{"id":638,"date":"2012-10-18T02:53:36","date_gmt":"2012-10-18T02:53:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/?p=638"},"modified":"2014-02-09T05:00:02","modified_gmt":"2014-02-09T05:00:02","slug":"romney-obama-tweedledum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/blog\/2012\/10\/romney-obama-tweedledum\/","title":{"rendered":"Romney v. Obama: Tweedledum and Tweedledee? – Steele\u2019s Response to Stolyarov – Part 2 – Article by Charles N. Steele"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"The<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Charles N. Steele
\n<\/big><\/big><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
October 17, 2012<\/big><\/span><\/div>\n
Recommend this page<\/a>.<\/strong><\/div>\n
******************************<\/div>\n
\n

In his article \u201cIs Mitt Romney Truly a \u2018Lesser Evil\u2019?<\/a>\u201d, Gennady Stolyarov took issue with my contention that a Mitt Romney victory is preferable to another term for Barack Obama from a classical liberal standpoint.\u00a0 In\u00a0Part 1 I responded<\/a> to Mr. Stolyarov\u2019s arguments concerning the moral responsibility one might bear in supporting a bad candidate over a much worse candidate, a \u201clesser evil.\u201d\u00a0 Here I make a case that Romney and Obama certainly are not<\/em> Tweedledum and Tweedledee: Mitt Romney is indeed a lesser evil compared with Barack Obama from a libertarian\/classical liberal perspective.<\/p>\n

I must emphasize at the outset that I am not arguing one should<\/em> vote for Mr. Romney.\u00a0 I am making a case that Romney is the lesser of the two major party evils, not that one must support him.\u00a0 If in one\u2019s judgment an abstention or perhaps a vote for another candidate, such as Gary Johnson, does more for liberty, then one should act accordingly.<\/p>\n

However, I also think that our current political situation is quite precarious; if we confine our vision to the federal government and its policies, America is in an unusually dangerous position today, quite unlike anything I ever expected to see in my lifetime.\u00a0 If current trends continue, I think there\u2019s some not insignificant chance that the First and Second Amendments could soon have \u201cdead letter\u201d status \u2013 formally in effect but no longer valid nor enforced \u2013 and that the probability of this is much higher with a continuation of the Obama presidency.\u00a0 I also think that America is on track for a fiscal and economic disaster unprecedented in modern history, and that the Romney-Ryan ticket is at least marginally superior to Obama-Biden in this regard.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll address four areas in which I believe there are fundamental differences between Romney and Obama: 1. general vision, 2. health-care reform, 3. appointments to the Supreme Court, and 4. economic and fiscal issues.\u00a0 I\u2019ll close with a few qualifications that temper my argument.<\/p>\n

1. General Vision:\u00a0<\/strong> This presidential election is not so much a choice between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama as it is between two competing visions of the role of government.\u00a0 Romney and Obama are both very poor standard bearers for this conflict of visions currently underway, but one would have to be oblivious to American politics of the past twelve years to miss the significance of this election. \u00a0There is, for a change, a real ideological difference.\u00a0 On the one hand, there\u2019s the progressive view that supposes the state is the fount from which all good things and all social advance flow (\u201cYou didn\u2019t build that.\u201d)<\/em>, and on the other, there\u2019s the view that government is limited by the rights of the individual, and that most of civilization is built by free people acting in the market.<\/p>\n

The progressive vision sees government intervention as the solution to every imaginable problem.\u00a0 This was perhaps best stated recently in a Washington Post op-ed<\/a> by E.J. Dionne.\u00a0 There is no question that Obama and the Democratic Party represent the progressive-left view.\u00a0 If they are sometimes loathe to admit it, it is simply because it is currently bad politics to do so \u2013 the Tea Party backlash was more than they\u2019d bargained for.<\/p>\n

Pitted against progressivism is the view that government must be restricted to certain limited functions.\u00a0 American conservatives, for all their many and various flaws, do tend to understand this.\u00a0 American voters outside the progressive\/left camp certainly do, as the Tea Party arose out of anger over big government: government bailouts, exploding government debt, the general expansion of government in health care.\u00a0 It was Ronald Reagan who observed that the \u201cheart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.\u201d\u00a0 Whether one agrees or not, it is certainly true that conservatives are far more skeptical of government than are progressives.\u00a0 Currently the Republican Party is the party of skepticism about government.<\/p>\n

It would be a simple thing to expose the many cases of Republican hypocrisy on these issues \u2013 I often do so myself.\u00a0 But let me ask this<\/em> question \u2013 which party \u2013 Democrat or Republican \u2013 is more likely to propose legislation containing more and more interventions, programs, entitlements, and social engineering?\u00a0 If the reader is genuinely uncertain (I doubt most are), read the respective platforms of the parties (here for Democrat<\/a>\u00a0 and\u00a0here for Republican<\/a>). The first platform contains proposal upon proposal for expanding the role of government; the latter refers repeatedly to specifics about restricting overweening government.\u00a0 No one is bound by a platform, but the platforms do give the vision, and these visions are fundamentally different.<\/p>\n

Does this matter?\u00a0 For an example, consider how the two parties have responded to the Citizens United<\/em> decision.\u00a0 Republicans have applauded it on free speech grounds.\u00a0 Conversely, Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic legislators have introduced in Congress<\/a> a constitutional amendment, the \u201cPeople\u2019s Rights Amendment,\u201d that would\u00a0effectively eliminate the First Amendment<\/a> protections of freedom of speech and press.\u00a0 As George Will<\/a> put it in Washington Post, \u201cBy proposing his amendment, McGovern helpfully illuminates the lengths to which some liberals want to go. So when next you hear histrionic warnings about tea party or other conservative \u2018extremism,\u2019 try to think of anything on the right comparable to McGovern\u2019s proposed vandalism of the Bill of Rights.\u201d\u00a0 (Or, I might add, try to find anything in the Democrats\u2019 platform even mentioning any threat to free speech from our government.\u00a0 It certainly contains nothing even vaguely rivaling the Republican denunciation of speech codes, Fairness Doctrine, McCain-Feingold, and other restrictions of free speech.)<\/p>\n

As another example, consider the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and the protection of it by Second Amendment.\u00a0 Republicans are supportive of this, while Democrats generally oppose it.\u00a0 The Republican platform specifically defends the inherent individual right to keep and bear arms, applauds Heller<\/em>, and explicitly opposes new gun controls, including the \u201cAssault Weapons Ban.\u201d\u00a0 The Democrats relegate the right to \u201can American tradition\u201d and imply it is created by the Second Amendment.\u00a0 They then call for new gun controls and further restrictions on ownership.\u00a0 If the Democrats should, at some point, manage to gain control of both houses of Congress and pass a new, more draconian \u201cAssault Weapons Ban\u201d or legislation to \u201cclose the gun show loophole\u201d [i]<\/strong> as they promise, who is more likely to veto it \u2013 Romney or Obama?\u00a0 For that matter, we already know that Obama has sought gun controls under the table by supporting U.N. negotiations for a treaty that would regulate and restrict private firearm ownership.\u00a0 President Obama is\u00a0more hostile<\/a> to our rights to arms ownership and to self defense than any other president in history.\u00a0 Romney\u2019s record in Massachusetts was poor; he signed a state version of the AWB.\u00a0 But unlike Obama, he has not argued in favor of banning all private ownership of handguns, all private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, civilian concealed carry permits, and outlawing self-defense.\u00a0 As his base is generally very strongly opposed to an AWB, it is hard to believe he would betray them on this hot-button issue.<\/p>\n

Again, it\u2019s not that the Republicans are libertarian \u2013 they are far from it.\u00a0 It is rather that the Democratic Party has gone so far to the left that they are the greater threat to liberty.\u00a0 They would willingly destroy both the First and Second Amendments.\u00a0 They\u2019ve sponsored legislation to do it.\u00a0 Without these two amendments it\u2019s hard to see what checks at all we\u2019d have on government.\u00a0 It is the Democrats\u2019 progressive vision that is the greater threat to liberty currently.\u00a0 Romney might be a weak reed, but he\u2019s at least on the side that opposes this progressive vision, and a President Romney would be beholden to his more conservative, anti-big government constituency.<\/p>\n

2. Health-Care Reform:<\/strong>\u00a0 Here\u2019s a good application of my above argument.\u00a0 The PPACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) is a terribly flawed approach to health-care reform.\u00a0 It reduces, rather than increases, consumer choice.\u00a0 It increases, rather than reduces, government interference in the health-care sector.\u00a0 It will prove to be fiscally irresponsible and is likely to reduce the quality of health care.\u00a0 If the Republicans manage to hold both houses of Congress, they will almost certainly repeal it.\u00a0 (The Senate can do so even with a bare majority if Republicans are willing to end the filibuster, something legal scholars across the political spectrum have suggested is reasonable.)\u00a0 A President Obama would surely veto a repeal.\u00a0 A President Romney would sign it.<\/p>\n

This would likely be the only chance we will have to get rid of this bad legislation, for the longer it stays in place, the more firmly it will be entrenched, with more special interests defending it.\u00a0 On the other hand, if Republicans fail to repeal the bill, Romney would be far more likely to temper and slow the implementation of PPACA than Obama would.<\/p>\n

Mr. Stolyarov has suggested Mitt Romney would veto a repeal because of similarities between the PPACA and the Massachusetts reform, but this makes little sense for two reasons.\u00a0 First, the PPACA is much hated by the Republican base (for that matter the majority of Americans dislike it).\u00a0 A repeal would be extremely popular.\u00a0 It\u2019s simply incredible to think that a President Romney would defy his party and practically 100% of his supporters in order to save Barack Obama\u2019s hallmark program.\u00a0 I can\u2019t imagine anything else he could do that would make him more likely to lose the GOP nomination in 2016.<\/p>\n

Second, it\u2019s not clear that Romneycare and Obamacare really are the same thing, despite a similar basic framework.\u00a0 The Massachusetts bill signed by Romney was\u00a0different from that<\/a> which was implemented.\u00a0 Romney used his line item veto on a number of the more draconian parts of the bill.\u00a0 The Democratic legislature overrode these vetoes, and the bill was implemented by a Democratic governor who further altered it.\u00a0 Furthermore, at the time Romney signed the bill, the situation in Massachusetts insurance markets was far worse than perhaps anywhere else in the United States.\u00a0 In this context, Romneycare \u2013 at least Romney\u2019s<\/em> version of it \u2013 was arguably an improvement over the status quo in Massachusetts<\/em>.\u00a0 Thus when Romney argues that the reform might have been right for Massachusetts but not for America in general, he\u2019s not necessarily being disingenuous.\u00a0 In short, it\u2019s hard to believe that Romney is not key to any chance of repealing the PPACA and not superior to Obama on health-care reform.<\/p>\n

3. Supreme Court Appointments:<\/strong> The next president will likely make as many as three appointments to the Supreme Court.\u00a0 Whoever is president in the next four years will very likely have the chance to change fundamentally the makeup of the Supreme Court.\u00a0 This might be the single most important reason for preferring Romney to Obama.<\/p>\n

Obama and his party are closely associated with the new\u00a0\u201cdemocratic constitutionalism\u201d<\/a> movement in legal theory.\u00a0 This movement seeks to\u00a0\u201ctake back\u201d the Constitution<\/a> from \u201cconservatives\u201d and make it once again a \u201cliving\u201d document, i.e. one without fixed meaning, permitting progressive politicians and judges to interpret it however they wish to favor their political agendas.\u00a0 One common doctrine in this thinking is that the distinction between negative rights and \u201cpositive\u201d rights is essentially meaningless, and one person\u2019s \u201cright\u201d (to health care, housing, and whatnot) creates a similar obligation on others to provide it.\u00a0 It\u2019s unclear to me what sort of society would result from consistent application of this doctrine that replaces genuine rights with entitlements, but it would not be a free society, nor would it have a functioning economy.<\/p>\n

Conversely, there\u2019s also been a new interest in federalism in legal thought (it\u2019s to this that the democratic constitutionalists are reacting) which favors strict Constitutional interpretation, separation of powers, strict limits on governmental powers, and the idea that individual rights are imprescriptable, rather than gifts from the state.\u00a0 The movement has both conservative and libertarian aspects, and is in many respects libertarian.\u00a0 Needless to say, Republicans are more closely associated with this movement than are Democrats.<\/p>\n

If Obama selects nominees for the Supreme Court, it is likely that we\u2019ll have justices who are in line with \u201cdemocratic constitutionalism,\u201d and with the notion that our Constititutional rights should not be considered \u201cabsolute\u201d sense, but rather\u00a0subject to international norms<\/a>.\u00a0 Romney is unlikely to draw from this crowd, and far more likely to draw from judges with at least some sympathy for the new federalism.<\/p>\n

Ilya Somin<\/a> of Volokh Conspiracy<\/em> is worth quoting at length on this issue: \u201cRepublican judges are far from uniformly good on libertarian issues. But the Democratic ones are overwhelmingly bad. Moreover, cases such as Kelo<\/em> and the individual mandate decision have sensitized conservatives to the importance of appointing judges committed to federalism and property rights. That reduces the chance that future GOP nominees will waffle on these issues, as some past ones have.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201c[Also] the younger generation of conservative jurists and legal scholars have been significantly influenced by libertarian thought on many issues. This is far less true of their liberal equivalents. Whether you choose to blame liberals for this situation or libertarians, it\u2019s a crucial point. Other things equal, a party\u2019s judicial nominees tend to reflect the dominant schools of thought among its legal elites.\u201d<\/p>\n

On this issue, it\u2019s simply absurd to imagine that Obama and Romney are equal from a libertarian standpoint.\u00a0 They are not.\u00a0 Obama is far, far worse.<\/p>\n

4. Economic and Fiscal Issues:<\/strong> On economic issues, neither Romney nor Obama is very good from a free market perspective.\u00a0 But they are not equally bad.\u00a0 Obama has a much stronger preference for activist regulation, including environmental regulations, health care regulations, labor regulations, and financial regulation.\u00a0 Obama also is more likely to favor targeted subsidies to special interests \u2013 green energy for example.\u00a0 Conversely, Romney is more likely to rein in regulatory agencies such as EPA, and less likely to favor extensive regulation.\u00a0 Mr. Stolyarov suggests that Romney is anti-entrepreneur in practice, but it is small entrepreneurs who are most hurt by regulation. \u00a0Large established firms have teams of lawyers and accountants and frequently can benefit from gaming the rules; in practice, Obama is a greater threat to entrepreneurship.<\/p>\n

On fiscal issues, I think Romney is at least marginally better than Obama.\u00a0 Neither has any real plan<\/a> to actually reduce spending.\u00a0 But Romney and Ryan have been willing to put forward the idea that entitlement programs as they exist are unsustainable and must be radically restructured.\u00a0 Obama assures us this won\u2019t happen.\u00a0 Yet it will.\u00a0 Our entitlement programs are unsustainable and will be cut \u2013 it is simply a matter of whether we plan to make these cuts now, rationally, in such a way as to minimize economic disruption, or whether we wait until economic crisis forces the cuts, resulting in economic shock and great disruption.\u00a0 On this matter I give a slight edge to Romney\u2026 although if Obama is reelected and then begins following a more \u201cRepublicanlike\u201d path, it would not shock me \u2013 the unsustainability of entitlements is not in dispute, except in campaign rhetoric.<\/p>\n

On taxation, the fiscal crisis will almost certainly lead anyone in office to seek more revenues.\u00a0 Obama has stated a clear preference for increases in marginal rates on higher income earners, higher corporate taxes, and an increasing number of tax breaks, this last for purposes of social engineering (a.k.a. buying votes).\u00a0 Romney has endorsed a reduction in marginal rates and a broadening on the base by eliminating deductions and exemptions.\u00a0 The latter approach reduces the economic distortions of taxation and also returns it to the purpose of collecting revenue, rather than shaping citizens\u2019 behavior to match politicians\u2019 goals.\u00a0 Again, Romney is preferable to Obama on this issue.\u00a0 I fear it might already be too late for the United States to avert a sovereign debt crisis, and the record of politicians from both parties of fiscal responsibility is dismal.\u00a0 But the approach Romney has laid out it preferable to Obama\u2019s.<\/p>\n

So there it is.\u00a0 I am not a fan of Romney, nor of the Republican Party in general.\u00a0 But after looking at these four areas, I think it\u2019s clear that Romney is certainly the lesser of two evils compared to another four years of Barack Obama.\u00a0 It should also be clear why I think the current political situation is dangerous.\u00a0 Eight years of Bush \u201943 followed by four years of Obama have empowered the federal government and put us well on the road to an authoritarian \u201csoft despotism.\u201d\u00a0 If current political trends are not checked by some countering force, the near and medium future look rather bleak.\u00a0 If a Romney victory would simply slow the trend and thus buy time for countering forces to take effect, that would make Romney the lesser of two evils.\u00a0 With either candidate, the immediate political future will be a mess at best, but the mess will be much worse with Obama.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll close with three caveats.\u00a0 First, unless one votes in a swing district in a swing state, none of this matters anyway since one\u2019s vote does not matter.\u00a0 Second, it\u2019s been observed that sometimes a politician from political party A finds it easier to pursue party B\u2019s platform than politicians from party B do, because he faces little opposition from within his own party when he does.\u00a0 Perhaps a second-term Obama will do the opposite of what I suggest above.\u00a0 I have little reason to believe he would, but cannot rule it out.\u00a0 The same might occur with Romney, although I suspect his interest in a second term precludes this.\u00a0 Finally, Mr. Stolyarov notes that a vote for Gary Johnson \u201ccould be seen as a social statement, rather than a purely electoral one,\u201d and signal increasing support for libertarian ideas.\u00a0 In Part 1<\/a> I suggested that perhaps there is some merit in Mr. Stolyarov\u2019s \u201cstrategic argument,\u201d that voting for a third-party candidate who proves to be a spoiler might send a message to political parties; his \u201csocial statement\u201d argument further strengthens this case.\u00a0 (It is not clear, by the way, whose voters Gary Johnson \u201csteals;\u201d I know one erstwhile Obama supporter who is voting for Johnson as the only anti-war candidate.\u00a0 I understand some polls suggest this phenomenon may cost Obama Nevada.)\u00a0 Particularly given the shameful way the GOP treated Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and its more libertarian members, it certainly deserves a comeuppance.\u00a0 However, this seems to me an issue separate from whether Mitt Romney is the lesser evil.<\/p>\n

I could say more, but this is sufficient.\u00a0 I thank Mr. Stolyarov for the opportunity to make my case, and look forward to his responses.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

[i]<\/strong> In fact, there is no such thing as a \u201cgun show loophole.\u201d\u00a0 Firearms sales at gun shows are covered by the identical laws that cover sales elsewhere, including background checks for dealer sales.\u00a0 \u201cClosing the loophole\u201d is progressive-speak for making it illegal for citizens to buy, sell, or otherwise trade firearms with each other; only federally licensed gun dealers would have this right.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Dr. Charles N. Steele is the Herman and Suzanne Dettwiler Chair in Economics and Associate Professor at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan.\u00a0His research interests include economics of transition and institutional change, economics of uncertainty, and health economics. \u00a0He received his Ph.D. from New York University in 1997, and has subsequently taught economics at the graduate and undergraduate levels in China, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the United States. \u00a0He has also worked as a private consultant in insurance design and review.<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

Dr. Steele also maintains a blog, Unforeseen Contingencies<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Charles N. Steele October 17, 2012 Recommend this page. ****************************** In his article \u201cIs Mitt Romney Truly a \u2018Lesser Evil\u2019?\u201d, Gennady Stolyarov took issue with my contention that a Mitt Romney victory is preferable to another term for Barack Obama from a classical liberal standpoint.\u00a0 In\u00a0Part 1 I responded to Mr. Stolyarov\u2019s arguments concerning the moral responsibility one might bear in supporting a bad candidate over a much worse candidate, a \u201clesser evil.\u201d\u00a0 Here I make a case that Romney…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[76,1345,1336,1258,1482,616,28,69,1297,1481,362,84,40,703,1267,1256,30,59,74,73,29,65,1265,502,1346,1255,658,25,843,1344],"class_list":["post-638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","tag-barack-obama","tag-candidate","tag-charles-n-steele","tag-charles-steele","tag-citizens-united","tag-constitution","tag-democrat","tag-election","tag-first-amendment","tag-fiscal-policy","tag-free-speech","tag-freedom","tag-g-stolyarov-ii","tag-gary-johnson","tag-gop","tag-gun-control","tag-libertarian","tag-liberty","tag-mitt-romney","tag-president","tag-republican","tag-ron-paul","tag-second-amendment","tag-spending","tag-strategy","tag-supreme-court","tag-taxes","tag-united-states","tag-vote","tag-voting"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=638"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/638\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2070,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/638\/revisions\/2070"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}