My post of February 3, “Electile Dysfunction,” discussed why Bastiat’s Window has never endorsed political candidates. Readers offered interesting comments and queries, and I’ll respond to a few here. They included: Shouldn’t I hold my nose and endorse the more appealing (or less appalling) choice? Why not endorse a nobler third candidate? Am I in Pauline Kael-Bubble Mode? There were also some worthy comments on the essay’s title, crickets versus grasshoppers, bodily fluids, and Robert Heinlein’s youthful leftist dalliance. Here we go:
Fence sitters 'n warm spit
I had no trouble deciding what to do with a ballot pitting Donald Trump against Kamala Harris and some third-party options. But turning those private thoughts into a public endorsement wouldn’t alter a single Bastiat reader’s vote and would greatly undermine my ability to influence readers’ thinking on policies (e.g., Trump’s awful tariffs, Harris’s vile threats to Israel) and on personalities (e.g., Trump’s impulsiveness and demagoguery, Harris’s cluelessness and lack of accomplishments).
Over many decades, my metier has been influencing thinking on narrower questions of policy and politics. Here are two examples. As a DC policy advisor, I was publicly anti-Obamacare, but also deeply skeptical about Republican counter-proposals. (See “Why Both Sides Are Losing the Health Care Debate,” 2014.)
Join the conversation as a VIP Member