Now that Ron Paul is officially out of the Presidential race, many Ron Paul supporters are dismayed and perplexed about what to do. Should they vote for Ron Paul as a write-in candidate in the general election to show solidarity? Should they break ranks and vote for the Libertarian Party candidate? Should they not vote at all? The passion that Ron Paul supporters have for liberty now needs to fill a void, and many terrible decisions are likely to be made unless Ron Paul advocates really consider what is at stake.
As a libertarian, I understand their concerns. Ron Paul stood for the same guiding principles espoused by Ludwig von Mises, which included limited government, lower taxes, little or no regulation, sound monetary policy, and a humble foreign policy. With no candidate in the race that supports any of those views sufficiently to make a staunch libertarian happy, it is easy to get discouraged. Please don’t.
While this may feel like a time to act irrationally, I strongly advise my libertarian brethren to look at the worst case scenarios that will be created by electing each of the candidates, or not voting at all. After considering my opinion, you will hopefully see that John McCain is the best candidate for President within a terribly flawed group. Here is why:
The War in Iraq
Let me set out by saying that I was against the War in Iraq from the beginning, but I feel at this point we cannot just leave without making Iraq self-sufficient. If we leave Iraq, all those Iraqis who we told to revolt, and we would protect them, will surely be executed by mobs of angry Islamists. In the future, no population would ever trust our word again.
Moreover, if we leave now, we would have spent all of our treasure and lost countless lives toward creating a radical Islamic theocracy. Yes, that was the concern by many anti-Iraq war proponents from the beginning, but in order to ensure that this does not happen as predicted, we must stabilize the country. Also, we would clearly lose more American lives once the word got out that we were leaving precipitously. Non-intervention only works before an intervention starts.
Lastly, and most importantly: None of the three candidates are going to get us out of Iraq, not one. Barack Obama claims that we would only be in Iraq to prevent Al Qaeda from building bases there, or for humanitarian effort. The translation of that sentence is that we would be using our military to do exactly what they are doing now. Al Qaeda is in Iraq; we are presently preventing Al Qaeda from forming havens, and we are also rebuilding infrastructure and schools. Obama is not someone to be taken seriously.
Hillary Clinton also does not plan to take our troops out of Iraq either. Her position is essentially the same as Barack Obama’s, but she lies to her base when nobody else is around to call her on her bluff. If she is our next President, she is likely to move our troops somewhere else in the World where there is no American strategic interest, like her husband did. This is not a better alternative to a non-interventionist policy; it is much worse. She is clearly not the choice.
John McCain is the only candidate who is very honest about what he wants to do. He wants to destroy any ability for radical Islam to brew in Iraq, and keep our troops there for a long-time doing so. Our troops will stay in Iraq as long as the casualty rate is kept as low as possible, and the conflict is not costing American taxpayers too much money. Furthermore, he has the experience and knowledge to be able to reach this goal.
So you may be asking how John McCain could possibly be the best choice. The reason is because it will be much easier for a libertarian candidate decades from now to bring our troops home from a resolved conflict than from a perpetual chaotic episode. For example, if John McCain is elected, Iraq will likely end up looking similar to Germany or Japan in several decades. It is a relatively uncontroversial position to want to pull our troops out of Germany today. The same will be true for Iraq if the Iraq conflict is over in the shortest amount of time.
Conversely, if decades from now we have to go back to Iraq to destroy an Islamic Fundamentalist State, a libertarian candidate will fail again to convince the American people to move toward a non-interventionist foreign policy. Libertarians must think long-term if they want to see the change they are looking for.
The Constitution
To libertarians, no issue is more important long-term than the Constitution. Many decades ago, FDR threatened to pack the court, and in doing so was able to rewrite the constitution via appointed Justices rather than a Constitutional Amendment. This gave the Federal government unprecedented power.
As a result of the “living breathing document” interpretation of the Constitution, the Federal Government could now trample on our liberties. It is this precise reason why we have such expansive national debt, and why we have a $3,100,000,000,000 budget filled with mostly unconstitutional spending.
Only John McCain has voted for Originalist Justices in the past and will do so in the future. With Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, you are guaranteed to get someone to the Left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You can forget about libertarianism if that ever happens. These Justices will be on the bench for most of your lifetime and will strip all notions of private property from the citizenry. For that reason alone, staying at home during the election is not an option, and voting for a Libertarian Party candidate is just as bad.
Taxes and Spending
John McCain is the only candidate who will work to cut out earmarks and decrease the size of government. He also will be better than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in terms of taxes. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made no promises to cut taxes or spending.
Instead, they argue that the Republicans have no right to complain about decreasing spending because Republicans increased spending when they were in office. That is not an argument to vote for anyone. The Democrats are going to spend and spend. In fact, they tell it to your face. Do not pretend that there is no difference between John McCain and the Dems; the differences are enormous.
As a final note, I would like to plead with libertarians to stay within the Republican Party, as Milton Friedman did. “Big ‘R,’ small ‘l.’” It is much easier to convince a minority of the citizenry, The GOP, to move toward your viewpoints, than to convince 51% percent of the Country to move toward your viewpoints (If you decide to join a third-party). Furthermore, the Republicans already agree with your economic views. Then to consolidate the rest of the country behind you, simply push a policy of Federalism to win over social conservatives by letting them run their own local communities.
Now is not the time to make irrational decisions: The Constitution is at stake along with your liberties, and being an intellectual purist at this time is not going to get you what you asked for. So please vote for John McCain.
Related Editorials
The "Goldwater" Conservative
Milton Friedman and Why Limited Government Helps the Poor
The Wall Separating Economics and State
Note to Bill Maher: Being The Bachelor and Smoking Marijuana Does Not Make You a Libertarian.
Has Social Conservatism Destroyed the Conservative Movement?
Social Conservatism IS The Conservative Movement
