Positive Liberty

Divided We Stand supports divided government. I do too — divided government slows things down, and we desperately need to slow down the pace of government encroachment into civil society.

But here’s the dilemma, and it’s not an easy one:

The libertarian swing vote, organized around the concept of divided government, was instrumental in determining the outcome of the 2006 mid-term election. If this election becomes a Democratic Party rout, then the libertarian swing vote simply will not matter, it’ll just get swamped. However, if it is a close election, it could be determinative in 2008 as it was in 2006. If - and it is a big “If” - the libertarian swing vote remains consistent and committed to divided government. While it is the right question to ask, I suggest it is too early to ask it. We need to get past the Democratic primary sideshow, find out who the candidate will be, and learn whether events in Basra will overtake the the campaigns.

MW of Divided We Stand also frames the question by quoting Todd Seavey as follows:

So, to my libertarian friends who are either indifferent to the Dem/GOP distinction or who actively root for “divided government”: Are you still happier with a Democratic rather than Republican Congress after the Dems’ torpedoing of a free trade deal with Colombia — the sort of deal that at least some of my Dem/GOP-indifferent libertarian pals have rightly pointed to as more important than tiny variations in the size of the federal budget and thus a good indicator of whether the government is moving in the right direction? And if you still prefer divided government, are you consistent enough to be eagerly rooting for McCain rather than for NAFTA-bashing Obama/Clinton? Or, if not, are you de facto supporters of the Democrats (and thus opponents of trade — and thus not clearly libertarians) when you get right down to it?”

It’s a tough question. It’s worth noting that some libertarians incline against free trade via treaties and would have us just unilaterally drop all of our own trade barriers, regardless of what other countries may do. These libertarians’ economic case is rock-solid, but their practical political sense amounts to a lot of wishful thinking. I tend to favor trade deals of the type that recently failed, because even incremental improvements still make a real difference in the well-being of actual human individuals. Trade isn’t purely a theoretical matter, and if it means helping more poor people right now, then I’m all for it. I’m likewise very disappointed at both Obama and Clinton on NAFTA, and on this issue I find myself wishing that Bill, rather than Hillary, were the one running for president.

But all this ignores an important and maybe decisive issue, regardless of what one thinks about trade — the war in Iraq. I do not think that continuing this war does much to help anyone, whether here, or in Iraq, or anywhere else, except perhaps that it helps the leadership of Iran. It may in fact be worth voting against a free-trade candidate if it ends the war sooner rather than later. This is a difficult dilemma, and saying that libertarians are anti-free trade for being anti-war is rather like remarking on the generosity of the man who hands over his wallet rather than being stabbed. Neither is an appealing alternative, but the menu of choices… is limited.

I have to say I’m very angry that the Democrats in Congress have done squat to get us out out of Iraq. On this I may also be a victim of wishful thinking (kinda goes with being a libertarian, I hear), but it’s possible that if the Dems had the White House too, we would see an end to the war during the next administration. It’s not definite, but it’s far more likely I think than with McCain as president.

So… depending on one’s priorities, a libertarian swing voter who assumes the Democrats will extend their control of Congress has two choices:

a) Divided government, with McCain as president, NAFTA likely unchallenged, no new trade treaties forthcoming (thanks, Democrats!), and the Iraq War continuing indefinitely. The Republican “security” state marches on unbowed.

b) Unified government, with Obama as the likely president, NAFTA facing a challenge of yet-to-be-determined strength, a socialized healthcare bill that will be deeply repugnant to every libertarian political principle, and the Iraq War possibly — gosh we hope — coming to its inevitable end sooner rather than later.

When you throw in McCain’s antilibertarian views on campaign finance, national greatness, and the like, the choice is (yet again) Southparkesque. (Footnote: McCain in office with a veto-proof Democratic majority may yield many of the bad effects of McCain-Bushism as well as a socialized healthcare bill, and great harms done to free trade, both passed over the president’s veto. This would be the worst of all worlds.)

Seavey adds:

I would just like occasional acknowledgment, though, of the fact that the Dems are the consciously anti-market party, not just the hypocritically-and-absent-mindedly-statist party that the GOP is becoming.

But I don’t think that the Republicans are being absent minded. And if they are being hypocritical, then we should be doubly disappointed in them, because at least they know the case for small-government well enough to fake it, and this ought to mean that they are capable of understanding it. Further, libertarians should want to punish anyone who gives their philosophy a bad name. (Would that this were applied more consistently, and to certain minor parties as well as the major ones, but there I go again with that wishful thinking stuff.)

Yet Seavey is completely right that there’s a strong divided-government case to be made for voting for McCain, a case I made some months ago about a different but also distasteful Republican.

The simple answer is that none of the candidates are appealing, that they are bad for different reasons, that to my mind McCain is the worst of the lot, but that we don’t have a Republican-controlled Congress that would make voting for a Democrat the divided-government strategy.

Now for two easy dodges. You’ll thank me for not taking either of them:

1. I live in Maryland, which goes to the Democrat no matter what I do.

2. I can’t rule out voting for (or against) the yet-to-be-determined Libertarian candidate.

And the final verdict is… I’m still undecided. Divided government is a very, very powerful incentive to vote Republican, but it may well be the only one.

Trackback URI |