Two Scenarios

     Perhaps the greatest obstacle for many conservatives when contemplating voting for a third party candidate is the potential for harm to the country should Obama be reelected. Since Romney is seen as the candidate most likely to prevent Obama's reelection, many conservatives feel a duty to support him regardless of his positions. This argument, although one could make a case that it is flawed, and such a case is made here and here, the idea is compelling enough to warrant a more complete discussion.

     The most obvious method of conducting an investigation of the merits of this argument is to produce competing scenarios, one if Obama wins and one if Romney wins, based on the candidates' past actions and a knowledge of American history, and to compare and contrast these scenarios. In making such a case it is important to to remember that, as Mark Twain said, "it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" and that God alone ultimately controls the future. At the same time, it is also important to recognize that such predictions, when carefully made and informed by the past, can be a useful tool in deciding on a course of action.

     In the first case, if Obama wins, certain things are obvious. It is extremely unlikely that Obamacare will be repealed should Obama be elected, particularly if Senate continues to be controlled by Democrats. An Obama administration would most likely enthusiastically implement the provisions of Obamacare. An Obama administration would also continue to advocate a more progressive tax system, emphasizing a move farther away from flat tax rates. How successful an Obama administration would be in this area would be determined primarily by the nature of Congress. Since the most likely situation is that the House stays Republican while the Senate remains Democrat, it is not at all likely that the tax code will change in any significant way, at least for the majority of people. We can also expect, should Obama be reelected, that spending will continue to rise unchecked. However, spending is less a result of the president's actions than it is of the actions of Congress so it is debatable what effect Obama's reelection would have.

     The country can also expect unequivocal support for abortion from an Obama administration in every way possible. Federal funding of abortion, both at home and abroad, would continue and any legislation limiting abortion would face a determined opponent in the White House. Obama's judicial appointments, both to the Supreme Court and to lower courts, could also be expected to share his liberal viewpoint, not just on abortion but also on marriage, religious liberty, and constitutional interpretation. These appointments could potentially produce negative effects for decades.

     On the other hand, if Romney is elected it is still highly unlikely that Obamacare would be repealed. Doing so would require not just having a president who favored its repeal, as Romney claims to, but also having a majority in both houses of Congress in favor of its repeal. As was mentioned previously, current polling suggests that the Senate will not change hands, meaning that a majority in at least one house of Congress will not favor repeal, even if Romney backtracked from his previous positions on the issue and favored repeal. With or without a divided Congress it would require that the Republican leadership be determined and unwavering in their drive to repeal Obamacare. Romney would not be able to muster that dedication to repealing his own brainchild. Under a Romney administration there is a chance that the tax code might be reformed to remove some of the burdensome taxes on businesses, however without both houses of Congress this is unlikely. Further, spending would probably continue to increase at current levels, given Romney's past record (as governor of Massachusetts spending increased dramatically every year while he was in office) and the lack of the moral courage to cut spending among "conservative" politicians. This would most likely be an improvement over an Obama administration, which could easily see an increase in the rate at which spending increases, but not a significant improvement.

     On social issues Romney would be, most likely, slightly more conservative than Obama. It can be argued based on his record in Massachusetts that he would be exceptionally socially liberal, but this ignores the fact that he would most likely give some concession, small as it might be, to those who elected him. He promises to reinstate the Mexico City policy and stop funding of abortions overseas. He also promises to stop funding of abortions at home, however this is also unlikely given the previously mentioned divided nature of Congress - putting a stop to funding for abortion overseas only requires an executive order, however putting a stop to funding at home would require an act of Congress. Romney has promised that his judicial appointments will be judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts. Again, an argument can be made from his past history that he would not do this, since he appointed primarily Democrat judges in Massachusetts, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt. If this really was the case it would certainly be an improvement over Obama's appointments, but it would not guarantee the sort of judicial reform conservatives would like to see. In his ruling on Obamacare, with which Romney expressed agreement, Roberts demonstrated himself to be less of a strict constructionist than he he makes himself out to be. Further, he has only "hinted" that he might overturn Roe v. Wade, although that is more assurance in that regard than an Obama appointee could be expected to give.

     The discussion so far has been concerned primarily with the intent of the candidates, and only slightly with how effective they would be in achieving their goals. Of course, the president alone has relatively little control without the consent of Congress. Here the difference between the two candidates is actually far more marked. Historically speaking second term presidents are very weak - on election night they have reached the zenith of their career. Congressmen cannot hitch their fortunes to the president's star, and so are far less likely to side with the president in politically dangerous situations. Obama would be a second term president, whereas Romney would be a first term president. Romney would have a far better ability to implement his agenda than Obama. In fact, the latter would be extremely limited, in part by his status as a second term president and by in part, perhaps even more, by the fact that while the House is likely to be solidly Republican, the Senate will be only marginally Democrat.

     All things considered, although there are many commonly overlooked mitigating factors that would limit Obama's effectiveness, it seems clear that the immediate effects of an Obama presidency would be significantly worse for conservatism than that of a Romney presidency. However, such a short-term viewpoint would miss important long-term effects. If elected Romney would be the leader of the Republican Party for the next four years. He would have a significant impact on the direction of the party which most closely represents conservatives, dragging it to the left and destroying its credibility by associating it with his own unprincipled pragmatism, just as he did in Massachusetts. In addition, while Obama cannot run again, Romney would undoubtedly be the Republican nominee in 2016. Given his economic record in Massachusetts (abysmal doesn't quite cover it) it is very unlikely that he would win the presidency again in 2016. Whereas we are guaranteed four more years of Obama should he win, we are guaranteed four years of Romney should he win followed by either four more years of Romney or four years of someone even more liberal, probably Joe Biden. Any small gain that might have been made by Romney winning as opposed to Obama would quickly be lost by the hamstringing of the Republican Party and the negative effects of the longer period of liberal dominance brought on by a Romney victory.

     Now none of this constitutes the best reason to vote for Tom Hoefling, but it can provide a bit of peace of mind for those who choose to. A better argument for a vote for Hoefling, consisting of a similar analysis of the potential results should conservatives as a group decide to stand on principle and vote him into office, will be forthcoming in the next few days.

For a new birth of freedom!