Arnold Kling chiming in -

Looking at the platforms and positions of George W. Bush and John Kerry, I am struck by how little both candidates have to offer those of us of a libertarian persuasion. It is as if both parties have looked at the libertarians and scoffed, "How many divisions have they got?"

On economic policy, John Kerry is running as a 1930's collectivist. He rejects any proposal to reform Social Security, regardless of the long-term consequences. He proposes a large expansion of government health care programs, to be paid for in part by a class-warfare tax on people with high incomes, with the rest presumably paid for by other tax increases, either now or later. His only complaint about the Federalization of education in what I call the No Educrat Left Behind Act is that in his view it is underfunded.

On social policy, President Bush is running as a Bible-thumping morality legislator. Positions against stem-cell research and gay marriage are key components of his electoral strategy, as one may discern from just a few moments of listening to right-wing talk radio.

So if you're a libertarian, Kling argues, the vote comes down to one thing - Iraq.  Well, not quite.   There are a couple of factors that I think Kling leaves out here.

One big thing is that for most people, most of the time, Economic Freedom is more important than Social Freedom.   Now, I agree that in a stated preference sort of way, most people claim they get up in arms about stuff like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Freedom of Speech, etc.   But, at the margin, an ounce of economic policy does far more to your universe than an ounce of social policy.   If you're wealthy, the rest of the world's social mores simply matter less.   By contrast, there are few decisions as every day as "how much is my paycheck and how can I spend it?"

To simply say that "democrats = bad econ policy" and "republicans = bad social policy" and thus we're at a draw requires weighing the 2 equally.   We aren't there.