David Mayer, a frequent contributor to the Objectivist Center, weighs in on the side of voting for Bush. He argues --- at quite length! --- on the grounds of the war on terror and on political incrementalism. (Read more...)
Mayer’s article is phenomenal! It deals with a number of issues while maintaining the context of the ultimate goal of a return to the liberal principles of our founders. Mayer has the rare ability to articulate both the ultimate principles and incremental manner that becomes the slow path to establish the ideals we cherish. This will require an evolution of our society towards a culture that supports and sustains liberty, self-responsibility, and mutual respect for the rights and aspirations of others.
He masterfully excoriates utopian libertarians who easily veer into absurd anti-Americanism. He sees the moral difference between George W. Bush and the pathetic imposter, John F. Kerry. And he is hopeful. I highly recommend reading and re-reading his whole article.
Indeed an outstanding article - a comprehensive & resounding demolition of every sordid aspect of Saddamite appeasement.
I haven't seen the Reason article to which Mayer refers, but I was especially heartened to read this:
The new (November 2004) issue of Reason magazine asked several prominent libertarians (along with “other policy wonks, journalists, thinkers and other public figures in the Reason universe”) whom they intended to vote for in 2004, and why. Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado (and a prominent gun-rights scholar), gave what I regard as the best reason to vote for George Bush: “We’re in a war in which the survival of civilization is at stake, and Bush is the only candidate who realizes the gravity of the danger we face and who is determined to win World War IV.” Kopel’s got it exactly right!
Some of us on SOLO have been trying to get this through to the Saddamites for some time now, with no conspicuous success. Perhaps, at Mr Kopel's additional prompting, they will resile from their treachery at the eleventh hour & fifty-ninth minute.
I've known Neil for many years and am not surprised at the position taken in his article. He moved from a more hard-core position a long time ago and has now taken up a position similar to that of Mayer. I can only hope that he doesn't slide completely into the democratic socialist camp. Neocons are such slime. I find it completely amazing that so many objectivists have fallen into line with these ex-trotskyites.
I agree with Tom's response.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]