Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

McCain for President

No, I'm not endorsing him! I'm predicting he will win. In elections I usually predict wrong. It's a hex. We're all doin' what we can.

13 comments:

Rorshak (1313) said...

At first I thought there was no way McCain was going to win but after Obama started rushing to the center and McCain choosing Palin as his VP, who people seem to love, I'm back to being unsure. McCain seems to have a better chance than I thought.

Ziotic said...

Paaaaaaa-lin!

And that other guy. Yay!

Mike said...

Can we get an "Obama for President" entry also, just to make sure that both of the full-feathered tools of the ruling class have the hex on 'em?

Bob Murphy said...

Why do you favor Obama? (I don't disagree, I'm just curious.) I think if there were another terrorist attack on US soil, McCain would have the leeway to give a more measured response. Obama would have to nuke another country to get the Republicans off his back.

Sheldon Richman said...

I think Obama is less likely to attack Iran.

David Johnson said...

Given a choice, I would rather gummit be trespassing in Iran halfway across the globe than picking my pocket at home. Yeah, I know wars are bad for the economy, but would one be as harmful to my pocketbook as the domestic programs Obama is promising?

I admit I'm somewhat selfish in this regard. If I knew absolutely that Obama would end all wars, I would change my mind. But I fully expect an Obama administration to not only keep us in Iraq, but to engage in a small handful of "humanitarian" military adventures as well.

I would be ecstatic if both McCain and Obama lost. But looking at the big picture, I think I would be marginally better off with four years of McCain than four years of Obama. Especially considering who controls congress. NOT that I am endorsing either of those lesser evils...

Joe said...

Don't think it matters much whether McCain or Obama wins. The best results would be if each ends up with 45% or less of the popular vote, or the vote totals are less than 100 million.

Sheldon Richman said...

David, foreign intervention doesn't just harm foreigners. Remember the blowback of 9/11.

Darian W said...

The less support seen for the system the better. Boycott the ballot!

And I hope Bob Barr loses by even more than the LP usually does and the party implodes to the dustbin of the history of a successful libertarian movement. Perhaps I'm too idealistic.

David Johnson said...

Sheldon, yes I remember 9/11. How much of that blowback was from peace-loving Clinton? It's hard to say, because peace-loving presidents are every bit as interventionist as war-mongering presidents. You seem to be assuming Obama won't be an interventionist. Hah! Besides the troops that will STILL be Iraq and Afganistan (just at a slightly lower level), we'll also have troops deployed on "peace-keeping" military interventions. Peace loving Obama will be stirring up foreign anthills just like peacenik Clinton did.

But bad economic policies kill as well, it's just a lot harder to connect the dots. Though I doubt McCain will give us more economic freedoms, I am certain that Obama will take even more away. It's impossible to measure some of this stuff, but I'm fairly certain my life expectancy will be marginally less under Obama than under McCain.

Edward said...

I always thought that Clinton was a peace-loving warmonger. He uses the military to promote peace in other countries.

Also, I think the difference between McCain and Obama fiscally is one wants to debt finance and tax more now and the other want to debt finance more and tax less now.

Keep in mind that the warfare state is more costly than the welfare state, especially from a universal analysis.

Dominik Hennig said...

McSame is far more worse than Obama. Particularly with regard to PALIN!!!

Anonymous said...

I'm in favor of split government. Hopefully they will argue so much that nothing will be done.