by Polydamas
Every four years, libertarians and other freedom lovers are caught in a conundrum. They must decide whether to vote ideologically for the “perfect” libertarian candidate of their choice or vote practically for the “lesser evil” candidate. The more ardent and ideological libertarians deride a vote for practicality as a sell-out and denounce practical libertarians as traitors to lofty libertarian principles.
Unfortunately, the fiery libertarians fall into the trap of “voting their conscience” for the “perfect” libertarian candidate who cannot win in the general election rather than the merely “good” or even “mediocre” candidate who can. Although we here at The Cassandra Times understand their vote on the grounds of principle, we also believe that their decision is misguided and counterproductive. These well-meaning, but nonetheless shortsighted, libertarians end up splitting the vote and allowing the “bad” candidate to win. The “bad” candidate then uses the machinery of government to accumulate more power and to cause an even greater overall loss of individual liberty by the people.
Allowing the “perfect” to become the enemy of the “good” can only enable the “bad”. Holding out for the so-called “perfect” solution and eschewing the “mediocre” solution can only lead to unmitigated disaster. A person who is rapidly sinking into the quicksand of collectivism cannot afford to hold out for a first class helicopter rescue, complete with a rope ladder, and to eschew a relatively sturdy vine. By the time and in the event a helicopter arrives, the sinking person will be completely submerged and likely dead. In contrast, holding on to the vine will slow the rate of descent and may buy sufficient time for the rescue party (and, maybe even the helicopter) to arrive.
The counter-argument of uncompromising libertarians is that victory by the “bad” candidate’s victory is only a temporary setback because, ultimately, the “bad” candidate’s tyranny will precipitate an uprising by the people that will wipe the slate clean. However, this revolutionary counter-argument ignores the stark reality that, allowing the “bad” candidate to have more power and to become more entrenched will only make the struggle against his repression all the more difficult and the costs infinitely greater. Climbing out of an abyss is far more difficult and will take much longer than from a ditch.
As fans of the famous author Robert Heinlein, we here at The Cassandra Times can only extol the virtues of his wise recommendation to vote AGAINST the worst political candidate rather than FOR the best political candidate. Practicality dictates that, in a close election, freedom-loving libertarians must vote in a manner that is most likely to minimize the erosion of individual liberty. If this means voting for a candidate who may only improve the status quo in incremental ways or will pursue a relatively effective rearguard action long enough to buy valuable time for a better candidate to emerge, so be it.
We believe that a vote for Barack Obama will result in more centralized government power and less individual liberty for Americans than a vote for Mitt Romney. Therefore, it is imperative that libertarians must vote against Obama by giving their vote to the less than ideal candidate who is most likely to defeat him, namely, Mitt Romney.
