How about voting in the greater evil?

[D'kian]

In the 2006 presidential elections in Mexico the top two candidates were felipe Calderon of the Natioanl Action party (PAN) and andres manuel Lopez Obrador of the Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD). The PAN is usually described as center right, but that mostly means they use free-market sounding words in their populist rhetoric (like the rural area handout program being renamed "Opportunities" instead of "Solidarity.") Still, they do favor lower taxes, less complex taxes and some form of free market reforms. The PRD is a mix of left-wing ideologies ranging from center left to full-blown socialism. Naturally the PAN is the lesser evil by far. And just as naturally I voted for Calderon and tried to get as many people as possible to vote for him.

However, a business acquaintance from Chile told me, before the election, I should vote for the PRD candidate and try as hard as I could to get him elected. Why? because, he explained, Lopez Obrador would implement a more socialistic economy and make such a horrendous mess of it, Mexico might just get cured from socialism.

At the time I found the argument unconvincing. For that matter I still do. But then Calderon was by far the lesser evil. In office he's stepped up efforts to deal with drug cartels (which won't do any good as long as drugs remain illegal, but at least he's trying to get the related violence down), and he is propposing an active role for the private sector in the oil industry (which by law belongs to the state).

But what if the lesser evil is only slightly less evil? What if the two main candidates were so nearly alike as to make little practical difference?

I am talking about the choice bewteen McCain and Obama. I've never liked McCain. He stands against free speech (campaign finance reform), against free markets (just listen to him go on about corporate greed) and, if elected, he'll likely finish turning the GOP in full to the party of Big Government (wuth the Dems being the party of Bigger Government). Worse yet, he pays just enough lip service to free markets to ensure that whatever government-regulated disaster he brings about will be blamed squarely on capitalism once again.

McCain I simply don't like. Obama I find repellent. He's a socialist in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. He would try to "socailize" just about every part of the American economy, from health-care to energy production to finance. Nothing would be safe from him. He would be utterly terrible. But perhaps for once when the brown stuff hits the fan the right culprits will get blamed this time: an excess of government involvement in the economy and in our lives, high taxes, lots of innane regulations, etc. In other words, he just might give socialism a bad name, perhaps enough to cure America of it.

I'll tell you right now I hate the idea. People won't turn to capitalism until they understand it, and that requires something other than a disaster of a presidency. Furhter, Obama would most likely let Iran get nukes (and I firmly believe Iran would use any nukes it may develop, even if only as a deterrent). He also would allow other threats, like a resurgent and hotile Russia, a corrupt and left-wing Latin America, grow to unmanageable proportions. But just maybe Obama could crack the door open a bit to let people begin to see how bad massive government controls really are.

Moreover, and I've said this before, McCain would face little or no opposition in advancing government controls and growing government's power. Partisan politics being what they are, his party won't oppose him. If the Democrats do, it will be only to make a bad thing worse, as they did with the Bush prescription drug program. Obama would face stiff opposition, even if the GOP remains in the minority (and likely it will).

All in all I think a McCain presidency would be worse in the long term, except for the matter of Iran and Russia. There is still time to deal effectively with both, and he's more likely to do so (not that he's certain to do so or even very likely; but that Obama simply won't).

I feel like the cartoon of the man in hell who faces two doors. One is labeled "damned if you do" the other "damned if you don't" and a devil stands behind him, proding him with a pitchfork while saying "Come on. It's got to be one or the other."

[Zip]

Like an alcoholic I think the world needs to see "the bottom" of socialism before it will ever truly discover and accept capitalism. The end of the Cold war and the collapse of the Warsaw pact was far to easy and sterile for any lesson to be garnered by the great mass of uninterested.

Let the collapse come hard and dirty.

Then, and only then will people start looking seriously at alternatives.

[brian0918]

I think one problem with this is that you assume that people will suddenly see the light. This is only possible with an "informed citizenry". If, however, most people simply assume that whatever is labeled "capitalism" is actually capitalism, without ever bothering to inform themselves of the actual nature of capitalism, then this realization is not likely to happen. Can anyone comment on the rise of communism in Russia, and if politicians used the same stunts of conveniently misrepresenting capitalism to their personal gain?

[Zip]

I think one problem with this is that you assume that people will suddenly see the light. This is only possible with an "informed citizenry". If, however, most people simply assume that whatever is labeled "capitalism" is actually capitalism, without ever bothering to inform themselves of the actual nature of capitalism, then this realization is not likely to happen. Can anyone comment on the rise of communism in Russia, and if politicians used the same stunts of conveniently misrepresenting capitalism to their personal gain?

The rise of communism was not for most involved in opposition to capitalism but in opposition to Monarchy and absolute power.

Ayn Rand's father was a Apothecary, his business continued to operate after the revolution and was not taken over by the state until much later. I believe this incrementalism was necessary, and a very smart move on Lenin's part, because the average Russian would have continued in revolt (like the French did from 1789–1799) without it.

Note to self* Revolution must be followed by stability... even if the revolution continues quietly in the background.

Good examples: USA (War of independence) Russian Revolution (1917)

Bad Examples: French Revolution.

[D'kian]

I think one problem with this is that you assume that people will suddenly see the light. This is only possible with an "informed citizenry".

I know. That's why I hate the idea.

If, however, most people simply assume that whatever is labeled "capitalism" is actually capitalism, without ever bothering to inform themselves of the actual nature of capitalism, then this realization is not likely to happen.

I don't think Obama would label anything he does "capitalism." But I'm not sure. He has to move to the center in order to govern and get re-elected. And, hell, even when Mouch and co. were placing Rearden into the sacrificial altar, they told him they believed in free enterprise.

Can anyone comment on the rise of communism in Russia, and if politicians used the same stunts of conveniently misrepresenting capitalism to their personal gain?

I don't know about Russia, but that has been done in Mexico. In the late 30 President Cardenas nationalized the oil industry, but he did not kick out the private sector from oil explorationa nd exploitation. That was done later on by President Rubio in the 50s. These days any mention of giving the private sector some role in the oil industry is ipso-facto albeled "privatization" (ie capitalism) by the left, and contrary to the "heroic" nationalization (ie socialism) ennacted by Cardenas.

Beyond that, the phone company, Telmex, was privatized in 1991 by President Salinas. Since then phone service has become cheaper and more plentiful. Back when telmex was a government monopoly, a new phone line cost almost $900 US and could take anywhere from 18 to 24 months to get installed. People who moved sold their phone lines for $800 US and the buyers counted themselves lucky. But whenever there's the slightest problem in the telecom industry, privatization gets the blame. For instance, the government mandated phone number portability. That is, if you change to another phone company (land or cell), you have a "right" to keep your phone number. Some companies, particularly cell ones, are ahving trouble doing so fast enough, often assigning temporary numbers. That gets blamed on privatization.

[brian0918]

I don't think Obama would label anything he does "capitalism."

I meant the people who put down their opponents as capitalists, and label their opponents actions as supporting the free market.

[Geoff]

He's a socialist in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. He would try to "socailize" just about every part of the American economy, from health-care to energy production to finance.

This is why I don't believe voting for him will spur anything other than more hatred for capitalism. People are willing to elect another Wilson or FDR into office. When the S#$& hits the fan again, all the economic problems will be blamed on Capitalism. Much like the Great Depression.

[agrippa1]

Personally, I put the blame squarely on capitolism.

[EC]

While I think D'kian's reasoning is sound, is a vote for evil in an attempt to hasten its destruction a form of sanctioning it? I don't really know, that's a hard choice.

[eriatarka]

How is Obama a 'socialist'? He's probably to the right of pretty much every mainstream political party in the UK and its a stretch to say that the UK is a socialist country. Obama is a fairly bogstandard centrist who supports government-regulated market economics like pretty much every other social democrat in the world, and trying to label him as being part of the radical left is just right-wing hyperbole. If Obama is a 'socialist' then what are Ralph Nader and Ken Livingstone?

The differences between McCain and Obama seem fairly minor in the grand scheme of things - a few extra percentage points on the income tax here, more promotting of intelligent design in schools there. Its not like America is going to change into a reincarnation of the Soviet Union or into a Christian theocracy depending on who they elect - the difference between the policies of the mainstream parties just arent that radical. If you were comparing McCain to Nader or Obama to Ron Paul then yeah, you could start talking about significant differences.

I'd say the main issues facing America at the moment are 1) the neo-conserative agenda (has pretty much failed due to the public backlash against the Iraq war, so the only real difference between Obama and McCain is their Iraq exit strategy since neither are likely to do anything radical like invading Iran and both have similarish policies on Israel), 2) the war on drugs (which is responsible for more domestic oppression and crime than any single other policy. Neither Obama or McCaine will work towards ending it), 3) avoiding a depression (I'd expect both to have fairly similar economic policies in terms of slightly increased financial regulations and bailouts), and 4) trying to bring back some kind of transparancy, oversight, and separation of powers back to the government after 8 years of the Bush administration basically doing whatever it likes (this is the only issue where I'd expect Obama to be significantly superior)

All in all I think a McCain presidency would be worse in the long term, except for the matter of Iran and Russia. There is still time to deal effectively with both, and he's more likely to do so (not that he's certain to do so or even very likely; but that Obama simply won't).

Its just not going to happen. The Iraq war has essentially killed neo-conservatism - the public opposition towards another aggressive war would be too great for any politician to consider invading Iran, and America couldnt afford it anyway since the ridiculous costs of Iraq have more or less bankrupted the country. The Iraq war has been estimated to have a total cost of around 2 trillion dollars and theres no way America could afford a similarly costly war in Iran with the deficit it's currently running. Edited September 27, 2008 by eriatarka

[fletch]

If we continually advocate voting for the greater evil, how long will it be before we get exactly what we voted for? And wont it be rather tough to complain about it once it arrives?

[D'kian]

How is Obama a 'socialist'? He's probably to the right of pretty much every mainstream political party in the UK and its a stretch to say that the UK is a socialist country. Obama is a fairly bogstandard centrist who supports government-regulated market economics like pretty much every other social democrat in the world, and trying to label him as being part of the radical left is just right-wing hyperbole. If Obama is a 'socialist' then what are Ralph Nader and Ken Livingstone?

There are degrees fo socialism, too.

Every president has been building up government power for an awful long time, with few exceptions (like striking down the fairness doctrine). Both McCain and Obama would, but Obama would build up a lot more government power than McCain out of his own free will. He's made it clear he favors socialized medicine, for example.

The differences between McCain and Obama seem fairly minor in the grand scheme of things

Yes! that's the very problem we face this time around.The difference would be what candidate could accomplish if elected, and that depends on the Congress they would get.

I'd say the main issues facing America at the moment are 1) the neo-conserative agenda (has pretty much failed due to the public backlash against the Iraq war, so the only real difference between Obama and McCain is their Iraq exit strategy since neither are likely to do anything radical like invading Iran and both have similarish policies on Israel),

There's no need to invade Iran in order to take their nukes away. A bombing campaign of nuke and related sites, plus military targets and command and control facilities, along perhaps with a blockade, would be enough. You don't need to destroy or capture every last gram of Uranium Iran owns to succeed. You just need to criple their program, weaken their miliitary, and kill enough people at or near the top, in order to amke them reconsider their dreams of dominating the Middle East.

You're right that the Iraq war was poorly conceived and terribly executed. If it had been handled better, and afghanistan too, Iran would be trembling in fear at having American forces stationed in two countries it borders, rather than helping our enemies along in both nations.

Now, this is somethign I'm certain Obama won't do, and that McCain might do.

[Paul Hsieh]

The problem I have with the "hit bottom" theory is that there is no bottom. Or rather that the bottom is a long ways down.

Without the right philosophy, we could keep collapsing past the Dark Ages of medieval Europe back to living in caves as illiterate, superstitious savages barely scraping by as hunter-gatherers in the ruins of a once-great civilization. I don't expect that mankind in that degraded state would rediscover the virtues of reason, egoism, and capitalism, at least not for centuries.

We need to reverse the current slide way before any theoretical "bottom" by fighting for good ideas now. Otherwise, many of us who are currently alive will learn first-hand that things could get a lot worse than their wildest imaginations...

[D'kian]

I've been giving the matter more thought. Paul is right, without a philosophical basis it won't make much of a difference. If Obama, as predicted, creates a big distater, the blame would rest on the Democratic party but not so much on their ideas. People won't think "Ah, so this is what socialism brings," but rather "Ah, these Democrats are even worse incompetents than the Republicans." We'd still be trapped in partisan politics at a time when the differences between the two main parties keep getting smaller and smaller.

But that still leaves us the problem on whom to vote for. So I'll sumarize my position:

For Obama. The good thing is his policies will face opposition, mainly from the GOP. This may help re-awaken the free market Republicans, too, but that is far from certain. The bad thing is he won't confront Iran effectively. Democrats go in for symbolic actions and sending messages even more than Republicans. That means there's a big likelyhood of a nuclear armed Islamist theocracy before 2012 comes about.

For McCain. The good thing is he's more likely to confront Iran effectively, but with a lot of opposition from congress. Pretty much he'd have to find a way to act under the War Powers Act, or convince Israel to act in America's stead. The abd thing is he will advance government power without opposition. He may win a tax cut or two, but overall he'll have a far worse domestic result than Obama when all things are taken into account.

So I'm still torn.

[Yes]

I've been giving the matter more thought. Paul is right, without a philosophical basis it won't make much of a difference. If Obama, as predicted, creates a big distater, the blame would rest on the Democratic party but not so much on their ideas. People won't think "Ah, so this is what socialism brings," but rather "Ah, these Democrats are even worse incompetents than the Republicans." We'd still be trapped in partisan politics at a time when the differences between the two main parties keep getting smaller and smaller.

But that still leaves us the problem on whom to vote for. So I'll sumarize my position:

For Obama. The good thing is his policies will face opposition, mainly from the GOP. This may help re-awaken the free market Republicans, too, but that is far from certain. The bad thing is he won't confront Iran effectively. Democrats go in for symbolic actions and sending messages even more than Republicans. That means there's a big likelyhood of a nuclear armed Islamist theocracy before 2012 comes about.

For McCain. The good thing is he's more likely to confront Iran effectively, but with a lot of opposition from congress. Pretty much he'd have to find a way to act under the War Powers Act, or convince Israel to act in America's stead. The abd thing is he will advance government power without opposition. He may win a tax cut or two, but overall he'll have a far worse domestic result than Obama when all things are taken into account.

So I'm still torn.

If you are torn it's because you lack focus, for no other reason.

I cannot comment on Mexico since I cannot perceive it as being any more free market than America, but I think the focus has to be on the preservation of one's individual rights.

And this has to be the main, and only important, criteria for who you elect.

I don't see a return to back alley abortions in an Obama administration. I do see an end to the senseless Iraq war, which has sapped the American economy of billions of dollars.

I do see a potential for mandatory service under a McCain administration. Although I'm too old to worry about the draft, I see it sapping the American populus of many a productive citizen.

Ultimately, it's all about one's individual rights and how the new administration plans to protect them.

[gags]

If you are torn it's because you lack focus, for no other reason.

That's pretty bold statement when we are faced with two hghly imperfect candidates.

However, I will grant you that when politicians promise to raise my taxes, that is an issue of individual rights. When politicians clearly don't understand the threat posed by Fundamentalist Islam, that is an issue of individual rights. When politicians want to put the government in charge of my healthcare, that is an issue of individual rights. When politicians completely embrace environmentalism, that is an issue of individual rights. These are the issues that will have the greatest impact on my life and I'm voting for the candidate that has the most pro-individual rights positions on these issues.

Edited September 29, 2008 by gags

[D'kian]

If you are torn it's because you lack focus, for no other reason.

I don't lack focus. I simply have a hard time telling which candidate would be the lesser evil, both in his 4 to 8 year term and in the long term, for the reasons I've expounded.

Ultimately, it's all about one's individual rights and how the new administration plans to protect them.

Fine. What do you suppose Obama will do about Iran?

[~Sophia~]

I just went over the transcript from presidential debate and there were few things which I liked reading (incidentally all from McCaine):

Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It's completely out of control. It's gone -- we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society. We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us.

You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control. As president of the United States, I want to assure you, I've got a pen. This one's kind of old. I've got a pen, and I'm going to veto every single spending bill that comes across my desk. I will make them famous. You will know their names.

First of all, by the way, I'd eliminate ethanol subsidies. I oppose ethanol subsidies.

Well, I want to make sure we're not handing the health care system over to the federal government which is basically what would ultimately happen with Senator Obama's health care plan. I want the families to make decisions between themselves and their doctors. Not the federal government. Look. We have to obviously cut spending. I have fought to cut spending. Senator Obama has $800 billion in new spending programs. I would suggest he start by canceling some of those new spending program that he has.

What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous

Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint." Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.

I did not find one statement of Obama's which I would want to highlight.