Back in the 80ies (yes, yes, I know I am not supposed to remember the 80ies, but I do!) I used to watch a nice comedy show “Family Ties” where Michael J Fox once said, “That’s as unlikely as a Democrat in the White House”. Well, after “Family Ties”, which took place during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, we’ve seen two Democrats in the White House, so I reckon it’s not that unlikely. Things change once in a while.
However, the question now is, can we these days say something is as unlikely as a Libertarian occupying the cradle of democracy in Washington, D.C.?
Well, Ron Paul didn’t do very well back in 2008. True, he came second in Louisiana caucus, but after Super Tuesday, he was constantly third among the three remaining candidates. Of course, after that the political landscape has changed a bit and now there are quite many congressmen who can be called Libertarian, but has the landscape changed enough for a Libertarian to be hoping to get elected to the White House?
Daniel Hannan MEP yesterday discovered Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico Governor now running for POTUS. Daniel, whom I deeply respect, sounded very ecstatic about Johnson, and in some ways, he has every reason to be. His track record as the Governor of New Mexico speaks for itself:
- Left office with New Mexico as one of the only four states in the country with a balanced budget
- Left New Mexico with a budget surplus
- Used Line Item Veto thousands of times to trim the budget
- Vetoed 750 bills during his time in office; more than all other governors combined
- Cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone
- Created more than 20,000 new jobs
- First New Mexico Governor to challenge education status quo and propose statewide voucher program
- Restored State General Fund reserves to more than $222 million from a low of $28.1 million
- Limited annual state budget growth to 5.0% during eight years in office
- Cut taxes 14 times while never raising them—a first for New Mexico
- Vetoed 32% of the total number of bills submitted for his signature
Gary Johnson sounds like a very efficient leader and domestically, the US would benefit immensely from his fiscal conservativism. Small government, low taxes, building an economy that creates private sector jobs—what more could one want? And the fact that he wants to implement all his proposed changes to the US economic policy right away would, at times when the US is struggling with its debt ceiling and debt itself, perhaps steer the US economy onto the right track again.
Gary Johnson wants to cut federal spending by trillions, he wants to repeal Obamacare, and he wants to make the Fed more transparent and stop “quantitative easing”.
In short, this man is everything the US economy needs. And let’s not forget, the US economy influences global economy more than some of us would like. In today’s world, our economies literally depend on each other.
But I think we ought to look at a little bigger picture when we’re talking about the President of the United States, the leader of the free world. Admittedly, the US economy and its situation are extremely important. But so are other things.
What I personally am worried about, and what the American public should be worried about, is his foreign policy programme. In addition to calling all US troops home from every conflict zone, which at the moment doesn’t sound reasonable and can be potentially very, very dangerous, he says:
Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments.
I’m sorry, but the collapse of the Soviet Union didn’t end the Cold War. Russia, as Soviet Union’s successor, is as dangerous now as it has always been. Russia has publically declared that it has a right to defend its citizens abroad with lethal force. Russia has imprisoned and continues to imprison “politically dangerous” opponents of the regime, like Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Russia is completely unwilling to face its criminal past and prosecute communist perpetrators who killed or ordered innocent people to be killed. Russia is, on state level, still ordering executions and assassinations, like the one of Aleksander Litvinenko, and then refusing to prosecute the perpetrators.
Russia is one of the most dangerous countries on Earth. And the main reason for that is, the international community is allowing Russia to behave the way they are behaving. NATO and the EU consider Russia as an equal partner. The current US President has done all but bent over to Russia. Russia feels strong and secure as the international community has legitimised it and its behaviour. And that is especially and utterly dangerous.
But if a US presidential candidate honestly believes that the Cold War is over—and that is what he is essentially saying—then he is as dangerous to the free world as the current occupant of the White House. No one in their right mind could underestimate this threat. One look at Russia’s current political climate ought to say that it’s not a proper democratic country that can be trusted. Nevertheless, there are plenty of politicians who would oblige Russia in every possible way and, indeed, bend over to Kremlin and then even brag about how good it was. I think that the President of the United States should be one of the politicians who doesn’t do that.
US military bases and troops in Europe are here for a reason. That reason has, since 1945, been to serve and protect, frankly. Indeed, the international relations were slightly different between 1945 and 1990, but the basics are still the same. American troops in Europe provide security to both the US and Europe. And I am very glad that they are here.
The fact is, the American public know that. The American public view their country as the only superpower of the world that has to act as the world’s policeman. And that is a good thing. America has and will be the world’s policeman, because there are no alternatives. Would we really rather have the Russians or the Chinese act as the world policemen? I definitely wouldn’t.
I think Americans know the true value and virtues of their country. And they wouldn’t allow America stop its policing role because they’re committed to it. I think Americans want their country to be the protector of the weak and the liberator of the oppressed, because they know that until there are people and countries that defend liberty and freedom at all cost, the world will also remain free.
Yes. A Libertarian in the White House is as unlikely as a Libertarian in the White House.