Libertarians Can't Choose

Libertarians see little difference between Bush and Kerry. This amazing assessment, made by Jane Galt and endorsed by Dan Drezner and Andrew Sullivan, comes at a point in American history when the level of acrimony between the parties is rather elevated.

The most dubious remarks that Galt makes are regarding foreign policy and judicial review. She admits that there are differences in these areas that aren't trivial. But she worries about Bush's ability to stay the course in Iraq and about Republican-appointed judges enforcing social legislation she despises.

First of all, she gives little reason to doubt Bush's stated intentions to stay the course in Iraq. She points to no words or actions of his that would make anyone doubtful. As for the alternative, Kerry, one is met with conflicting statements and actions at best. It is much less likely that he would sustain such an arduous enterprise.

As for judicial review, Galt's remarks show her lack of respect for constitutionalism. She worries about judges upholding the law. This, of course, is what judges are supposed to do, for the alternative is arbitrary, virtually un-checked power. There are constitutional means for changing laws which Galt implicitly denies.

Basically, Galt isn't sure she's a Republican or wants to vote for one, so she assuages her discomfort by arguing that little separates the two parties.