1 vote

So just who IS the lesser evil? Justin Raimondo tells us who we should "ROOT" (not to be confused with "VOTE") for.

In September of 1992, as the presidential election pitting George H. W. Bush against Bill Clinton loomed, libertarian theorist and all-around political junkie Murray Rothbard wrote a piece, “Making Our Way Back to the President,” in which he explained the key difference between voting for (i.e. politically supporting) a candidate, and “rooting for” one:

“Whom should we cheer for on Election Day? Whom should we hope wins the election? Voting is a matter of personal conscience, and can be for one of many minor candidates or for no one at all; rooting on who should win is a different problem, because regardless of who you or I vote for, or whether we vote at all, one of the two major candidates is sure to win in November. Whom should we hope wins, or are all the considerations so equally weighted that we should be indifferent? Regardless of our hopes, no minor candidate will win, and the office of President, alas, will not be declared vacant. … In 1992, I am indifferent to whom one votes for, but I’m definitely rooting for Bush over Clinton.”

Read more .... http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/30/race-for-the-w...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Obama must win for freedom to

Obama must win for freedom to continue.

The next guy in office will very likely preside over the collapse of the US or close to it. If Obama is in office, people will get more of the same and become even more tired and angry about the way things are going. The difference though, between obama and rmoney, is that socialism and the like will be whats blamed when everything goes down the drain, not business etc.

Once people see everything collapsing around them, they will come running back and away from obama.

Plus a potential 8 years of the same versus 4 years is bad.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

reedr3v's picture

Rational, strategic, Raimondo's arguments

-- and Rothbard's -- make a terrible kind of sense that are worth serious consideration. What a quandary we are in.

Warfare Is Just Another Big Government Program

As Justin Raimondo says in this article:

"[I]n spite of the Republicans’ formal commitment to 'less government,' the expenditures required to carry out their foreign policy of perpetual war ensure the expansion of the size and power of government, and its growing involvement in every aspect of our lives. Our interventionist foreign policy — and the even-more-interventionist policy championed by Republican hawks — means more money in Washington’s pocket, and less in the pockets of ordinary Americans. It means power continues to be transferred from the people and the states to the lords of the District of Columbia. Maintaining our overseas empire means more money-printing, more inflation, higher prices, the death of the American dollar — and the death of the ostensible Republican agenda of 'less government.'"

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

I would have/did root

I would have/did root for:


Going back, I would change the first three:


I don't quite understand the bashing that Clinton gets from conservatives (social conservatives I get, because of the affair. Neocons I get because of his softer foreign policy and his relative opposition to lowering interest rates). He balanced the budget, reduced welfare, gave us a booming economy.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What most people fail to

What most people fail to realize, is that the economy we have at any given point is the result of economic and fiscal policy from 5 to 10 years ago! The coming recession over the next 2 years is directly the result of the low interest rates and housing bubble of 2005 to 2008! It takes several years, usually 5 to 10, for economic and fiscal policy changes to filter through the system and achieve full impact! Each president lives mostly under the economy created by the prior president! Then there are economic cycles that are unchangeable, we have alternating eras of stagnation and prosperity every 17 to 20 years. From 2000 till until about 2020, we will be in an era of stagnation, this is as unavoidable as the 20 year bull market era of prosperity that we will have from 2020 to 2040!

I'm not too sure about that;

I'm not too sure about that; it is probably a little bit historical influence and a little bit the current actions. After all, are you really saying that Reagan's economic success was due to the policies of Ford & Carter?

Although the real truth is that the majority of what goes on in the economy is outside the power of the President, and even Congress.

But I can give Clinton direct credit for cutting military spending. For reducing welfare. For balancing the budget.

Just like I give Reagan credit for simplying the tax code and greatly investing in research and development.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a