Well, I had hoped to finish up on Johnson before the election, but life intervened, so here we are.
Conor Friedersdorf regards Obama's drone strikes (whose power to terrorize and disrupt lives means that their effect go far beyond the people killed), his willingness to include a U.S. citizen among the targets, his war in Libya without congressional authorization, his crackdown on whistle blowers, and his continuation and normalization of Bush's worst civil liberties violations as absolute deal breakers. At the same time, he certainly has no illusion that Romney would be any better. And I basically agree. These are not trivial issues. These are the primary reason I so fiercely opposed George Bush. And Obama has continued them. Johnson opposes all of these. He has none of Ron Paul's alarming baggage. And I thought (at least during the Bush Presidency) that these were the most important issues to me. So I should vote for Johnson. And yet . . .
And yet Johnson is yet another businessman who thinks that the principles of running a business translate into a national economy. He is mistaken. He favors balancing the budget overnight and keeping the Federal Reserve from fighting economic downturns by monetary expansion. He may even favor a precious metal standard. I disagree with Josh Barro, who appears to dismiss the War on Terror and civil liberties concerns as trivial compared to the economy, but neither am I prepared to dismiss the economy as trivial either. And I agree with Barro that the economy is a moral issue, that it is not moral to crucify mankind on a cross of gold, and (above all) that these things are not entirely separate, that policies that throw an economy into crisis encourage an angry, scapegoating mindset that is dangerous to freedom. And I agree with him that "'[D]on't worry, Congress will stop him' is not an argument you should have to make about your candidate for president."
Daniel Larison disagrees. He says that since obviously Johnson will not win, it is pointless to worry about what a hypothetical Johnson Administration would do. In fact, he is "puzzled" that anyone would worry about such a thing. A vote for Johnson is a protest vote, intended to send a signal that one rejects the bipartisan consensus in favor of perpetual war and unrestrained executive power. Who care about an economic agenda that would never be implemented. And besides the President has much more unilateral power over foreign policy and civil liberties than over domestic and economic policy. Then again, Larison appears to favor Johnson's fiscal policy as well. And I agree with Larison's debate partner that the problem with a third party protest vote is that, while it clearly signals some sort of protest, it is not always clear what you are protesting. Larison assumed that a vote for Johnson is a foreign policy protest vote, when Millman thought of it as a protest against the bipartisan consensus in favor of unlimited executive power and dismissal of civil liberties. But the establishment might just as well read it as a protest against the bipartisan consensus in favor of paper money and a call for a gold standard. (Larison appears to favor a Johnson protest vote both on foreign policy and fiscal policy).
And in the end I agree. Protest votes are useless unless they send a clear signal what you are protesting. So in the end, my view on Johnson is much the same as my view on Ron Paul. I am too craven to accept the wreckage of our domestic economy as the price to be paid for ending the madness in the War on Terror.
No comments:
Post a Comment