{"id":661,"date":"2012-10-27T02:52:25","date_gmt":"2012-10-27T02:52:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/?p=661"},"modified":"2014-02-09T04:59:28","modified_gmt":"2014-02-09T04:59:28","slug":"two-evils-final-shot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/blog\/2012\/10\/two-evils-final-shot\/","title":{"rendered":"Lesser of Two Evils: A Final Shot – Article by Charles N. Steele"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"The<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Charles N. Steele
\n<\/big><\/big><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
October 26, 2012<\/big><\/span><\/div>\n
Recommend this page<\/a>.<\/strong><\/div>\n
******************************<\/div>\n
\n

Mr. Stolyarov has responded to my two<\/a>–part<\/a> essay on Mitt Romney as a lesser of two evils.\u00a0 Here I comment on his response .\u00a0 I don\u2019t want to rattle on endlessly, so this will be my final \u201cshot\u201d in the debate, unless Mr. Stolyarov asks for my response on specific questions.\u00a0 I am grateful to him for the opportunity to discuss these issues in this forum.\u00a0 I\u2019ve found it useful, and hope others have as well.<\/p>\n

Mr. Stolyarov\u2019s part 1, \u201cThe Imperative of Libertarian Rejection of the Two-Party Trap<\/a>,\u201d is a reply to my part 1 \u201cIs it Evil to Vote for a Lesser Evil?<\/a>\u201d in which I express doubt about his assertion that \u201cin casting one\u2019s vote\u201d [one earns a] \u201cshare of moral responsibility in what would transpire if one\u2019s candidate of choice (even half-hearted choice) gets elected.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019m suspicious of this \u201cmoral responsibility.\u201d My piece explores whether someone who votes for a candidate has moral responsibility, and if so, what is the nature of that responsibility.\u00a0 I take pains to keep it a general argument and avoid discussion of the 2012 election.\u00a0 Unfortunately Mr. Stolyarov doesn\u2019t really answer the questions I raise and instead addresses details of the current presidential candidates.\u00a0 To the extent he does mention the moral responsibility of a voter, he simply asserts it.\u00a0 At some points he asserts that a voter provides \u201cmoral sanction\u201d in voting for a candidate, but this is something I directly challenged.\u00a0 Elsewhere he claims to be a consequentialist, and that one bears responsibility only for contributing to actual harms.\u00a0 I think this conflicts with his \u201cmoral sanction\u201d argument.\u00a0 It also fails to explain how a non-swing voter who votes for a winning candidate shares any moral responsibility at all, since his vote didn\u2019t matter.\u00a0 In short, I don\u2019t think Mr. Stolyarov\u2019s \u201cImperative\u201d adequately addresses the philosophical issues I raised, and I remain skeptical of the \u201cmoral responsibility\u201d one allegedly bears in voting for a lesser evil.<\/p>\n

In part 2, \u201cWhy Mitt Romney Will Not Benefit Liberty<\/a>,\u201d Mr. Stolyarov really lets Mitt Romney have it (and does a good job of it).\u00a0 We agree in our dislike for Romney.\u00a0 I also share Mr. Stolyarov\u2019s disgust at Romney\u2019s unwillingness to attack Obama on important matters of principle.\u00a0 But the question at hand isn\u2019t \u201cIs Romney bad?\u201d but rather which candidate \u2013 Obama or Romney \u2013 is a lesser evil, or are they equally bad?\u00a0 I gave four areas of fundamental importance in which Romney easily surpasses Obama, in my view.\u00a0 \u00a0I don\u2019t think Mr. Stolyarov succeeds in showing that Romney and Obama are equivalent in these four areas.\u00a0 Allow me to revisit them.<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. General Vision
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Stolyarov discounts the differences between progressives and conservatives, and argues that conservative skepticism of government is a thing of the past.\u00a0 This can\u2019t be correct.\u00a0 The Tea Party phenomenon is explicitly an anti-big-government phenomenon.\u00a0 It was behind a crushing electoral blow to progressive and moderate Democrats and Republicans<\/em> in 2010.\u00a0 Regardless of any inconsistencies, confusions, or errors expressed by Tea Partiers, one can\u2019t sensibly argue the movement isn\u2019t exceedingly skeptical of government, often quite hostile to it.\u00a0 Conversely, one can\u2019t sensibly argue that progressives aren\u2019t overwhelmingly enamored of ever more government solutions to problems in almost every aspect of life.\u00a0 Mr. Stolyarov repeatedly refers to the Republican Party establishment.\u00a0 It\u2019s true that this \u201cestablishment\u201d hasn\u2019t welcomed the Tea Party, but the bulk of the support that exists for the GOP today is from people skeptical of big government, not people enamored of the Republican leadership.\u00a0 To miss this is to miss one of the most important political developments of the last ten years.<\/p>\n

Mr. Stolyarov missed my point about the \u201cPeoples Rights Amendment\u201d (PRA).\u00a0 The PRA isn\u2019t about campaign finance reform.\u00a0 It is about ending all<\/em> constitutional protections for all <\/em>rights of any<\/em> organization<\/a>: a business firm, a non-profit organization, a church, a labor union, a political party, anything.\u00a0 Among other things, it would mean that news organizations, publishers, internet service providers, YouTube, etc., would no longer be protected by any<\/em> part of the Bill of Rights, and certainly not by the First Amendment.\u00a0 Under PRA, Mr. Stolyarov will be free to stand on a soapbox in the city park and speak, but You Tube will have no legal protection if legislators decide to ban Stolyarov\u2019s videos.\u00a0 He\u2019ll be free to publish The Rational Argumentator<\/em> on a home printer, but his internet service provider will have no legal protection if legislators decide they disapprove of his essays.\u00a0 Democrats have actually introduced this totalitarian nonsense in the House, with the endorsement of Nancy Pelosi; it\u2019s not simply some pipe dream.\u00a0 They are promoting similar proposals at the state level.\u00a0 I cannot think of anything that Republicans are proposing that would so fundamentally change America\u2019s political system to enable totalitarianism.\u00a0 Regarding the examples Mr. Stolyarov provides (NSA, SOPA), I\u2019m unaware of how Obama and Romney (or Democrats and Republicans) differ.\u00a0 If Democrats aren\u2019t demonstrably systematically superior, then it can hardly be said that these are relevant.<\/p>\n

Regarding gun control, Mr. Stolyarov is simply misinformed.\u00a0 The fact that no new gun-control legislation has been passed is beside the point.\u00a0 The Obama administration has worked to undercut private firearm ownership, not through legislation but through regulation, subterfuge (\u201cFast and Furious,\u201d for example), and international negotiations (which are on hold pending the outcome of the election). And the proposals for a renewed assault-weapons ban (AWB) are more draconian than the Clinton version, not less.\u00a0 Proposed restrictions on ammunition sales, handgun ownership, semiautomatic weapons, etc., are more<\/em> restrictive than anything we\u2019ve previously suffered under, not less.\u00a0 And Heller<\/em> is not<\/em> settled law, if Obama is able to appoint one more progressive to the Supreme Court.\u00a0 Progressives would like to eliminate most privately owned firearms.\u00a0 Their attacks on the Castle Doctrine\/Stand Your Ground laws show that this hostility is directed at honest citizens and is not about crime prevention.<\/p>\n

My examples suggest that progressives are seriously working to eliminate the Bill of Rights.\u00a0 On the other hand, Mr. Stolyarov responds that he\u2019s<\/em> concerned about \u201cOccupy\u201d protesters being pepper-sprayed at UC Davis.\u00a0 I\u2019m uncertain what this event has to do with the Romney v. Obama choice, but he and I have very different definitions of \u201cpeaceful.\u201d\u00a0 My definition of peaceful does not include forcibly blocking public thoroughfares and occupying public spaces so that others cannot exercise their legitimate rights to use them.\u00a0 It\u2019s shameful that taxpayer money is now going to these \u201cvictims.\u201d\u00a0 But again, how does this indicate anything about the differences in the candidates or the issues I\u2019ve raised?\u00a0 I think it\u2019s irrelevant.<\/p>\n

2. Health-Care Reform<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Stolyarov is probably correct that for Romney and the Republican leadership think of the political base primarily as a means for winning elections.\u00a0 That\u2019s exactly why Romney wouldn\u2019t veto a PPACA repeal, were it presented to him.\u00a0 It\u2019s crazy to think he\u2019d veto it against the will of everyone in the GOP and then \u201crely on political amnesia\u201d to get him by in 2016.\u00a0 He\u2019d have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.<\/p>\n

I didn\u2019t discuss specifics of the PPACA, but I don\u2019t believe the mandate is the worst part.\u00a0 The mandate isn\u2019t a giveaway to insurance companies.\u00a0 Without a mandate, the requirement to sell insurance without regard for pre-existing conditions and without risk rating would trigger adverse selection that would eliminate private insurance almost overnight.\u00a0 Other bad parts of the law include the Independent Payments Advisory Board (IPAB), a component that has the potential to do great harm to American health care.\u00a0 But then, the PPACA is 2000-plus pages long; there\u2019s lots<\/em> of mischief in it.\u00a0 (The Romneycare bill was only 86 pages.)\u00a0 But this is all beside the point.\u00a0 The President does not have a line-item veto, so if a Republican Congress repeals PPACA, Romney cannot pick and choose which pieces to preserve.\u00a0 He\u2019ll sign and we\u2019ll be rid of it.\u00a0 There\u2019s no other way this can happen.<\/p>\n

3. Supreme Court Appointments<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Stolyarov sees a \u201cclash of interpretations [legal philosophies] as too many steps removed from the outcome of a Presidential election. To be sure, the President may appoint Supreme Court justices, but that is all. How the justices subsequently rule is out of the President\u2019s hands.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s true but completely irrelevant that how justices rule is out of the president\u2019s hands.\u00a0 From a libertarian standpoint, progressive legal theories are worse than libertarian legal theories, obviously.\u00a0 It\u2019s also obvious to those who study the matter closely that Romney is far<\/em> more likely<\/a> to appoint justices sympathetic to libertarian theories than is Obama.\u00a0 The two candidates are not even roughly similar in this regard.\u00a0 This alone is sufficient to make Romney the lesser evil, and is a place where he might well do positive good.\u00a0 Alternatively, if Obama appoints three Ginsburg clones, it will be a very dark day indeed.<\/p>\n

4. Economic and Fiscal Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019ll admit that this is the weakest part of my argument.\u00a0 But still, on environmental regulation, Obama is clearly worse.\u00a0 It even appears that\u00a0EPA may have put new energy regulations on hold<\/a> until after the election.\u00a0 It\u2019s very likely that an Obama victory will lead to much heavier regulation of one of the bright spots in our economy, the boom in hydrocarbon production.<\/p>\n

On fiscal policy, neither candidate (and neither party) has seriously grappled with America\u2019s looming sovereign-debt crisis.\u00a0 It\u2019s quite obvious, though, that Democrats would be much happier seeing government take a greater share of the economy in revenue than Republicans would \u2013 the recent battles over the debt ceiling are evidence of that.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve made two very distinct lines of argument in this exchange.\u00a0 Concerning the philosophical issues of a voter\u2019s moral responsibility, I think Mr. Stolyarov has largely talked past my arguments.\u00a0 In the end, I don\u2019t think a voter should worry about \u201cmoral responsibility.\u201d\u00a0 My advice to a libertarian voter: study the principles, issues, and candidates carefully, and then vote (or abstain) according to whatever you think will do the most to further liberty.\u00a0 Don\u2019t waste any additional effort contemplating the moral responsibility you\u2019ll allegedly bear.<\/p>\n

Concerning whether Mitt Romney is the lesser evil, Mr. Stolyarov provides lengthy critique of Romney, a case for voting for a libertarian alternative such as Gary Johnson, and blistering scorn for the Republican leadership and their treatment of Ron Paul\u2019s supporters.\u00a0 In each case, he does so eloquently.\u00a0 But these are tangential to the question at hand \u2013 is Mitt Romney the lesser of two evils?\u00a0 I think that I\u2019ve made a strong case that from a libertarian standpoint, Romney, bad as he is, is superior to Obama.\u00a0 In the end, we\u2019ll never know, of course.<\/p>\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<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Charles N. Steele October 26, 2012 Recommend this page. ****************************** Mr. Stolyarov has responded to my two–part essay on Mitt Romney as a lesser of two evils.\u00a0 Here I comment on his response .\u00a0 I don\u2019t want to rattle on endlessly, so this will be my final \u201cshot\u201d in the debate, unless Mr. Stolyarov asks for my response on specific questions.\u00a0 I am grateful to him for the opportunity to discuss these issues in this forum.\u00a0 I\u2019ve found it useful,…<\/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":[76,1345,1336,1258,1482,616,28,69,1487,1297,1481,362,84,40,703,1267,1256,30,59,74,1488,73,29,65,1265,502,1346,1255,658,25,843,1344],"class_list":["post-661","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-epa","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-peoples-rights-amendment","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\/661","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=661"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/661\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2068,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/661\/revisions\/2068"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}