|
VFR presidential poll
(Note: this entry has reached its maximum size, so further preferences/comments are being posted in a new entry. Updated vote totals will continue to be posted in this entry.)
Readers have sent not only their presidential preferences, but, by way of explaining them, excellent arguments on both sides of the main divide we face: whether or not to vote for the Republican ticket. While these comments clarify various issues, some of them—on both sides—are so compelling that they may also make the decision even harder for those of us who are still undecided.
See updated votes below. Below that are the comments. The longer comments have been placed at the end (the opposite principle from the Koran). As new shorter comments are posted, they will be placed just above where the longer comments start.
Vote
FINAL vote total November 1-2 midnight: 72
McCain 27
Total non-McCain 42
Baldwin 18
Barr 2
Obama 4
Keyes 1
Write-in vote
Tancredo 4
Ron Paul 1
Scott C. 1
Laura W. 1
Ronald Reagan 1
Ralph Nader 1
“Present” 1
Write-in, but undecided as to whom 3
Abstain 3
Undecided 3
Comments
Wade C. writes:
I plan to cast a write-in ballot, although I am not yet sure whose name I shall write in. As a resident of Texas, I don’t believe that the “Obama as existential threat” argument has any bearing on my vote. It might were I in a battleground state where my vote had any importance at a tactical level, but as McCain will win Texas, I view my vote as an opportunity to register disapproval for both nominees, without the risk that in doing so I am enabling an existential threat to become President of the United States. Perhaps I am splitting things too thin with this reasoning, but that’s my current intent.
I do not know how I would vote were I a resident of, say, Florida. I think that I would be quite torn, as are you.
Chris L. writes:
Chuck Baldwin. It’s time to stop trying to hold onto the scraps of traditionalism in the Republican party and start fresh.
Karl H. writes:
Intended Vote: Chuck Baldwin, Constitution party
Reasons: Immigration control (legal and illegal), preservation of American national identity (traditionalism), Christian values (especially life issues).
Ben W. writes:
Will vote for Obama because Obama is Obama and McCain is a fool.
Ben W. continues:
Previously I said I would vote for Obama and gave a comment. I would like to add to my first comment.
There is something genuine about Obama’s disingenuousness and something fake about McCain’s genuineness.
Ed S. writes:
I am voting for John McCain. He is imperfect, as his amnesty plan for illegal aliens clearly shows. John McCain is a weak candidate relative to Mitt Romney too, but he is still standing and Romney is not. The Republican presidential candidate is worthy of respect, though. He faithfully served in the Vietnam War and spent almost six years in brutal conditions as a prisoner of war. He also understands the importance of national security and a strong national defense. McCain’s VP selection of Sarah Palin was also an inspired choice.
My lukewarm vote for McCain is more a vote against Barack Obama than anything else. His economic policies are disastrous for our nation. His associations with Marxists, black nationalists and other associated losers is a clear and present danger to the this nation’s historically white, European roots. My parents fled Cuba because the cult of personality that enveloped Fidel Castro masked his evil, Marxist intentions. The Democrats will be slaughtering the Republicans in the Congressional races. Adding an unproven and shady character is a recipe for disaster.
Rachael S. writes:
Chuck Baldwin / Darrell Castle—Constitution Party.
Every time I have come up with a reason to vote for John McCain I find out something new he’s done that makes me loathe him more. A vote for McCain will just soften America up for more Obamas. Even if Obama is worse than we give him credit for we’re going to get someone like him eventually; now is better than later. (Sorry Sarah.)
Clark Coleman writes:
I will vote for McCain/Palin because (1) leftist advances in government programs and judicial appointments and decisions are never really undone by the GOP later, only slowed down or moderated; (2) the congressional balance of power tells me that Obama will succeed in not only his judicial appointments but at least in some significant part of his legislative agenda, whereas I thought that Kerry, Gore, Clinton, even Dukakis would be stymied by the GOP in Congress and not accomplish much besides their appointments; (3) I think that leftist media support and white race-guilt will combine to stifle opposition to Obama, contrary to the hoped-for conservative resistance that has been discussed.
Scott H. writes:
I’ll vote for Chuck Baldwin. He’s not perfect, but the platform of Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party comes the closest of any current candidate or political party to articulating my own desires for the country.
Mike Berman writes:
I plan to write-in Tom Tancredo. If New York were in play, I would have had to choose between pragmatism and my ideals. New York is not in play and I am, therefore, unconstrained in making the most moral choice.
David B. writes:
I voted for Chuck Baldwin. I could not vote for McCain, as I feel it would mean the same dance as we have had with Bush. As for what we would face with an Obama presidency, I just read something relevant.
Vdare is publishing a book by Steve Sailer titled, “America’s Half-Blood Prince,” a biography of Guess Who. It comes out in book form in November and Vdare has it on PDF. Peter Brimelow wrote the foreword which is online at Vdare.
Sailer thinks that Obama will be cautious in his first term and will only be radical after being reelected in 2012. Brimelow disagrees and writes, “I disagree. I think the contradictions that Steve has identified in his book will turn any Obama Presidency into a four-year O.J. Simpson trial and that the consequent melt-down will compare to the Chernobyi of the Carter Presidency in its destructive partisan effects.”
Brimelow concludes, “I can’t wait.” My own opinion is closer to Brimelow’s than to Sailer’s.
Mack writes:
I’m voting for Obama.
I live in Illinois so it really doesn’t matter how I vote.
Both parties are terrible.
I don’t think it’s particularly alarmist to be concerned about the potential short-term social consequences (read violence) if Obama were to lose.
I live in urban Chicago, not the suburbs (see #3).
Many of us differ in what the role of government should be. However, I think we can agree that whatever that may be, we want it to be done well. The Republican strategy has consistently been to fill government with ideologically loyal people that are incompetent at their jobs—ostensible to destroy the structures of the Great Society et. al. from within. I think this is emblematic of a party that does not deal in good faith.
A reader writes:
Ron Paul (write-in).
Laura W. writes:
To think of living in a sea of Obama-mania for eight years is depressing to no end. I worry that conservatives will become demoralized, not resurgent.
This is fretfulness and will pass. This is the time for a Democrat to win. Leftism will grow worse, more virulent and irrational if he does not win. Given his inclinations, McCain would be busy pacifying outraged leftists if he became president. I agree that the intense build-up of all this leftist hope must receive some kind of outlet, some form of release, or it will destroy more than we can imagine. I respect the decision of many to vote for McCain. I understand the disappointment they must have for conservatives who won’t vote for him. Nevertheless, a man who mounts such a weak defense for his party and its principles during many months of campaigning is not a worthy leader. I will not vote for him. I objected strongly to his choice of Palin, but this plays a relatively small part in the decision. There are larger objections.
By the way, I don’t believe voters who decline to support McCain would share in any blame for Obama’s eventual actions. If Obama is destructive, he and the people who supported him are responsible, not those of us who never voted for him and never supported him. It’s neurotic to take on guilt that isn’t justified. After next Tuesday, we can be free to work for the future.
I’ll vote for a write-in. I’m still mulling over who that will be.
LA replies:
It’s a given—a premise shared by everyone in this discussion—that McCain is not a worthy leader and does not deserve our vote. So the issue is not whether McCain deserves our vote, but whether his opponent would cause existential harm to the country that McCain would not cause
As for whether keeping the left out of power would only make their madness grow, I agree and have made that argument myself. But the growing madness of the (out-of-presidential-power) left does not add up to the existential harm to the country that many feel would be caused by a President Obama in alliance with a Democratic Congress. Let’s say that Obama is defeated, and the madness of the left grows, and that they eventually win a presidential election. When they win that future election, there will most likely not be in place the same elements of a perfect storm the prospect of which we are now facing: the first leftist and first nonwhite president in U.S. history whose entire background is outside the American mainstream, a filibuster proof Democratic leftist Senate, a huge Democratic House majority, a fanatic mass following, and so on. So it could be argued that we are facing a unique danger this year that we most likely will not face again. From which it would follow that one should vote for McCain.
But then see the comment by MGH down at the bottom of the thread. He says the economic crisis is going to get much worse, making it impossible for a President Obama to pass his statist programs, or if he gets them through, they will cause such harm that the American people will rise up in fury and cast him out of heaven, with all his host of rebel angels. So MGH’s logic is the opposite of what I just said. Instead of this being the worst possible time for a Democrat to win the presidency, it may be the best. MGH’s economic argument thus leads to the same conclusion as Laura’s argument.
I realize we can drive ourselves mad with these different speculative scenarios, as Anna says below. But it’s hard to avoid constructing scenarios, when we’re facing something so unprecedented and so outside the American experience (a leftist president) and so unknown (he has no record of governing, is not beholden to anyone, is a kind of stranger who just arrived in town, and no one really knows what he will do once in office). Talk about a perfect storm!
Sarah Z. writes:
I plan to vote for McCain, even though it will pain me to do so. I truly fear that the left could do irreparable harm with the support of the media and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. If the economy tanks, I cannot discount the possibility that they could manage a coup under the guise of protecting us from the evil corporations.
James P. writes:
Right now, much as I despise McCain, I’m inclined to vote for him anyway. He is bad but Obama is much worse. The comments in your “difficult decision” thread have already touched on many of the reasons Obama must be stopped (e.g. socialist, hates whites, enemy of the Constitution, etc.). I feel America will be changed fundamentally, and for the worse, if Obama wins. I hope that the optimistic scenario plays out if Obama wins (conservative resurgence, Obama stymied) but I am not confident enough that this will be the case that I’m not going to cast what I think will be the most effective “anti-Obama” vote.
LA replies:
Your last sentence is ambiguous.
James P. replies:
If I thought the frustration of Obama and the resurgence of conservatism were guaranteed after an Obama win, I would be less likely to vote for McCain. However, since these things are not guaranteed, and in view of the great harms Obama will likely cause, I am inclined to vote for McCain (the most effective anti-Obama vote).
Kristor writes:
McCain. I fear that Obama poses the same sort of existential threat to the entire American order that Hitler posed to the order of German society. It is possible that he would govern as a reconciler, it is possible that his worst excesses would be ameliorated by stiff opposition from an awakened Right. It is also possible that he would govern as a virtual dictator, with total control of both houses of Congress and thus of the Judiciary, and as the idol of a personality cult with millions of members, who control the press, the academy, the organs of government, and the arts. In that case, almost anything could happen; the normal limits could simply crumble, as they did for the Soviet system in 1989. As Bart Debie went to jail for political incorrectness, so could we go to jail. These things do happen. When the Fairness Doctrine is introduced for debate in the first month or two of an Obama administration, is there any room for doubt that its extension to the Internet will be considered? This may all be wildly improbable. I suppose it is. But it is an intolerable risk.
LA replies:
You’re tearing me, you’re tearing me.
Kristor replies:
I do not even mention the far more probable scenario that Obama would govern within the normal, “constitutional” limits to which we are accustomed, and enact insane economic policies that would plunge us into a decades long depression that would eviscerate American military power and leave us open to challenge from a resurgent China, and powerless to punish our Muslim foes in their own lands. Rome fell because of an economic crash (due to a pandemic) that decimated state revenues, so that the legions could no longer be maintained at their former strength. This prolonged the Byzantine war with Persia, exhausting both those empires. The opening thus created enabled the Arabians to take Syria, Africa, Iberia, and thus the waters and trade routes of the Western Mediterranean. That geo-political revolution destroyed commerce in Italy and Gaul, which in turn destroyed classical civilization in the West. The recovery took 500 years. If Obama crashes our economy, so that we lose our (very expensive) control of the seas, we are in big trouble.
Jeremy G. writes:
Undecided but probably will not vote for McCain. McCain puts us to sleep while we drift over the abyss. Obama brings us to life and makes us aware of our mortality.
James M2 writes:
I want Obama now because I don’t want him later.
Has there been any discussion of what an Obama of 2016/2020/2024 would be like? He is still relatively young. The whole Obama-mania thing and the amazing arc of his life up to the present makes me think it’s quite likely that he would run again if defeated. If there is to be any serious awakening of the conservative base, we need to take advantage of the young, inexperienced, and gaffe-prone Obama of the present. Obama of the future may be much more savvy, more conniving, more connected, and, perhaps, angry.
Without Obama ‘08, we still get:
- Eight more years of immigration, including untold numbers of Muslims and likely some sort of amnesty for illegals.
- Eight more years worth of liberally indoctrinated college graduates.
- Eight years of leftward somnambulance in the so-called conservative base.
- The very youngest of WWII veterans will be at or nearly 90 years old.
So it seems to me, from a demographic standpoint, that our only chance is Obama now, not later. I will not vote for him, out of principle. But I will not vote against him by voting McCain. For the moment I plan to abstain.
Harry Horse writes:
Chuck Baldwin
I cannot bring myself to vote for Barry, even though it might be in my interest. I am in agreement that McCain = death of organized conservatism.
Bradley H. writes:
I voted for Chuck Baldwin last week. I have voted in every presidential election since 1980, and this is the first in which I’ve voted for a third party candidate. Like others have said, I have simply grown tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. The only issue that gave me pause is the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Certainly McCain would be greatly preferable to Obama on that score, but in this instance the litany of McCain negatives and the liberalism of the Republicans in general trumped even that significant point for me.
Peter J. writes:
I am voting for Chuck Baldwin for President, and his running-mate Darrell Castle. I am doing this in spite of several important differences (particularly on tariffs and trade), since in the light of the current political climate, these differences seem minor.
These men have taken the only sane stance on the most important current issues. They deserve to be rewarded. Other candidates (Ward Connerly, Ron Paul) can be written in as symbolic support of their courage, but I see no reason to abandon the closest thing America has to a national conservative party. (The Constitution Party is the number three party, nationwide, in terms of registered members.)
Baldwin and Castle are wholehearted immigration reformers. They are unequivocally opposed to the Patriot Act. (On both of these positions they are better in my eyes than the Libertarian Party nominee, who has vacillated on them in the past.) These are the two most important issues of the day—they are the matters on which American freedom will live or die.
As someone who considers himself both liberal and conservative, I am shocked to find so many liberals and conservatives opposing me on BOTH issues—I rely on the conservatives to secure our borders and the liberals to be skeptical of claims that the state needs more police power. That was the essence of the liberal-conservative balance that helped America to grow and be safe before the New Deal. Today’s lack of balance is just more evidence that “mainstream liberals” and “mainstream conservatives” are anything but.
Missing from the Constitution Party platform is directly stated opposition to affirmative action, but they come out unapologetically against welfare, the draft, gun control, and the other iron shackles with which the Federal government unconstitutionally “improves our lives”. I have never run for office myself—what right do I have to ask for anything more?
I’m not a longtime poster, but if you’d like to post this that would be fine.
Mark J. writes:
I’ve changed my mind and will vote for McCain. He and Palin are awful. However I believe I will never have a chance to vote for a true conservative candidate in a major political party again, because for the Republicans to have a chance they have to appeal to a broader and broader spectrum of the shrinking proportion of the population that is white. They can never afford to be truly conservative; there will never be enough conservative whites in time to save the country as it is. So my votes from now until the coming civil war will be for the least bad realistic option. The Republicans offer the best available chance of doing at least a little to slow the collapse while my fellow whites wake up to what’s happening. I want to be able to say, in retrospect, that I cast a vote that did at least what I could, given the nature of the Democratic candidate. If the Dems were running a centrist, it would be different. Obama/Pelosi/Reid is just too dangerous.
Terry Morris writes:
I’ll vote in the other races, but will abstain in the presidential election. Mine is essentially a protest vote against the Republican candidate. I could never vote for an Obama under any circumstances, and would only consider voting for McCain if I lived in a swing state.
Emily B. writes:
I voted for McCain in Florida (early). I vote pro-life and I do believe Obama is an existential threat to this country. I’m beginning to wonder, however, if the Anglosphere is uniquely susceptible to multiculturalism/ being anti-Western AND not being able to resist taking liberalism to its logical conclusion, or undoing much damage. Especially America.
I hope, but I don’t expect much from McCain. Even if he was the most rock-ribbed conservative, I would still fear for this country because of the demographics of our young people, our future.
Donald W. writes:
I voted by mail a few days ago. I voted for McCain.
Scott C. writes:
I fully intend to vote against every incumbent and write myself in for President. At least I know I won’t lie to myself.
Kevin V. writes:
I have been following the discussion on voting intentions at your site very closely. Did you see the recent article in The Politico on media bias? (“Why McCain is Getting Hosed in the Press”). The authors of this piece present the reader with this chillingly marvelous bit of doublethink:
It is not our impression that many reporters are rooting for Obama personally. To the contrary, most colleagues on the trail we’ve spoken with seem to find him a distant and undefined figure. But he has benefited from the idea that negative attacks that in a normal campaign would be commonplace in this year would carry an out-of-bounds racial subtext. That’s why Obama’s long association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was basically a nonissue in the general election. [Emphasis added.]
Journalists’ hair-trigger racial sensitivity may have been misplaced, but it was not driven by an ideological tilt.
Blacks operate under a different set of rules than European-Americans in American life and politics—a fact which is quite openly noted here and dismissed as both obvious and necessary. [LA replies: Remarkable. They admit to covering up and downplaying Obama’s fatal flaws for an ideological reason, then deny that they have an ideological agenda. How can they do this? Because for them, avoiding “racism” is not an ideology, it’s simply identical with goodness itself. This is the very nature of liberalism, that it doesn’t see it itself as an ideology representing particular beliefs and interests, it sees itself as the good. Which means that, no matter what it does, no matter how many standards it violates, no matter what evil it causes, it cannot be criticized.]
What this means is that any conservative politics which does not place race front and center and squarely challenge this orthodoxy is completely doomed to failure since if it does not do so it will not even have an available rhetoric upon which to oppose the Black candidate. [LA replies: Exactly. For liberals, racial sensitivity, i.e., a massive bias in favor of nonwhites, is like the sea to a fish, the unseen medium in which everything takes place. Or it is the keystone of the liberal arch, the thing that holds the whole structure together. We can only challenge liberalism successfully by challenging its premises about racial equality and racial morality.]
That’s the bad news. The good news, of course, is that this fact also seals the doom of this particular political culture, since such “untouchability” is not likely to last, especially in a national context.
Given that no such conservative politics currently exists, I decided to vote for Baldwin of the Constitution Party since that party’s platform, while still insufficient by the test above, comes closest to that which is necessary.
Kelly F. writes:
I’m voting for John McCain/Sarah Palin.
This is my first time voting, I’m 18 years old, and not exactly conservative or traditionalist, but throughout the election coverage I’ve seen that Barack Obama is offering a kind of “change” this country could do without. Some years ago I read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, and ever since I’ve been proudly pro-capitalist. The idea that Obama and his supporters (who I have seen to be in general spiteful, irrational people, many of whom are shamelessly hateful) want to reduce America to a socialist country where the success of those willing to pave their own way would be punished, their rightful earnings handed out to those who haven’t done a thing, is not only frightening but just plain sickening. I don’t understand the socialist thought process. I don’t understand how confidently anyone can express entitlement to the livelihood of another human being, or how one person’s success could ever be considered responsible for another’s poverty. This is why I will not vote for Obama/Biden. They proudly stand for the morally wrong, and I still don’t know if they even realize it or not.
I said that many of Obama’s supporters are “shamelessly hateful,” and I feel I should defend that statement by mentioning that I’ve been verbally attacked on a number of occasions for my support of McCain and for my pro-capitalist ideals. Never mind that Obama supporters have unapologetically lynched a mannequin dressed like Palin. This election has caused me to lose whatever respect I may have had for young liberals.
Anna writes:
Can’t remember when I have spent so much time reading, listening, pondering and vacillating. No matter how many possible scenarios are conjured up to supposedly help, there is no way to predict the future. At best, you can only surmise some potential actions/reactions.
In the end I’m left with only what I know today. Sitting it out, or going with a third choice is, for me, not an option. So, it’s down to basics. With all I know today about each candidate, who do I believe will be closest to upholding the inaugural oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I’ll go with John McCain.
G. writes:
I wrote in Tom Tancredo because although McCain is better than Obama on most issues, he is worse on the most important issue of voter demographics. That is, McCain will give citizenship to the illegals, the RNC/GOP will support him, and conservative voters will be dominated forever. If conservatives can avoid this, we can at least in theory rollback any changes Obama makes.
Lawrence Auster writes:
I am undecided. However, while I previously had dismissed Baldwin and thought my choice was between a write-in and McCain, I find persuasive the arguments made by several commenters, especially Howard Sutherland, on behalf of the Constitution Party ticket. Though I think Baldwin must be half-crackpot as he’s calling for an investigation of the “questions” about what “really” happened on 9/11, the fact remains that the Constitution Party platform has many positions we can stand behind, and supporting them would be preferable to a legally meaningless (though perhaps symbolically very meaningful to the individual voter) write-in vote for Tom Tancredo, Chuck Martel, or whomever, votes that would not even be recorded by name beyond the district or county level. Votes for the Constitution Party, even if only a few hundred thousand, have a visibility and reality as a collective conservative expression of protest that write-in votes do not have. So the choice for me now seems to be between McCain and the Constitution Party.
[Note: Further down in the thread I retract my possible vote for Baldwin.]
Brandon F. writes:
I finally did it today after hearing news that today was the last day of early voting. I sucked it up and voted McCain. I’m not happy about it but I do believe that handing this election to the left in the Congress and the Executive was too much to handle.
Chris H. writes:
I will vote for McPalin. They are liberals but they don’t hang with weird people the way Obama bin Biden does.
Mark P. writes:
I will be voting for McCain. Though I completely agree with you that McCain is a disaster and that he will do great harm to conservatism and the Republican Party, I simply do not think that an Obama win will lead to the resurgent conservatism that you expect. It would be nice to think that but I don’t believe it will happen.
The reason why such expectations won’t be met is that Obama fully intends to attack the “feedback loop” of the political system. He wants to go after Talk Radio, censor the Internet, purge any dissenting view from the airwaves and make sure that only a sanitized view of Obama’s America is broadcast. How are conservatives going to awake to the black-on-white crime, the 4-year OJ trial, and other consciousness-raising events if we never hear about it because the opposition media has been shut down?
Granted, McCain may do the same thing, given that he is a liberal. But Obama must do it. The MSM fully expects a government bailout in exchange for their support of Obama. Obama must deliver by shutting down the media’s competition.
On other fronts, McCain’s war-mongering may be wasteful, but it has the silver-lining of maintaining the military-industrial-security complex. The MIS complex houses probably the largest number of white, red-state conservatives of any federal workforce. When civilian life has radically degenerated and the government looks to some institution to restore order, the MIS will be at the top of the list. War-mongering as welfare for these conservatives is Western Civilization’s insurance against utter collapse.
Social conservative issues are important, but they are a marker of being a decent person. From a strategic perspective, a pro-abortion/gay marriage stance is far more corrosive in liberal America than in conservative America. We have less to worry about than meets the eye. [LA replies: You’ve just said that Obama will shut down conservatism in America and turn us into an unfree country; and Obama is highly likely to be elected next Tuesday, meaning that we are about to lose everything. And then you say that we have less to worry about than meets the eye?]
James N. writes:
I’m voting for McCain. Your arguments against are forceful, but seem also perhaps a bit forced to me. As if you are trying to convince yourself that you are right. [LA replies: Maybe, but haven’t you noticed that I keep arguing against myself and have repeatedly offered arguments against the anti-McCainites?]
Obama has surrounded himself with communists of the worst sort. His entire spiritual milieu is that of the alienated ’50s leftist family from which he came. I know lots of people like him, and like his grandparents and mother—or at least I did, once.
The thought of turning America over to them is literally unthinkable. [LA replies: Then the unthinkable is very likely about to happen, regardless of what we say and how we vote. What will you do when the unthinkable happens (as it is very likely) five days from now? Then you may find my forced arguments about a silver lining more plausible.]
Zachary W. writes:
I’m voting for McCain.
I understand your arguments against him. One of the most powerful messages you hammer home here is that modern conservatism is really liberalism in disguise. Until conservatively-inclined Americans have that epiphany, and stop supporting pseudoconservatives, they’ll continue unwittingly to dig their own graves. But there’s got to be a better way to wake receptive people up than by giving a master of political jiu-jitsu control of the reins, backed by the most liberal Congress in history and by powerful anti-American forces (e.g. the media, billionaires, and academics). Moral conviction is the fundamental force behind successful historical movements, and the blank slate theory that gave moral heft to leftist movements throughout the 20th century is scientifically dead. The news is slowly trickling down to the population at large. Obama might be its last exponent. I prefer the idea of running out the clock. I remain optimistic that some form of traditionalist political philosophy can again carry the day, because it has the merit of being founded on truth. If wretched McCain can actually win this thing, it will totally take the wind out of the sails of liberalism. The media will be badly chagrinned. The centrist, tribal, and radical wings of the Democratic party might even begin to splinter apart, opening the door for a viable conservative Republican. And if blacks start rioting, making a mockery of the electoral process, the dangers of multiculturalism will be plain to see: good luck passing amnesty after that.
Sean R. writes:
I will vote for Chuck Baldwin, despite my misgivings about some of his positions, because he’s the only candidate who’s strong on immigration who is actually running this year. His stands that bother me, like his status as a 9/11 truther, are ultimately less important than immigration. When my grandchildren are my age they will not know or care about the 9/11 truthers, but they will be very much aware of the demographic fate of this country.
As you have already noted, a vote for the Constitution Party sends a message that Republicans like McCain are unacceptable and that our votes cannot be taken for granted, whereas a vote for Charles Martel or Ward Connerly (Steve Sailer’s write-in protest candidate) will be ignored. Non-voters will also be ignored. That’s why I choose Baldwin, despite his flaws. He’s the least bad candidate out there.
Sean R. continues:
Another thing I forgot to mention:
It’s true that McCain is better in many ways that Obama, but the trend under a McCain presidency will be toward a demographic profile which will guarantee the election of an Obama within a decade or so. McCain and Palin want to give amnesty to 12 million or more immigrants despite overwhelming evidence that they will vote Democrat, when McCain and Palin probably can’t win an election now. So, if Obama is an existential threat and McCain isn’t, that really just means that Obama is an existential threat and McCain is an existential threat with a short delay timer.
Frankly, I think we’re just going to have to deal with existential threats, regardless of who wins. In order to win elections, given that minorities are unlikely to be conservative in the same sense that we are, we have to convert white people to our side at a rate such that number of white converts exceeds the number of new minority voters just to keep the status quo. On top of that, we have to convert enough white people to become a majority to win elections. This becomes mathematically impossible around 2042, when the census bureau predicts that whites will become a minority. I just don’t see it happening, especially given that the young generation today is quite possibly the most liberal generation ever—the trend is going the other way. An Obama victory won’t do it either. Look at South Africa—they’re in much worse condition than we’ll probably ever be in, but most 1994-era South African liberals seem to remain liberal today.
I’m thinking more in terms of a becoming a diaspora in our own country. I know it sounds defeatist, but I just don’t see it playing out any other way. This is getting too far off topic, so I’ll end on that cheery note.
Jack S. writes:
I will vote for McCain for the following reasons. McCain is no conservative but Hussein is an existential threat to our way of life.
We are at a crossroads in American history much like that White South Africa faced in 1994. White South Africans believed the lies they were told and gave up white minority rule. Today, countless murders and horrific acts of violence later, they live in fear for their lives while planning their escape to Europe or Australia. Their recent history gives us a glimpse into our future if we vote for black minority rule on November 4.
Joseph C. writes:
As I noted before, my vote will go to Chuck Baldwin, imperfect as he is.
I agree that Obama will be a disaster, at best a rerun of Jimmy Carter and at worst a grave threat to the country. But every time I think of voting for Juan Gang of 14 McCain, I face a very unpleasant fact. To wit, we are hearing so many disconcerting things about Obama from the blogosphere, conservative pundits, investigative reporters, etc. But we are hearing none from McCain himself. In fact, McCain discouraged the North Carolina Republican party from running the Jeremiah Wright ad—showing he was less afraid of Obama then of what the press (his “base”)would say if he attacked Obama fairly.
It is bad enough that John McCain cannot make the case why he should be elected. He cannot even make a convincing case why Obama should not be elected. If America truly is fighting for her survival, then she should not be led by someone who obviously has no stomach for a fight. The fact that McCain would not even point out the truth about Obama shows me he is gutless. Maybe he wants to lose and help make history, in which case he is a traitor. Or maybe he would rather retain his self-righteousness than fight fire with fire, in which case he is worthless. Or maybe he really believes that Democrats have the country’s best interests at heart, but just have the wrong strategy, in which case he is demented.
McCain stand up to the terrorists? Please. He won’t even stand up to the Democrats and the media.
Hannon writes:
Oddly enough, I am essentially in total agreement with the first posted comment by Wade C. [Meaning write-in, undecided who for.]
Philip M. writes from Britain:
Perhaps after the election you can have a vote on which horseman of the apocalypse you would choose?
I’m going with Famine. ;)
LA replies:
Bloody limey. A lot of help you are.
Philip replies:
Well, if you’re going to be like that we’re taking our troops home.
Randy writes:
I voted for McCain. I have read so many excellent comments so I thought I would let this picture from American Patrol speak for me. In reality, it doesn’t matter who wins. Americans are just so many Eloi and the predators are circling. Once we rejected our Judeo-Christian tradition, we lost our soul. Has Europe learned anything from their recent past?
Andrew W. writes:
I’m abstaining. I refuse to participate in farcical elections where discussion of the only issues that matter is completely verboten.
Stephen Hopewell writes:
Tom Tancredo write-in. Unless I find an actual candidate on the write-in list who looks acceptable.
Rose H. writes:
I voted yesterday—for Chuck Baldwin. Sadly, the bifactional ruling party has rigged the system so that no others have a real chance. But at least I voted for someone who shares my principles.
M. Jose writes:
I am supporting Chuck Baldwin and Darrell L. Castle for President and Vice-President.
I don’t agree with everything they stand for, but they are for protecting our borders, ending American participation the war in the Middle East, and for ending the Federal Reserve, which are the three biggest issues of our time. Unlike Bob Barr, their party agrees with them on all three so supporting them will support an organization that believes in these things, not just a candidate.
Mike Berman writes:
You wrote:
I find persuasive the arguments made by several commenters, especially Howard Sutherland, on behalf of the Constitution Party ticket.
Peter J. wrote:
Baldwin and Castle are wholehearted immigration reformers. They are unequivocally opposed to the Patriot Act. (On both of these positions they are better in my eyes than the Libertarian Party nominee, who has vacillated on them in the past.) These are the two most important issues of the day—they are the matters on which American freedom will live or die.
Taking a stand against the Patriot Act is fine for anti-war libertarian types, but conservatives who are interested in self-preservation and a strong national defense should read Robert H. Bork’s defense of the Patriot Act.
LA replies:
Thanks to Mike Berman for focusing my attention on this.I had noticed in passing that point about opposition to the Patriot Act but had not taken it in.
In my view, the campaign against the Patriot Act, by both the anti-war left and the anti-war right, has consisted of a lot of irresponsible hype and hysteria. Opponents have acted as though the Patriot Act were some threat to basic American liberties, when everything I’ve read on the subject shows (1) that it is nothing of the kind, and (2) that it has been an indispensable tool in protecting America from terrorists. It was one of the few things on which I’ve supported President Bush and for which he deserves credit.
And it gets even worse when Baldwin’s opposition to the Patriot Act is put together with his suggestion that there has been a cover up of how the World Trade Center was destroyed on 9/11. I take back my previous statement that I might vote for him.
That doesn’t change my status in this poll, as one of only two undecideds.
James W. writes:
I am writing in Laura W. for President.
For those voting McCain, I will share one day of happiness for victory and four years of mourning.
With Obama President, there will never be a blurred line as to where the enemy is, and over time even some liberals will wish to become Americans again.
This is not working.
Scott H. writes:
I think your commentator MGH has hit the nail on the head squarely. The financial pain that is coming, and for some is already here, will be the tipping point. MGH gives a very accurate summary.
Clark Coleman writes:
To explain further my vote for McCain: I am afraid that if McCain loses, whites all over America will riot in the streets, so I must cast a vote for McCain out of fear.
LA replies:
While Mr. Coleman was joking, and it’s a good one, he was actually using an argument that Ron Unz made seriously. About nine years ago Unz wrote a cover article for Commentary saying that mass Third World immigration into America is just great, there are no problems with it at all, except for one possible problem: that whites might start opposing it, releasing white bigotry.
Commentary really showed what side it was on with that one, didn’t they? They welcome the Mexicanization and Third-Worldization of America and the destruction of its culture, and they fear—they fear—that the European American majority will actually start to defend their country and culture.
If there’s any place where justice is meted out in a next world, I hope the neocons and all the open borders promoters pay dearly for their treason to this country.
Joe H. writes:
I just voted by early ballot and even though the Constitution Party is not on the ballot in Arizona, I wrote in Chuck Baldwin. His party is the closest to what I believe in, even though I am not opposed to the Patriot Act and think the 911 truthers are ridiculous. Every time I thought about voting for McCain because Obama is so awful, McCain would remind me just how bad he is. I think for a conservative to vote for him would be like a battered wife going back to her husband again because “he really loves me.” Anyway, I’m a Mormon, so I can’t get drunk and vote for McCain.
I fear for my country and only my faith in God keeps my the slightest bit optimistic that something good will happen eventually.
Evariste writes:
I early-voted for Obama. I decided my desire to punish the Republican party outweighed my fear of Obama’s potential to be an America destroyer. Both candidates are destroyers, so why vote for the one who’ll enjoy the total liberal acquiescence of both parties? I’d rather vote for the one who will be fiercely opposed by conservatives. I can’t take another 8 years of neocon worship and excuse-mongering. Unbelievably enough, I am confident that an Obama presidency is the only way we’ll get any conservative outcomes whatsoever in the next 4-8 years, other than more wars, which are the only thing that gets John McCain excited.
I’m also an election worker this year. I’ll be helping people vote from 6 AM till probably 9 or 10 PM on Tuesday. I wrote about choosing to volunteer to help with the election this year here and about my reasoning for voting for Obama this year here.
Evariste writes:
I’m genuinely surprised that none of your readers have mentioned that they are going to write in Geert Wilders. That’s what I would have done if I hadn’t voted for Obama.
Longer comments
Sebastian writes:
I wrote to you earlier endorsing McCain, but because I inadvertently included my last name and a comment about voting in Florida, you thought I was someone else, and so “Sebastian F” was born. I vote in FL because I own property down there and prefer to vote in the state in which it may matter. Anyhow, my statement must be a bit haphazard right now:
I am voting for McCain under the simple notion that better the devil we know than one we don’t. I believe Obama is a revolutionary who means to implement a radical agenda that would alter and subvert the very principles of this country’s founding, not just its demographic character. McCain’s liberalism is unprincipled, guided mostly by white guilt and, as Sarah Palin said in her acceptance speech, a certain empathy with the helpless he acquired during his captivity (don’t dismiss this). Whatever his flaws regarding immigration, McCain has earned a perfect zero from Planned Parenthood. His record on taxes, guns, judicial appointments and most social issues is solid. He has a blind spot on immigration, partly, no doubt, because of what he owes his wife’s family, who have a vested interest in selling cerveza. But that’s politics. McCain’s behavior as a young man in Vietnam did show tremendous character, and it has always bothered me a little that non-combatant, arm-chair commentators are so quick to dismiss it as irrelevant because of his many imperfections. He is not nothing.
Obama, on the other hand, so worries me that I set up a website a week before the election hoping to influence undecided voters. I’m also making phone calls to Floridians in the evening between reading legal briefs. Obama’s radicalism is very principled. He is an heir to the long march through the institutions; a genuine academic Marxist who seems to have no normal, pro-American people in his background. He is a child of Black Liberation Theology; a friend of anti-Semites like Edward Said and other academics who justify terror. The record is too long to list and you’re familiar with it. Obama’s notions of “social justice” could do away with the hard-earned principle of equality before the law and basic tenants of 18th century liberalism like property rights, individual (negative) liberty, checks and balances—the Constitution: all the niceties that would get in the way of achieving “social justice.” The notion that seven years after 9/11 conservatives would prefer to elect an unknown messiah figure named Barack Hussein Obama, a man with ties to Kenyan politics, PLO figures, Weather Underground terrorists, socialists, black radicals, the most leftist voting record in the Senate, an abortion policy that would make Bill Clinton blush, all because the GOP candidate is imperfect strikes me as irresponsible and evinces a deep naiveté about politics and the human condition. There is no city of God available to us in this life. I could go on but I think I’ve made my point, if somewhat hazily.
Thanks again for the site.
Jake F. writes:
I’ve followed your discussion with deep interest, since I’m in essentially your position: I can’t imagine doing less than everything possible to stop Obama, but I can’t imagine voting for McCain, either. After much deliberation, though, I’ve decided to write someone in. The compelling argument is the one you have made repeatedly: voting for the lesser of two evils motivates each to become more evil.
This really came home to me during the Kerry-Bush election. A homosexual man of my acquaintance claimed to be a Barry Goldwater Conservative and pro-life. He said that Bush would do nothing to prevent abortions, and that his policies would harm homosexuals, so he would “cast a vote for the living” and vote for Kerry.
I said that he is showing the Democrats that they can be as pro-abortion as they want, and that he would still vote for them.
No, he told me, he would vote for them and then write to President Kerry expressing his displeasure with their position on abortion.
I was aghast: it was clear that he was paying the Kerry campaign with the only currency that they understand, his vote, and that no amount of letter-writing would make a bit of difference.
So here we are. Do I fight Obama by voting for McCain? I just can’t do it. Republican party leaders will think that “mavericks”—Republicans who buck conservative ideas wherever they see them—are acceptable candidates. More: that they are the only candidates who can pick up some of the “moderate” vote (which will have moved to the left, of course). I will have paid them with the only currency they understand, and they will want more of it.
I can’t do it. I will not infest my house with snakes in order to control a rat problem. I will not be the old lady who swallowed the spider to catch the fly, because that leads to the bird, the cat, the dog, and ultimately the horse. She’s dead, of course.
P.S. This isn’t about race, by the way. (I wouldn’t mention this except for the fact that this is VFR.) The discussions at VFR have made me think a lot about race, and they helped me identify the fact that I was for many years wholly liberal about race. I don’t know if you recall this, but it’s here. I don’t think I am liberal about race anymore; however, we aren’t electing a race, or a representative of a race, but a particular man. If a high-caliber black conservative (I’m thinking of a man like Clarence Thomas) faced a lower-caliber white man then I would vote for the black conservative. Might that send signals to people about race that we don’t want? I don’t think so, because a man like Thomas doesn’t send that kind of signal.
LA replies:
Jake F. writes:
“I just can’t do it. Republican party leaders will think that “mavericks”—Republicans who buck conservative ideas wherever they see them—are acceptable candidates.”
That’s a powerful and principled argument. But there is an argument that may transcend it. That Obama may cause more damage to the country than McCain’s election would cause to conservatism.
Rick Darby writes:
First, I am profoundly grateful for both your own comments and those of many of your correspondents, trying to sort out how those of us who fall loosely under the rubric of traditionalist conservatism ought to vote. The discussion has been one of the few comforting things about this election for me: seeing how responsibly and thoughtfully many of your readers are trying to grapple with the “agonizingly difficult decision.” You have amassed an audience you can be proud of.
I’ve struggled to consider the situation rationally and strategically rather than (only) emotionally. Tough, because as you and many others have discovered, reasonable arguments often seem to cancel out one another.
Voting for Obama is out of the question, so it comes down to voting for McCain or for a somewhat more attractive third party or write-in candidate. (I put off studying Chuck Baldwin’s positions, then when I finally did, found myself lukewarm; see this.
In practical terms, voting for a write-in/third party candidate is a vote against McCain and “for” Obama (just writing that last phrase brings up something approaching nausea). I do, incidentally, live in a state that I believe is in play.
I’ve tried to boil it down to best case scenario versus worst case scenario for each option, sort of like Pascal’s famous wager.
“FOR” McCAIN
Worst case scenario: “Wet” conservatives think they’ve “won,” continue in their coma as McCain works with Democrats and docile Republicans to shepherd the country into multi-cultural balkanization and dhimmitude. In an international crisis, McCain will probably make better decisions than Obama would have.
Best case scenario: McCain is a doofus, largely ineffective at nation demolition. Some event and/or increasing awareness stimulates a true conservative revival. McCain regime is something of a non-event that gives the conservative revival an incubation period. In an international crisis, McCain will probably make better decisions than Obama would have.
“FOR” OBAMA
Worst case scenario: Obama’s pathological wizardry triumphs. He has his hands on too many levers of power, too much patronage, too many nominations for judicial and executive posts for any stirred-up rebellion to overcome. Conservatives give up, turn into apathetic, Britain-style grumblers.
Best case scenario: Even “moderate” conservatives suddenly feel Pearl Harbored, realize that they really could lose it all permanently, and counterattack. Obama’s self-absorption and national political inexperience take their toll. He overreaches, makes mistakes that no amount of glibness can balance out.
The odds for any of these scenarios (or something in between) are incalculable. They turn on too many factors, many unpredictable.
Conclusion: Despite my strong distaste for a McCain vote, the Obama worst case would mean the end of almost everything that I hold most valuable in my country. That might not come to pass, but if it did, I could never forgive myself for possibly contributing to it.
I am voting for (ugh) McCain.
This is more than you asked for. Sorry about banging on so long.
Howard Sutherland writes:
I will vote for the Constitution Party candidate, even though I have two reservations about Chuck Baldwin. The first is that he calls himself Chuck while running for president—there is nothing wrong with Charles and we haven’t done so well with presidents who insisted on using nicknames in office. The second is that he personally does not emphasize enough the need substantially to reduce or, better yet, end legal immigration (unless I have missed it), although he is very strong about the need to eliminate illegal invasion. The Constitution Party’s platform is sound, however. Among the statements in the Immigration plank are these:
We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration. [I would prefer the moratorium not be linked to other issues, but this is infinitely better than any other party’s platform.]
We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country.
We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion. [Emphases mine throughout.]
The rest of the plank is equally solid, as is the party platform overall. It is firmly founded on the U.S. Constitution, and cites it (not Supreme Court misinterpretations of it) throughout. Here is a candidate in this election I can support with conviction and a clear conscience, so I’m going to vote for him even though I know he has no chance of winning.
A strong showing by a right-wing third party candidate—one can debate, of course, what makes a strong showing—sends a message an anti-McCain/GOP Establishment vote for Obama does not. A vote for Baldwin says the voter opposes Obama and McCain, and opposes both from the Right. The GOP cannot use Baldwin votes as an excuse to move Left.
Any vote for Obama can be spun as support for rapidly accelerating the country’s destruction by multicultural leftism—no matter who casts it. The Republican Party will use an Obama victory as an excuse to keep moving Left, to keep up with the zeitgeist (unless somehow the GOP Establishment is broken by defeat). The Democratic Party will use an Obama victory as an excuse to run amok in triumphant and irresponsible Leftism.
Any vote for McCain can be spun as support for less-rapidly accelerating the country’s destruction by multicultural leftism—no matter who casts it. The Republican Party will use a McCain victory as an excuse to keep moving Left, following the lead of John McCain and George W. Bush. The Democratic Party will use a McCain victory as an excuse to run amok in violent and irresponsible Leftist protest of white America’s incorrigible racism.
So I don’t see how voting for either big party candidate serves any traditionalist purpose, even if the prospect of an Obama presidency raises the specter of an existential threat to America. I know Mr. Auster discounts this point, but in any event in my state an Obama victory is such a foregone conclusion, thanks to minority, immigrant (most minorities themselves) and liberal-laden cities and suburbs, that a vote for McCain would do nothing more than burden my conscience.
Each big party candidate has many positions on vital issues that preclude my voting for him. I’ll name only the two most important for each; rest assured there are several others. In many cases, the most offensive positions are ones where Obama and McCain basically agree. I cannot vote for Obama because of his stance on life issues and his support of affirmative action—period. I cannot vote for McCain because of his stance on immigration and border security and his reckless interventionism—period. Even if I thought a candidate was perfect on everything else—I don’t—those are deal-breakers.
The only big party presidential candidate I have ever voted for is Ronald Reagan, twice. In 1976 and 1988 through 2000, I pulled the GOP lever against the Democrat each time, with decreasing enthusiasm for the Republican every time. I finally broke myself of that habit in 2004. 2008 offers no reason to revert. HRS
MGH writes:
I will not vote for McCain. I would vote Constitution party, but Baldwin is not on the ballot here in Arizona, so I will vote for Bob Barr-Libertarian, and against all other incumbents.
You wrote:
“The main thing my instinct is telling me is (as I’ve been saying all along) that it’s better that the left manifest itself fully now, that we have it out with the left now, rather than having a president who will suppress all opposition to the left—a president whose highest mission in his political life has been to suppress conservative opposition to the left.”
I agree. Please do not underestimate the impact of the economic catastrophe which awaits the next administration. Obama is selling the idea that his socialist proposals will reverse the economic decline and restore the bubble years, all at no cost to the “95 percent of working Americans” that will get a government handout from the evil rich. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
As Ludwig von Mises, the great Austrian School economist, wrote in Human Action, “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion.” The U.S., along with the rest of the world, has indulged in the greatest credit bubble in history, allowing average Americans to enjoy a standard of living vastly above that which would be possible based on the actual structure of production in our economy. In other words, we have borrowed from the future to consume, the bills are now coming due, and we as an economy cannot pay.
There is nothing Obama or McCain or anyone else can do to avoid the severe economic trauma and decline which will occur over the next several years. Markets are bigger than governments, as Paulson and Bernanke are finding out, with the Dow down 25 percent since the bailout of Bear Stearns in March 2008, mortgage rates and foreclosures up and the new crises unfolding on a daily basis.
All of Obama’s economic promises and plans will only make matters worse. But I also think that the entire leftist agenda will not be fully or irreversibly implemented, because the force of opposition will rise as the failure of the first batch of policies becomes clear.
First of all, Obama has not demonstrated the ability, the aptitude or the inclination to do the actual work of devising and achieving passage of any legislation, despite having spent his career in politics. As Sarah Palin says, “He’s written two autobiographies, but not one piece of legislation.” He will be elected President, not Dictator. In the face of determined opposition from the populace, his personal “charisma” will not be enough to persuade House members to risk their careers for him.
Secondly, Obama’s has proposed about $4.3 trillion in new government spending, which cannot be financed through increased taxation, as described in Alan Reynolds’ Oct. 24 article in the Wall Street Journal, “How’s Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?”
[ … ]
This cycle of debt and delusion will run its course, and the economy will continue on a downward spiral at least until 2012, according the experts I respect. That is why it’s better that the full leftist agenda of “change” be applied now, because it will be an utter, complete and disastrous failure. The Democrats who so gleefully revel in their full control of the government will bear the full blame for the catastrophe. They believe that that are coming in at a bottom, and Obama will be the new Roosevelt. They do not know that they are coming in very close to the top, and that Obama will actually be the new Hoover. Even the most obtuse voters will see that they have been betrayed, and that the rage and fury of the American people will know no bounds. As I have said to you before, only severe economic pain will cause the American people to wake up and reject what unbridled liberalism has wrought. Once that has occurred, I believe the essential truth of traditionalist ideas will be accepted and acted upon by large numbers of opinion makers in America, just in time for the 2012 election and subsequent economic recovery.
Thanks for all of you do.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 30, 2008 07:38 PM | Send
|