Many of you will remember that back before the Democratic primary I was one of those who argued for a term of Hillary to help the Republicans understand that small government, liberty minded people won’t vote for the lesser of two evils indefinitely. My goal was and is always long term and I think four years of Hillary would have been a Carteresque setup for a popular swing in the direction of personal liberty and small government.
Three factors I didn’t anticipate have changed the dynamic since then. Any one of them would be an argument against that plan but, taken together, they add up to a veto. First: Obama is not Hillary. Not by a long shot. Hillary is a fairly typical opportunist politician who thinks socialist programs have a place in a free society. She is badly mistaken but not a serious threat to America itself. I think she is at the core an American citizen before she is a ‘Citizen of the World’. She tests the winds of American public opinion and that public could survive and learn from a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Obama is a cipher. He is like a Russian matryoshka doll. Nobody except perhaps his closest associates know what is at the core. The best estimate is to look at his friends and mentors and what their values are. That topic has been thoroughly discussed and some reasonable people place him solidly in a group of hard core totalitarians. If we ignore his promises shifting like smoke on the wind, his closest core group seems to be fired by hatred and revenge against America in general and the US Constitution in particular. Certainly that is what his confidants and advisers (and wife) say in public.
Second: Palin is not Romney or Giuliani or any of the other candidates that looked likely to be on the ticket with McCain. She is the most recognizably small-government, libertarian leaning candidate on a major party ticket certainly since Reagan, I think since Goldwater. She has proven her credibility with the trail of bodies in her wake. I have no doubt that she was offered any amount of inducements to turn a blind eye toward corrupt associates. She is an articulate defender of federalism and seems to be the only person outside of a few legal scholars that understands the nature and history of the role the Vice President of the United States has as the President of the Senate. I suspect that, as corrupt as this Senate unquestionably is, she may go into history as the one who took that role back to its constitutional purpose. Would that she leaves a similar trail of bodies in the Senate; it is certainly a target rich environment. Just for the record, the last President pro tempore was Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and the current President pro tempore is Senator Robert ‘King of Pork’ Byrd. If elected V.P. she will have the Constitutional authority to take over that role. If she does and leaves as big of an imprint on the Senate as they have, we’re in for a good time; buy popcorn. Don’t for a minute underestimate her potential to seriously upset the
apple cart pork barrel.
Regarding the emotionally charged ‘libertarians’ attacking Palin, anybody who is holding out for a vehement hard core atheist, isolationist, big “L” Libertarian to be in the top spot is detached from reality in other ways too. I am amazed by all of these alleged libertarians attacking Palin for her personal beliefs while ignoring her political principles. They quite obviously don’t hold to even the basic first principle of individual liberty. Even the advocates for small government and personal liberty who are more tolerant of alternative lifestyle choices (like religion) must realize that a candidate for Vice President who is a moderate, small “L” libertarian is absolutely the best we can do as a first step.
Third: The clincher. The economic turmoil boiling right now is not unprecedented. The last time it happened on this scale, the crash started on a Republican president’s watch and resulted in the New Deal, schemes for packing the Supreme Court to better destroy Constitutional restraints and, ultimately, in an invitation to fascist and communist governments to have a go at world dominance. Roosevelt needed an amendment to change the court system. Obama doesn’t. Also remember, after four years of the worst of the depression’s misery, FDR was reelected by a landslide. Why should it be any different with Obama? This crash, which is an inevitable and substantial correction of regulatory market tampering, is coming right at the most critical phase of an election cycle. It could have come earlier or later, but with the Schumeresque assistance of the MSM it is timed perfectly to trigger an anti free market landslide. It places (Republican) President Bush in the role of (Republican) President Hoover. Under an Obama presidency, it is certain not only that the crash will be far worse than it has to be, but that it will be blamed entirely on ‘the free market policies of President Bush’. This is absurd in so many ways, but do any of you doubt it? Electing Obama will be taken as a clear message that Hoover/Bush Republican ‘free market’ policies are at fault and forever discredited. Electing FDR/Obama (with potentially a super majority in congress) could do for free markets what the Hindenburg did for airships. How apropos that the Hindenburg was destroyed by the incendiary paint job but for decades the blame was wrongly placed on the technology that did the actual lifting. Obama, the Democrats in Congress and the MSM arm of the Democratic party would lock in the perception that free markets caused all of this. At least McCain won’t deliberately try to make things worse so that he can blame Bush, the Republicans and free trade.
Another reason that didn’t make my top three is that already 43% of American ‘tax payers’ pay no taxes. We are getting dangerously close to the point where the people who net more off of government outnumber the people who pay more into it. If we cross that threshold of voters taking versus voters paying, it is a point of no return. It appears certain that we will pass that point early in an Obama administration. Probably before mid-terms. Two years could be too long. It may not matter if the RNC learns its lesson.