by Tom Wise
In the 2012 Presidential election there are only a few elements which will matter. First, does a candidate mean what he or she says (integrity)? Second, are those platforms real (honesty)? Third, are they achievable (sane)? Notice that I have not made it a pertinent factor whether a candidate is "electable" or whether they can beat any particular opponent.
The following table attempts to uncover strengths and weaknesses in the major candidates. I have followed each of their exploits for some time and I think I have a handle on them well enough to compile this oversimplified chart. Explanations and footnotes follow.
| Candidate | Sound Dollar1 | War2 | Jobs3 | Capitalism4 | Civil Liberty5 | Immigration6 |
| Gary Johnson (R) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? |
| Ron Paul (R) | Y | Y | ? | Y | Y | ? |
| Rick Perry (R) | ? | ? | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Herman Cain (R) | ? | ? | Y | Y | ? | Y |
| Thaddeus McCotter (R) | Y | ? | ? | Y | Y | ? |
| Michelle Bachmann (R) | ? | ? | ? | Y | ? | Y |
| Newt Gingrich (R) | ? | ? | ? | Y | ? | Y |
| Mitt Romney (R) | ? | ? | Y | Y | ? | ? |
| Rick Santorum (R) | ? | ? | ? | Y | ? | Y |
| John Huntsman (R) | ? | ? | Y | ? | ? | ? |
| Barack Obama (D) | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Besides Mr. Obama’s entirely negative report card, the first thing to which attention must be called is that nearly all of the Republicans are unabashedly pro-capitalism. Dear God! How have we become so socialized that we must now vet a Republican by this standard? The answer is: John McCain and Barack Obama. Leaving aside their other shortcomings, both 2008 Presidential candidates are big-government interventionists. Their inanity hurts us all, from corporation to entrepreneur to part-time worker at the mall. It is arguable that this is not the primary component we should seek, but it is nonetheless vital. We cannot become Communist even if we desired it. America is not built that way and Americans are just genetically against it. But if communism is the flu, socialism is a bad cough. It’s still rotten and we can’t wait to get rid of it. Sure, we’ve been convinced that “we’re all socialists now” because we enjoy big-government goodies. However, being a drug addict is not a good reason to go on being a drug addict. It’s time to wean and take the withdrawal and the hangover.
Note also the many question marks. This indicates positions which have not been definitively articulated, or which have been compromised by some contradictory action. For example, is Michelle Bachmann for the current war scenario or is she not? It’s difficult to say. Does Rick Santorum have any semblance of a plan when it comes to creating jobs or is it rhetoric alone? Does Ron Paul really come across as assured when he speaks on immigration policy? Wobbliness in any one category or even several categories does not negate a candidate. If you’ll look closely, the only person who gets an “N” is Barack Obama, and for a very good reason – he’s the only one with a Presidential record. Everyone else is either a sure thing or a question mark.
Of all the candidates, I think Gary Johnson has presented the most cohesive argument. His ideas are not only valid but they work together, and he has a proven record as governor of a Democrat-heavy border state. Ron Paul is a close second, a lot weaker than Johnson on jobs, this due to the difference between governors and congressmen. Rick Perry is a strong third, having proven himself to be pro-business, strong on jobs, very interested in border control, and a super advocate on the Second Amendment. After this, Herman Cain is ahead of Thaddeus McCotter by virtue of his business experience, but McCotter is a true patriot and has requisite ideas and humility. Bachmann isn’t a bad choice, being Tea Party-oriented, but she has a short record, is from the House, and seems to think ongoing war necessary. Gingrich is a concept guy but has personal discipline issues. Romney is too charismatic and high on wit over substance and consistency. Santorum is a loose cannon, much too emotionally involved in the war on radical Islamic terrorism and other issues to be fully trusted. Huntsman had his chance as an unknown to make a splash and rolled over – weak.
Other candidates are on the horizon. Sarah Palin would likely rate Yes in 4 or 5 columns, making her a desirable conservative candidate. Chris Christie, while a conservative darling, has yet to make known his positions on war or even the inevitability of sound currency (such as a gold standard)7. Paul Ryan is a candidate who can gather Yes in at least 3 columns. Donald Trump is someone who is extremely strong in 2 or 3 columns yet has huge credibility issues.
This article and the table herein represent a libertarian viewpoint. If you’re a raging partisan, go elsewhere.
_____________________________________________________________
1 “Sound dollar” can be based a gold standard or just good fiscal policy.
2 “War” means a sane foreign policy. It’s OK if the candidate is a hawk, as long as it’s reasonable. It’s also OK if the candidate is a dove, as long as we take care of business.
3 “Jobs” is a catch-all for economic activity. Candidates should have a stated plan for economic recovery and stability. If the candidate has a record, it should be positive to some extent. Cain is an example of a proven “jobs” candidate.
4 “Capitalism” is, as explained above, the foundational libertarian stance that free-market activity is best. Not all free trade is free nor are all candidates without double standards, but here we’re only going for a stated position.
5 “Civil Liberty” is towards freedom, not fascism. Those in favor of special interest rights over level playing fields are suspect, to say the least. Embracing the Constitution of the United States over homeland security is essential.
6 “Immigration” only means that our borders are secured. Other programs, like amnesty or work visas, have relative weight and are at this point less important than attending to the gigantic hole.
No comments:
Post a Comment