Unforeseen Contingencies

Sure. Why not?

Her religious ideas might be batty as can be, but so far as I know she hasn't suggested that the government make us obey, say, the Catholic doctrine on Onanism. That's more than I can say for the Democrats, who are well on track to having government "nudge" us into total obedience on everything from health insurance to diet to speech and beliefs. It's hard to imagine O'Donnell voting for multibillion dollar bailouts for Goldman Sachs and its ilk, or for laws that violate the Second Amendment. And she's a far cry better than her crooked and thoroughly statist opponent Chris Coons. So yes, good people of Delaware, vote O'Donnell!

More generally, the Tea Party phenomenon is an extremely hopeful sign. It's grass roots, and it is based on skepticism of big government. The absurd demonization of it by the establishment media is unfortunate (New York Times, Washington Post, and National Public Radio have been particularly despicable in their disinformation campaigns), because opposition to corporate bailouts, opposition to pork barrel stimulus, and opposition to a destructive health care fix that increases budget deficits and insurance costs without providing any counterbalancing benefits to the citizens should cut across ideological lines.

That the Tea Party cuts against the status quo should be obvious. Look at how Republicans have "welcomed" Tea Party types like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, and Sharron Angle -- these candidates are a threat to the GOP as much as to the Democrats, because they might actually take away the trough at which the pigs of both parties feed. None of them are libertarians, and all are flawed, but the GOP leadership hates them because they rock the boat. The opposition to Tea Partiers by the likes of power-seeking insiders like Karl Rove, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, and Lisa Murkowski show where the real sympathies of the Republican establishment scoundrels lie: the one driving interest of the GOP political class is political power, and in this they are fundamentally the same as Democrats such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.

Well, as Heinlein put it, "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." It is great that we have the Tea Party, because it falls on the right side of this divide, while none of our political parties do.

So regardless of any warts the Tea Party candidates might have (and they do have them), "we" at Unforeseen Contingencies are strongly endorsing all Tea Party-ish candidates in this election, and for that matter anyone else who systematically opposes the growth of government power. We're hoping for repeal of the hideous Obamacare, and auditing and eventual abolition of the Fed. And we don't need any "moderate" Republican scoundrels who will go along with anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court nominees like Justices Sotomajor and Kagan. The United States of America are at a real crux, so may the candidates most willing to actually reduce state power be elected. We need all the boat-rocking we can get!

And of course, before any election, UC always does its utmost to violate McCain-Feingold, hence the importance of late endorsements. So to the voters of Wisconsin, please vote for Ron Johnson, and to Arizona voters, please vote for Rodney Glassman. Neither of these men's positions quite dovetails with UC's principles, but then neither one sponsored a bill that criminalizes fee speech concerning elections.

For additional takes on the elections, see this post on the most important issue, this post on the Democrats, this post on the Republicans, and this one on voting in general, all from yours truly, available on Hillsdale-Econ.com.

Photo: Christine O'Donnell, possibly the most photogenic political candidate since Yuliya Timoshenko.