A Libertarian President?
This is not a politics blog. For both pragmatic and personal reasons, I don't intend to make East Meets West my own personal sounding box on political issues. I'm not a political partisan, and I work hard to remain intellectually honest. I identify strongly with what Robin Hanson says: "My core politics is 'I don't know'; most people seem far too confident in their political opinions."
Despite these qualifications, I still stand by what I said in my first post, where I described myself as "a politically disillusioned libertarian skeptic". I'm definitely not a "large-L" libertarian of the Libertarian Party, but I do have real sympathy for classical liberal ideas.
On to my point. I read some very interesting stuff this week that got me thinking about whether someone with libertarian principles could ever become President. The first was a column by Joe Klein about how overreliance on consultants hurt the campaigns of Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. His main point on Gore: "Gore might have been a warmer, more credible and inspiring candidate if he'd talked about the things he really wanted to talk about, like the environment". His main point on Kerry: In hindsight, Kerry's campaign manager said they focused on jobs, education, and health care because that's what people answered when pollsters asked what they were most interested in, but in truth voters "thought the President should be interested in national security." Bush won because his character seemed more Presidential than Kerry's.
Responding to Klein's column, Matthew Yglesias pointed me towards a post by Mark Schmitt of the New America Foundation on the qualities of a presidential candidate. His main point: "It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you." For example, John McCain's stance on campaign finance reform makes him seem independent, persistent, and somewhat populist, all very presidential qualities that help in elections.
There's nothing a die-hard libertarian loves more than talking about the issues. Most of them are so damn sure they're right! But what do the issues say about libertarians?
Let's just take a few from the Libertarian Party website:
Principle: "We should eliminate the entire social welfare system."
Translation: "I hate poor people!"
Principle: "End drug prohibition."
Translation: "I don't care about children, and I'm high right now too!"
Principle: "I oppose censorship of online communication."
Translation: "I love my More Black Dirty Debutantes DVD!"
In all seriousness, are there "libertarian" issues that would play well in a presidential election? I think one is school choice, being sure to avoid the "privatization" dirty word. The public would see a candidate that care's about children and the poor, but also isn't afraid to go against the powers that be.
The real trick would be framing a "libertarian" international and security policy that doesn't make the candidate look like a wimpy isolationist.
Do I think it's possible for a candidate with libertarian principles to be successful? I think I'll give my default answer, "I don't know", and get back to work on my stump speech.
Despite these qualifications, I still stand by what I said in my first post, where I described myself as "a politically disillusioned libertarian skeptic". I'm definitely not a "large-L" libertarian of the Libertarian Party, but I do have real sympathy for classical liberal ideas.
On to my point. I read some very interesting stuff this week that got me thinking about whether someone with libertarian principles could ever become President. The first was a column by Joe Klein about how overreliance on consultants hurt the campaigns of Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. His main point on Gore: "Gore might have been a warmer, more credible and inspiring candidate if he'd talked about the things he really wanted to talk about, like the environment". His main point on Kerry: In hindsight, Kerry's campaign manager said they focused on jobs, education, and health care because that's what people answered when pollsters asked what they were most interested in, but in truth voters "thought the President should be interested in national security." Bush won because his character seemed more Presidential than Kerry's.
Responding to Klein's column, Matthew Yglesias pointed me towards a post by Mark Schmitt of the New America Foundation on the qualities of a presidential candidate. His main point: "It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you." For example, John McCain's stance on campaign finance reform makes him seem independent, persistent, and somewhat populist, all very presidential qualities that help in elections.
There's nothing a die-hard libertarian loves more than talking about the issues. Most of them are so damn sure they're right! But what do the issues say about libertarians?
Let's just take a few from the Libertarian Party website:
Principle: "We should eliminate the entire social welfare system."
Translation: "I hate poor people!"
Principle: "End drug prohibition."
Translation: "I don't care about children, and I'm high right now too!"
Principle: "I oppose censorship of online communication."
Translation: "I love my More Black Dirty Debutantes DVD!"
In all seriousness, are there "libertarian" issues that would play well in a presidential election? I think one is school choice, being sure to avoid the "privatization" dirty word. The public would see a candidate that care's about children and the poor, but also isn't afraid to go against the powers that be.
The real trick would be framing a "libertarian" international and security policy that doesn't make the candidate look like a wimpy isolationist.
Do I think it's possible for a candidate with libertarian principles to be successful? I think I'll give my default answer, "I don't know", and get back to work on my stump speech.
posted by John V at 2:03 AM
2 Comments:
Are the "translations" under the passage taken from the Libertarian website your own?
The "principles" are all quotes I found somewhere at http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml. The "translations" are entirely my own. I have no idea what an expert in "framing" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28psychology%29) would say about the way libertarians frame their principles, but I see room for improvement.
Post a Comment
<< Home