Recently, I was asked who I planned to vote for in November, since my Presidential preference in the spring primary, Ron Paul, was no longer an option. I spent a lot of time discussing both presumptive nominees for the status quo parties, John McCain and Barack Obama. Since the person I was speaking with was a very conservative Republican, I talked first about why I could not support Obama.
I talked about the lack of substance I have witnessed from his campaign from its start over a year ago. The first thing I noted was that his message of “Change We Can Believe In” was certainly something that I could get behind, as I have been dissatisfied with the direction America has been led for over eight years. The problems I see with Obama’s message of “Change” is that he does not define what he opposes in the current situation that he wants to “Change” things from. Since there is not a well-defined starting point, I think it would be hard to pin down what he wants to “Change” to. Those issues with the lack of substance in his message should be enough to raise serious questions about him as a candidate, but as I followed the primaries and the campaign, I noticed that his charisma and emotional speeches drew nothing but compliments from pundits and many who were swayed by one of those powerful, well-written oratories. I was able to find a small amount of substance in what I can only describe as a short political career. I am well-versed in the talking points of his supporters when it comes to the lack of experience that he brings to a position viewed by many as the most powerful world leader. I know that he served in the Illinois state senate, from 1997-2004, with little to no actual legislating. I am also aware of his time spent as a “community organizer,” whatever that means. With very little legislative experience, it seems that fundraising and speaking a prepared, well-written speech seem to be the only experience that Barack Obama has. He has proposed many social welfare programs, from promising the world to combat “world poverty,” requiring .7% of the nation’s GDP be spent toward that end, to spending money on job creation in an industry that does not exist. These two programs alone would cost the taxpayers in the neighborhood of $600 BILLION, with no details as to how this would not add to the deficit and ultimately the national debt, other than the wealth envy proposal to “tax the rich,” without consideration to the effects that would trickle down through the economy. This spending does not meet my economic ideology, nor does it mean a smaller government, but rather more bloated, inefficiencies that just throws money at an issue. Neither of these meet my ideology for two of the most important issues our nation faces.
Now that I cannot cast a vote for the Democrat candidate, let’s examine his status quo counterpart, John McCain. Throughout the primary campaigns, I was excited by very little from the Republican party candidates, other than the Libertarian-leaning campaign run by Ron Paul. Since I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004 and Harry Browne in 2000, I was looking for someone cut from a similar cloth. I attended the Republican debate in South Carolina in May of 2007, and the only candidate speaking to my needs of a strong economy, limited government, and freedom to choose was Dr. Paul. Throughout the primaries, his message remained consistent, as it had for the entirety of his political career. As the candidates dropped out, John McCain was the only one that remained standing as the primaries churned. It seemed improbable that a nationally organized party would settle for the “last man standing” candidate, rather than someone whose message was as impassioned and powerful as the likely Democrat opponent. McCain has yet to show a comprehensive plan to address the issues facing our nation, but rather taking the time to change positions on immigration, the environment, and abortion, just to name three. The economic plan, including a proposed budget, has been through many revisions thus far, with many more to come. He has fought to limit First Amendment rights through the McCain-Feingold legislation and promises of his pandering to garner votes from many groups has done nothing to limit the size of the federal government. He stands firm on eliminating earmarks, which stand to remove the specifics of the allocated pork-barrel spending, while still allowing the spending to continue without the limitations of the specifics. Had he taken a stance of eliminating government excess, by eliminating departments and programs, or threatened a veto of any bill with any sign of pork barrel spending, I might have been able to settle for an otherwise lackluster candidate. In addition, his “maverick” status gives me no indication of his likely stances on many issues, and the flip-flopping thus far only makes his positions more of an enigma.
As both of these candidates work their political strategies to appeal to the greatest number of voters while showing their differences from the other guy, I am seeing more of what makes them the same. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have only supported ideas that are certain to grow the massive, bloated largess that is the federal government. This growth is on top of the government’s largest increase in size it has ever seen over the last eight years. Barack Obama has not stopped his campaign long enough in one spot to write enough checks to cover all of the expansions of federal programs that he supports. The “Straight Talk Express” barrels toward continuing our involvement in a Middle Eastern quagmire for the foreseeable future, or 100-10,000 years, whichever occurs first, to the tune of about $10 billion per month. Neither senator took the opportunity to protect citizens from their spying government when the vote on the FISA bill came last week. Barack voted against our civil liberties in his support of the FISA bill, and John did not even bother to show up for the vote to save our privacy. This abstention adds another question mark of where he may stand on the issues of privacy and civil liberties. Both senators have shown themselves to be willing to cater to the special interest of the environmentalists, as they pander to them with plans of anti-capitalist regulations that protect the environment against a still unproven “global climate change.” Barack favors limiting industry by capping emissions output at a point obscenely lower than current emissions. Interestingly, McCain also wants to cap and trade these emissions, penalizing companies for exceeding an arbitrary limit.
Since neither status quo candidate can sway me with their message of change or their bucking of the establishment, I was strongly considering sitting out what could ultimately prove to be the most important election of leadership in the last 150 years. Having followed the Libertarian Party since I was fourteen, I decided to wait until the LP announced their candidate, so that I could use a vote to further the battle for ballot access to allow for more choice in elections. When Bob Barr announced the formation of his exploratory interest in seeking the Libertarian nomination, I was intrigued but also concerned. I liked that he rode into Congress on the wave of the Contract with America, since it did have many good ideas. My concerns were no different that most liberty-minded individuals, as the memory of a privacy-invading, anti-choice, bigoted Republican representing my party was pushing the limits of my tolerance. Unlike most Americans, Libertarians included, I took the time to research Bob Barr’s time after losing a Congressional bid to the ever-popular John Linder. I found that he had studied and promoted some very important issues to me: privacy, security, and medical marijuana. He also worked against what the Defense of Marriage Act (which he authored) and the Patriot Act (which he voted for) had become. As with many people, he found he was now a square peg that no longer fit into one of the two circular holes. Neither status quo party fit him. I remember when I was in high school, and I tried to figure out if I was a Democrat or a Republican, because I held beliefs that “belonged to both.” I sought out a different ideology, so I relate with Bob’s so-called “transformation” to Libertarianism. He found a home that I had discovered already, and I see that he is someone that who most closely matches my political philosophy. This was the first time that the Libertarian Party had a candidate with national name recognition, and that excites me. He and I both believe in limiting the size of government, reducing the control government has over our lives, the power of the Bill of Rights, and the sanctity of the individual. I believe with his leadership and guidance, America can move toward the intended result of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, the end of tyranny.
It is obvious that our country is moving in the wrong direction, and I think that Bob’s campaign is the only choice that actually aims to right the ship.
