A Call to Repentance

 | 

Are there libertarians who still regard President Obama with affection?

I understand that some people voted for him because they wanted to punish Bush and his fellow Republicans. The Republicans were warlike, and they were spendthrifts.

Well, if punishment is on the agenda, I want to be first in line to give some. Plenty, in fact. I’ll never get over George Bush’s ability to lie, lie, and keep on lying. But did you expect something better from Obama, you who supported him?

You did. I know you did. I heard you — at length.

As you said, Bush went to war, twice. But Obama continues running both wars, and he started a third one, the marvelously useless war in Libya. If he doesn’t get us involved in Somalia or Haiti, it will be a wonder.

As you said, Bush spent too much money. But Obama started off by spending a trillion dollars on a feckless economic program. He instituted a healthcare scheme that, basically, nobody wanted, which will cost at least half a trillion more and will give us notably less effective healthcare.

On August 8, Obama addressed the nation’s economic problems by demanding higher taxes and accusing those who don’t (such as you) of having caused the present economic distress. While he was talking, the stock market dropped like a rock. It lost 634 points that day.

But perhaps those who expected something libertarian out of Obama were right in one respect. His presidency has been wonderful for the gold market.




Share This

Comments

Mike Staninec

I feel no guilt whatsoever. I voted a straight Libertarian ticket. When Obama won, I was at least hoping he would get us out of those idiotic wars. Oh well...

Brian C

Liberty magazine has become a very sad mouthpiece for a certain delusional portion of the Republican party.
This article is just one of many examples. Liberty magazines' current editorials have veered way away from libertarianism, and into the fantasy world of real politik.
It is an absurb fantasy to assume there is any difference between voting for Obama or McCain, or Bush I or Bush II, Clinton, or Reagan. They all have the exact same policies on any issue of any importance.
If the goal of Liberty magazine is to garner greater readership and advertising by by espousing more "popular" and unlibertarian views, that's fine, and expected. But please change your name to something more appropiate like Time, or Newsweek or maybe Tea Party (wink, wink, really the Republican party mainstream) weekly.

Lisa MC

And, no, I didn't think he'd be particularly libertarian, but I admit I didn't think Obama would be as bad as things turned out. Yes, it was mostly an attempt to spank the Republicans. They spent appallingly, increased entitlements, they got us involved in Iraq, they promoted torture, and on top of that a religious right agenda. How else to let them know they were off course if I didn't vote for the opposition?

I also admit I got caught up in the whole historic nature of voting for the first black president--what that might mean for the country in getting past the race issue.

Also. Sarah Palin.

No. Just no.

If it helps, I greatly, greatly regret the vote.

Jon Harrison

I didn't vote for Obama either (I stopped voting after 1988), but I would've voted for him in 2008 if I thought McCain had a chance of winning. The idea of voting for a man who declared, "We are all Georgians" after the Russians took back from Georgia a couple of small provinces (with pro-Russian majorities) 6,000 miles from our shores was, and remains, ridiculous to me.

Although I don't think McCain would've nuked Tehran, it's clear he favors sticking America's nose into everybody else in the world's business, a discredited policy that has gone far toward bankrupting us both morally and economically. No, I'll take the Obama-Gates policies over the McCain weltpolitik any and every day.

It's also true that McCain knows nothing about economics. Unfortunately, neither does Obama. Still, among the 2012 Republican presidential field, only Ron Paul would get my vote in a race against B.O. And Dr. Paul isn't going to be the nominee. Mitt Romney was my governor back in the day, but though he was an acceptable chief executive for liberal Massachusetts, he would be a disaster as president. His tone-deafness on "class" issues, his weathervane convictions, and his hawkish foreign policy views all make him the wrong man at the wrong time. Picture the Bush I presidency against a backdrop of the Great Depression, and you've seen the future under the Mittster.

The two other formidable Republican candidates are Mrs. Bachmann and Governor Perry. These two may cannabilize each other's vote and give Romney the nomination. I think, however, that Perry will steamroll Bachmann and become the Republican nominee. Perry's a guy who signed an executive order asking God to relieve the Texas drought. The drought's actually gotten worse since then. Besides being clearly out of favor with God, he won't appeal to independent voters outside the South. In any case, do we want another president from Texas? After LBJ and Bush II? Really?

It'll be Obama vs. Perry or perhaps Romney in 2012. And unless unemployment is way up in the double digits, Obama will win a second term. I won't be voting, as usual. But if I did, I'd vote for Obama over any Republican except Dr. Paul. I wouldn't bother to vote for the Libertarian candidate, because that, of course, would amount to nothing more than wasting my time traveling to the polling place.

James Leroy Wilson

Four points followed by comments:

1. I didn't vote for Obama.
2. McCain admitted he was an ignoramus in economics and was clearly deranged in foreign policy.
3. Most libertarians I'm aware of "hoped" (not voted for) for an Obama victory, not because we liked him, but because McCain was clearly deranged.
4. Anyone who takes one SECOND out of their day to vote for a co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold, shouldn't be preaching to others about libertarianism.

The Editor of Liberty Magazine, on the other hand, ENDORSED McCain. Sorry, sir. The counterfactual history of a McCain Presidency means the nuking of Tehran.

Obama hasn't done that. At least, not yet.

If and when he does, then I'll concede that Dr. Cox was right all along.

© Copyright 2013 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.