Dr. Leonard Peikoff recently weighed in on the upcoming November election. He brilliantly outlines the trade off voters will face contrasting Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. As far as Dr. Peikoff is concerned, Obama is in essence a destroyer for the sake of destruction, a nihilist, the first such to become President. The object to be destroyed is America.
If he wins a second term, like Dr. Peikoff points out, Barack Obama is probably going to come fully out of the closet and finish the job of destroying the United States. The crippling taxes not only from the Democrat’s health care plan but also his refusal to approve the Bush tax cuts along with an anti-energy policy are a few of the things we can expect from a second term. Dr. Peikoff’s biggest fear, however, is the Obama’s usage of Executive Orders. Instead of working through or with the Congress (as required by the Constitution), the President opts to rule like a monarch by decreeing things to be so such as his recent declaration on so-called Green energy industries despite the failure of companies like Solyndra and First Solar.
Dr. Peikoff’s assessment of Mitt Romney is:
Romney by contrast is not moved by passion, of any kind, good or evil. He seems to hold no political convictions, to be a textbook example of a “moderate” Republican—pragmatic, appeasing, directionless, and therefore following along in the wake of the Establishment consensus. So he too would move the country in the direction of ever-increasing statism, as Republican administrations have always done. (While I approve of the selection of Ryan, I do not believe that an isolated subordinate can change the nature or results of an administration.)
Obama, on the other hand is not stumbling, but racing to his goal to destroy the United States. It has been a dream of the nihilistic left to destroy the United States and all of Western civilization. Yet they remain silent on what will replace it. I suspect it will be, as Marx termed, the dictatorship of the proletariat where the working class has control of political power. The best example of this Marxist utopian vision is in the movie The Dark Knight Rises where Bane and his henchmen capture an island in Gotham City in which the people are whipped into a frenzy where they literally rip wealthy people out of their homes while beating or robbing them. Bane’s supporters later loot and pillage all of the residences and businesses. In Marxism, man’s mind is the property of the collective and no one owns their own ideas, mind or even his or her life. The scenes in The Dark Knight Rises as well as historical examples of places like Cambodia under the iron-fisted rule of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge along with the Occupy Wall Street movement are demonstrations of this morally bankrupt idea.
In his post, Dr Peikoff explicitly states:
I intend to vote for whatever Republicans are in my district running for the House and the Senate. Republican control of at least one of these bodies, however weakened they have become, is still some restraint on Obama if he wins.
While I plan on voting Republican mostly for the same reasons as Dr. Peikoff articulates, there is also the candidacy of former New Mexico Governor and Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson. Johnson originally started off as a Republican candidate for President but after being ignored by the media and Republican Party opted to run on the LP ticket instead. He took some notable stances while Governor of The Land of Enchantment. Not only did Johnson slash government spending but also came out in his second term for the decriminalization of marijuana. As a Republican candidate for President he continued his support for marijuana decriminalization, but also for keeping abortion legal and legalizing gay marriage too, respectfully.
One crucial thing, however, is that one cannot implicitly support Johnson without supporting the Libertarian Party and the moral and ethical subjectivism that comes along with much of its members. By its very existence, the Libertarian Party undermines not only the mission is was created to further but also subverts the basis of individual rights. Admittedly, not every member of the LP embraces moral or ethical subjectivism or even anarchism.
While the Republican Party is just as much a mess as the LP, it is the core constituents and conspiracy theory-oriented core fringe elements that make up the vast majority of Libertarians themselves. As author Ari Armstrong points out, the difference between the Republican Party and the LP is that GOP started off as an anti-slavery party which later morphed into a coalition organization electing candidates of diverse philosophies from Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.
Thus, as Armstrong correctly articulates, unlike the furtherance of a Libertarian candidate, the promotion of a Republican candidate does not entail the promotion of a corrupt ideology that does exist in the LP. He goes on to state that over time, libertarians could establish a sound philosophical basis in the Republican Party. This nearly came to fruition with the candidacy of Barry Goldwater and the fact that the economic wing of the Republican Party is presently at the forefront of leadership in the organization makes the Republican Party a place worth working within to promote liberty.
In general, Libertarians have little concept of what individual rights are and do not have a clear, consistent criteria as to what constitutes them including freedom or force. Some even go so far as to embrace semblances of utilitarianism or consequentialism in order to articulate their case for liberty. Their inherent subjectivism results in Libertarians rejecting any objective standards of morality since many believe morality is a subjective notion that requires minimal thought and can also be judged based on someone’s feelings. Their differences regarding abortion and intellectual property is also evidence that to most Libertarians there are no objective standards to make political or even personal decisions.
They are, however, united on the issue of foreign policy. Their revulsion for government explains why libertarians, like Ron Paul, continuously berate defensive efforts to halt terrorism and instead blame blowback resulting from U.S. foreign policy for Islamist terrorism. Despite the overwhelming evidence that America was the target of terrorists even before 9/11 and that war against non-Muslims is commanded explicitly or implicitly in Islam’s two holy texts (the Quran and Hadith) most still subscribe to a neo-Marxist, anti-colonialist idea regarding U.S. foreign policy ultimately grounded in their hatred of government.
Admittedly, there have been times when the U.S. government failed to act or was neglectful in its efforts to adequately defend the United States which resulted in emboldening Islamist regimes and terrorist groups. But that does not change the fact that Islamists are driven by religious commandments to make war with non-Muslims and establish a global Caliphate based on Sharia Law. Libertarians choose to remain ignorant of such facts, preferring instead to blame the U.S. government and the cultural imperialism of the West.
I realize that not all Libertarians (including Gary Johnson) are anarchists and reject quasi-colonialist notions including the conspiracy theory-oriented anarchist wing of the LP. However, by running on the LP ticket, Johnson’s good ideas are muddied with Party elements that are not only paranoid but border on insanity. Essentially, a good man like Gary Johnson and his great ideas are now marred by a political culture that tolerates anarchism along with ideas that ultimately blame America for Islamist attacks against us, and that includes moral and ethical subjectivism too.