ineffablytom

Liberalism, not meaning left-leaning but classical liberalism, is something of dirty word in American Politics these days. One one hand, we have a party that wants to conquer the world and establish a democracy where you are allowed the freedom to be who you want to be so long as it is line with Christian values, and a party that, more or less, has few clear cohesive goals save investing tons of money into dubious social propositions (including NCLB) in effort to legislate social change. Having a third option where government largely stays out of the social arena and restricts itself to establishing only the basics of society is not a view that is “mainstream” enough.

Certainly, the problems caused by some segments of unregulated securities trading are having unpleasant effects on the economy which our government has drastically and probably very poorly responded to.

In the US, today we “vote” to “elect” our next president. Unless, of course, there are voting irregularities which the Supreme Court can rule on thus determining the next president. (Not that there is any chance of that happening.)

I don’t care for democracy at all.  I think it is a woefully inadequate system pandering to the whims of a poorly educated and emotional populace, rather than a system where rational discourse and effective problem solving is rewarded. I think that America being reduced, de facto if not de jure, to a two-party system means a plethora of possible political views are not even discussed in politics. We are left, unless shining beacons of a platform, to picking someone close. Picking, in some cases, the lesser of two evils.

I believe John McCain would be an absolutely terrible choice for president. even more than most, he is campaigning on a platform of fear, fear of terrorism, fear of change, fear of “The Other.” Fear of accepting that the world, while strongly influenced by, is not the playground of US politicians. We live in a shared world, and I don’t believe McCain recognizes that fact. And I’m fairly certain Palin barely recognizes a world outside her hockey rink exists.

Obama… I support some of his platform. Or, rather, there is some alignment between the political ideology of the his campaign and things I believe. When I go vote later, it will be for him, because the alternative is untenable.

I would like to see, as a people, as a country, as a world, better discussion about the role of government. I am very uncomfortable with the system we have and it is an outgrowth of a belief about what government should be doing. There is a section from Ludwig VonMises book, Human Action, that I think is especially pertinent today, calling into question the choices we make.

Liberalism realizes that the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to [p. 150] do away with an unpopular government and uses this power whenever it becomes convinced that its own welfare requires it. Civil war and revolution are the means by which the discontented majorities overthrow rulers and methods of government which do not suit them. For the sake of domestic peace liberalism aims at democratic government. Democracy is therefore not a revolutionary institution. On the contrary, it is the very means of preventing revolutions and civil wars. It provides a method for the peaceful adjustment of government to the will of the majority. When the men in office and their policies no longer please the majority of the nation, they will?–in the next election?–be eliminated and replaced by other men espousing different policies.

The principle of majority rule or government by the people as recommended by liberalism does not aim at the supremacy of the mean, of the lowbred, of the domestic barbarians. The liberals too believe that a nation should be ruled by those best fitted for this task. But they believe that a man’s ability to rule proves itself better by convincing his fellow-citizens than by using force upon them. There is, of course, no guarantee that the voters will entrust office to the most competent candidate. But no other system could offer such a guarantee. If the majority of the nation is committed to unsound principles and prefers unworthy office-seekers, there is no remedy other than to try to change their mind by expounding more reasonable principles and recommending better men. A minority will never win lasting success by other means. (link)

What worries me is that the majority of this nation maybe “committed to unsound principles and prefer unworthy office seekers”. On top of an election with one clearly horrible choice, we also have several states trying to ratify into law more odious bans on gay marriage. I could go into the many, many things the government should do regarding marriage, but this a failure of the government to protect the rights of its citizens in bowing to religious pressures. Just say no to religion! And if not that, at least say Yes! to protecting the rights of American Citizens to have different beliefs.

Some other peoples views:

Seth Godin
Poet With A Day Job
Robin
Cuppycake
Scott Jennings