Sunday, August 13, 2006

Talking with some friends today, I mentioned that I voted for Bush in 2004. I was then asked a very good question that I hadn't considered before. If there were no terms limits and Bush was running in 2008, would I vote for him again? I didn't have the most articulate answer at the time, but upon further reflection, I must say that I would vote against Bush in the primary election and for him in the general election (presuming Bush won the primary). I believe that would be the best voting strategy to advance the political cause that matters to me most nowadays, smaller government.

Yes, Bush probably wouldn't face any serious primary opponents (then again, with all the Right's discontent about spending and its divisions over Iraq and immigration...), but this is all a counterfactual; the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951.

P.S. Regarding that "nowadays," there was a period after Sept. 11 when the most important political cause to me was defeating our enemies in the Islamic world. However, the data accumulated since then has led me to believe that Sept. 11 was an exception, not a new rule. Our Islamic enemies are pathetic compared to past opponents like the Soviet Union. Still worthy, but less urgent, is the cause of exporting good parts of Western civilization like democracy, religious freedom, and free enterprise. (That list is not exhaustive!) As the urgency of worthy causes abroad have decreased for me, worthy causes at home have reasserted their old priority.

2 Comments:

Blogger D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

I challenge your comment about the enemy's wimpiness.

Ahmadinejad has a web-site up and it seems he's been thorough enough to have operatives using it for the advancement of terrorism.

These people aren't stupid. The evolving tactics they use make them quite dangerous. Iran, as the center of the islamo-terrorist ideology, is now in a very good position to create bigger problems for free countries world-wide.

8/15/2006 4:54 PM  
Blogger Dave Milovich said...

Iran's operatives have been unwilling to directly attack the U.S. for at least ten years now (Khobar Towers?). I believe this is because their capabilities are limited and because they fear retaliation. If a state of size of Iran or Pakistan combines a nuclear deterrent with an agressive, jihadist foreign policy, then we could face a smaller-scale version of the Cold War. But this hasn't happened. I expect Iran will get nukes, but how agressive will Iran be? They know we can pummel them conventionally or nuclearly, if they get us angry enough. Even Israel could wipe out Iran in a battle for survival. You'd have to believe the Iranians are suicidal as a nation to treat them as an existential threat to Israel or as a real threat to the American way of life.

8/15/2006 5:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home