For many libertarians, each election cycle serves as a reminder of their total disenchantment with the American political system. If this libertarian had a nickel for every time the choice between President Obama and Romney was reduced to the lesser of two evils, he could buy enough gold to foot a dinner bill with Ron Paul. Libertarians would be wise to recognize Obama has committed a “cardinal sin” against what they value most highly. Because of this, libertarians must unite against him.
The cornerstone of libertarianism could be identified succinctly as the idea that coercion should never be used outside the most explicit limits of the Constitution. That is, citizens have a right to their own lives, property, and the ability to make decisions that do not harm the lives of other individuals. Has President Obama succeeded in defending these precious, inalienable rights during his first term?
Not at all. Citing the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” that was signed into law days after 9/11, President Obama has worked with Attorney General Eric Holder to maneuver around the Fifth Amendment, killing an American citizen without due process. Anwar Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, was assassinated in Yemen for alleged crimes that would never be brought against him in a trial. The precedent set by this is chilling: Obama now meets with an advisory council every Tuesday morning to review a secret “kill list.” Advisors present their cases for the assassination of American citizens without due-process in the name of national security.
In 2009, Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize; based on his actions in 2012, he should forfeit it.
Constitutional rights render it unacceptable for a sitting president to kill a United States citizen. Judge Andrew Napolitano sums up the issue well: “This is logic more worthy of Joseph Stalin than Thomas Jefferson.” Constitutionalist libertarians should acknowledge that Romney has an admiration for the founding principles of the Constitution that is absent from Obama’s worldview.
To be fair, the Massachusetts state constitution never afforded Romney an opportunity to carry out a similar directive. The problem is Obama doesn’t care that the Constitution and Bill of Rights explicitly tells him he cannot do so.
Few libertarians would consider Romney a “gold standard” role model for free markets and individual rights. But they have to admit he has not unabashedly violated the Bill of Rights as Obama has. These men offer fundamentally different approaches to governance— Obama believing he can do whatever he can justify and Romney believing himself to be bound by a certain set of enumerated boundaries. The latter fits much more neatly with libertarian ideology than the former.
It’s easy for libertarians to say their votes are statistically insignificant, and that out of principle they will pull the lever for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson (in Michigan, they’ll have to write him in). Obama is counting on libertarians to protest with their votes, either by wasting them on Johnson or not voting at all. If libertarians truly wish to vote on principle, they should rally around Romney and unite against a president who has violated the most precious values of our founders.