US Election 2004

On HBL, philosopher Harry Binswanger analyzed the choice to be made in this election and concluded that Bush should be re-elected.  According to Binswanger, the key choice is between American independence of action in the War against Terrorism (Bush), or the dependence upon the UN and allies promised by Kerry.

A long except of the original post has been published in Capitalism Magazine, which concludes:

...Bush defeat would be a message to the world that America has lost the will to fight terrorism offensively by means of ending the states that sponsor terrorism. It would also be a clear message that Americans reject bringing moral concepts to bear on foreign affairs, as in Bush's important phrase about the "axis of evil."
 
Behind Bush looms the ugly specter of the Bible-thumping religious right. But behind Kerry, in the same proportion, looms the at least equally ugly specter of the America-hating, nihilist Angry Left. There really is no "lesser evil" here, and were it just that, I would refuse to vote for either candidate.
 
But it is not just that. There is also the direct issue of this campaign--issue of the war, and of America's sovereignty. It's not that Bush is right about the war; it is that he is significantly less wrong than Kerry.
 
A final thought for Objectivists who are still undecided. Think back to the election of 2000. Most Objectivists either supported Bush against Gore, or at least were quite relieved that Bush won--and this despite the very apparent negatives that Bush had and still has. If you are glad that Bush defeated Gore, doesn't it follow that now, in more dangerous times, when we know what Bush has done for four years, you would be at least as glad to see Bush defeat a man much worse than Gore on most issues, including religion? [H. Binswanger, Vote for President Bush, Capitalism Magazine, 10/21/2004]

Harry Binswanger
Image Source: Ayn Rand Bookstore

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this