Isolationism is the doctrine that if we leave our enemies alone, they will have no reason to interfere with us, and will leave us alone. Isolationism can work. However, it can only work under very specific circumstances. First, we have to have sufficient firepower to beat any potential enemy. Second, we have to display sufficient willpower to use it. Third, our enemies have to have a rational fear of the consequences of our weapons being used against them and their countries.
The first point is not in doubt when we discuss the United States. We could nuke any country on Earth in to oblivion dozens of times over. We have the most powerful military in the world by far, and could invade and conquer almost any nation we chose if we were so inclined. Thankfully, we are not. I'll steal a line from Colin Powell: "We have sent men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States throughout the world in the past century to put down oppression... And did we ask for any land? No. The only land we asked for was enough land to bury our dead.."
Firepower is useless for the purposes of deterrence if your enemies believe that you lack the will to use it. Osama bin Laden himself came to believe this after the Black Hawk Down episode in Somalia, and said as much on Frontline: "[O]our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press... After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them." In other words, running away has consequences on the way people perceive us. Somalia was a minor intervention, where we had little to no interest in interfering, and invested very little pride and prestige. Iraq, on the other hand, is a big deal. If we run away, after all of these years, what will the OBL's of the world think? Just keep fighting for a few years, my fellow mujahadeen, and the infidels will run! They do not have the stamina for casualties...
This cannot be allowed to happen if the American military is going to maintain any sort of credibility as a threat in the eyes of our enemies. If isolationist sentiments win, and we run from Iraq, neither enemies nor allies will fear or respect us for decades. We will be the new French.
The third, and perhaps most important factor, is that the enemy has to have a rational fear of the consequences if we unleash our firepower on their country/group. In other words: Our enemies have to want to live. The Soviet Union never attacked us with atom bombs primarily because it's leaders wanted to live, and because they knew that they would be the leaders of a pile of slag at the end of a nuclear exchange. Al Qaeda suicide bombers are motivated by something different: They want to die as martyrs, and believe that they are fulfilling a religious duty by blowing up innocent civilians. Moreover, they tend not to worry if their fellow Muslims are killed in response because they too will go on to be honored in Heaven as martyrs.
How do you deter somebody who does not fear their death or the death of others? You don't. You stop them beforehand, by pursuing the people who fund, train and equip them.
Of course, isolationists regularly suggest that the reason Islamofascists are mad at the United States is because we are over in their part of the world interfering with their countries. This is total nonsense. As Daniel Pipes noted in this post, the terrorists from bin Laden to the man who slaughtered Theo van Gogh have made their goals and motivations clear: They want to restore the caliphate, and submit the world to the rule of Islam. Those who do not submit will be killed.
There is no negotiation with people who follow this sort of ideology. What do we offer? We let them kill half of us and leave the rest of us alone? Islamofascism is driven by a religious obligation to convert the world, and kill those who refuse. Furthermore, they don't care if they or anybody else die in the process. They will not leave us alone until we are either dead or praying to Allah.
Knowing that they will continue to pursue us, we have to recognize a few realities if we decide to retreat inside the walls of Fortress America. If we retreat, we cede the initiative to the terrorists. We let them train and plot in private, and decide when and how to strike. We will have to prepare everywhere to stop them, and add layer upon layer of security to our daily lives. Expect regular pat-downs, metal detectors and bag searches at every bus and train station. Expect a rectal probe before you get on a plane. Expect more confiscations of eyeglass screwdrivers and fuzzy handcuffs.
If you are a Libertarian because you want to see liberty expand, ask yourself: How can liberty expand in an environment like that? How can a nation that is no-longer feared across the globe, and still pursued by its enemies here at home ever hope to increase freedom in the face of constant danger from an enemy that will not let us run away? In my mind, it can't. The only logical answer is to pursue the terrorists abroad, destroy their safe-havens, freeze their bank accounts, listen to their phone calls, assassinate their leaders and bomb their training camps to dust.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Libertarian's Chance
The all-but-official nomination of Sen. John McCain as the Republican candidate for the presidency has created an unrivaled opportunity for the Libertarian Party, assuming that Libertarians are willing to nominate somebody who believes in a strong national defense.
Conservative Republicans are stuck with a nominee who might as well be a Democrat, as I wrote in my last post. McCain is so unpopular with conservatives that CPAC had to ask registrants not to boo the presumptive nominee. He is so unpopular with Rush Limbaugh that he has suggested that he might not be able to support him, and said specifically that he thinks that McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican party. Other talk-show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt have said much the same thing. Ann Coulter has said that she would work to see Hillary Clinton elected rather than John McCain. Zogby polling data from Supper-di-duper Tuesday show that 8/10 conservative Republicans voted for somebody other than McCain.
In my experience, many of those Republicans who support McCain use 'he can win' as the justification for their vote, rather than 'I support him because of _________." A victory is hollow if it means that the opposite of everything you believe in will be implemented by the winner. A base that is so alienated that it is either holding its nose or getting ready to defect will not turn out on election day. The Republicans should have learned this lesson in 2006, as a base battered by the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, a president that refuses to mount even an elementary defense of his own policies in Iraq and at home, and a congress that was only outspent by F.D.R. and L.B.J. decided to stay home.
These disaffected people are almost all big supporters of limited government, strict constructionist judges and a strong national defense. The Libertarian Party, as currently constituted, can provide two out of three of these. With the nomination of a candidate that supports the defense of the United States, rather than impractical isolationism, the Libertarian Party could get the disaffected conservative voter.
In previous posts, I have suggested that voting for a third party never works. I don't think it will work here, either. However, if the Libertarians ran a pro-war candidate, it would clear up one of the biggest questions that stands in the way of sending a message: What does a vote for the Libertarian Party mean? Voting Libertarian, particularly in a time of war, sends a mixed message. Are you voting Libertarian because you are an isolationist? Are you voting Libertarian because you want abortion legal? Are you voting Libertarian because you want a real reduction in the size of government? Running a pro-war Libertarian would clear up the confusion, and point clearly in the direction of limited government. Given McCain's questionable stances on abortion and judges, the abortion issue would be nullified. Voting Libertarian would send a clear and obvious message to the Republicans that you want to see government shrink, rather than regulate carbon emissions and free speech, while refusing to enforce immigration laws.
Finally, I would urge the Libertarian Party to consider what this influx of new voters would mean for their electoral future. The 2005 Pew Research Center Study, Beyond Red vs. Blue, indicates that conservative voters (called "Enterprisers,") make up 10% of regular voters. Libertarian voters accounted for 0.32% of the national vote count in 2004. If Libertarians could capture a little less than one Enterpriser in 30, they could DOUBLE their percentage of the vote.
DOUBLE. With 1/30th of the Enterpriser vote. The number of Republicans out there who are unwilling to support McCain is more like one-in-ten.
The Libertarians face a choice: Abandon isolationism, and become a real political force, or keep it and remain in the backwaters of American politics.
Carpe diem, Libertarians...
Conservative Republicans are stuck with a nominee who might as well be a Democrat, as I wrote in my last post. McCain is so unpopular with conservatives that CPAC had to ask registrants not to boo the presumptive nominee. He is so unpopular with Rush Limbaugh that he has suggested that he might not be able to support him, and said specifically that he thinks that McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican party. Other talk-show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt have said much the same thing. Ann Coulter has said that she would work to see Hillary Clinton elected rather than John McCain. Zogby polling data from Supper-di-duper Tuesday show that 8/10 conservative Republicans voted for somebody other than McCain.
In my experience, many of those Republicans who support McCain use 'he can win' as the justification for their vote, rather than 'I support him because of _________." A victory is hollow if it means that the opposite of everything you believe in will be implemented by the winner. A base that is so alienated that it is either holding its nose or getting ready to defect will not turn out on election day. The Republicans should have learned this lesson in 2006, as a base battered by the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, a president that refuses to mount even an elementary defense of his own policies in Iraq and at home, and a congress that was only outspent by F.D.R. and L.B.J. decided to stay home.
These disaffected people are almost all big supporters of limited government, strict constructionist judges and a strong national defense. The Libertarian Party, as currently constituted, can provide two out of three of these. With the nomination of a candidate that supports the defense of the United States, rather than impractical isolationism, the Libertarian Party could get the disaffected conservative voter.
In previous posts, I have suggested that voting for a third party never works. I don't think it will work here, either. However, if the Libertarians ran a pro-war candidate, it would clear up one of the biggest questions that stands in the way of sending a message: What does a vote for the Libertarian Party mean? Voting Libertarian, particularly in a time of war, sends a mixed message. Are you voting Libertarian because you are an isolationist? Are you voting Libertarian because you want abortion legal? Are you voting Libertarian because you want a real reduction in the size of government? Running a pro-war Libertarian would clear up the confusion, and point clearly in the direction of limited government. Given McCain's questionable stances on abortion and judges, the abortion issue would be nullified. Voting Libertarian would send a clear and obvious message to the Republicans that you want to see government shrink, rather than regulate carbon emissions and free speech, while refusing to enforce immigration laws.
Finally, I would urge the Libertarian Party to consider what this influx of new voters would mean for their electoral future. The 2005 Pew Research Center Study, Beyond Red vs. Blue, indicates that conservative voters (called "Enterprisers,") make up 10% of regular voters. Libertarian voters accounted for 0.32% of the national vote count in 2004. If Libertarians could capture a little less than one Enterpriser in 30, they could DOUBLE their percentage of the vote.
DOUBLE. With 1/30th of the Enterpriser vote. The number of Republicans out there who are unwilling to support McCain is more like one-in-ten.
The Libertarians face a choice: Abandon isolationism, and become a real political force, or keep it and remain in the backwaters of American politics.
Carpe diem, Libertarians...
Monday, February 4, 2008
Vote Hillary '08: If McCain Wins
John McCain believes in amnesty, and will not rule out amnesty in the event that he is elected. He claims that he will build "the goddamn fence" at the border, but is heading an effort to avoid funding it. He believes that government should regulate every corner of our economy by capping carbon emissions. He joined liberals in giving the government the authority to regulate political speech. He led the Gang of Fourteen, demanding that Republicans nominate judges that do not wear their conservatism on their sleeves. He opposes organizations run to produce a profit rather than for the purpose of patriotism. He opposes tax cuts that target those that actually pay taxes. He considers evangelical leaders to be "agents of intolerance," and accuses them of turning religion in to business. Finally, McCain opposes and supports oil independence and ANWR in apparently equal measure.
Aside from these minor disagreements, he considers himself a Reagan Republican. This, after a paragraph greener than Al Gore. (Kudos, to my Dad for that line...)
In my previous posts, I have strongly urged libertarians and Libertarians alike not to vote for a third party and to examine the values of both parties, and ask which party values individual responsibility and freedom. Both of these posts assume that the candidate for the Republican Party actually represents a Republican.
John McCain does not. He is a Democrat who somehow ended up with an 'R' after his name. He is diametrically opposed to everything that a classic liberal values and believes. In the event that today's election produces a McCain nomination, I would strongly urge all libertarian Republicans and Libertarians in general to either vote Libertarian or for the Democrats.
Why? If McCain is nominated, there is no Republican nominee. However, Republicans will inevitably get the blame for whatever nonsense McCain pulls. If Hillary is elected, the Democrats get the blame, and there is still the possibility of a Reagan in 2012.
The Republican Party is, for the foreseeable future, the only viable political coalition that can get our ideas implemented. By the time McCain is done wreaking his havoc, that Party will revert to the permanent underdog status it enjoyed from 1938-1980. America cannot afford another 42 years of socialism. Vote Hillary, or vote Libertarian. Either option is better than letting this madman get anywhere near the White House.
Aside from these minor disagreements, he considers himself a Reagan Republican. This, after a paragraph greener than Al Gore. (Kudos, to my Dad for that line...)
In my previous posts, I have strongly urged libertarians and Libertarians alike not to vote for a third party and to examine the values of both parties, and ask which party values individual responsibility and freedom. Both of these posts assume that the candidate for the Republican Party actually represents a Republican.
John McCain does not. He is a Democrat who somehow ended up with an 'R' after his name. He is diametrically opposed to everything that a classic liberal values and believes. In the event that today's election produces a McCain nomination, I would strongly urge all libertarian Republicans and Libertarians in general to either vote Libertarian or for the Democrats.
Why? If McCain is nominated, there is no Republican nominee. However, Republicans will inevitably get the blame for whatever nonsense McCain pulls. If Hillary is elected, the Democrats get the blame, and there is still the possibility of a Reagan in 2012.
The Republican Party is, for the foreseeable future, the only viable political coalition that can get our ideas implemented. By the time McCain is done wreaking his havoc, that Party will revert to the permanent underdog status it enjoyed from 1938-1980. America cannot afford another 42 years of socialism. Vote Hillary, or vote Libertarian. Either option is better than letting this madman get anywhere near the White House.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
What will voting for a third party accomplish?
When voters feel disenfranchised by the Big Two, they tend to either stay home or vote for a third party. A lot of libertarians became Libertarians because they got tired of Republican moralizing and Democrat socialism. However, this behavior is counterproductive. Voting Libertarian almost never results in electing a candidate, or a workable majority in any legislative body. Voting Libertarian does not send a message. Perhaps most damagingly, voting Libertarian generally benefits the left. If libertarians and Libertarians want their voices heard, they need to pick a party, and vote en masse.
How have the Libertarians fared in elections? Libertarians have had some success in the past at the level of state legislatures, getting 12 of their members elected, but there are not currently any Libertarian state legislators serving. Most of the Libertarian candidates in office were either appointed to their positions, or were elected to nonpartisan offices. The largest number of Libertarians that have even held public office was 311, after the 2002 elections. However, these numbers obscure some important facts: Libertarians have never elected a Congressperson, Senator or President. More important, perhaps, is the fact that outside of a few small towns, Libertarians do not hold electoral majorities anywhere in the country.
Libertarians who run as Republicans have been elected, but none who run as candidates for the Libertarian Party. In fact, the Republicans have an official Republican Liberty Caucus (or get the condensed version here.) The big names in the RLC include Ron Paul, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake and, prior to his resignation, Mark Foley. These guys get elected because they are running within an established party that agrees with them on almost everything.
How about sending a message with your vote for the Libertarians that you are tired of the same old left-right tug of war and want something different? It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work. As I mentioned in an earlier post, both political parties view the political "middle" as the ground where votes can be found. Consider these numbers, and you will see why:
Now, think about where the three third party candidates fit on the political spectrum that frames the thinking of party leadership. Badnarik would probably be placed on the right side of the spectrum, whereas Nader and Cobb would go on the left. In order to capture the votes of Libertarians, Republicans would have to make a real lunge to the right, and actually stick to their belief in limited government. In order to capture Greens and Nader voters, Democrats would have to lunge left. In the process, both parties would have to abandon the political "middle," which makes up approximately 30% of voters. Why would any Republican in his right mind lurch to the right to capture a portion of .38% of the voting public when they can shift left, and vie for a large portion of that 30%?
As I stated in the previous post, I think the idea that Republicans can gather more votes by going mushy and moving left is absurd, but it really is how party leaders think. So far as the RNC is concerned, a Libertarian voter is simply not worth pursuing because it will lose them far more voters in the middle.
Moreover, voting Libertarian sends an ambiguous message, especially in a time of war. Are you voting Libertarian because you are opposed to Iraq, because you want drugs legalized, or because you want to vote for somebody who really believes in limited government? If you want to send a message, write a letter. Voting Libertarian does not send a message that can be interpreted with any certainty, so it might as well be encrypted.
Finally, ask yourself what will happen if you vote Libertarian in a close race? Consider these results from Florida in 2000:
According to the FEC's Official Election Results.
537 votes decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush. That number amounts to 0.009% of the total votes cast in Florida. Had the weather been slightly different, had phone banks gone down in a precinct or two, had a few more polling places had difficulties with ballots or machines, the entire election could have gone a different way. Now take a look at the various third party candidates, and you will see why the Dems were so furious with Nader after the 2000 election. Had those 97,421 votes gone to Gore, he would have been elected overwhelmingly. The votes cast by Libertarians for Harry Browne could have given George W. Bush a similar, if smaller, lead.
The Libertarian candidate for President will not be elected any time soon. Knowing this, are you still content to cast your ballot for a person you know will lose, and do so overwhelmingly? Would it be better to cast a vote on a sure loser, or to vote for the party that agrees with you more often than not?
I will only ask the questions, the answers are for you to provide. However, I would urge you to review this post before you do so.
UPDATE: Apparently, the Libertarians held 600 appointed and elected positions in government as of 2003. I think this is new material for their 'History' page, but I may have simply missed it when I wrote the post. Either way, I got it wrong, and I apologize to both of my readers.
How have the Libertarians fared in elections? Libertarians have had some success in the past at the level of state legislatures, getting 12 of their members elected, but there are not currently any Libertarian state legislators serving. Most of the Libertarian candidates in office were either appointed to their positions, or were elected to nonpartisan offices. The largest number of Libertarians that have even held public office was 311, after the 2002 elections. However, these numbers obscure some important facts: Libertarians have never elected a Congressperson, Senator or President. More important, perhaps, is the fact that outside of a few small towns, Libertarians do not hold electoral majorities anywhere in the country.
Libertarians who run as Republicans have been elected, but none who run as candidates for the Libertarian Party. In fact, the Republicans have an official Republican Liberty Caucus (or get the condensed version here.) The big names in the RLC include Ron Paul, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake and, prior to his resignation, Mark Foley. These guys get elected because they are running within an established party that agrees with them on almost everything.
How about sending a message with your vote for the Libertarians that you are tired of the same old left-right tug of war and want something different? It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work. As I mentioned in an earlier post, both political parties view the political "middle" as the ground where votes can be found. Consider these numbers, and you will see why:
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % of Total |
| George W. Bush | Republican | 62,040,610 | 50.73 |
| John F. Kerry | Democrat | 59,028,444 | 40.27 |
| Ralph Nader | Independent | 465,650 | 0.38 |
| Michael Badnarik | Libertarian | 397,265 | 0.32 |
| David Cobb | Green | 119,859 | 0.096 |
Now, think about where the three third party candidates fit on the political spectrum that frames the thinking of party leadership. Badnarik would probably be placed on the right side of the spectrum, whereas Nader and Cobb would go on the left. In order to capture the votes of Libertarians, Republicans would have to make a real lunge to the right, and actually stick to their belief in limited government. In order to capture Greens and Nader voters, Democrats would have to lunge left. In the process, both parties would have to abandon the political "middle," which makes up approximately 30% of voters. Why would any Republican in his right mind lurch to the right to capture a portion of .38% of the voting public when they can shift left, and vie for a large portion of that 30%?
As I stated in the previous post, I think the idea that Republicans can gather more votes by going mushy and moving left is absurd, but it really is how party leaders think. So far as the RNC is concerned, a Libertarian voter is simply not worth pursuing because it will lose them far more voters in the middle.
Moreover, voting Libertarian sends an ambiguous message, especially in a time of war. Are you voting Libertarian because you are opposed to Iraq, because you want drugs legalized, or because you want to vote for somebody who really believes in limited government? If you want to send a message, write a letter. Voting Libertarian does not send a message that can be interpreted with any certainty, so it might as well be encrypted.
Finally, ask yourself what will happen if you vote Libertarian in a close race? Consider these results from Florida in 2000:
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % of Total |
| George W. Bush | Republican | 2,912,790 | 48.847 |
| Algore | Democrat | 2,912,253 | 48.838 |
| Ralph Nader | Green | 97,421 | 1.634 |
| Pat Buchannan | Reform | 17,484 | 0.293 |
| Harry Browne | Libertarian | 16,415 | 0.275 |
537 votes decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush. That number amounts to 0.009% of the total votes cast in Florida. Had the weather been slightly different, had phone banks gone down in a precinct or two, had a few more polling places had difficulties with ballots or machines, the entire election could have gone a different way. Now take a look at the various third party candidates, and you will see why the Dems were so furious with Nader after the 2000 election. Had those 97,421 votes gone to Gore, he would have been elected overwhelmingly. The votes cast by Libertarians for Harry Browne could have given George W. Bush a similar, if smaller, lead.
The Libertarian candidate for President will not be elected any time soon. Knowing this, are you still content to cast your ballot for a person you know will lose, and do so overwhelmingly? Would it be better to cast a vote on a sure loser, or to vote for the party that agrees with you more often than not?
I will only ask the questions, the answers are for you to provide. However, I would urge you to review this post before you do so.
UPDATE: Apparently, the Libertarians held 600 appointed and elected positions in government as of 2003. I think this is new material for their 'History' page, but I may have simply missed it when I wrote the post. Either way, I got it wrong, and I apologize to both of my readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)