Libertarians - Pinch Your Nose and Vote for Obama

21 posts / 0 new

Libertarians always disparage President Obama’s acceptance of Wall Street money as evidence that Democrats are just as invested in the corporate/government collusion game as the GOP.

Well, this time it may be different. From the following piece, from Yahoo Finance:

Quote Yahoo Finance:

“It's being called an "unheard of shift in party preference." A swing of support - and financial backing - that dwarfs anything seen in nearly a quarter of a century. According to the latest campaign finance analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets.org, a majority of the nation's top corporate donors have turned from blue to red, so to speak, and are now contributing more to Republicans than Democrats. That's the exact opposite of what they did in 2008, and as the Bloomberg points out, nowhere is the trend more pronounced than on Wall Street.”……..

…….“Given the low public opinion of banks and Wall Street right now, this may not be such a bad thing politically, but it all seems obvious. Whether it's being openly criticized by the President as "fat cats", endlessly re-regulated under the still evolving tome known as the Dodd-Frank act, or fined and prodded by the dubiously created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, none of these issues hardly suggest that the President has "got the back" of the financial industry.”

It’s clear if we want to have a chance of slowing and reversing the oppressive financialization of our economy, muting the influence of the big banks, and returning power to the middle class, Obama, warts and all, is probably the best answer. And even that is not a sure thing, but I’ll ask this question of our Libertarian friends here: If the antidote to the power of bankers is cutting government and spending, why are those bankers backing the candidate in Romney who is more likely to do that?

Sure, Obama’s not likely to shrink government or ‘entitlements”, he’s not likely to dramatically cut taxes, he’s not going to summarily deport Muslims, he’s probably not even going to show his college transcripts. But – a wastebasket vote for Ron Paul won’t change that either – and there won’t be any other way to stop the bankers once Milquetoast Mitt’s in the White House.

And even at this point, it’s kind of like being out of bullets and throwing the gun at them. But it's better than nothing.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/why-fat-cat-bankers-swinging-support-money-republicans-163022837.html

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

I would vote for Mickey Mouse before I would vote for Obama or Romney. The sheeple will never realize that they do have alternatives until they quit buying the lies of the two sides of the corporate party.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

Why bother voting at all Brookesmith? Your state may already have made your vote irrelevant, if it's not a swing state.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Given the state of our Presidential Elections, there are only a few states left where the threat not to vote for either matters. My "Blue" state keeps Obama away and we don't get the "swing state" ads this time. For which I thank my fellow Americans in the Swing States for their service. I get enough of the Ken Doll on the news, and having to watch these blatant lies beyond spin would be bad for my blood pressure.

All I ask of the haters of the duopoly is some sense of strategy and tactics in pursuing our political aims. I hope we can discern the difference between politics and moralizing. There are really good reasons for not accepting the duopoly; but emotional protests tend to have counter-productive results. We have to be willing to play chess and to see both long and short term. I appreciate how the short-term can short the long term by incremental delays. I want a movement to move the parties and see no hope for the opposite to happen. I also see no reason why it should be expected to work.

The problem is less the government than the lack of any democratic thinking in media drenched public opinion. What ought to be a populist revolt against Wall St. gets diverted into a defense of Corporate from "interfering government." The Tea Party defends corporate in populist disgust at what? Taxes and government regulation? After the Great Bankster Heist of 2008 and TARP, we still have "government" as the problem instead of corporate crooks. Nope, it is the enabling government that is the problem here, according to the New Populism, Libertarian Tea Party Style.

One's vote for Obama is not a pledge of fealty and pious devotion. It is what is left of the facade of democracy, but something the wealthy feel is worth spending a ton of money buying. If I thought that a vote for whatever Green or Socialist alternative would cause a frown of concern on Wall St., I would see the value. I think they will just laugh at our foolishness, and be correct if that is our idea of a radical rejection of the duopoly.

The point is simple: There are much more important places to go "third party" or "protest" than at the Presidential level. The action in the Green Party is down-ticket, not where the national spotlight and funding go to play. On that foundation, Progressive alternatives can be supported in a lot of places where the Right has become complacent. It takes movement and local party work. If we don't do it, we will not succeed no matter what we think of voting for or against Obama.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I've said this before, but I think in a different context: In the early 1990's a group of dissident Democrats in San Francisco defected to the Green Party, took over the Board of Supervisors, and created about a decade of vastly more honest government - even over the efforts of Willie Brown.

I'm making two points - 1. You do not reform any institution from the top. and 2. Reforming the bottom is more effective anyway.

doh1304's picture
doh1304
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 10:49 am

A better option

http://www.jillstein.org/

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote Brookesmith: ...I would vote for Mickey Mouse before I would vote for Obama or Romney. The sheeple will never realize that they do have alternatives until they quit buying the lies of the two sides of the corporate party.

You have to choose between Obama and Romney - those are the only candidates who have a realistic chance of winning.

Voting for another candidate is irrational since they will not win.

I would think voting for Obama would paralyze Washington and probably prevent a war with Iran. You would think Libertarians would want that. But, maybe you are rich and want to keep you little tax cut - who knows.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Libertarians know better.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

Not true or more of them would be elected to office..........Eh?

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am
Quote Dr. Econ:I would think voting for Obama would paralyze Washington and probably prevent a war with Iran. You would think Libertarians would want that.

Libertarians know better.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:I would think voting for Obama would paralyze Washington and probably prevent a war with Iran. You would think Libertarians would want that.

Libertarians know better.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

Because of the electoral college, your vote for president doesn't really count if you aren't in a swing state. Here in CA-a vote for Obama won't change anything. Maybe we could save money by just holding the presidential elections in swing states. After the election it will be shocking to see how much money was spent in the swing states. Pity all that campaign money isn't used for job creation other than political consultants who are getting a windfall out of the Super Pacs.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote Redwing:

A better option

http://www.jillstein.org/

Real Tea, Real Party.

A butter option included free.

The Stalk Market Report, August 10, 2012

A Green, President, The Real Tea Party, The Real Green Party

Vote Obama

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

The problem is that the 99% don't win with either Obama or Romney. The American political system is a closed system guided and financed by the monied. See Adelson.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

And as long as money is considered free speech the system will remain closed.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Brookesmith:
Quote Dr. Econ:I would think voting for Obama would paralyze Washington and probably prevent a war with Iran. You would think Libertarians would want that.

Libertarians know better.

You just can't explain it.

More proof of the didactic insanity of the Libertarian mind.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DynoDon:

The problem is that the 99% don't win with either Obama or Romney. The American political system is a closed system guided and financed by the monied. See Adelson.

I would think voting for Obama would paralyze Washington and probably prevent a war with Iran. You would think Libertarians would want that.

Oh wait, I just said that! Funny how you say things and people can't respond to them.

What about this. War, death and destruction with Iran - more probable with Romney than Obama.

How in the hell is that not winning something?

Look I'm not telling you to work for your best candidate, organization or cause. Do that. But when it comes time to vote, vote for the best candidate who has a reasonable chance at winning.

Anything else is insane.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Look I'm not telling you to work for your best candidate, organization or cause. Do that. But when it comes time to vote, vote for the best candidate who has a reasonable chance at winning.

Anything else is insane.[/quote]

To vote for a candidate that one disagrees with, and detests everything he represents, just because he has a "reasonable chance at winning" would be insane, IMO. The sheeple may have awaken, at least in my area. So far in the primaries and runoffs up to the general election, incumbents have been booted out of office from county commissioners to the US Senate. I hope the trend spreads all over and we throw the all the incumbent bums out, including Obama. What we get might be another issue, but at least it will be different.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

So much for figuring out the quote tags...;^P

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:...Look I'm not telling you to work for your best candidate, organization or cause. Do that. But when it comes time to vote, vote for the best candidate who has a reasonable chance at winning. Anything else is insane.

Quote Brookesmith:To vote for a candidate that one disagrees with, and detests everything he represents, just because he has a "reasonable chance at winning" would be insane, IMO.

Perhaps rationality is a better word. A rational persons ways the costs and benefits of each action, and does the result which ever causes the less harm or produces the most benefit. To vote for a candidate who cannot win will likely mean the worse candidate will actually win, causing more harm and producing the less benefit. In this case, the probability of going to war with Iran is much higher with Romney than Obama, so I would urge a vote for Romney. Also, its probably better to have paralyzed Washington rather than a one party Washington.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Brookesmith:
Quote Dr. Econ:I would think voting for Obama would paralyze Washington and probably prevent a war with Iran. You would think Libertarians would want that.

Libertarians know better.

If libertarians understood their own roots, they'd reject Dems, Repugnants and the Libertarian Party. However, they don't. They don't comprehend that they are attempting to change the system while maintaining the very economic/private property use thinking that brought it about in the first place. Early libertarian thinkers didn't do that.

For one, they rejected capital as a source of income. The current batch glorifies it.

Wall Steet and the capital that churns it would have gone bye bye.

:Libertarians would do well to read the works of David Korten. He's way more in line with original libertarian thought than any libertarian I've come across. Ron Paul is a joke....a bad joke when compared to the founders of libertarian thought like Benjamin Tucker.

The current non-libertarian libertarians give libertarianism a bad rap just like the non-socialist Soviets gave socialism a bad rap..

Retired Monk - 'ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system