Democrats looking better all the time.
Over at LewRockwell.com, David Franke asks
, regarding Howard Dean's infamous Iowa concession speech:
Am I the only person in America who can't comprehend what was wrong with it?
No, you are not.
It was silly, but no moreso than any other campaign pep rally with a big crowd of cheering idiots. Looking at all
of the Democrats' speeches that night, I wondered what kind of moron would you have to be to get involved with that scene. It may be frustrating to be relegated to the margins of politics, but do we really want libertarians to play that game? (If you're not sure, maybe you need to reread "Isaiah's Job
Mr. Franke makes an interesting case for Dean as the least-bad alternative from a libertarian perspective. He also suggests that Dean is maybe kind of an okay guy otherwise, who just happens to have some bad ideas, which is more than you can say for most politicians. For example, Dean and his wife don't let their kids watch TV, so they definitely can't be all bad. (Contrast Laura Bush's atrocious parenting methods
Meanwhile, longtime prominent libertarian Jerome Tuccille is not at all impressed with the "whack job" Dean, but nonetheless points out
that the Republicans no longer have any claim whatsoever to the "lesser of evils" title. I'm sadly inclined to agree. I didn't think it was possible, but George Bush makes me long for Bill Clinton more each day. Clinton raised spending much less than most Republican presidents
, and also gave us entertaining scandals. What more do you want?
True, Clinton presided over the massacres at Waco and Ruby Ridge. But I'd rather the federal government performed its evil through a few very visible incidents that almost no one thinks are justifiable, than through the Ashcroft era's creeping totalitarianism in the guise of liberty.
Still, there is the matter of judicial appointments, and there the Republicans maintain a significant edge. The Democrats would never, ever appoint a Scalia, Thomas, or Janice Brown. We're stuck with judges for life, but we'll be rid of George Bush in four years no matter what. Given that fact, and given that there will almost certainly be multiple Supreme Court vacancies between now and 2008, I'd rather a Republican were there to fill them. Of course, there's no guarantee that a Republican will make good choices (Exhibit A: John Paul Stevens), but we do know for sure that a Democrat would make bad ones.
So it's a tough call. Good thing I don't vote, or I might have a difficult decision to make.
- posted by J. H. Huebert at 1:55 AM