Skip to main content

Because (as usual) Waldo is right even when I'm not going to follow his advice....

Waldo continually (and legitimately) raises the paradoxical issue of the ostensibly freedom-loving Libertarian Party nominating the author of the Defense of Marriage Act for President, and expecting the gay community to sign on.

People are free to vote for whom they choose. But in the interests of fairness and accuracy, they shouldn't go on about liberty and justice for all. Your position is, more accurately, liberty and justice for me.


Now, while I should point out (before Brian Miller beats me to the point) that many LGBT Libertarians see the Democrats in general and Senator Barack Obama in particular are much less gay-friendly than Waldo does,

But surely, Barack Obama, the "hope and change" candidate, is leading the way to transform the Democrats' "old politics" into the "new politics of hope and empowerment," right?

Doesn't appear to be so:

In a recent interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, Democrat Barack Obama stopped short of promising to lead the way for change, saying only that he can "reasonably see" a repeal of the current ban if elected president.



So let's get this, ehrmmmm, straight.

The Democratic Party has a majority of both houses of Congress -- a majority that's expected to grow in November. The Democrats have a presidential candidate who is almost certain to win the election -- by double-digit margins against his rivals.

That Democrat claims to be in favor of "real change" and worked to court gay voters.

The policy in question actively harms the US military's ability to recruit and retain skilled workers at a time when there's a severe shortage of them.

A repeal of the policy in question is supported by at least 2/3rds of the public -- probably even more today -- eliminating even the most wimpy inside-the-beltway spineless "we need to avoid backlash" argument against taking action.

And the best the Democrats can do is "reasonably see" if eliminating this law is "possible?"

Pathetic.


... I have to say that in terms of my beliefs about Bob Barr's core beliefs (and therefore his subsequent actions in the statistically possible event he became POTUS), I agree with Waldo that Barr is at best a poor standard-bearer for many aspects of personal liberty, including not just gay rights or same-sex marriage, but also issues like the war on drugs, freedom of religion, etc....

But--and there is one--there are equally compelling reasons why I cannot, will not vote for Barack Obama even though he is the candidate with the best view on civil rights for all Americans.

I have stated before what I expect from my President and my Government:

1) Foreign policy/defense: I want American imperialism rolled back and American interventionism halted, as the same time we begin to pull free from the military/industrial complex by slashing the budgets for defense and homeland security to reasonable levels.

2) Civil libertarian issues: I want to see gay marriage legalized; drugs decriminalized; Real ID abolished; the Patriot Act gutted; and immigrants viewed as human beings. I want intrusive government the hell out of my life.

3) Fiscal sanity: I want a government that stops growing and taking an ever-expanding bite out of my paycheck; I want to see wasteful programs cut, and to have Congress faced with the same sort of imperative the Delaware General Assembly had to face this year: balancing the budget.

So you tell me: if that's what I want, who is my best candidate?


I put these desires in priority order, because I really believe that American imperialism, the defense/industrial complex, and an interventionist foreign policy are greater threats to our future than civil liberties at home. I don't like having to say that; no, I hate having to say that. But to me those issues touch directly on our survival as a nation, and the survival of our civil liberties appear--at least at this point in history--on the survival of the American republic as imperfect as it is.

And based on his repeated statements that he will not rule out unilateral interventionism, pre-emptive war, sanctions against the citizens of other nations, and that he explicitly promises a larger defense budget than we've had under Dubya (don't believe me; go visit his website and look at his section on a 21st Century military; I've given the link before; go find it for yourself), I cannot in good conscience vote for Barack Obama.

Nor does Obama's sell-out on the FISA compromise bode well for how he's going to keep any of his promises on civil liberties once he's in office.

I certainly can't vote for John McCain, who fails on both items One and Two above.

The stated positions of the Libertarian Party and candidate are what I'm supporting, that and the ability to throw a monkey-wrench into the remorseless two-oarty duopoly that restricts our choices to a couple of suits.

I've been as honest as I could be over this issue--playing out my personal decision-making in these pages, muddled as it sometimes is.

But if I am to vote as a one-issue candidate, reluctantly my one issue has to be the one upon which our survival as a nation ultimately depends.

And, so far, on those issues Bob Barr has been the closest to what I think is correct in this campaign.

I'd really have preferred it to have been Barack Obama, but his steadfast stand for equal rights for gay Americans has been paralleled by a pathetic, even craven record on foreign policy that is too hopelessly bad to support under any conditions.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Barr is indeed suboptimal on gay rights. Point taken.

However, holding up Barack Obama as a "superior alternative" is like offering one a meal of cow manure as an alternative to "unhealthy" hot dogs. Obama's platform is indisputable worse than Barr's in this election -- even moreso when one considers the level of LGBT support that Obama attracts.

I'm not pushing Bob Barr as the perfect candidate for gay Americans, because he isn't. But to see Democrats supporting Barack do-nothing Obama as a better choice is just galling -- especially considering that the same people objecting to Barr on the grounds of DOMA were HUGE Bill Clinton boosters. You'll recall that Clinton signed DOMA and supports it unconditionally, while Barr has since called for a significant repeal of its worst provisions.

It's just not consistent.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...