A Libertarian Endoresment of Barack Obama

Pigs must be flying and Satan must be freezing because just a few months ago in I stated quite bluntly that I would not support any of the Democrats in the 2008 presidential race; now here I am writing this blog on why I support the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama.  What in the world happened to make me not only change my mind, but pick (out of the three viable Democratic candidates), the second most progressive candidate in the Democratic field (with John Edwards being the most progressive – Edwards is NOT A POPULIST)?

The first thing that happened was Iowa.  Before January 3, 2008 I paid almost no attention to the Democratic contest for the presidential nomination of their party.  It was not until Barack Obama won Iowa, and thus destroyed Hillary’s “inevitability” that I began to really pay attention.  I had always rooted for Barack to beat Hillary if only because I hated Hillary, but after Iowa I began to notice that I was rooting for Barack because I actually liked what he was saying and wanted him to win.  I started listening to what Barack was actually saying, and I liked what I was hearing.  I was swayed by his talk of national unity and of bring constructive and real change to American politics.  I was awed by his confident hopes that he could bring Americans of different political persuasions together to tackle the big problems concerning American society.  After almost giving up, I had finally found in Barack a politician – no, not a politician, but a statesman – a statesman who realized that the difference between liberals, conservatives, and libertarians is not the ends but the means to the ends.  I finally found a statesman who understood that my being a libertarian did not mean that I hated the poor or wanted people to go without education or that I wanted babies to die in the street from lack of medical care.  I had found in Barack a statesman, seeing disagreements as struggles only over means, is willing to sit down with those like myself and work to try to reach a viable compromise that, while not perfect to either side, would at least be good enough to satisfy both sides and accomplish a common goal.  He understands that while one side should not get final say or total control over the discussion and the process, they should not be excluded from the discussion.  Yet in all of this, I was still held hope for Fred Thompson.  But then there was South Carolina and Fred’s subsequent dropping out of the Republican race for president.  With him gone, the Republican Party was no longer a viable choice for me.  I was a man without a party; worse, I was a man without a candidate.  To say that I was feeling a blue after Fred’s drop out would be an understatement. 

But funny thing, even when Fred was in the race I was moving closer and closer toward Obama.  After Iowa and New Hampshire I became more politically active, participating in various political activities on campus.  I even joined a UF student group that supports the candidacy of Barack Obama.  When Fred dropped out, all my support shifted toward Barack Obama.  The champion of my causes was no longer in, therefore my only choice was to go toward a man who would at least listen to what I had to say, and that was Barack Obama. 

Now here is an interesting question that I get asked quite a bit when people discover that I am both a libertarian and a supporter of Barack Obama:  why him?  Why not any of the other Republicans?  Why not Ron Paul?  First off, let me first say that I know that Barack is the furthest thing from a libertarian.  When it comes to policies, I and he are about the furthest away one can get before one starts moving on to the more extreme parts of the political spectrum.  It would seem obvious that a libertarian would just shift his support to another Republican candidate.  Well that did not happen for me.  Why not?  I have come to learn something very important about the Republican Party and libertarians:  the big tent welcomes libertarians only when it suits their convenience to do so (which is about every even numbered year).  When those same libertarian principles Republicans champion are applied to issues like drugs or morality, then Republicans do not want to hear what libertarians have to say.  Rudy Giuliani believes in expansive executive power; Mitt Romney is more pro-business than pro-free market (somebody should tell Mitt that being a businessman and being an economist are not the same thing); John McCain would gladly sacrifice civil liberties in the name of “clean government;” and Mike Huckabee, well, he is a statist who calls himself a conservative.  To add icing to the cake, none of them truly care about unity or bringing about any real, significant changes to Washington.  None of them seem to share Barack’s desire for unity and change.  Like Hillary and Edwards, I feel that they would rather go down in flames and claim they stuck to principle than compromise with others to reach a viable solution (or trade-off) concerning some of America’s problem; whether anything gets down is of secondary importance to them.

With Barack Obama, I feel as I have never felt before.  Before Barack I felt as if there was no place in the political process for people with my ideas.  The Republicans liked me only when I said stuff they wanted to hear, and the Democrats thought I was almost as bad as Lucifer himself.  I felt as if I had no place.  My apathy was going in one direction, and it was not down.  But then came Obama.  With Barack, he makes me feel as if somebody will care about what I have to say about the important issues of the day.  With Barack, I know that a seat will be at the table for me; that he will listen to what I have to say and will actually care about what it is I am saying.  He is not going to demonize me to win over a few votes or cast me aside when I begin to say things he does not want to hear about a particular issue.  Even if we disagree (which we do), he is willing to work things out so that we can both reach a solution that is agreeable to both of us.  In essence, Barack wants to get things done, and he is willing to work with conservatives and libertarians to get things done.  He understands that progressives do not make up anywhere near a majority of this country and if anything is going to get done, he is going to have to acknowledge that people share his goals, but not his means to those goals, and that he is going to have to work with others when it comes towards reshaping those means, or his goals will end up going for naught.  For example, as a libertarian, I could begrudgingly accept Barack’s plan for a larger government role in healthcare, as long as his healthcare plan remains as it currently is.  Currently, Barack’s healthcare plan forces no mandates; in other words, it forces nobody to accept government healthcare, of force anybody to get healthcare under the threat of fines and penalties if they do not (unlike Hillary, Edwards, and Romney).  If you choose to remain uninsured or you choose not to accept government healthcare, it will be your right; if you change your mind, than the healthcare will be there for you.  Unlike other proposals, Barack’s healthcare plan would not use coercion to achieve universal coverage; it would allow choice and freedom in America’s healthcare market.  Such a plan would merely provide some with a different means of obtaining healthcare if unable to do so in the private sector, for whatever reasons.  I have my reservations and objections, but with a bit of working, I could be moved into accepting such a plan.  If Obama’s healthcare plan is an indication of anything, it is his pragmatism and his realization of the political realities he is dealing with, along with his willingness to work with others to get things done and accept the ideas of others into his overall plan and agenda (how many times have I said that in this post already?).     

I support Barack Obama not because we share the same positions on today’s issues, but because of his larger vision for America.  He really does want national unity and he really does want to bring change to Washington.  His history in the Illinois legislature shows that he truly is a statesman; that history if one of unity and true bipartisanship, a history of working with others to achieve common goals even though there was initial disagreement over the mans. 

He truly means it when he says that Americans can “disagree without being disagreeable.”  He is the candidate of change, the candidate who will do his damnest to make sure no one is left out of the discussion, within reason (meaning that on such issues like immigration, Barack is not going to care about the opinions of the racists and xenophobes). 

For the first time in a long time, America under the leadership of an Obama administration will be united … all united and working toward the common goal of a better America. 

Comments

[Eric Dondero]

Wow, a self-described "libertarian" supporting the Hitler of our time: Barack Obama.

A man with a perfect 100% voting record from the Marxist ADA. A man that one of his colleagues in the IL Senate said, had a voting record "to the Left of Mao Tse Tung." A man who studied at a Radical Muslim Madrassa as a child for 4 years, and now vehemently denies it. A man whose "Pastor" at his Church in Chicago praised Louis Farahkan and the Nation of Islam.

"Libertarians for Fascism." Why the hell not?

[Pheisty]

You never explained why you wouldn't consider Ron Paul.

Don't worry, I'm not a Paulist (yet, although I'm moving in that direction) so I'm not going to breathe fire at you and inundate your site with bots. I'm just curious.

[Mark]

http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/01/another-libertarian-blogger-for-obama.html

[NH]

Obama, in order to be acceptable, first must:

1 - Denounce his racist ties with his pastor and separatist church
2 - Denounce Marxism
3 - Completely disassociate himself with the CFR and similiar groups

[DDH]

http://dominikhennig.blogspot.com/2008/01/america-needs-change.html
I agree! :-)

[Mark]

Cosmo:
You should feel privileged to have been Donder-oooooooooooed!
In any event, Mr. Dondero should be happy - he once again has something in common with the Paul-ian Rockwell Brigades that he has made a semi-career out of disparaging: breaking Godwin's Law by calling Obama a Nazi.

Sorry for a second plug for my site in this thread, but the comparison I'm referring to is here:
http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/01/does-sully-have-libertarian-version-of.html

Donderoooooo returns to the Fever Swamp where he belongs!