What a McCain Victory Means . . .

Some thoughts and reflections based on Chris Bower's own post on the political implications of a John McCain victory.

Large Democratic Congressional gains will not break the working conservative majority. Even if a McCain loss is coupled with large Democratic gains in the House and Senate, the working conservative majority will not be broken. Bush has presented McCain with a path to governing with a Democratic Congress: veto anything you don't like, never respond to any congressional investigations, and secure enough Bush Dogs to pass virtually any legislation you want.

Given that the "Bush Dog" capitulations are consistently on issues of foreign policy and civil liberties, a Republican Presidency with a working conservative majority in the Congress is an abysmal prospect for libertarians, regardless of ultimate partisan affiliation. Despite Barack Obama's own dismal stance on FISA, I view an Obama Administration as less likely to push for a continued imperial foreign policy and statist War on the Bill of Rights. He may well capitulate to Congress on these issues, but I think he's unlikely to actively push such legislation.

The Democratic Party will move to the right, not the left.

This is not necessarily bad news depending on the narrative of what aspect of liberalism caused Barack Obama's defeat . . .

. . . but the most likely narrative will focus on Barack Hussein Obama's failure to appeal to "middle America," wherever that is. Democrats will be cast as out of touch culturally with the average American voter, the last thing I as a culturally liberal American want to see.

The old political narratives will remain in place. The new political coalitions that I wrote about in The End of Bubba Dominance in The Nation will not come into being. White social conservatives will continue to be seen as the dominant swing groups, and as such receive the lion's share of attention from the national parties and national media. Get ready for four more years of "Democrats don't understand middle America" editorials, for example. As such, one of the main anchors keeping our national politics firmly on the right side of the spectrum will not be lifted.

Emphasis added. Anything that continues this perception of politics, with the likely result of Democratic capitulation on foreign policy, civil liberties, and social freedoms, while maintaining a statist big government approach of economics, will not be productive for libertarians.

Clinton will become the 2012 Nominee. Should Obama lose, the "I told you so's" will rain down hard from the Clinton faction within the Democratic Party. Specifically, reinforcing point #3, the focus will be on Obama's failure to win socially conservative white working class voters. Further, with Palin now on the ticket, a McCain victory would result in claims that Clinton could have also won more women voters, thus making her more electable. Combine these factors with the obvious point that a defeated Obama, a disgraced Edwards, and a disgraced Spitzer would leave Hillary Clinton with no serious challengers in 2012. You can pretty much bet that Clinton will be the nominee in 2012 should McCain become President.

Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee would be a disaster for libertarians, especially libertarian Democrats. And as noted with the reference to a disgraced Spitzer, there are few likely challengers to Senator Hillary Clinton. I'd go back to wanting to draft Senator Russ Feingold or Governor Brian Schweitzer. Anyone to stop Hillary Clinton.

I'll write about this more later, but I honestly believe that the best scenario for libertarianism, not just libertarian Democrats, is for Barack Obama to win. The dynamics of a John McCain presidency could continue to screw over libertarians: Bush has shown that Republicans don't need us, and a third presidential defeat will continue to push Democrats into a corner of believing that they need socially conservative whites, not libertarians of all types.

that the Democrats still got it wrong. And it will look all the worse because they will have lost an election it seemed they couldn't lose just a short time ago.

The Democrats will have lost to the legacy of an unpopular president during a time of economic uncertainty whose record has been abysmal on most things that make headlines while not being too bad on little things that never make headlines.

I say "not being too bad on little things" because as an NFIB (National Federation of Independent Businesses) member, I am constantly emailed legislation reports from Federal and State levels. And on the Federal level, the report card on small matters of import to mom and pop businesses is generally very positive for Bush...believe it or not. The report card used to be based on enacting legislation in years past...but in recent years, it's been more about blocking harmful bills that seek to burden small business or compromise their sovereignty on behalf of some redistributive program or regulation. These legislative matters are not news-makers or anywhere near the national narrative but they are there. And besides keeping most small business owners voting for Republicans, they also reinforce the basic party perception on economic matters at the grass roots level and prevent any noticeable realignment.

That's not to say that these small matters will directly account for a McCain victory. But it does show an indirect and palpable reason why many won't swing to the Dems...even when things look bad.

I remain ever convinced that if the Democrats would shed their tax and spend image and adopt a more free market policy platform that is spoken to and justified on left libertarian grounds, they would win over a bloc that is otherwise not entirely sympathetic to the GOP.

And to lose McCain considering the context should be a stinging slap in the face to the Democratic leadership that they are simply not as popular for meaningful parts of their agenda on economic matters as the they would like to torture the data to let them believe.

Think of it as a big wart on the end of their nose of an otherwise relatively handsome face. Yet they change their clothes, re-comb their hair and eat more breath mints while never wanting to admit that it's simply THE WART.

Your points were right on.

It amazes me, well, in a way it doesn't, that the DEMs couldn't and cannot capitalize on Bush's and the REPs low approval rating. Either, Bush and the REPs got some dirt on them, or they are taking a pay off, or they are in cohoots with them, or all three. They are making him and the REPs look like a geniuses.

"a third presidential defeat will continue to push Democrats into a corner of believing that they need socially conservative whites, not libertarians of all types."

America is not socially conservative. The pornographic industry is booming right along with the NFL. The two issues that social conservatives stand on are abortion and gay marriage. I believe most Americans don't oppose abortion per say. They oppose using taxpayer money to fund it. I also believe most people don't oppose gay marriage. They oppose it being called marriage. Take away taxpayer funding of abortion and call gay marriage civil unions, BAM!, there wouldn't be anything to debate. Furthermore, the American people are not prudes. We may believe in the concept of right and wrong or some type of morality, but not to a point to abolish gambling, smoking, drinking, sex, and other vices. We are forgiving for the most part. Except for paying for sex, that should be free. But seriously, politicians and elites make these things an issue, not the masses.

If McCain wins its because the Democrats, Obama in particular, gave him the victory. After the 2006 Congressional election and when Obama came on the campaign scene there was optimism that establishment politics will come to an end. Ha! Establishment politics is here to stay. If anything, establishment politics has become the law of the land. The 2006 election was the sign that Bush and establishment politics had to go. Why the Dems didn't pick up on this tells me that they are complicit with the way things are. In all reality, we have a one party system using to 2 different pair of bifocals when looking at the issues.

...

Agreed that an Obama victory would be better for libertarians. The best outcome would be a narrow Obama victory with Barr doing very well in many of the swing states (Georgia, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, etc). The media will play this as Barr costing McCain the election.
We will be the tiebreakers, so to speak. But unlike the Perot or Nader campaigns, Barr's is not based on a single personality. The possibility of a looming Ron Paul or Gary Johnson candidacy for 2012 could focus some minds wonderfully.

IMO, McCain would be better for libertarians. This is my reasoning for this. If McCain is elected as Prez, this will force the hand of the Democratic Congress and the DNC. Right now, the DEMs are derelict in their duties of check and balancing the President and his administration. A Presidential lost 3 times in a row should send shock waves in the DEM Party and force them to open up to and include libertarians. Mind you, this is only theoretical, I don't know for sure. However, I can see a narrow Obama victory maybe causing the DEMs to look at and take seriously libertarian leaning voters as well.

A little over a month ago, he was boasting about a progressive majority, but now he is whining about working against a conservative majority. The dude is emblematic of partisan hack analysis.

I also totally disagree that Barack Obama is somehow a libertarian imperative. The man going on Fox News and stating the surge was a success beyond anyone's wildest dreams should be the last straw for any libertarian. The sorry fact is that the Obama Campaign is rapidly converging to a repeat of the Kerry campaign. The national Democratic Establishment is toast to me and the fact they continue to display amazing adeptness of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory matters nothing. The Western Democrat is not predicated on this repeated inanity.

The fact is that McCain/Palin victory would pretty much obviate any previous analysis on my part of a libertarian revival in the GOP. Mccain/Palin actually stops it dead in in tracks. I would also posit that a McCain/Palin victory would actually put more of a premium on the Western Democrat in the next cycle.

My point with a McCain-Palin victory is that it would stop any libertarian revival in the GOP. I feel rather strongly on that point and I think that most here would agree. The question is what McCain-Palin would do for any progress in establishing a libertarian beach head in the Democratic Party. And my opinion, based on my fears of how Obama's defeat will be analyzed by the talking heads, my fears of the likelihood of Hillary Clinton as the front-runner in 2012, and what McCain would do in office with the aid of "moderate" Democrats capitulating on foreign policy and civil liberties, is that the prospect for libertarianism within the Democratic Party would be equally dimmed.

Obama-Biden would probably produce a better four years of legislation than McCain-Palin, but that's not the main argument in favor of Obama's victory from a libertarian perspective. The defeat of McCain-Palin leaves open the door for a libertarian revival in the GOP, while the success of Obama-Biden without pandering to social conservatives leaves open the door to libertarianism within the Democratic Party as well. As long as the dominant opinion within the Democratic Party is that the party has to move to the right on social issues in order to win, libertarian Democrats will be viewed not only as out of step with the party but a dangerous development that will cost the party victories.

If the choice is between a republican and a "me-too republican," the republican usually wins. To me, this should seem intuitively obvious. Of course, the hard-core progressive--left on foreign policy, left on guns, left on markets, and left on social issues--could never win, so that leaves, by default, the libertarian option as the best bet for Democrats nationally. Of course, i don't mean hard-core libertarian, but in general a moderate libertarian approach friendly toward guns, markets,civil liberties and emphasizing BALANCED BUDGETS(fiscal discipline) and realist foreign policy(presto, the Western Democrat).

I try to remain objective when it comes to political analysis(despite my obvious libertarian bias), but it escapes me how anyone thinks Hillary Clinton talking about pastors, faith, banning video games, and getting tough with Iran is the tonic for the Democrats regaining the presidency(if the third time is not the charm for the Dems and Obama). One thing that apparently has been established is that Pant Suit doesn't have a prayer against the semi-automatic weapon toting MILF.Take it for what it's worth.

Even though we've discussed the "libertarian revival" in the GOP, from my vantage point, it was purely an exercise in objective prediction and not something that i was cheering on or pinning my hopes on. i can give a rat's ass about the GOP, and the Christian Right would ultimately doom/corrupt any such revival in the end.

"....the libertarian option as the best bet for Democrats nationally. Of course, i don't mean hard-core libertarian, but in general a moderate libertarian approach friendly toward guns, markets,civil liberties and emphasizing BALANCED BUDGETS(fiscal discipline) and realist foreign policy(presto, the Western Democrat)."

I agree. People fear the unknown. In order to ease their fears moderate steps will have to be taken to acclimate the masses to the libertarian philosophy.

The thing is this. In my conversations, with my co-workers and peers that don't vote, they point out, rightly, that the election process is rigged. What they mean is that their candidate is knocked off the ballot by the primaries. Because of this they don't bother to vote. These are the folks that libertarian leaning advocates need to appeal. However, what libertarians need to do more is to campaign for modernizing our election process by advocating for Instant Runoff Voting, (IRV).

"IRV encourages more electoral competition, solves the "spoiler" problem, enables voters to choose the candidate they really want, and encourages candidates to win by building coalitions rather than tearing down opponents." Excerpted from NAF.

If we had IRV there would be no primaries, every candidate would have to give audience to every political constituent, and every announced candidate's name would be on the ballot. After the election is over, the winner would be the peoples choice, rather than the party's. This is just a thought.

A McCain victory would be a disaster for libertarianism.

If Obama wants to seal this election he needs to look to the West and the "Western Democrat". The GOP in this day and age is focused more on the party's Southern values, which includes religion, tradition, and morality. We witnessed this when McCain chose Palin as his VP. Obama needs to focus on the western values of freedom, independence, and privacy. In my opinion, if Obama picked Jim Webb or Bill Richardson he would have guaranteed a win in Western States like New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Montana. Thus, giving him the edge in the National election. He should have picked a pro-gun, pro-freedom candidate as his VP. I think it was a big mistake picking Biden.