Obama or McCain?

It's getting increasingly likely that this fall's presidential contest will be between Obama and McCain. Hillary Clinton's political death spiral is entertaining, as the public is recognizing what a nasty person she is, and she fights back by getting still nastier.

If things continue as they are, we'll need to ask which candidate would do less damage to liberty, Obama or McCain. I consider Obama the clear lesser evil.

In his stated principles, he really isn't very different from Clinton. He's a tax-and-spend Democrat. He'll put our health in the loving hands of the government if he can. His respect for the Second Amendment is almost non-existent. But he strikes me as a decent person with bad ideas rather than a power-luster. He speaks in glittering generalities while waffling on issues such as Iraq and free trade. Really, he reminds me of Jimmy Carter. But a Jimmy Carter would be quite an improvement over the status quo.

McCain is seriously bad in many ways. The law which bears his name and Senator Feingold's strikes at public criticism of political candidates, which is at the heart of free speech. He voted for amnesty for telecom companies engaging in illegal wiretapping. He is likely to let the Iraq mess drag on forever. He's given encouragement to the religious right, stating that America is a "Christian nation."

Even if both candidates were equally bad, the election of Obama would break the momentum of Bush's assault on liberty, while a McCain presidency would carry it forward for another four years. Democratic attempts to broaden government economic power would require a while to get moving, and some of Bush's more corrupt appointments would be cleaned out. At least we'd buy some time.

On the Cato site, David Boaz discusses the possibility that some libertarians will support Obama. I think he underestimates the possibility -- at least if we define "support" as considering him less repulsive than McCain.