Posts Tagged With: Jill Stein

I Voted for Gary Johnson

My default position is not to vote.  As other, more illustrious people than myself have repeatedly argued, not voting is itself a political statement.  Voting, on the other hand, is the act that every supporter of intrusive government points to to prove that you aren’t really oppressed–after all, you have the opportunity to change your rulers every four years!  The more people who refuse to buy into this charade, and who refuse to believe that choosing who will be the one to tax, wiretap, and body-scan you actually makes you free, the better off we will be.

That said, I did vote this year, as I have most years, mainly on the belief that when you have a good-hearted person running for president, and when that person’s policies, though imperfect, would radically improve the country, then it is the neighborly thing to do to support him.  In 2008, that meant that I voted for Chuck Baldwin (of the Constitution Party).  This year, I voted (early) for Gary Johnson.

When it comes to his philosophical understanding of libertarianism, Johnson is certainly no Ron Paul.  As the linked interview shows, he opposes the gold standard and is generally unfamiliar with some of the the twentieth century’s greatest libertarian thinkers.  He also indicates support for the kind of “humanitarian” wars popular among Democrats of the Clinton-Obama stripe.  Moreover, because I am someone who came to his current positions largely through reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I am skeptical of Johnson’s support for open immigration.

Still, on serious issues like ending the war on drugs, the TSA, and the drone wars, as well as on his general stand against taxes and regulation, a President Gary Johnson would be a great improvement for this country and for all the overseas victims of the Bush-Obama foreign policy of perpetual war.  Of course, I wish there were a more consistent libertarian running for president.  But I think that the genial Johnson’s positives clearly outweigh his negatives.

Indeed, I had the relatively easy decision of only having to decide between voting for Johnson or not voting at all.  Every other option is totally unpalatable.

Though Chuck O’Shea makes a reasonable lesser-of-two-evils argument in favor of Mitt Romney, his argument rests on the false premise that his vote actually makes a difference–that is, that voting for Mitt Romney is a strategic means of advancing conservative ends.

In fact, the only way that Chuck’s vote will actually make a difference is if the election in his state hinges on a single vote, which itself will only matter if his state has enough electoral votes to affect the electoral-college outcome.  I don’t know of any election where this has actually happened.  Even in the infamous Florida recount of 2000, George Bush still won by 537 votes, which means that no single voter switching from Bush to, say, Pat Buchanan would have changed the election in any way.  And even if the upcoming election were decided by Chuck’s one vote, however unlikely that may be, then surely there would be a recount–which never leads to the same tally as the original count.  The same argument applies to the so-called “Obama cons:” voting “strategically” for the lesser of two evils is a pointless exercise based on the false notion that your own vote matters.  When you realize that it doesn’t, then it makes no sense to vote for someone unless you can give your positive support to their policies.  “Strategic” voting is no strategy at all.

At the same time, I believe that we should hold the minor parties to the same “don’t vote for evil” standard as the major parties.  We should not get caught up in thinking that they are somehow noble just because, unlike Romney or Obama, they actually live according to principle.  Thus, Ron Paul’s position in 2008 that his supporters should “pick any” of the third-party candidates makes very little sense.  Sure, I am willing to accept that Jill Stein is more consistent than Barack Obama and would be a great improvement over him in terms of civil liberties and foreign policy.  But her economic policies would be much, much worse.  Sticking to your principles is only admirable if your underlying principles are themselves admirable.

(As an aside, I also don’t buy “The Lancastrian’s” position that, because Stein wants to run a federal regulatory state with local implementation, that somehow makes her a Jeffersonian localist.  Rarely does the federal government act by a classic command-and-control economy, at least in this country.  Very often its policies are carried out with a great deal of state help, as is the case with Medicaid, or through subsidies or tax incentives to favored industries.  Does the Lancastrian believe that Medicaid also represents “the definition of subsidiarity?”  If so, then conservatism has fallen pretty far since the 1960s.)

On the same note, Virgil Goode supports protectionism and wants to continue the drug war (just at the state level, where most drug-related prisoners are incarcerated anyway).  And despite his non-interventionist turn in recent years, when Goode was a congressman and his positions actually mattered, he voted as a lockstep Republican for war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and the Military Commissions Act.  I’m skeptical of a 66-year-old man who just so happens to suddenly see the light once his political career is over.  If anything, Goode is eerily similar to the 2008 “Libertarian” presidential candidate Bob Barr, who then went on and endorsed Newt Gingrich for president in 2012.

Therefore, given the failings of all the other candidates, I see no choice for those of us who support peace and freedom.  If we decide to vote at all, it can only be for Gary Johnson, who, though imperfect, has certainly done enough to earn our votes.  Intelligent people can come up with all kinds of clever arguments to show why conservatives should really vote for any given candidate.  But at the most practical level, Gary Johnson is the only candidate whose policies would do more good than harm.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Go ahead. Do something crazy. Vote for the Green Party.

Hey there. I’m here in an attempt to convince you of something that may, at first, seem crazy. I want you, as a traditionalist conservative, to vote for Green Party Candidate Jill Stein for president. Go ahead, get the laughs out, I’ll wait. Ok, done? Good, then let’s talk.

First off, Mr. O’Shea, in his defense of voting for Governor Romney declares that conservative politics must be about the possible, and therefore, the traditionalist must remain within the two-party framework, hoping beyond hope that the Republican candidate governs conservatively. What he forgets is that third parties historically have had a significant impact on American politics, even without electoral success. Dr. Stein and the Green Party are also thinking of the possible; they aren’t expecting to win, and in fact, the front page of their website implies that getting as little as 1% of the popular vote would be a success. This is because simply by taking away votes from the major parties can be enough for one of them to coopt the party’s positions in the next election in order to gain more voters. The beauty is that this works, if you take a look at the Populist Party platform from 1892, or any of the Socialist Party platforms under Eugene V. Debs, you’ll see that these parties managed to get plenty of legislation passed without ever winning an election.

Are you with me so far? A vote for Jill Stein isn’t cast in order to win the 2012 election, voting for her means you’re playing the long game (but you’re a conservative, so you should love the long game). But why vote for Dr. Stein of all people, isn’t she the one the people to the left of Obama are going to be voting for? Certainly, and last I checked, traditionalist conservatives have a lot in common with the American left, especially on issues such as foreign policy, the importance of community, society as an association that extends beyond the living, and the belief that successful acquisitive individualists should not, by default, rule because of their successful acquisitiveness. In order to look at these similarities more closely, I’m going to go straight to the Green New Deal, the platform that Dr. Stein is running on this year.

Let’s start with foreign policy, shall we? I think that after watching the last debate, we can agree that the next four years are going to be, at best, the same as the last four, and at worst, will result in the invasion of Iran. As far as I’m concerned (and I believe there’s something called a Constitution that backs me up on this) this is the most important aspect of President’s job, the area where he has almost unilateral power. As a conservative, a dealer in what’s possible, this is where you should be looking when you cast your vote, because let’s be honest, nothing is going to be possible domestically with a divided congress for at least two more years.

What does Dr. Stein say on foreign policy? Let me pull out a few choice quotes. For her, the problem is not vague Middle Eastern “terrorism,” but rather, “we must protect our liberty from those who would frighten us into surrendering our freedoms in the name of security. The Green New Deal will repeal the Patriot Act and those parts of the National Defense Authorization Act that violate our civil liberties. It will prohibit the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI from conspiring with local police forces to suppress our freedoms of assembly and of speech.” A good start, right? She continues, declaring that, “Protecting our liberty requires one additional, important step. Washington and Eisenhower, both generals who became president, warned us about the military industrial complex. They warned us about the dangers of empire.” Wait; did she just cite a founding father (I thought librools hated them!) and a Republican as examples? Whaaat?

There’s no talk of Wilsonian internationalism or the Bush doctrine here, her policy position is includes “a 50% reduction in military spending and the withdrawal of U.S. military bases from the over 140 countries in which our military is now located. It calls for restoration of the National Guard as the centerpiece of our system of national defense. It creates a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives. Overall, it requires shifting from an economy in which the majority – the majority – of our discretionary budget is spent on war and the occupation of other countries, to an economy that provides the secure, just, peaceful future we all deserve.” If you’re looking for the candidate who wants to end the American Empire, I think you’ve just found her.

I’ll be honest with you though, you could also vote for Gary Johnson for the exact same foreign policy reasons. So what else does Dr. Stein have to offer? How about something that Governor Johnson certainly doesn’t stress, the importance of community. While Dr. Stein and the Green Party certainly use the symbolism of FDR in their party platform, a closer look reveals that the use of the term “New Deal” might be a bit misleading. Rather than large-scale federal programs, Dr. Stein calls for federal money to be implemented locally. For instance, “Our Full Employment Program will directly create 16 million jobs through a community-based direct employment initiative that will be nationally funded, locally controlled, and democratically protected against conflicts of interest and pay-to-play influence peddling. The program will directly create jobs in the public and the private sector. Instead of going to an unemployment office when you can’t find work, you can simply go to the local employment office to find a public sector job.” Notice that the point is to work, not receive unlimited unemployment insurance.

The emphasis on local implementation is not incidental, she continues by saying, “This program will not be run from Washington D.C. Our job in Washington will be limited to insuring that you have a say in how this program runs. Local communities will be responsible for putting this jobs program into practice through a process of broad community input and democratic decision-making involving you, your neighbors and local government – not corrupting monied interests.” Um, isn’t that like, you know, the definition of subsidiarity? And, if you happen to be a traditionalist with an agrarian bent, you might just be a fan of the idea that some of the jobs created at the local level will be in “regional food systems based on sustainable organic agriculture.” Yes. Jill Stein is also the Jeffersonian candidate.  

Let’s stick to this point for a minute, because I think it is, perhaps, the strongest reason why anyone who calls himself or herself a traditionalist conservative should vote for Dr. Stein. She continues by detailing one of these subsidiarity-driven programs, the “Green Transition Program,” which “will provide grants and low-interest loans to grow green businesses and cooperatives, with an emphasis on small, locally-based companies that keep the wealth created by local labor circulating in the community rather than being drained off to enrich absentee investors.” Take out the name “Green Transition Program” and it sounds exactly like something a traditionalist who admires Tocqueville might vote for. The emphasis on community also carries over to transportation, where one of the publically created, community-based projects is the creation of “’complete streets’ that safely encourage bike and pedestrian traffic.” Fact: Jill Stein wants to reduce the effects of the “Mechanical Jacobin.”

As you might expect, the Green Party is also interested in the environment. Of course, there’s nothing terribly un-traditional about this stance either, after all, didn’t Burke say that, “Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”  Dr. Stein is clearly in this spirit then when she says that, “A business model that destroys our forests, our fisheries, our topsoil, our water supplies, our health, and our climate – is a business model that will inevitably collapse upon itself. And an economy that is addicted to ever-increasing supplies of oil is not only doomed, it is a national security disaster just waiting to happen.”

Finally, Dr. Stein rejects the notion that successful acquisitive individualism is a legitimate reason to hold power. She believes that, “the takeover of our economy by big banks and well-connected financiers has destabilized both our democracy and our economy. We do not need and should not tolerate the dictatorship of bankers and financiers who manipulate money without doing productive work and who enrich themselves at the expense of real businesses and real working people. It’s time to take Wall Street out of the driver’s seat and to free the truly productive segments of working America to make this economy work for all of us.” Note that this is not a call to a revolution, a takeover of the means of production by the proletariat, or a wholesale rejection of the good that capitalism brings. Rather, it is an emphasis on the dignity of both labor and ownership that has suffered at the expense of financial gamesmanship.

There are many more examples in the Green New Deal of things that traditionalists would agree with (and certainly some things they wouldn’t), but here’s the thing, there is no other candidate in this race who emphasizes the dignity and importance of the local like Jill Stein does. Sure, her candidacy will attract all the hippies and crunchy co-op people, but lets face it, traditionalists have a lot more in common with them than they’d like to admit.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 7 Comments

The Anti-Obamney Majority

Green Party candidate Jill Stein stated at last night’s third party debate that the half of all registered voters–double the amount who will vote for either Obama or Romney–will not participate in this election at all (see video at 1:20:00).  She says that “those are voters who are saying ‘no’ to politics as usual and saying ‘no’ to the Democratic and Republican Parties.”

I don’t think that anyone can know what 90 million other individuals are thinking.  Still–and whatever one might say about some of Jill Stein’s other ideas–I have to admire the sentiment in that quote.  Nonvoters get caricatured as lazy and uninformed.  But it is much nobler to just go to work, spend time with your friends, or even watch reruns of Tosh.0 than it is to give your vote to a candidate who supports drone strikes, indefinite detention, the TSA, or war with Iran.  Not voting is an implicit rejection of the status quo, or at least an indication that you can’t be bothered to care about the major parties.  Either way, the fact that the majority of all Americans won’t be casting a ballot for either Obama or Romney should give some hope to those of us who reject mainstream politics.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. The Adventure Journal Theme.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37 other followers