The Most Painful Post Ever

To quote Milton Friedman, I am a Republican with a capital "R" and a libertarian with a lowercase "l." While I certainly don't agree with the GOP on every issue (abortion comes to mind), I generally find Republicans to be far more tolerable than Democrats. Even the one major issue where I agree with the Democrats--ending the war in Iraq--is not an area of serious or principled agreement; considering that the Democrats have taken the U.S. into every major conflict--and a few minor ones--of the 20th Century, their opposition to the Iraq war looks more like opportunistic, disingenuous partisanship than any principled dedication to peace. On every other major issue, including gun control, the economy, taxation and health care, I am vehemently opposed to the Democrats, even if I can only summon up lukewarm support for the Republicans. Thus, it pains me greatly to say that I am truly hoping to see the inauguration of President Hillary Clinton.

I know what you're thinking: how dare I call myself a Republican, much less a libertarian, if I support the Pant-Suit Princess? Hear me out; to paraphrase Desi Arnez, I've got some 'splaining to do.

First of all, I truly wish that Ron Paul had been able to secure the Republican nomination. However, only the willfully self-deluded could possibly convince themselves that Paul has any chance whatsoever of doing so at this point; barring some fortuitous miracle at the Republican National Convention, John McCain all but has the GOP nomination in the bag. I am certainly not alone on the Right in finding McCain completely unacceptable. His namesake legislation, from McCain-Feingold to McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman, is all a complete nightmare. There is also a very strong possibility that Benjamin Netanyahu will be the next Prime Minister of Israel, and I think that between the two of them, McCain would find some reason to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

However, none of this worries me overly much since, barring a terrorist attack on the United States between now and November (God forbid!), McCain stands almost no chance of actually winning in the general election. McCain isn't going to be able to sell the people on continuing the incredibly unpopular Iraq war, the Democratic nominee is going to hammer him on his "100 years" comment regarding troops in Iraq, and many on the Right, myself included, may simply stay at home on election day rather than hold their nose while pulling the McCain lever. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will almost certainly go on to be the next President of the United States.

Having rejected the possibility for the presumptive Republican nominee to become the next President, I am left to choose between Senators Clinton and Obama on the Democratic side. Much as I resent and despise this Hobson's choice, it looks to be the one I have to make. Aside from the minor distinctions of mandatory vs voluntary national health care, and how soon and at what level to start meeting with officials from nations unfriendly to the United States, there is no appreciable difference between the two Democratic contenders' policies. Both are completely inimical to any semblance of a philosophy of freedom or sound principles of just governance. Both will raise taxes and spending. Both will meddle in the already-weakening economy. Both want to reassert American "leadership" in the world, meaning an increase in, rather than the rejection of, our peculiar breed of Empire. Most frighteningly, both will likely have a Democratic legislature to push through their disastrous agenda. Make no mistake about it: the United States are heading for perilous and painful times. At this point, the coming Democratic rule looks inevitable. Avoiding it may be beyond the realm of possibility; we should instead focus on minimizing the pain and damage.

Barack Obama is an empty suit propped up by platitudinous generalizations about "hope" and "change," yet his rhetorical skills have the effect of a political aphrodisiac, seducing listeners on both the Right and the Left. Even I am not completely immune to this, and the media is head-over-heels in love with Senator Obama. In contrast, Senator Clinton is positively reviled by the Right, and is possibly the most divisive figure in national politics today, though she runs a tight race with President Bush for that dubious honor. Whether Senator Clinton has earned this intense revulsion is irrelevant; call it "Clinton Derangement Syndrome," but the phenomenon is very real and potentially useful.

We have seen numerous examples of how completely catastrophic one-party rule can be in this country, from Roosevelt and the New Dealers prolonging and deepening the Great Depression to the stagflation of the 1970s to the first six years of the Bush administration. Bipartisanship is no great boon either; at best, we end up with ill-conceived legislation like No Child Left Behind, and at worst we get a noxious mixture of the Welfare and Warfare States. Ross Perot may have decried so-called "gridlock" in 1992, but it is clear to me that anything which prevents Washington from getting anything done ought to generally be considered beneficial to the country.

Barack Obama may be able to overcome gridlock. Whether by reaching across the aisle in a bipartisan manner or by increasing the Democratic majority through campaigning for key Congressional elections, a President Obama would be able to push his agenda through with relative ease and impunity. A (second) President Clinton, on the other hand, would be fought tooth-and-nail by Republicans. Either Democrat is going to over-reach in their first term. We saw this play out already in 1993-1994, when the Democratic Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed into law, the Brady Bill, Don't Ask Don't Tell and NAFTA, to name only the most contentious pieces of legislation. This over-reaching led directly to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, and a healthy if limited revival of an anti-state mentality among the GOP. Barack might be able to get away with a great deal of over-reaching; Hillary, like her husband, will not.

For these reasons, I now endorse and support Senator Hillary Clinton for President of the United States, though without any sort of enthusiasm and only because I believe she represents the best chance for me not to have a full head of gray hair by the time the Democratic stranglehold on the two elected branches of government is broken.