From Republican to Libertarian: My Reasons

This election is going to be pretty big. Not because Barack Obama is black. Not because Sarah Palin is a woman. Not because John McCain would be the oldest president. Not because the last time we saw a Democratic Presidency and Congress was in 1992, which saw a swift swing to a majority Republican Congress in 1994 in the middle of Bill Clinton's first term.

No, but because this is where I see a split. At least in my own political alignment. Growing up, I was Republican because it's what I was familiar with. After growing in my knowledge of political systems, parties, and theories, I still identified most with the Republican party.

College came about, and my switch in majors from Economics to Philosophy really helped me achieve a metaphysical and ethical understanding to the roles that political theories play in both utopias (thanks, J.S. Mill) and reality (Louis Pojman's essay on solutions to the equality issue is probably the most influential thing I've ever read on politics). I started saying I was a Libertarian, but never really meant it.

Now I do.

I don't support Barack Obama because I fear the coming of Socialism in America, a bigger budget fiasco, and the inevitable job loss from increased taxes for social programs. I don't support John McCain because not only has his Senate track record been all over the place, so has his campaign promises. That, and Sen. McCain hasn't really shown what I hope year after year in Republican candidates, yet never receive (a return to responsible government spending, more intelligent foreign policy, and a devotion to protecting individual freedoms).

So I am now a Libertarian. I know, that's an especially vague term. But really, I am.

I believe in total economic freedom based on a market system. This bailout is a bad idea. The government shouldn't be forcing the taxpayers to save those who are struggling. Why didn't we research the possibility of allowing private entities to purchase the bad debt that has flooded the market? Why not let the market participants (in reality, all of us) work the plan out? The current restrictions on the market set in place by the Federal Government really contain the possibilities of private persons, firms, corporations, etc. from not only alleviating the stress the market is taking, but also potentially profiting from it. Instead, the taxpayer is now going to buy the safety nets that will catch those who pushed us to the brink of the market bottom, and there's no guarantee that our forced investment will work. Forget the restrictions, encourage competition, and place the emphasis on the individual and you'll see increased innovation, better products and services, and prices that will answer to supply-demand research as opposed to government enforced price ceilings and floors.

I believe in states' rights. At first glance, I'm sure your US History lessons from way-back-when are alerting you that what I said was fairly Confederate, but hear me out. The Federal Government has most likely reached it's limit as far pushing out society to even greater heights, and that's for one simple reason: it's too expansive. Want to improve education in America? Make the states fully control it. Place benchmarks tailored specifically for every state. Allocate money from the federal budget to every state for the purpose of reaching those benchmarks. The state is then given free reign to take that money and address its specific situation (rather than D.C. staff workers generalizing the entire nation and failing to address key problems of the vastly different education situations in various states). If the state reaches the benchmark, it will continue to receive the budgeted money with new benchmarks. If the state fails to reach the benchmark or does not properly allocate funds, the federal government then offers the same budgeted allowance to private schools tasked to reach similar benchmarks. If the state can't handle it, then the all-important individual (in this case, the individual entity of a private school) can and will handle it. Competition will breed success.

I believe in choice/freedom. I myself do not condone homosexual partnerships. Does that mean our government should outlaw it? No. One thing that continually disappoints me in politics is the control that religion seems to have. We formed a Democratic nation to allow ourselves to have the freedom to believe what we wanted to believe. I am a Christian. I hate how Christianity once began as a small fellowship of believers outlasting persecution by the Romans to preach the Gospel, only to gain in power and persecute others (the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Church of England, American witch-hunting, etc). So now we have our current state of politics, where a candidate who "believes in the principles America was founded upon" will readily vote in Congress to prevent a fellow citizen to seek out their own beliefs because it isn't consistent with Christian teachings. It should be allowed, so long as it is not infringing on the right to life, liberty, and property of someone else. That's why the same sex marriage aspect captures this perfectly. It is not consistent with Christian teachings. But why is it only legal as civil unions in 3 states? I believe it should be allowed in all. If it is allowed, the moral judgement is then restored to the Church rather than the government, as it should be.

I believe in a Federal Government that returns to the role it should play. A protector of freedoms, life, and property. An ambassador to other nations. The silent engine behind economic, social, and global improvement through encouragement of freedom and liberty.

Therefore, I am now considering myself a full on Libertarian. I don't know who to vote for yet. I have a general distaste for both candidates. But I will still believe in and serve my country, following all orders of the Commander and Chief. But times, they are a changing, and I will stick to my ideals.

RP