Romney, War, and the Republican Base: Libertarians May Split
Foreign policy is scarcely on the media radar covering Romney. Yet it is liable to have very great effect upon most Americans in the next years. Domestic problems are so intractable with voters so divided and cutting spending so difficult that foreign wars may be seen as a way to unite Americans and calm domestic strife. They would confuse and postpone painful budget decisions as they did for George Bush’s first term. There’s a memorable line in Shakespeare, where a king is urged to have plenty of wars abroad in order to have tranquility at home.
We should be very wary of trusting Republicans again with the constitution in their hands. Republican laws to allow the President by himself to declare martial law, even for bad weather, see the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act’s gutting of the 4th Amendment about search and seizure, new laws voiding habeas corpus, allowing torture of American citizens and military arrest show the way America is headed. More foreign wars will mean more loss of Americans’ liberties. Allowing arrest of anyone for such vague a crime as “support for terrorists” is the easy first step to restricting freedom of speech. Yet these are the kinds of laws most Republican congressmen vote for, even without Bush and after 10 years without a terrorist attack, most recently in the National Defense Authorization Act. For many libertarians our freedoms will be safer with divided government—then each Party can restrain the other.
The most prosperity America had in recent years was during the 90’s with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. Admittedly Obama doesn’t have the smarts of Bill Clinton who moved to the center after winning election, Obama stayed on the Left. But his agenda of higher taxes, destructive regulations, support for government unions, and pandering to extreme environmentalists appears less dangerous to our freedoms than another war wanting Republican presidency, also controlling Congress. The worst aspects of Obama’s agenda can be blocked by a Republican congress and governors; our efforts as libertarians should be to focus on the congressional elections. A winning Romney would get America into new wars abroad that Democrats might then win the mid-term elections and the next presidency as well. He is very unlikely to instigate the real budget reforms (in defense, medicare and medicaid spending) where most of our trillion dollars deficit comes from.
Amazingly the anti-war, anti-interventionist vote, which helped bring Obama victory in 2008, is totally ignored by Romney and Republican congressional leaders. Half of Americans under 30 support Ron Paul’s views that America is simply incapable of “ruling the world,” that the greater likelihood is bankrupting ourselves. He was the largest Republican recipient of donations from soldiers overseas; yet Republican leaders have totally abandoned them.
It is incredible how Romney has brought back the old Bush gang, discredited neoconservatives and Washington empire wanters. His main adviser Dan Senor, was chief spokesman for Paul Bremer and the blundering military occupation in Iraq which dismissed Iraq’s whole civil service, all teachers and military/police infrastructure causing such chaos as to help instigate that nation’s destruction and civil war. Then it imposed an electoral system virtually designed to fail. Senor’s sister is the AIPAC representative in Israel.
It is widely reported that John Bolton will become his Secretary of State. Bolton was one of the worst propagandists for all of the lies leading up to the Iraq War. He is always urging war first as the solution to any foreign policy threat or dispute. He is known for his beliefs, reported by James Lucier, Jesse Helms former foreign policy staffer, that America should “not grant any validity to international law” because it will be “used by those who want to constrict the United States.” Think how contrary this is to America’s successful historic policy— “that it was in the U.S. interest to gain legitimacy by leading through the architecture of multilateral institutions.” The National Interest, Sept-Oct, 2012, “Romney’s Neocon Puzzle.”
One might argue that Romney is just pandering to the Republican “base,” mostly aging white males in the American heartland still steeped in cold war thinking and heavily influenced by evangelical Armageddonites agitating for religious war with the Muslim world. Others are hyped up by the War Party into panic about “Sharia law” taking over America or the hype that China is a new threat. Most are very ignorant and fearful of the outside world. Romney’s neocon staffing and his recent showing of such ignorance about Palestinians (saying they earn half the income of Israelis—actually it is 10%) show how easily he will be manipulated by Washington’s War Party intellectuals. He anyway believes, witness his threat to declare China a currency manipulator, that confrontation is the way to promote “American greatness.” He also declared (CBS Face the Nation) that he, as President, could start wars (e.g.with Iran) without any congressional vote or approval.
The National Interest’s writer, James Kitfield, ibid, in a long, thoughtful article, writes how the Bush Doctrine, which Romney wants to resurrect, was “a focus on coercion and regime change, preventative war and unilateral action masked by ad hoc ‘coalition of the willing.’ It led to a pronounced decline of trust in the quality of U.S. leadership. For perhaps the first time in the modern era, even close U.S. allies came to distrust American motives.” Kitfield reports on Romney’s accusation against Obama’s outreach to global constituencies as “a turning away from ‘American exceptionalism.’” He quotes former Bush 41’s adviser Brent Scowcroft’s commentary, “the decision (by Bush 43) to …..try to deal with those problems (terrorism and the empowerment of non-state actors) as a unilateral nation-state using traditional military power, is what brought America to the point of crisis.”
Admittedly Obama has adopted much of the same war policies which Republican leaders demand, in order to take away their issue. In a second term he might return to a more realistic foreign policy, although perhaps he really is a hawk. But it’s unlikely he would be as belligerent as the Republicans. The Democratic Left may have more restraining influence upon him than do realists and libertarian constitutionalists upon Republicans. One must also always factor in the business interests, think tanks and jobs which war spending supports and which lobby for continuing war threats.
On constitutional freedoms the candidates offer little choice. Reason’s Steve Chapman details in Obama & Romney vs. the Bill of Rights how both are a continuing threat to Americans’ freedoms. Similarly, Cato’s Gene Healy writes, “Do you prefer a candidate who’s flagrantly violated his promises not to violate the Constitution, or one who tells you right up front that he’ll probably commit the same abuses?”
In any case, Romney is losing ground. Ron Paul voters are largely disaffected, while Latins and other immigrants’ families won’t forget the tremendous calumny against immigrants during the primaries. Women are polled at least 16% favoring Obama. Wall Street Journal op-ed writer Charles Blow wrote in Wrong Track Romney (8/11/12), “he’s willing to say anything and embrace anyone to further his ambitions, which is as distasteful a character trait as they come.” He cites a Fox News poll showing that only 26% of Americans would be “extremely comfortable” or “somewhat comfortable” with Romney as President. In his nomination acceptance speech now he said in almost the same breath, “Obama’s trillion dollar deficits will slow our economy, restrain employment…..” and “his trillion dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs…..” The actual cut to military spending is $37 Billion under the sequestration plan voted for by Republicans when the debt ceiling was increased. The trillion he refers to would be the cuts if subsequent Congresses also voted for them.
There is a positive side to Romney losing. It might cause Republicans to reform the primary selection process which many good candidates with universal appeal choose to avoid. “The base” puts off proven candidates, who could win nationally, from even competing in the primaries. Four years from now it will be less powerful. Republicans will then be more able to choose a Rand Paul or one of the rising new governors as a unifying candidate. Now we should just work hard to get disaffected Libertarian voters to bother going to the polls to support freedom oriented Congressional candidates.
Read more by Jon Basil Utley
- Polling the Right Questions on Defense – Voters Get It Right – April 4th, 2012
- Call It the ‘Militarism Budget’ – March 14th, 2011
- J Street Offers Alternative to AIPAC – March 6th, 2011
- CPAC and the Wars – February 21st, 2010
- Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War – February 3rd, 2010
Chris Condon
September 24th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
An interesting article. If Romney is defeated, there are at least two advantages. First, it would permanently discredit the Republican Party establishment and open the way to a takeover of the Republican Party by new people. The Republican Party is anathema to minorities right now, but that could change if the Republican Party were taken over by forces advocating a more sensible foreign policy such as the Republicans used to at one time advocate. Secondly, a Romney defeat would make it impossible f or Democrats and others to shift the blame for Obama's disastrous economic policy. Democrats would have to take the blame themselves and it might well be the end of the Democratic Party if the current lousy economy goes on another four years. Some people fear what might happen if Obama had another four years, but given the fact that his coverup of his shady past is rapidly unraveling and all sorts of terrible things are now coming out, Obama could spend his entire second term on the ropes. It is entirely conceivable that he could resign not too far into his second term, assuming he gets one, and Biden would become president.
davidgrayling
September 24th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
The idea of Bolton becoming Secretary of State is hideous! It shows how dreadful Romney is. And Obama is no better.
From Australia, I watch the political contortions of both Obama and Romney with growing alarm. Are they the best that the U.S. has to offer American citizens and the world? If so, then God help us!
America has descended into farce. It is leading the world towards a nuclear holocaust. Is that what it meant by a 'Beacon on a Hill'?
Eric Dondero
September 25th, 2012 at 4:28 am
Romney's staffing is not "NeoCon"; It's Reaganite/Goldwaterian. NeoCons are soft on the War on Islamism. They want to buy off our Islamist enemies with tax dollars. They want to make friends with our enemies through diplomacy. They believe we can talk to our enemies, instead of bombing them into oblivion. They are in reality semi-peacenicks. Come to think of it, their means are different, but their ends are the same as the "no war at any cost" Ron Paulists.
Libertarians are the ones who oppose Islamism. We don't want our wives/girlfriends forced to wear ugly black burkas from head to toe, our gay friends hung from lampposts, booze and gambling outlawed, marijuana smokers jailed for life, and free speech banned.
It's a simple equation, though admittedly it doesn't fit the left-libertarian template:
Ron Paulists and NeoCons = Appeasement of Islamism
Libertarians = Fight back against the Islamists with everything we've got to preserve Western Civilization, Limited Government, and Personal Liberties
Eric Dondero
September 25th, 2012 at 4:35 am
BTW Mr. Utley, it's "Latinos" not Latins. I guess you're thinking a bunch of sword wielding guys in metal helmets from central Italy are going to rush to the polls for Obama, 'eh?
(Your ignorance on such a simple difference in terms like Latin and Latino, says a lot about your ignorant political philosophy, as well.)
richard vajs
September 25th, 2012 at 4:59 am
Eric Dondero -
"Appeasement of Islamism"? Are you serious?
For a start, I am not used to seeing Ron Paul and the NeoCons linked together regarding anything. The NeoCons are first and foremost Zionists, they act always to promote Israel, even at the cost to America – Ron Paul is more interested in America than in Israel.
The NeoCons are soft on the War on Islamism? Are you serious?
NeoCons, like the hideous Madelaine Albright, Charles Krauthammer, et al, hate Islamic countries to an extreme. They thought that killing Iraqi babies by embargoing medicine from pre-destroyed Iraqc was "worth the price". Presently they are not content to give Iran the same ghastly treatment preferring bombing raids.
Whatever group of Libertarians that share your racist, violent opinions, and Islamaphobia has absolutely no place in my heart.
liberal
September 25th, 2012 at 5:26 am
"…Obama stayed on the Left…"
Hardly. The leftmost designation one could (correctly) apply to Obama would be "centrist".
JoaoAlfaiate
September 25th, 2012 at 5:37 am
I hope you are correct. But at their convention the Republicans made outsider challenges even more difficult. They made certain Ron Paul did not get a fair hearing. If the Republicans get whacked, and it sure is starting to look like they will, the Party may move even further right and wind up relying even more heavily on evangelical types.
JoaoAlfaiate
September 25th, 2012 at 5:41 am
"We don't want our wives/girlfriends forced to wear ugly black burkas from head to toe" Been to a Walmart in Texas recently? Burkas might not be a bad idea, assuming they come in size XXX Large…
Chris Condon
September 25th, 2012 at 7:08 am
I find John Bolton a little puzzling. I heard him talk a year or two ago in Houston at a pro-life banquet. His speech was excellent. Yet on the topic of foreign policy he does not seem to make any sense. Why the inconsistency?
Outsider
September 25th, 2012 at 7:42 am
As a recovering Repugnican, my greatest hope is for Romney to be crushed so badly that the Repubs will have to totally reorganize and change their world domination thinking if they wish to survive. If they do indeed move further right and rely "even more heavily on evangelical types,' then they will get smaller and smaller. How they could continue to survive as one party is beyond me. The break up of the Repubs would, hopefully, be followed by a similar break up by the Dems. A country of over 300 million needs to have more than two voices controlling the agenda.
David762
September 25th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Thank you, John B. Utley for an excellent article on the sorry state of USA politics. It hardly matters if citizens rights are being trampled by a Neocon or a Socialist President — the results are the same. As far as I am concerned, both the Democrats and Republicans are equally under the thumb of the Israel-first lobby and are equally authoritarian — conditions not unrelated. Both parties acted like trained seals at a circus for the anointing of Netanyahu in that joint session of Congress as America's new caesar. It made me sick to watch only 2 minutes of such a sycophantic display by our supposed representatives.
The best thing that could happen to the American body politic is if both these parties were driven from office, permanently. A viable 3rd party could be created by uniting those existing 3rd parties that still respect the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional process. Such a result would take at least 6 years to clear this den of vipers out of the Senate. But I am not hopeful that such efforts would save our Constitutional Republic. I don't think we have that much time. War with Iran is imminent, and a nuclear conflagration (WW3) is almost certain.
Every citizen needs to vote in 2012 — not for the lessor of 2 evils but for the candidates that will honestly serve our Republic instead of themselves — that excludes 99.9% of our constituent politicians.
Romney, Obama focus on US posture abroad – San Francisco Chronicle | Conservatives for America
September 25th, 2012 at 9:01 am
[...] annual meeting. Following deadly …How the GOP got stuck with MittNew York Daily NewsRomney, War, and the Republican Base: Libertarians May SplitAntiwar.comRomney assails Obama after US ambassador's deathSeattle Post [...]
slim shady
September 25th, 2012 at 9:23 am
Why does America need to offer anything to the world? Why doesn't Australia offer something to the world? Maybe if we could all stop trying to offer something the world the world would be better off.
WTE
September 25th, 2012 at 9:24 am
I'm no obama fan but rommney hates America.
WTE
September 25th, 2012 at 9:25 am
Hey monkey.
You can't reply to this comment.
Because I said so
slim shady
September 25th, 2012 at 9:45 am
"Libertarians are the ones who oppose "statism". We don't want our wives/girlfriends forced to wear "any clothing not of their choice", our gay friends hung from lampposts, booze and gambling outlawed, marijuana smokers jailed for life, and free speech banned.
Libertarians = Fight back against the "statists" with "every argument" we've got to "restore" Limited Government, and Personal Liberties.
Here I fixed it for you. :)
Eric Dondero
September 25th, 2012 at 10:29 am
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Madonna just referred to Obama as a "Black Muslim" in concert in Washington D.C. last night.
Hey left-libertarians: Aren't you all the ones who said that those of us claiming Obama was a Muslim are "fringe"? Just crazy talk, right?
wars r u.s.
September 25th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Madonna is as fringe as fringe gets. Scientology anyone?
donna
September 25th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
"Obama stayed on the Left"??? Really? So the increased bombing of Afghanistan, more drone attacks than even Bush ordered, inhumane sanctions against Iran, offers to cut social security and medicare, and allowing more drilling by corporations are all part of Obama's leftist agenda? Maybe you should start reading a real newspaper.
wars r u.s.
September 25th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Yeah, the definition of what is "left" must have changed.
Rand Paul aids Romney and Ryan in Ohio – USA TODAY
September 25th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
[...] and Paul Ryan in OhioThe Courier-Journal (blog)Gibbs: Romney Has Advantage In DebatesFOX2now.comRomney, War, and the Republican Base: Libertarians May SplitAntiwar.comThe Hill (blog) -Examiner.comall 12,652 news [...]
steve
September 25th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Obama stayed to the left? say what?
Not according to Nader. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.h…
Beacon Dream Dictionary | Relationship Advice Manual
October 2nd, 2012 at 1:35 am
[...] Dream Dictionary Beacon SymbolSome Serious Stuff (Wurm Online)Romney, War, and the Republican Base: Libertarians May Split by Jon Basil Utley — Antiwar.com [...]