But as folks at Unqualified Offerings noted, this is a weird way to think. After all, let’s hope he means it about the Iraq War. I’m too lazy/tired to look it up, but didn’t Nixon promise peace with honor in ‘68? How long did it take him?

I find the prospect of an undivided, filibuster-proof, Democratic Washington, D.C. scary. Not scary enough to vote for McCain. But voting either one of these goof-offs when they both clearly demonstrate no love for, or even feign passing allegiance to, liberty is perhaps the scariest of all.

So you’re basically saying your vote is based on the belief that Obama (allied with two houses of Congress) won’t uphold any of his promises? Ok. At least you’re cognizant that this is unjustifiable. If you’re looking for a reason to vote for Obama without violating your libertarian principles, the more justified belief would be that Obama’s economic policy will usher in the inevitable market purge and may cause a devastation large enough to tear down the walls of the mixed economy.

Happy voting.

Outside the arena of martial honor, John McCain has no discernible political principles.

Barack Obama is only better than John McCain because he understands that military adventurism costs real money, as well as (usually) being destabilizing and strategically unwise. This does not make Obama worth voting for, but it makes him immensely preferable to someone who seems to relish geopolitical confrontation.

Candidate says regulate more, candidate says tax more, candidate says fear trade, candidate gets “libertarian” vote. Useless, useless movement.

I’d say this makes me tempted to pack it in and become a video store clerk instead of writing on political topics, but certain sorts of anarchists among us would just say “Right on, now you’re making a difference,” and I have no wish to encourage them either.

Back to quiet scholarship and hoping the twenty-_second_ century is one in which politicians aren’t rewarded for bashing trade, perhaps…

On the other hand, I’m reasonably hopeful that Obama will emerge a calculating and not at all honorable politician, thus talking the protectionist talk and doing nothing to advance an economics of resentment.

I hope so too, but if protectionism is popular, and it is, it’s not clear that a calculating politician would reject it. In fact, since protectionism is popular, I’d say that you also have to be assuming that the Republicans will be intelligent, honorable, and put country ahead of party on the issue of free trade, refusing to go protectionist or make protectionist attacks if Obama and the Democrats ignore their rhetoric and push free trade. That’s despite trade being a losing issue (such as in quite a few Senate seats last time around, where protectionism gained strongly in almost every seat that flipped.) That’s what would allow Obama and the Democrats to be rhetorically protectionist but in practice only very slightly less free trade than the Republicans. Needless to say, I think that’s a harder thing to have faith than Sen. Obama’s fecklessness. On the other hand, at least Sen. McCain has been very devoted to free trade, rhetorically as well, regardless of the political opportunities.

In any case, another point seems rather clear to me. Politicians have to make ridiculous statements in order to be elected, not least because plenty of people believe ridiculous things, but also because they have to forge coalitions from groups who believe contradictory things. For many of us, there’s generally guaranteed to be as many or more statements we violently disagree with than ones we really agree with. For that reason, politicians are actually better off if we believe that they’re capable of being smooth liars. We want their statements we disagree with to really be just things to fool the rubes. That’s why we look for trivial-seeming things in a President so that we can feel that he’s “just like us.” “Since he’s smart, and just like me, he must really agree with me and just be saying those other things to win the election.” Sen. McCain is terrifying because of the reputation for “straight talk.” It’s terrifying that he might actually believe everything that he says. Even if libertarians appreciate his unpopular stands that they agree with on, on farm supports or free trade or elsewhere, they’d rather have the hope that the intelligent and educated Sen. Obama is lying to the rubes and will govern well than the certainty that Sen. McCain will do some good but certainly some bad. Of course, it’s compounded by the problem that many of Sen. McCain’s libertarianish positions, such as being against the prescription benefit, being against farm supports, being for free trade, or his health care plan, are unpopular enough that they wouldn’t be adopted, whereas he’d have a lot more leeway in foreign policy. Libertarians might well reasonably decide that, on the whole, they appreciate him in the Senate (more than some other options), but not as President.