The Lesser of Two Frights

What were they afraid of? That if Carter was re-​elected, the U.S. would slide further into recession and economic chaos. That if Reagan won, there would be war. It really was just that simple. Among voters more concerned with foreign policy, Carter took an early lead: an October 23 Lou Harris poll found that by a margin of 48 percent to 20 percent voters believed that Carter, rather than Reagan, “would be most steady and patient, and not overreact in a crisis.” Among voters more concerned with economic policy, the margin clearly belonged to Reagan: that same Harris poll showed that by 48 to 30 percent voters thought Reagan “would do a better job of handling the economy.”

In the end, American voters decided they’d rather risk war than risk economic collapse. Why? Because many of them had come to be persuaded during the last days of the campaign that while economic collapse was a near certainty under Carter, war would be only a possibility under a Reagan administration, not a certainty—and it was obviously already a possibility under Carter. We knew Jimmy Carter would be a disaster; we’d seen him in action for four years and had more than enough of his talent for economy-​wrecking. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, had never been in a position to start a war, so we didn’t know with comparable certainty that he would start one if we granted him the authority. Moreover, Reagan had put a lot of concentrated effort during the last two weeks of the campaign into moderating his foreign policy image as a bellicose cold warrior who wasn’t too sure a hot war might not be a bad idea either—with heat by nuclear power.

Beginning with his half-​hour, televised speech to the nation on October 19, and climaxing in his October 28 debate with Jimmy Carter, Reagan repeatedly emphasized his commitment to nuclear arms reduction and his passionate desire for Peace (which, of course, he felt could be guaranteed only by a U.S. military establishment strong enough to “lead the free world”). He seemed sincere when he said these things, but he had doubtless worked long and hard to perfect exactly such an air of sincerity. He knew that he had to moderate his warlike image and do it quickly, or he would lose the election. He had finally realized that anti-​war sentiment among the voters is now running higher than at any time since the height of the Vietnam war.

Writing from Boulder, Colorado for the October 24th New York Times, E.J. Dionne claimed that

The popular worries about war and peace in this university community in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains do not run as high as they did during the Vietnam war. But when Senator Gary Hart told a group of University of Colorado students earlier this week that he rejected getting the United States into a “war for oil,” the response was thunderous.

“Who the hell cares who’s President,” said Linda Fenter, a Hart campaign worker, “as long as he doesn’t get us into a war.”

Nor were these University of Colorado students unusual in their view of things. “Fear of war,” Dionne wrote, was a popular theme this Fall “with an electorate for whom military policy has become increasingly important.” Dionne found that “as memories of the Vietnam war recede, the electorate remains wary of a bellicose foreign policy.” He cited as typical the case of “34-​year-​old Ivy Zahn, who lives in a cabin in Ward, Colorado,” and who was motivated by her fear of war

to register to vote for the first time. “Reagan scares me,” she said. “He’d go out with all six-​guns blazing. I want to live in a country at peace, a country that doesn’t believe it has to get out and protect the whole world.”

Ivy Zahn is typical. If it is clear from Ronald Reagan’s election alone that a majority of American voters rejects Jimmy Carter’s economic policies, it is equally clear from numerous public opinion polls and from the Reagan campaign’s abrupt switch to a pro-​Peace strategy two weeks before election day, that the majority of voters also rejects the foreign policy which, up until then, our new President had unequivocally stood for. The majority of voters doesn’t want the big government at home against which Mr. Reagan himself railed constantly and effectively, true enough. But they don’t want a bellicose foreign policy either. They want tax cuts, less regulation, and an adequate national defense—but they are leery of foreign interventions.

This is why libertarians should see the outcome of the 1980 Presidential election as a positive sign for the future. The voters have expressed their fear of both economic collapse and war, and have chosen to risk war only after receiving impassioned assurances that the risk was smaller than they had believed. The typical Reagan supporter on November 4 was probably much like hotel owner Keith Dever of Estes Park, Colorado, who told E.J. Dionne that he was supporting Reagan “in part because he doubts any President could start a war ‘all by himself.’” A vote for Reagan was a vote against Carter and a wager that if Reagan became belligerent in his conduct of American affairs with other nations, someone would stop him. A vote for Reagan was a vote motivated by fear, rather than by any belief that Reagan would work for the tax reductions and the freedom from foreign entanglements which the electorate so obviously wants.

The voters chose Ronald Reagan last month because they were even more frightened by the most likely alternative. And in many cases they withheld their votes from genuine alternative candidates like Ed Clark, who actually voiced their positions on the issues, because they feared the consequences of not working to prevent the re-​election of Jimmy Carter—which meant working for the election of whatever candidate had the best chance of beating him, even if that candidate was someone like Ronald Reagan. The vote totals of all the 1980 independent and third party candidates suffered as a result. But one of those candidates, Ed Clark of the Libertarian Party, has every reason to consider his performance at the polls a heroic success.

The Clark campaign brought libertarianism to nationwide public attention on a scale which would have been considered impossible by almost everyone only four years ago. It reached tens of millions of Americans who had never before heard the word libertarianism, and gave them the message that only libertarianism holds the solutions to the problems they consider important: taxes, inflation, defense, and war. Libertarians want to slash taxes again and again, until the only revenues collected by government are those which people contribute voluntarily. They want to balance the budget at drastically reduced levels and end permanently the inflation of our money supply. They propose an adequate defense through the unique approach of rethinking thepurpose of our defense policies; they want to concentrate our money and forces against a possible attack on the United States itself and reject the role which the American government has assumed of policeman to the world. Only by so doing, they believe, and correctly, can we avoid becoming involved in—or starting—another war.

In a nationally syndicated column about the Clark campaign, conservative-​turned-​liberal Garry Wills heaped lavish praise upon Ed Clark for showing that “you don’t have to be a warmonger to believe in the free market.” In some ways this was the most effective and possibly the most lasting impression which Clark made on voters and journalists alike. It is truly a shame that he didn’t get the attention he deserved from the three TV networks and from the major newsmagazines and newspapers. But the attention he did get was largely respectful, considerate, and above all else, thoughtful. And that gives us all the more reason to be hopeful about all the campaigns to come.