It's Easy To Support
Libertarians (For President)
By Dave Grossnickle,
for dumbhoosier.com
Two libertarians are slyly running for president as
Republicans: Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Paul, despite being the
godfather of the Tea Party (the first Tea Party event was a 2007
fundraiser for his last presidential bid), and Johnson, despite being a
popular two-term former governor, continue to be the Rodney
Dangerfields of the Republicans… they can’t get no respect.
Their chances of winning are about the same as Casey Anthony’s chances
of being exonerated … oops, nevermind. Despite the lack of respect,
they are entertaining to follow and easy to support.
When my Mom tells me something very important, like which leftovers I’m
allowed to eat or where she left the beer coozie, she looks me straight
in the eyes, speaks slowly, and states her important message twice.
James Madison did the same. He finished writing the Ninth Amendment,
thought to himself “cripes, that seems super important,” and reiterated
a similar message in the Tenth Amendment.
Those amendments state that any powers not specifically given to the
federal government by the Constitution should be left to states and
individuals. Unfortunately, just like what occasionally happens with my
Mom, the repeated message was still forgotten. So, why is
it easy to support Paul and Johnson?
You only have to agree with them on one issue: a return to less federal
government and more state rights (i.e. uphold the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments). If you agree on that issue then their stances on other
issues become irrelevant. For example, apply their beliefs to a touchy
topic like abortion. Paul is pro-life, Johnson is pro-choice. Each of
you who are reading this undoubtedly disagrees with one of them.
However, if you believe in state rights then you actually agree with
both. They believe abortion is a state issue and would fight to make it
one, citing the Constitution. Gay marriage? Paul is against, Johnson is
for. Again, it doesn’t matter though because both believe it’s a state
or church issue, citing the Constitution.
Marijuana? Healthcare? Public schooling? State issues according to the
Constitution. If these controversial issues were taken off the debate
table at the national level, much more focus would be put on discussing
monetary policy, national defense (and offense), Supreme Court rulings,
and the irony of Weiner tweeting photos of his weiner.
Plus, having issues relegated to the state and local level benefits
individuals because it gives them a stronger voice.
For example, if I think the government should ban Enterprise
commercials because I’m getting friggin’ annoyed with years of being
told they’ll pick me up, I’m much more likely to get this accomplished
at the local or state level.
Some argue that we need the federal government to solve national
problems. Frankly, the federal government sucks at fixing things.
Trade deficits remain high despite a ballooning department of commerce.
Reliance on foreign oil grows despite a swelling department of energy.
Farming subsidies meant to help farmers are given per acre, so the
corporation-owned mega-farms (in Kansas and Nebraska) get rich and
drive small farmers (in Indiana) towards poverty. Drug usage remains
high despite 40 years of the war on drugs. (If you believe ending the
drug war would be bad, research what has happened in Portugal this past
decade.) Poverty levels remain consistent despite almost 50 years of
the war on poverty. Student scores remain the same despite 30 years of
the war on stupid kids (i.e. the department of education). Wall Street
bailouts are given at the expense of main street taxpayers. Our
national debt is $14,400,000,000,000.
Etcetera.
You’d be hard pressed to find something the federal government does
well. A large central government is also a one-stop shop for lobbyists
to purchase subsidies, tax breaks, government contracts, bailouts
and/or beneficial regulations (those that hurt the competition) for
their beloved corporations.
Therefore, giving power back to states and localities inadvertently
also takes purchasing power away from corporations. Some of the most
hated corporations, such as Halliburton and Goldman Sachs, might not
even exist if it weren’t for the plumpness of the federal government on
which they feed. Corporate lifeblood is federal money.
You may disagree with a libertarian on most issues. However, you can
still support him for federal office if you simply agree that the
federal government should relinquish powers back to states and
individuals. And based on the federal government’s track record,
libertarians should be easy to support.
Dave Grossnickle grew up in
Warsaw, dabbled in lots of stuff, taught biology for four years at
Wawasee High School, has a beard, and is now working towards a graduate
degree in something sciency. (Is not an eye doctor.)
|
