Blogs > Liberty and Power > Down to One Choice

Jul 6, 2004 11:52 am

Down to One Choice

Tyler Cowen and I were kicking around who Andrew Sullivan might vote for in the coming election because of Bush's record on gay rights. Kerry's decision to pick John Edwards should seal the deal for Andrew and any fan of liberty - you MUST vote Libertarian. Edwards is clearly as bad as Gephardt on trade, which to me is the key litmus test issue for libertarians today. Done deal - vote LP.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Pat Lynch - 7/6/2004

If he did I'd seriously consider voting for him. If he picked Powell and vetoed both the corporate tax bill and the highway bill I'd vote for him in a second.

Pat Lynch - 7/6/2004

Ah the dangers of non-caffinated and large I agree with your assessment of Sullivan, but I think more mainstream folks associate him with right/libertarian positions. Clearly there's an enormous gap between libertarians and conservatives on this war (and I strongly suspect markets) these days. Agreed. Still I think it frames the question nicely.....

David T. Beito - 7/6/2004

Now that Kerry has chosen to attack the Republican Southern base by picking Edwards, why can't Dubya do the same by picking Powell who might appeal to blacks and moderates?

The pro-war conservatives may complain, of course, but as Arthur points out, they are more less joined at the hip to Bush regardless of what he does. Would they really go to the mat for Cheney? I don't think so. I would never vote for a Dubya/Powell ticket though the prospect would certainly scare me a lot less than Dubya/Cheney.

Having said all this, I don't think Dubya has the courage or philosophical outlook to pick Powell.

Arthur Frederick Silber - 7/6/2004

Oops. I meant Kurtz's fulminations *about* the FMA. He's for it, of course. *I* was fulminating against it. Sorry. Hehe. The dangers of posting when you're still on your first cup of coffee. :)

Arthur Frederick Silber - 7/6/2004

As I wrote in a piece last week (about Stanley Kurtz's fulminations against the FMA), I think it is inevitable that Sullivan will finally end up supporting Bush. He will do so very reluctantly, of course, and it remains to be seen on precisely what grounds Sullivan will decide that Kerry/Edwards represent The Greatest Threat to Civilization Ever Known, and why he therefore must support Bush as The Only One Who Can Defend Us Against The Threat of Terra. And why do you think Sullivan is a "fan of liberty"? He is in certain ways -- but in many other ways, he clearly is not. Remember his advocacy of a $1.00/gallon "Patriot Tax" on gas to support the War on Terra? And he supports many other governmental intrusions as well. If anything, he is a sorta, kinda moderate Republican, or a "moderate" Democrat of the Lieberman variety, and hardly a "fan of liberty," at least in the sense that we might be. You watch: he'll come out for Bush, regretting it deeply, but doing it nonetheless, and despite his prior statements. After all, if we're all dead, what do gay "rights" matter anyway? And if Bush doesn't save us, we might be dead. I think that's basically how the argument will run (dressed up a bit, natch).