Larry Hunter writes:
I’m a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole’s presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp’s Empower America.
This November, I’m voting for Barack Obama.
Why? you ask:
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
I have long had a sense that there is a certain slice of Republican supporters who feel this way–the question remains, of course, as to what size that slice is (and we won’t really know until November, and even then only if exit pollster ask the right questions). Regardless, I think that there are voters who consider themselves conservative and who have voted Republican in the past who will be motivated by the belief that the current administration has gone too far in its GWOT policies, and therefore the only thing to do is to vote against those policies by voting for Obama (or, alternatively, for Barr, or by abstaining). Even a very small number of such voters is not good news for McCain.
Now, it ultimately remains to be seen if Obama will, in fact, roll back the expansion of executive overreach that we have seen in the Bush administration. He shift on the FISA bill that caused an uproar on his leftward flank underscores that he is willing to compromise on these issues and it is also historically true that once in power, politicians have a tendency to jealously guard the prerogatives of their office.
Hunter states:
John McCain would continue the Bush administration’s commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That’s what conservatism used to mean - and it’s what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.
At a minimum, the risk of continuism is greater with McCain than Obama, and that may be enough for those who share Hunter’s concerns to take the plunge and support Obama (as, for example, Andrew Sullivan did some time back). Indeed, I count myself basically in that camp. The main positive reason I can conjure for voting for McCain is divided government. However, since the current divided government situation has not generated much in terms of addressing these keys issues about executive power, one wonders about that argument as well. At a minimum I find myself for the first time in my life in a position where I could see myself voting Democratic, Republican or Libertarian. And, I suspect that I am not alone. I was having a conversation the other day with a lifelong friend who is also a lifelong conservative. He concurred that he, too, had a similar view on the choices and his own possible voting behavior.
Sphere: Related Content
July 17th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
And, I suspect that I am not alone. I was having a conversation the other day with a lifelong friend who is also a lifelong conservative. He concurred that he, too, had a similar view on the choices and his own possible voting behavior.
I’ve had these exact conversations–albeit all of my conservative friends are corporate guys in the Hunter mold, not the Christian moral interventionists who seemed an important part of Bush’s base.
Under normal circumstances the Dems would have it made: bad economy, foreign policy quagmire, a lifeless Republican candidate committed to continuing the same policies.
However, the entire election is going to turn on the issue of race. I think the corporate conservatives are beyond voting against someone due to race, but I’m not so sure about those with lower education, socio-economic status, etc…
McCain’s only chance is to mobilize the latter group and the only way he can do that is by appealing to rank racism.
Thoughtful conservatives are going to go with Barack, stay home, or lodge a worthless protest vote for Barr or Nader. The other part of the Bush base likely won’t vote unless McCain can leverage an old-fashioned Southern strategy.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I voted Democratic for the first time in 2004 and I will do so again in 2008. Some day I may return to the Republican Party - I continue to disagree with Democrats on such topics as Free Trade - but I doubt it.
The Republican Party today (pro-war, anti-gay/muslim/immigrant/Constitution/environment/etc.) is just not where I am.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I can sympathise with your position, but I have just three words of caution:
Judges, judges, judges.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
This has certainly occurred to me. However, if the issue that concerns one the most is the overreach of executive power and the like, then that may one take the Obama route, to be honest.
Plus, if we are looking at just SCOTUS, then the likelihood is that even an Obama administration would leave the balance of the Court more or less as it is (given that the likely exits are already liberal, and the likely hangers-on being conservative).
Now, granted, there is more than just the SC to think about.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Actually, if the whole presidency thing didn’t work out, Obama would make a hell of a Supreme Court justice.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I’ve got to admit, there’s not a lot of positive reason to vote McCain. I disagree with both men fundamentally on several issues.
Ultimately, like Steve Bainbridge, judges will likely be the deciding factor. Unlike either of you, I’m in a state (Virginia) that will be in play in November, so I don’t have the luxury of a protest vote.
On the freedom issue, I’m not at all sure Obama’s any better. He strikes me as having quite the authoritarian streak and without a sense of humor. I doubt we’d see much rollback.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
@James Joyner - I think it is a wholly legitimate question as to whether Obama would do anything for the issues under discussion.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
If judges are the deciding factor, it would seem that an Obama appointee would be best at rolling back the excesses of the current administration’s power grab. As such, I wouldn’t understand why the issue of judges would be one to weigh against Obama. Besides, any judges appointed by McCain would have to survive confirmation with an increased democratic majority in the Senate, which surely would demand centrist jurists from McCain.
With regard to the economic issue, it could be argued that the Bush presidency has been one of the worst in containing the debt and government spending. Obviously, one must wonder if McCain would pursue a very different fiscal policy than Bush’s. Of course, the extent to which the president can truly shape the economy is questionable. That is why I think the issue has to come back to Executive power grabs and the like.
Dr. Taylor, just out of curiosity, what might motivate you to vote libertarian? Obviously Barr has no chance to win and doing so only decreases McCain’s margin in Alabama. If someone truly wanted to vote against McCain, why would they pick Barr over Obama?
July 17th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
@Brett - Dr. Taylor, just out of curiosity, what might motivate you to vote libertarian? Obviously Barr has no chance to win and doing so only decreases McCain’s margin in Alabama. If someone truly wanted to vote against McCain, why would they pick Barr over Obama?
There is a lengthier answer, but the simple one is this: I plan on voting as close to pure conviction this election as I can get, and if I find myself dissatisfied with the two mainline candidates on an array of key issues, then I will vote not for Barr, but for Libertarian Party (if that distinction makes any sense in this context).
I am sincere when I say at the moment that I could any of those three ways. Also, I could be persuaded to vote LP if I thought that there was any chance that the showing could be dramatic (i.e., 2% or more, to pick a number out of the air). The notion that the LP could attract sufficient votes to deny McCain the presidency would be an intriguing outcome, as it might (I won’t go too far) send a message on power and civil liberties to the GOP leadership. Then again, it may end up being nothing more than a historical footnote.
Back to the basic question: I did the lesser of two evils bit (in my own estimation) in 2004, and regretted my vote. I am never going to do that again. Perhaps I will pontificate more on my general reasons and some of my evolution in terms of third parties at some later date–it will depend on my muse, methinks.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Thanks for your reply. I just found it very interesting, because I remember your negative characterization of voting for third parties in “first past the post” systems from Comparative Politics. I would be interested to hear you thoughts on that if your muse does indeed inspire you. Obviously there are countries with a first past the post system that have strong third parties (ie the Liberal Democrats in the UK). Undoubtedly, people will say that the only way we will get other parties is for people to vote for them.
However, personally I could never see myself voting for a minor party, when that party had no chance of winning, as Bob Barr seems to. If I were to vote on pure conviction this election, I would probably vote for Cynthia McKinney, especially after Obama’s FISA vote. However, I really see Obama as the only realistic chance to see any of the things I want done in the next four years, hence the reason I am voting for him.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:37 am
There is, of course, the issue of the macro-level and the general effects of the structure of electoral rules on party systems and the micro-decision that a given voter might make.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:27 am
[...] interest was renewed, however, when my old friend Steven Taylor quoted the piece favorably, concentrating especially on “Unjustified war and unconstitutional [...]
July 18th, 2008 at 9:19 am
voting for Obama is not a good way to disagree with Bush’s policy. I believe John Mccain is not George Bush. I wish John Mccain was a candidate in 2000.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Of course, in a state like Alabama, California, New York, etc…voting for a third party in the presidential contest is entirely rational.
Since the Dems will not win in Alabama, a Barr vote “means” as much as that of any other party. Same thing with a Green (or Libertarian) vote in California.
The Electoral College screws up the sense of vote worth in presidential campaigns.
On a related note, Jonathan Zasloff had an interesting post on the curious absence of parliaments at the state level in the US. There is nothing constitutionally precluding any state from ditching its bicameral legislative system for a parliamentary one. It would be interesting to see somewhere like, say, California, rewrite its constitution to become parliamentary.
I guess the Republican senate candidate in Montana, Bob Kelleher, has been arguing for something similar for a long time.
It would have interesting implications for third parties–and perhaps even the electoral college.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Brett: “If judges are the deciding factor, it would seem that an Obama appointee would be best at rolling back the excesses of the current administration’s power grab. As such, I wouldn’t understand why the issue of judges would be one to weigh against Obama. Besides, any judges appointed by McCain would have to survive confirmation with an increased democratic majority in the Senate, which surely would demand centrist jurists from McCain.”
Brett, because this is the best that the right gets. After 8 years of demonstrating just what the core beliefs of the GOP are, after 8 years of making even the more paranoid liberal fears seem very well grounded, after 8 years of us being saved more by the raw stinking incompetance of these people at anything other than looting, there are a lot of people who either agree with those beliefs, and will enable them, out of fear of some ‘liberal menance’.
Please note that even Larry Hunter, while being pretty brave and honest, is still dishonest in his statement. No honest, informed person could look at the past 8 years, and say that the Democratic Party holds a candle to the GOP when it comes to financial irresponsibility and dishonesty. And after the Reagan administration, it’s been many decades since the GOP deserved its reputation for being the hardline financially honest party. But Larry can’t say that, because then it’d be clear that the GOP is sunk, from the view of honest, competancy and humility.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I find myself with Sullivan on almost every issue with regard to Obama and with regard to politics and policy in general.
I think Obama’s much more of a constitutionist than McCain, who is interested only in war and his militaristic sense of honor which blinds him to some very basic conservative principles. Plus I really can’t stand this whole imperialist notion that the Bush administration has brought into our foreign policy.
And honestly, Obama really is for free trade. What thoughtul intelligent person wouldn’t be? He just did what he had to do in the primary because Hillary was appealing to those “bitter” voters who don’t like free trade. Obama is nothing if not a pragmatist. As he himself has pointed out.
Finally, in response to #6 above: I really don’t think that Obama lacks a sense of humor. What I think he is trying to do is pre-empt the age-old Republican tactics against liberals that have worked for so long. And sometimes, especially lately, his campaign has been overly zealous in this regard, to the point of making him seem humorless. I think it’s more a function of Axelrod than Obama himself.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I don’t think Obama will abuse executive power. Fisa was a political move. However, Obama is a constitutional scholar who lectured for 10 years. The man is simply not one to be comfortable with expanded powers and seeing what the abuse of them have done.
My father is a typical Reagan cultist. He thought Reagan walked on water. As a very young man he voted for Kennedy.
I do not know who he supports but, I would not be surprised if he did decide to jump and go with Obama.
He is a registered independent now and I know Bush disgusts him.
I think for some who were in the church of Reagan, they may feel a nostalgia and wishful for him and see some of that in Obama.