Mitt Romney: The consequences of the alternative are far too severe.
Dear Libertarian Friends,
Oh, the shame and humiliation that should fill our hearts if Barack Obama were to win re-election because of the Right’s divided front.
It’s wholly irrelevant how much you like Mitt Romney, or trust him to govern conservatively. The only pertinent factor remains the reality of his superiority over the incumbent. If you care about American prosperity and strength, the only justification for voting third party or abstaining altogether is a belief that Mitt Romney would push Marxist principles as aggressively as Barack Obama has and would – an opinion I hope we can all agree is ludicrous. A moderate, yes. Radical leftist, no.
The logic of abstaining or voting third party – when that may enable a far inferior and disastrous incumbent to win over the only viable challenger – is faulty at best, and destruction’s complicity in this case. Electing Mitt Romney doesn’t save the republic, but it does give us the chance. A chance most of us would acknowledge is all but vanished if Obama wins a second term.
There may be a time for attempting to elevate a third party candidate if you believe such a thing would benefit American politics, but the dire nature of Election 2012 renders a “statement” or “symbolic” vote far too costly.
Votes don’t send messages as much as they reveal priorities, and the priority of patriots and traditional America-types must necessarily land first on preventing Obama from winning a second term where, having never to face an electorate again, he will push his radical agendas even more unabatedly. Some libertarian wishful thinking aside, Gary Johnson is not in a position to win the presidency. This isn’t a statement of preference, but of verity. He cannot win, and will not. Furthermore, the left is not split on its choice. The claim “Any non-Romney vote helps Obama” rings ominously true because the liberal vote is united. This makes it imperative that all who oppose his ideas and lack of leadership – conservatives and libertarians alike – cast their vote against him, and for the only viable option.
As I wrote in an earlier piece, beating this incumbent in this election is more important than maintaining allegiance to staunch ideological principle. Usually it’s not; this time it is. A “principled” third party vote (or staying home) serves only to make Obama’s re-election path easier, and is subsequently not principled at all.
Complain about voting for the “lesser of two evils” if you will, but when the choice is continued economic stagnation and a fiscal policy this is not only reckless but criminally immoral – or an accomplished and successful business turnaround artist who at the very least loves this country and her founding values, only fools enable the former out of distaste for the latter. This isn’t a rallying cry, but a petition to think critically. Even if you hold that both of the main party candidates are “evil”, voting for the lesser – when not doing so guarantees more of the former – is clearly and unequivocally the more logical of approaches.
And let us not forget the Supreme Court appointees to be made in the near future. While you libertarians (and we conservatives) have been unhappy at times with Republican appointees, there’s no argument that Romney’s would be further right than Obama’s. For logic’s sake, it’s again immaterial how well you like Romney’s potential appointees, or if they meet your preferred criteria. The pressing point is on who Obama will select. If you prefer the soon coming Supreme Court appointees not be radical leftists, voting for Mitt Romney becomes quite easy.
Libertarians, I know you fancy yourselves bastions of logic and rationality, so I’m attempting to appeal to that side of the matters at hand. I understand the ideological compromises you will have to make to mark a vote for Mitt Romney. My views are more conservative than Romney’s as well. He thinks government can do things it cannot, and should not. I know he’s not the perfect guy, and he’s not your guy, but he’s better than their guy. And with your votes, he can beat their guy. That should be enough to help you hold your nose and cast your ballot.
When this discussion comes up I always recall the words of Andrew Breitbart, who thundered away at CPAC 2012 that “I will march behind whoever our candidate is, because if we don’t, we lose. Anyone who is willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker. And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”
We have one chance to give America an opportunity to heal and restore itself. Let us leave the quarrels over who plugs the hole and stops the flood for another time, and elect the only candidate whose finger will fit.
The consequences of the alternative are far too severe.
Sincerely,
A conservative guy who desperately wants to beat Barack Obama
Brady Cremeens
Great article. It really is true in this case that we are picking sides. You are either for America or you are against America. If you vote third party or for Obama, the result is the same. You are voting for Obama. We must stand together for America and to do that there is only one person you can vote for and that is Mitt Romney. Bottom line. Let’s stand together for America…by voting for Romney.
Posted by cucciolo25 | October 8, 2012, 12:28 pmI agree. Libertarians should face the truth about Gary Johnson if they bothered to actually find out his positions they may feel differently.
Gary Johnson’s ACTUAL Fiscal Record
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3019136
How Do You Spell HYPOCRISY (Gary Johnson)
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=211859
Posted by Lady Liberty | October 10, 2012, 10:42 amConservatives need to be as united as liberals. We can’t afford another four years and neither can our children. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who votes for Obama is expressing their affirmation for a weak America, unfettered abortions and the unchecked assault on traditional family values. Take stock people. It isn’t about smooth and cool and fun. It’s about right and wrong and Romney is righter than Obama.
Posted by Sherman | October 8, 2012, 1:12 pmAs one who wasted time and effort during the 1960′s on a third party and a third party candidate, I can speak from experience that a third party conservative splits America’s conservative vote, weakening the chances of both conservatives. Later, Ross Perot was able to deliver the presidency to Bill Clinton by this strategy. I’m in hopes that the day will come that conservatives (meaning those who desire to preserve and abide by the Constitution) will eventually become smart enough to work together to that end. I admire much of what Ron Paul stands for, but he should be smart enough to know that his more outlandish position statements alienate many on the right. He should continue to crusade in favor of his beliefs, because he continues to push the Republican Party in mostly good directions, but in every election where he is not the nominee with a chance to win the presidency, he must throw his considerable weight behind the candidate who has a chance to pull our country back from the brink.
Thanks, Brady, and thanks RED PILL for making this attempt to unite us.
Posted by Linus | October 9, 2012, 8:05 amIf a Gary Johnson supporter votes for Gary Johnson in any of the states besides Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida…it will likely have zero effect on the probability of Romney winning.
It would be nice to see some data on the voting behavior of libertarians. Do they really vote more Republican? Many libertarians actually view Romney as a bigger threat considering that he will likely spend more than Obama on the military, he doesn’t support civil liberties, he authored universal healthcare, he believes in Keynesian economics, and he was a proponent of the bail-outs (indicating crony capitalist leaning).
Posted by George | October 11, 2012, 12:58 am