by Paul J. Gessing

With less than a year to go before the election, the race for President has narrowed dramatically. Most analysts predict a Bush vs. Dean battle for the White House. No other candidate currently in the race is viable: the Greens don’t have Nader (although Kucinich might do in a pinch), the Libertarians are sans Harry Brown, and the Reform Party has unraveled completely. If Hillary Clinton jumps in the race, things could change dramatically, but I’m not counting on it.

Based on the candidates in the race that that can win – or even of making a strong statement come November 2004 – there is one candidate that merits the votes of freedom-minded voters. That candidate is not George W. Bush. In fact, if American voters give Bush anything resembling a mandate for his foreign adventurism, he and the neoconservative cabal that have hijacked America’s foreign policy will only become more aggressive in their push for an American Empire.

America’s foreign policy situation is particularly urgent when one considers the iron grip presidents’ now hold on foreign policy. Although the Founding Fathers specifically authorized Congress – not the President – to lead our country into war because they believed that foreign policy is simply too important to leave in the hands of a single person, Congress has unconstitutionally abdicated its war making power. Unfortunately, there is no sign that Congress will push for a return to have its institutional authority returned. Thus, although Presidents have a great deal of discretion over domestic and economic policymaking, this election – more than any Presidential election in recent memory – is going to be won and lost on foreign policy due to the stark differences between the candidates. Non-interventionists have two options: either vote for Bush and give him the “mandate” he needs to send troops into Iran and Syria, or vote for Dean – warts and all – and repudiate Bush’s radically interventionist foreign policy that was endorsed by the other Democratic challengers (save Kucinich).

Although the case could be made that foreign policy alone should be enough to convince freedom-lovers to vote for Howard Dean (or any other antiwar candidate), both fiscal conservatives and defenders of social spending might be pleased if Dean takes the oath of office in 2005. President Bush’s spending habits should make both principled Republicans and Democrats alike nostalgic for the Clinton era. In inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton oversaw a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent after three years in office. After his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending. By all available measurements Bush has spent more, increased federal employment more, and increased the size of the regulatory state more than our most recent Democratic President. More distasteful to Democrats is the fact that Bush has squandered more than $100 billion that could otherwise have been used for social spending or any other use rather than for the purchase of bombs (hell, compared to the boondoggle in Iraq, throwing money down a rat hole looks like a good investment). If Clinton can be a fiscal conservative – at least compared to Bush – why not give Dean a shot?

Some Bush apologists will argue that the 1990s economic boom and deficit reduction were fueled by massive cuts to the defense budget. They often postulate that these cuts set us up for terrorist attacks that later necessitated the massive ramp-up in defense spending under Bush. This argument falls apart quickly in light of the fact that in the late 1990s the U.S. continued to maintain 200,000 troops stationed overseas. We continue to have more troops defending Europe, Japan, Korea, and hundreds of other nations than we do in Iraq! Clinton’s defense budget cuts were wholly justified and he could have cut much further without harming our military readiness in the least. In fact, if Clinton had removed our troops from Saudi Arabia, 9/11 may never have happened at all.

Although Howard Dean’s pledges to raise taxes and implement nationalized health care are deeply troubling, his domestic policies will provide a vast improvement over Bush on civil liberties. While John Ashcroft travels the nation preaching the benefits of the intrusive and unconstitutional USA Patriot Act, Dean often criticizes the legislation and is likely to reign in its broad enforcement powers. Also, the war on drugs that has reached new heights under Bush would take a breather during the Dean Administration. The Marijuana Policy Project, a group dedicated to legalizing marijuana has graded all candidates for President based on their views on medical marijuana. Although Dean scores a mediocre “C” having fought medical marijuana legislation as Vermont’s Governor; President Bush on the other hand received an “F” from the group for his Administration’s having targeted cancer and glaucoma patients for arrest on drug charges for using marijuana to alleviate their pain. Even Dean’s pledge to nationalize health care may be pre-empted if Bush is successful in pushing a prescription drug benefit plan containing price controls through Congress.

Howard Dean is a flawed candidate. He is not a consistent non-interventionist in foreign policy issues. He is also not much of a tax-cutter. Having a “D” next to the President’s name is likely to inspire Republicans to their old obstructionist ways, thus precluding Dean from successfully repealing Bush’s tax cuts or implementing his vision of nationalized health care. This dynamic will likely obstruct the growth of government much as we saw during the Clinton years, particularly since it is unlikely that either the House or Senate will change parties in 2004.

Although some principled individuals (Libertarians, Greens, or other) will undoubtedly feel compelled to make a principled “statement” on Election Day by voting only for the candidate they more-or-less completely agree with, I urge these people to re-evaluate the situation. If you can’t vote “for” Howard Dean, vote against George W. Bush. As many Ralph Nader supporters discovered last year, there is a time for making statements and there are times when the stakes are too high for statements. We can’t afford four more years. Help Dr. Dean remove the neocon cancer from the White House!