If you believe in
limited government and strict constitutionalism, as I do, voting for
statist poster child Hillary Clinton is probably a nonstarter. But
you've heard the Republican Party mouth some pretty words about those
principles in the past, so you might feel that voting for their
candidate Donald Trump is your only option. I hope you don't and I
hope you'll consider voting for the Libertarian Party candidate,
Governor Gary Johnson, instead. (No, it's not wasting your vote,
I'll explain why in a minute.) First, why shouldn't you vote for
Trump?
Our $19+ trillion
nation debt is killing us with higher costs of living, slower wage
growth, reduced fiscal flexibility, interest payments eating up more
and more of the federal budget, and is a ticking time bomb. Trump
(like Hillary) would only make it worse. When Clinton proposed $275
billion in new federal infrastructure spending, Trump said he would
double those spending hikes (outbidding his own previous proposal). A
recent analysis said that Trump's tax plan would jack the national
debt up another $7.2 trillion over 10 years. Fiscal conservatism?
And how does Trump
view the Constitution? Last December he vowed that, if elected, he
would sign an executive order mandating the death penalty for cop
killers. Killing a police officer is terrible, to be sure; but that
doesn't give the executive branch authority to create brand new
capital crimes out of whole cloth. Many of us decried Obama's use of
his “pen and phone” to try to circumvent the Constitutional
legislative process. Trump would make Obama look like a piker.
Even though most of
Trump's ideas involve gorilla-stomping all over the Constitution,
constitutionalists are told they MUST vote for Trump because he says
he'll nominate originalist judges who will defend the Constitution.
It seems counter-intuitive to me that Trump would nominate judges
that would thwart his own agenda at every turn. It seems more likely
he will merely lead the party (and the country) further from its
Constitutional moorings.
Someone who knows
plenty about the federal courts and the Constitution is Alan Gura. He
is the litigator who led America's gun owners to victory in two
landmark Second
Amendment cases before the United States
Supreme Court: DC v. Heller
and McDonald v. Chicago.
Here is what Gura thinks about supporting Trump because
of his potential
Supreme Court nominees:
“I have no illusions about what Hillary would do to the
federal bench. Sad! But there is something deeply contradictory about
the notion of electing a power-hungry strongman on the theory that
he'll appoint judges that respect and enforce constitutional limits
on government. Did Hugo Chavez appoint great judges? Did Putin,
Mussolini, or Erdogan? Would it have mattered had they sort-of kinda
suggested that they would?
“As much as I care about the courts, worrying about
jurisprudential doctrine is a luxury for people living under
basically free and stable governments, for people who have access to
food and toilet paper. And absolutely nothing in Trump's history
suggests that he'd honor his proposed judge list or otherwise pick
decent judges, while each of his proclamations indicates that the
Supreme Court would be among the least of our concerns under his
regime. True, the Trump gamble—that he'd be a figurehead who'd
delegate authority to responsible people, or be resisted by the
bureaucracy and media (or, laughably, by that stiffest-spined
creature, the Republican Congress), while hewing to a judicial
selection principle anathema to his personal brand—might
pay off. Should Trump win, I'd at least delight in Hillary's loss,
and fervently hope that he'd prove me wrong on every count. But I
wouldn't bet my country on it.”
What about Governor Gary Johnson? He was a successful entrepreneur
who became a two-term Republican governor of heavily Democrat New
Mexico. During his time in office he vetoed over 750 bills, cut
taxes 14 times (and never raised them), balanced the budget and left
the state with a billion-dollar surplus. His VP candidate, Bill Weld,
was also a two-term Republican governor in a blue state
(Massachusetts). According to the Cato Institute: “Weld cut
spending, balanced the budget, improved the state’s bond rating,
and cut numerous taxes. Even with a Democratic legislature, Weld has
a stunningly successful fiscal record.” Now as Libertarians, the
Johnson/Weld Team would bring those same small government principles
to DC. Johnson has said one of his first priorities would be
submitting a balanced budget to Congress.
So fiscal conservatives and other advocates of limited government
could certainly support Gary Johnson. But since it's nigh on
impossible for a third-party candidate to win, isn't that wasting
your vote? I don't think voting your conscience should ever be
considered a “waste.” If you need more though, how about this:
If we can help Governor Johnson get 2% of the vote here in Iowa then
the Libertarian Party will become officially recognized as a “major
party” by the state. That means Libertarian candidates would no
longer have to waste time and resources gathering signatures in each
race just to get on the ballot. If we can help Governor Johnson get
5% nationally, the party would get similar recognition from the
federal government. This all would mean a more active and competitive
third-party in future elections.
As we know from the private market, competition is a good thing.
With a little competition from a stronger third-party maybe the two
old broke down parties might have to run candidates for high office
that people WANT to vote for, rather than candidates they HAVE TO
vote for. But that will never happen as long as they can reliably
harvest your vote no matter how God-awful their candidates are. Vote
for a change: vote Gary Johnson for president.
Posts
