Libertarian columnist ponders the candidates, and ends up with …

A year ago, Ryan Sager, a libertarian who writes at the pro-Giuliani New York Post and the pro-Giuliani New York Sun, was on fire for Rudolph Giuliani, constantly arguing that Rudy’s personal record did not matter at all, that social conservatives would have no objections to Rudy, and that Rudy, Man of Steel, was the Inevitable One. Those heady days are long gone. By last April Sager was saying “Ick” (literally) at the spectacle of Rudy and Judi on the Barbara Walters program (where Rudy informed the nation he was “very, very comfortable” with the thought of his wife attending cabinet meetings), and a month later Sager was declaring the Giuliani campaign to be in “full meltdown.” By getting over his Rudy infatuation so quickly, Sager showed himself far more perceptive than the neocons, who were insisting right up to the end of 2007 that Giuliani was the overwhelming front runner. Long recovered from his earlier cockiness, Sager in his January 21 New York Post column contemplates the GOP field in the calm lights of mild philosophy. He doesn’t drink the McCain Kool-Aid, even though, given his libertarian leanings, you’d think he’d go for McCain, as the editors of National Review (the flagship magazine of American, uh, conservatism) have all but officially done. Instead, Sager over and over shows how unimpressive was McCain’s victory in South Carolina and points to his general weakness with the Republican base. He then continues:

Now, none of this means that McCain will lose. But it does mean that he’s eminently beatable if opposition to his candidacy coheres around a single opponent. With Huckabee having proven that he’s incapable of reaching beyond his Evangelical base, Thompson looking on the verge of dropping out and Giuliani on the ropes, Romney is the obvious one to play that role.

He concludes:

The question, then, is which of these two flawed candidates—whose flaws are in many ways mirror images of each other—can the Republican base unite behind? These voters aren’t sure Romney is really with them on abortion, gay marriage and immigration; his conversions are all too recent and convenient. But they’re quite sure McCain is not with them on campaign-speech regulation, global warming and demonizing the pharmaceutical companies.

It’s often said that you choose the devil you do know over the one you don’t. But to the Republican base, McCain has long had horns and hooves. Romney may yet convince them that he deserves a halo.

Though he expresses it, as journalists tend to do, in the form of a guess about what other people will decide rather than in the form of his personal opinion, it is clear that Sager, purely by a logical process of elimination, has decided that Romney is the GOP’s best choice.

Which is exactly what, going against all the prevailing wisdom, I said would happen in an article posted two days before the New Hampshire primary, entitled “How Romney can survive a loss in New Hampshire and win the nomination”:

Let’s say that McCain takes New Hampshire. By the conventional wisdom, Romney, having failed to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, would be finished.

There is, however, a fatal flaw in this theory which no one has yet noticed. The belief in the demise of Romney assumes that a candidate who is not Romney will win the nomination. But who will that candidate be? Who can that candidate be? All the other candidates have devastating flaws….

By contrast, Romney’s talents shine, and, while there are questionable things about him, ranging from his changes of political position to what some perceive as a lack of toughness, he has no disqualifying flaws. By any objective measure, he is far and away the best choice for the Republican nomination—and indeed the only plausible choice.

Ryan Sager, former Giuliani man, has come around to the Auster view of things.

- end of initial entry -

“Albert Nock” writes:

Even among nominal libertarians, McCain is not popular. He is a “national greatness conservative” who wants to expand the state and sees serving it (especially through war) as the highest calling. He has voted against tax-cuts and for campaign finance reform. Recently Volokh Conspiracy invited academics who consider themselves either libertarian or libertarian leaning to explain why they endorse various candidates. They could not find any who endorsed McCain. Reason editor Matt Welch wrote a book about McCain called “The Myth of the Maverick” ripping him apart. Libertarian-hater Jonathan Chait is a big McCainiac.

LA replies:

I wish people would read what I said instead of imagining that I said something that I did not say. I did not say that McCain is a libertarian. I said that a libertarian type like Ryan Sager would tend to favor the maverick anti-social conservative (except for abortion) McCain over regular conservatives, in the same way that Sager initially favored Giuliani, because he saw him as the man who would destroy social conservatism.

A reader writes:

It seems that for many professional “conservatives,” it’s really just who can be seen as the “front-runner” and seems at any moment to be the likeliest to win. All they want is to hold onto the White House and power by any means necessary and who cares about principles! So first it was Giuliani when he was leading in the polls and now it’s McCain since he seems to be leading in the polls!

James W. writes:

Hopefulness is not a characteristic you display here [at VFR?] in abundance. While ordinarily hope is a risk that must be run, hope is something that also misleads us, and unraveling the threads of past error is your business here if anything is.

So I am surprised to see so much hope in you over Romney. I understand very well we are only asking for a Republican President that will not be ruinous, so it is not that we expect too much. But I am not hopeful over Romney, for what I have read and heard from his supporters in the Nevada caucus does not give me reason: He is the can-do guy, the successful manager of large corporate turnarounds, and the man who can manage the federal behemoth.

Managed is exactly what we do not want. Making it work is as bad as it not working. Or is it worse?

He will at best only make our masters more effecient in what they are doing to us, and then pass off the reins to a liberal who knows how to whip that horse until it collapses, awaiting another conservative trainer to get him ready for the next lap. Burke—The parties are the gamesters, but government keeps the tables, and is sure to be the winner in the end.

LA replies:

Of all the arguments I’ve heard against Romney, this takes the cake. There is no hope in him and we must oppose him—because he is a can-do guy and a successful corporate leader, as well as a governor of a major state. Romney just can’t catch a break. I have never in my life seen so much undeserved hostility toward a politician as I’ve been seeing toward Romney. I don’t know what the explanation for it is. Some people tell me they think it’s envy of a man who has everything, intelligence, high abilities, success, looks, a great family, and a huge fortune that he earned. You could write a book about it.

In any case, I would not describe myself as hopeful about Romney. I’ve repeatedly expressed my doubts about him. But as I’ve also said, I’m impressed by his talents, and believe he’s the best and only acceptable candidate for the GOP nomination. What I will do in November is an open question.

Bud B. writes:

I’m with you all the way on Romney, the only viable candidate “representative of something reasonably like conservatism.” He gets my donations and vote. But, there are certain issues.

I worry about his immigration backbone softening to big business and his pandering to Hispanics.

I worry about his attachment to supranational organizations and the UN. Did you see Cliff Kincaid’s article on the UN-connected lobbyist in the Romney campaign?

Romney’s consulting experience could be a double edge sword in Washington. He could engineer the needed turnaround to halt the “liberal apocalypse”, but compromise on other important conservative issues such as smaller government and less spending.

I doubt Romney will be sitting down to tea with Osama bin Laden unless it’s in Osama’s jail cell. If Osama’s regret for the 9-11 events leads Osama to give himself up, maybe Mitt will have a chat. But, we might yet see GW Bush take Omar bin Laden’s bait and fly over for a chat, kiss a few Arab cheeks and another drink of the Muslim kool-aid. The trap being laid reminds me of Voltaire’s tragic play Mahomet.

Romney is a leader. I am surprised that Novak and crew don’t see that need. An organized and efficient rebuilding of Iraq, for example, should be right up Romney’s alley.

Romney’s duel on Meet the Press was very impressive. Russert threw several punches far below the belt and Romney responded very well. If you did not see it, try to find it and watch.

Voting for Reagan did not require a choice between the least of two evils, and so far, those were the only two times that choice has been available in my 58 years. I would feel better if Lawrence Auster were helping Mitt, then we might get to make another clear and positive vote.

McCain versus Obama, that would be a difficult choice between two evils. McCain makes Obama look conservative.

Arnold ‘Trojan Horse’ Schwarzenegger gets my vote as the all-time apocalyptic liberal. The man has no shame.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 22, 2008 11:47 AM | Send