speech. They are pro-globalization and antiwar. They are at the center of American politics. Win them over and you’ll win every national election for the next several decades.

Interesting. Do you agree? Read the whole thing here.

Ron Paul supporters are all riled up with nowhere to go.

McCain has clinched the presumptive Republican nomination. Ron Paul was unable to get 10 percent in the Republican primary. And now, McCain and the Republican Party are giving Ron Paul supporters the cold shoulder.

The Washington Times reports:

“I don’t think they want them,” Mr. Paul told The Washington Times, adding that indifference doesn’t surprise him because the party’s establishment has deserted traditional conservative principles for big government and foreign intervention.

“We don’t agree with them,” he says. “We agree with the Old Right, and they’re the New Right, which is ‘The Wrong,’ [because] the New Right has morphed into neoconservative.”

This is true. There’s not much common ground here, but the loss is the party’s.

Many of his 800,000 presidential nomination votes were from newcomers to the Republican Party — the kind of dedicated small-donor volunteers the party needs, he says.

Oh well. We didn’t want to be part of your party anyway.