So I'm not happy with the debates, to say the least. Last night, I got to thinking about the roots of my unhappiness -- and I came realize they go much deeper than the style of the debates. Surprising as it may be, I am not a fan of George W. Bush. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy. He's personable and principled, but those are not necessarily qualifications for the job of President. I cast my last vote for him, albeit unenthusiastically. I will not be doing the same again.
Let me give a little background... I have always been a supporter of limited federal government. That is, a government that respects the primacy of state and local governments and seeks to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare" with a conservative interpretation of the "general welfare" clause. The federal government has, however, taken this mandate to an extreme that is causing as much harm as it is good. It means that the federal government reaches everywhere -- from birth to death, education, healthcare, and directly into my wallet. I will pay just over a quarter of my income to tax and another 7.5% to Social Security, the latter being money I will more than likely never see again.
I'm not saying that all federal spending is bad -- far from it. The National Science Foundation and DARPA have given us invaluable advances. What I am saying is that the government is not designed as an HMO or retirement planner, nor a chamber of commerce or food bank. It will also be inefficent in these roles, and inefficiency only grows as the sizes of these roles increase.
Government size is a problem not just in terms of the money that it wastes in inefficiency but also in terms of the power that it concentrates far from where you or I live. The power of a multi-trillion dollar (yearly) organization is concentrated into a small group of people that changes frequently. These people seldom get along and rarely agree on anything, principles or actions. They are individually assailed by a large army of lobbyists on every topic imaginable, whether or not they have a good understanding of what exactly is at stake.
If you are comfortable with this organziation making key decisions about where you go to school, where you see the doctor, what your quality of life will be when you are old, or what you can do with all those MP3s you've ripped, then you and I have a small difference of opinion.
GWB, and the GOP in general have shown me that they are no longer the party of state's rights and small government. They are, perhaps, the party of tax-cuts, but to me tax cuts are not just meaningless but actually harmful without the corresponding cuts in government spending. I do not foresee a reduction in the size or scope of government corresponding to a vote for W. If this were not the case I would cast my vote for him and the party in general without hestitation. I believe that my disagreement with him on the scope of the federal government overrides my support in other areas like abortion policy.
Kerry? Clearly, given my feelings on W, Kerry is not a viable option. He claims he will reduce the size of the federal deficit, but that will not be accomplished without one of two things: major growth in the economy or major cuts in government spending. Tax hikes will not make it through Congress, and government stimulation of the economy comes at a steep price (as witnessed during the Reagan years).
After surfing party platform pages from all over the spectrum, I came to a surprising conclusion: The only reasonable vote I can cast is for a Libertarian.
I'll write some more about this in subsequent posts, including my points of agreement and disagreement with the Libertarian party's platform. (Like the efficacy of monetary policy and a strong central bank!) It should prove interesting.