This Volokh Conspiracy post links to another post suggesting that a McCain presidency would be worse than a {H. Clinton, Obama} presidency, partly because voters might subsequently blame bad policies on Democrats rather than Republicans.
You know what I hate most about that line of argument? Four years is a really really really really really long time. The specific issues this country faces, and the facts on the ground, will change so much in that time.
The underlying principles may stay the same, but for that very reason do you really want to see four years of so-much-worse policies just so that you're, say, 20% more likely to see the president after that be someone closer to your ideal? The discount rate that implies can't be too far above zero. (Maybe even negative?)
Rachel Lucas made a similar point a few days ago, quite a bit more colorfully than I would have. (I don't think I'd go quite as far as she goes, either, but you get the general idea. I'm squishy that way.)
Incidentally, every time a group of peace activists gives massive love to Obama, I get a bit more uneasy. (That might be why on Facebook today I decided to become a "fan" of McCain.)
Posted by Matt Bruce at February 5, 2008 01:32 AM