Liberty Dilemma: Over on TCS, Arnold Kling sums up the dark times for libertarians, including the Bush administration's most recent bout of protectionism (over Chinese unmentionables), the energy bill, and Howard Dean's pro-regulation comments. What's a voter to do? Oddly enough, Kling's piece ends up being, however tepid, an endorsement of Joseph Lieberman, quoting Walter Shapiro's comment that "aside from the brave and lonely free-trade advocacy of Joe Lieberman, all the White House hopefuls have embraced some form of protectionism." Kling continues:

In the past, Lieberman has seemed receptive to the arguments for choice in social behavior as well as for choice in markets. While he made a disappointing turnabout on school choice at the Democratic Convention in 2000, he is no worse than President Bush, who waited until after the election to back away from vouchers and instead push legislation that empowered bureaucrats, not parents . . . Lieberman is not the perfect candidate for libertarians, by any means. But the best candidate from an Internet/libertarian perspective is never going to be on the ballot. We have to choose from among flawed men and women. Lieberman's positions are more congenial to me than those of any other Presidential hopeful.

I think Kling's right about the man. On top of that, Lieberman is consistently hawkish, and he has come closer than any other Democrat in the race to admitting that affirmative action is divisive and socially disruptive. I worry at times about his willingness to pander (both because he does it, and because he does it so discomfitingly transparently) and his flirtation with neo-censorship guru Bill Bennett.

As I've noted before, I get the luxury of a choice: Massachusetts will almost surely go Democratic no matter the nominee. Thus, I can vote for a third party without hurting Bush's chances. If I lived in a swing state, I'd throw my vote to Bush, simply because the ideas the Democrats are pushing right now are a thin gruel of incremental socialism at home and international surrenderism and deference to the filthy UN abroad. As Kling notes, there is little chance that Lieberman could grab the crown in Boston this year, but if he did, he's be the only Democrat who could make me question my lesser-of-the-evils equation as it currently stands. Besides, Bush versus Lieberman would be a good race.