Just as Dan Koffler tries to justify a left-libertarian vote for Obama by pointing out that socialized medicine is inescapable and the welfare state ain’t going away any time soon, Thoreau uses the latest example of cowardice you can believe in to justify a big NO EFFING WAY. No prizes for guessing where I stand.
Then again, given that I self-identify with the right rather than the left, my opinion may not be worth all that much here. And far be it for me to instruct a bunch of people trying to perfect the Art of the Possible to tell expediency to take a hike and instead cry to the skies something better. The fact is, though, that a willingness to acquiesce on issues like these – that is to say, issues of basic constitutional protections against the unrestrained abuse of state power and erosion of the rule of law – is precisely what makes for the very worst sort of political disaster.
The problem here is not just that – with some exceptions, of course – most of the American left really does not care all that much about protecting civil liberties (or, for that matter, refraining from the illegitimate and irresponsible use of military force in the promotion of “humanitarian” causes abroad). Nor is it the more general concern that a political alliance forged around only one or two issues and without a serious attempt to articulate the deeper principles that make it more than a matter of convenience is a recipe for political strategies that put partisan advancement over anything even remotely resembling principle. Rather, the cancer at the core rests in the fact that the present two-party system is simply broken – not just because the necessarily slapdash character of political coalition-building means that a certain sort of rigidly principled voter is unlikely ever to find a “perfect” candidate, but rather because on a host of fundamental issues the two parties have simply collapsed into one, with only the appearance of real conflict (and hence “compromise”) acting as grease in the gears of the machine. Here is Rick Williams, in his AoTP interview with Mona and Jennifer Abel:
In our view, the terms “right and left” and even “Democrat and Republican” have become largely meaningless in modern political discourse. The true divide in this country is between our establishment political class on the one hand, and the people they purport to serve on the other. Very simply, our political leaders of both parties have lost their way; they serve only themselves; and they stand for nothing that matters to the American people as a whole. Look at what happened after the Democrats received a mandate in 2006 to end the war in Iraq. Nothing happened. The leadership groups of both parties have continued forward with the war in complete disregard to the wishes of the American people. That’s why the Democratic congress has an 11% approval rating– they failed to fulfill their promises. Our Strangebedfellows alliance reflects a transpartisan consensus that the Iraq war must end; that the “War on Terror” is a sham; and that the police state measures of the FISA reauthorization “compromise” are an unacceptable encroachment on the civil liberties of the American people.
This is entirely right, and there is no time like the present to take up the task of building something better, of using the remarkably widespread frustration and outrage generated by the inanities of the Bush years to do something more than support a candidate whose agenda for “change” is as timid and insubstantial as Barack Obama’s. Indeed, as recent events have made quite clear, a professedly “centrist” and “post-partisan” politics like Obama’s – or, for that matter, John McCain’s – is the very worst sort of politicking to turn to in our present situation: for it is exactly the political “center” (which is to say, the class of positions overwhelmingly embraced by those at the center of the Great Political Machine) that has provided us most of the worst of the abuses of the Bush Era, and it is exactly that political center with which we identify ourselves when we choose to support a candidate who, though he may well be the “lesser of two evils”, nevertheless has a prestigious history of bowing to the demands of that cross-partisan establishment whenever it is deemed to be politically expedient.
And so I plead with you, left-libertarians and other Obama-considering antiwar and civil libertarian conservatives and independents of all stripes: DO NOT VOTE for this man. I say this not only because I think I have a better candidate to offer you, but rather because, this election cycle be damned, the only chance we have of building something better will begin with refusing to prop up the vast and teetering superstructure that presently plans to engulf us all. If calls for accountability mean anything at all, then – unless you have some strange fixation on the implementation of “progressive” economic policies – the presidential candidate who this afternoon voted for cloture on a bill of exactly the sort that he had previously promised to filibuster is not a candidate who deserves your time of day. We can accomplish something better, and there will indeed be some unlikely partners found working together in any such project. But the only way we can get cozy together in this big new bed is if by refusing to give in to those who claim that theirs is the only possible way.
Filed under: civil liberties, libertarianism, politics, war
You wrote, “most of the American left really does not care all that much about protecting civil liberties”.
Oh yea, because the American Civil Liberties Union is right wing. Granted, I am pro-gun and far from being totally left, but the left is concerned with some constitutional rights, perhaps not the same ones as you, but that’s not reason to write such a false statement.
The ACLU can reasonably be called a part of the American left, but its constituents surely do not make up most of it. Perhaps I should have said “much” instead of “most”; I do, however, feel reasonably confident in claiming that civil liberties have not been the Democrats’ bread and butter.
Hey John, you linked to the wrong post! The one you’re looking for is here. I’ll try to say about more about this tomorrow, but one problem, which I mention in that post, is that Barr is really not such an appealing candidate for me. More or less unrestricted immigration is a big deal for me; you’re asking me to throw away my vote for a candidate who strongly opposes one of my core positions.
Needless to say, I agree with your criticisms of Obama, and nothing I’ve said is or should be construed as a defense of his FISA cave-in. Where we disagree (apart from immigration, from what I gather) is on the question of what’s achievable in this election. You say we have a chance to “build[] something better” by “refusing to prop up the vast and teetering superstructure that presently plans to engulf us all.” Really? What better something do you have in mind, and how realistic is it?
Thanks, Dan. Got it, found it, fixed it. I’ll respond to the rest of what you say later on.
Just to clarify — and thanks John for the link — at this point I still plan to vote for Obama. I agree with that graf from Rick Williams quoted in our interview, but Barr has NO CHANCE.
Obama sold out on FISA and telecom immunity. Full stop. I have zero patience for his mindless apologists claiming otherwise. But if he is not many magnitudes better than a McCain presidency would be, the Republic is truly in a downward spiral that cannot be avoided.
–Mona–
Mona: Thanks for your comment, and also – by the way – for the WLW recommendation, which has been working out great for me. I agree with you that Obama would be better than McCain, though you likely think that to an even greater degree than I do. My own frustration, though, is generated by the fact that “better than X” – especially when it means so damned little, as in the Obama over McCain case – is always the strategy we’re expected to adopt. Obviously perfection is too much to ask for, but a well-placed protest vote can serve an important purpose.
Dan: I caught that remark about Barr, and I see where you’re coming from. Maybe you could write Jim’s name in. In this election, I suppose I don’t think that very much is achievable at all (hence the “this election cycle be damned” remark); the thought is that the potential for real progress in the long run will be a lot greater if NOW is when we start refusing to cave. As for what the “better something” might look like, I really don’t know. But at bottom, what drives me is the thought that if we all beat the drums nice and loudly on the issues that are close to our hearts and refuse to join into marriages of convenience where too many core principles are violated, there’s the possibility for a real shake-up. This is why, even as a conservative (of an admittedly unconventional variety) who still identifies more strongly with the GOP than the Dems – perhaps this is just because old habits die hard – I would be delighted to see the Republicans go down in flames (again) this November and in 2010 as well, so that the Ron Paulites and the Grand New Party crowd could fight over who gets to build in the ashes. I know that this wouldn’t really be your crowd, and if you’re right – as I think you are – about the welfare state then I can more than understand why you’d place your hopes in the Dems: but it seems to me that you ought to demand at least something substantial on the civil libertarian fronts in exchange for your support for Obama, and (once again) being better than McCain on this count doesn’t amount to much. (That we have differing views on what to expect from Obama’s foreign policy is a likely part of the story here, of course.)
Ack, I feel like the original post was overblown and I’m just being obtuse at this point. Do I have anything realistic to offer? Not so much. Call it the Art of Fighting Windmills.
Ack, I feel like the original post was overblown and I’m just being obtuse at this point. Do I have anything realistic to offer? Not so much. Call it the Art of Fighting Windmills.
If it consoles at all, I sincerely do “feel your pain.” ;)
–Mona–
Barr has no chance because people think he has no chance, if everyone who likes him thought he had a chance he would win. VOTE FOR WHO YOU LIKE, NOT AGAINST WHO YOU DON’T.
John and Mona: Ultimately, the goal of “something better” ought to be to make libertarians a group worth pandering to again, in essence being a recognized “swing vote” (a la the cliche “Soccer Moms” and “Nascar Dads”) to whom each party can appeal (read: pander) by just being good on the issues that they’re supposed to be good from a libertarian standpoint. In this election, I believe the biggest issue for most libertarians, bar none, is Executive power: civil liberties and foreign policy. Viewed from that perspective, I believe that the goal of a libertarian vote ought to be to do what is necessary to force the Dem Party to have an actual backbone.
Although I would be significantly less upset with a King Obama than a King McCain, I’d be downright satisfied if the result of this election was just a President, whether it be Obama or McCain. Unfortunately, if the Dems are to be good where they’re supposed to be good (ie, civil liberties), I think they need to be punished for failing to do so – not rewarded by winning the libertarian vote for the first time ever.
In voting for Barr, my hope is that it will force the Dems to recognize that the libertarian vote doesn’t come so cheaply and that it is large enough to be worth losing a handful of votes from so-called “centrists.” If the result of this is that we get a President McCain, but a Dem Congress that does more than just roll over and play dead whenever the President whispers the words “national security,” then I’m ok with that. Frankly, if the Dems had actually been sufficiently strong to stand up to Bush over the last 8 years, then I think the last 8 years, and certainly the last 2, might have actually been pretty decent from a libertarian standpoint.
But now we have a situation where whoever is the next President is likely to inherit all of the Bush Administration expansions of Executive Power. If that man is McCain and libertarians still voted for Obama, then I think the Dems (with their certain control of both houses of Congress) will take the libertarian vote for granted and will just continue their acquiescence, resulting in King McCain. If, on the other hand, libertarians vote for Obama and Obama wins, the Dems will have an even bigger disincentive to be strong on executive power, including civil liberties, because it’s now their guy at the helm, resulting in King Obama. While King Obama may be more benevolent than King McCain, that’s still a lot of power, closing in on absolute power, in one man/group’s hands. And with that power comes a strong temptation to use it…not good, no matter who the person at the top may be.
BUT, if libertarians punish (or at least refuse to reward them) for being bad where they’re supposed to be good, then maybe, just maybe, the result is a Dem Congress with a real backbone on civil liberties and executive power. And that fact alone will ensure some sort of a roll back of executive power, maybe even enough of a roll back that whoever is elected is actually a President again, not a King.
[...] week, John Schwenkler posted the latest in a series of well-taken criticisms of those of us anti-warriors who plan to vote for Senator [...]
[...] coverage here.) Maliki makes it clear that this is not, of course, an endorsement of Senator Obama, not that that would be a sufficient reason to vote for the man in any case. But the astonishing intransigence of the [...]