Bob Lawson has asked each of us to say for whom we will be voting on Tuesday, and why. Given how little I’ve contributed to this blog so far, I figured it’s the least I could do.

There’s no sense dancing around the issue—no classical liberal (let alone libertarian) is likely to look toward George W. Bush as a model president. The litany of sins, from massive increases in discretionary spending to new health care entitlements, is likely familiar to anyone reading this blog. And in any case, it is out of place in a statement that is intended to be an endorsement of the president’s reelection.

It would have taken very little on the Democrats’ part to entice me into supporting a Democrat this year, or at the very least to sit things out, as I did in 1992 and 1996. But so consumed is the Democratic base with hatred for this president that they have chosen to nominate a candidate who is downright horrible. His Senate record is one of consistent support for bigger government and higher taxes. I admit that in terms of domestic policy Bush has done little to please classical liberals, but when it comes to those few issues where Bush has been right—namely taxes and the environment—and one in which he has been at least partially right—education—a Kerry presidency would seek to undo these entirely. For all his faults, this is a president who has been committed to cutting taxes and reducing environmental regulations. And while his education policy leaves much to be desired (his abandonment of vouchers to appease Ted Kennedy still rankles) let’s at least give him credit for setting some standards for accountability on the part of the public school system. Does anyone doubt that Kerry would seek to move precisely in the opposite direction on all of these matters?

Of course, assuming that both houses of Congress remain in GOP hands after Election Day—as it appears will happen—one might legitimately argue that the amount of harm Kerry might do is limited. Sure, he could—and no doubt would—tighten up environmental regulations, but his efforts to roll back the Bush tax cuts would go nowhere, and much the same could be said about the rest of Kerry’s domestic program.

Which leads us with the area where presidents still have considerable latitude—foreign policy. Cards on the table here: I supported the Iraq War, and continue to think it was the Right Thing to Do. Nevertheless, I understand the classical liberal/libertarian case for anti-interventionism, and while I do not agree with it, I respect it. I would fully understand if those who felt this way chose to throw their support behind some Democrat who promised to scale back the country’s overseas commitments. But of course that is not Kerry’s argument. His criticism of the Iraq War is not that it happened, but that it was carried out without the support of our “allies” (meaning France), and the permission of the United Nations. Whatever one might think of the president’s foreign policy, there is no doubt that he has acted consistently according to what he has seen as the national interest. I do not believe that this would be John Kerry’s guiding principle. If Kerry were to be elected, he would hold an international summit, and ask other countries to commit troops to Iraq. Once this failed, he would by necessity pursue a policy in Iraq that is fundamentally the same as that of the president. But consider this—Kerry’s preference for multilateralism runs the risk of more foreign interventions, not fewer. His foreign policy staff would consist largely of Clinton administration retreads who would not hesitate to embroil the country in places like Bosnia, with little thought of what is in the national interest. I cannot see how any classical liberal or libertarian could see this as an improvement.

Finally, I shall vote for George W. Bush because I know how a Kerry victory will be interpreted. It will be a signal to George Soros and his various front groups that their billions can buy an election. It will be a signal that the American people care what Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Ben Affleck have to say about politics. It will be a signal that Michael Moore’s paranoid fantasies are to be treated as serious documentaries. It will be a signal that Americans are so naïve as to accept whatever fraudulent stories the mainstream media will circulate about National Guard records, an imminent return of the draft, and missing Iraqi explosives.

Most importantly, it will be interpreted as far more than a repudiation of George W. Bush. John Kerry is arguably the most liberal candidate ever nominated by one of the two major parties. If he wins, those on the right will not be able to console themselves with the fact that the new president is a moderate, as Clinton appeared to be Clinton was the model of a post-Reagan Democrat; Kerry truly represents the old party of George McGovern and Ted Kennedy. In short, if he wins the Reagan Revolution will have truly come to an end. I cannot stand idly by and watch this happen, nor do I believe that anyone concerned about American liberty can in good conscience do the same.