Libya and 2012


By intervening in the Libyan civil war and dragging the United States into war with Libya, President Obama has effectively signed his resignation papers. There is no way that he will win in 2012.

Republicans already hate Obama, but more and more the modern-liberal Democrats are turning on him. Some say he hasn’t done enough to fight global warming (although he’s done too much already); some say he should implement the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell more quickly (which is quite true); some say that he makes too many compromises (although he doesn’t make enough of them). But all these things aside, Obama was elected first and foremost on an anti-war platform. He has failed to stabilize the situation in Iraq, he has failed to get us out of Afghanistan, and now he has started a war with Libya, a war that he cannot blame on Bush.

And why did we get involved in Libya? Either because of its oil reserves, or because we are now the world’s policeman. Neither reason befits an anti-war politician. The anti-war people are soon going to start abandoning Obama in droves, and he will find that the modern-liberal wing of the Democratic Party is not going to worship him as it did back in 2008. Obama’s “change” has been revealed for what it always was, more of the same old politics. He is vulnerable in 2012, especially if the Republic Party nominates an anti-war, libertarian-leaning candidate.

Share This



"He is vulnerable in 2012, especially if the Republic Party nominates an anti-war, libertarian-leaning candidate."

Big "if" in there. The only one I can see as viable is Gary Johnson, and for reasons that are a mystery to me, he seems to get no ink.
I heard him speak about a year ago, and from a libertarian viewpoint, there was a lot to like and little to dislike.
So maybe that's the problem.....

Jon Harrison

The Republican Party is not going to nominate an "anti-war, libertarian-leaning candidate," but even if it did, Obama would still win.

The only electoral risk Obama faces is the economy. A double dip recession with rising unemployment in 2012 would make him highly vulnerable to a Romney candidacy. Otherwise, Obama's a shoo-in.

Barack Obama is an extremely clever politician. You can be sure that Libya will not be an issue in 2012, and if by chance Afghanistan comes up in a meaningful way, it will be plausibly portrayed as a failing of the Bush administration, which starved the war of resources at a critical time. As for Iraq, it may indeed descend into chaos at some point, but probably not in the next 18-24 months. In any case, all this administration has done on Iraq is carry out the agreement negotiated by its predecessor. The last thing the Republicans want is Iraq as an issue in 2012.

On the domestic front, Obama's position on global warming will not cost him a vote. Nor will his handling of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He will fall, if he falls, according to the Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation). If the latter is no worse than today, he wins. If it's substantially worse, he may lose, though much depends upon who the Republican nominee is.

If you have to bet the farm on the 2012 election, bet on Obama. If you want to risk a mere twenty bucks, you should still bet on Obama. Democrats will not abandon him in droves. A few left-wing Democrats may stay home or vote Green, but the vast majority of lefties will turn out to re-elect the nation's first black president.

As a young man I hated being told by my elders that my ideas did not reflect the realities of the world. Now that I'm middle-aged, it's easier to see that youthful passion does not always make for good analysis. I fear that Mr. Hasan has given us more heat than light on the coming election.

Federal Farmer

This is wishful thinking (and I wish it would come true. The left has forgotten our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, as a result, will not reject the President for staying.

Let me explain why they have forgotten: both wars are completely out of the news cycle, the number of deaths from each is considerably lower that it was in the first 3 years of the conflicts, and the amount of money spent is overshadowed by stimulus and bailouts (which the left accepts). In addition, his Republican opponent will be forced to offer a more hawkish foreign policy, drawing away left-leaning independents.

I'm afraid libertarians will have to elect a Republican candidate who offers large spending cuts and, unfortunately, promotes policies of war and statist social issues.


Where did you come up with the idea of the Republicans nominating an Anti-War/Libertarian candidate? From reading fantasy novels?
All of the prospective Republican candidates are neoconservative, warmonger, anti-abortion, big spending, lying losers with the possible exception of Ron Paul who is to old to be elected.

K. Norman

Yes, but the Republicans do not like THIS war (or, excuse me, Kinetic Military Action), and even many of them are getting pretty sick of Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts. Remember, no Republican president ever started a war between 1900 and 1990; our involvement in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam were all courtesy of "left leaning" Democratic presidents. A libertarian who had a record as supporting libertarian policy... would be less likely to get us into another "world police" mess.

© Copyright 2020 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.