Category: political challengers

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The New Centrism?

CNN, debates, town hall, libertarian, green, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, centrism, illustration

Have you noticed that CNN has been offering multiple “town hall” presentations of the Libertarian and Green Party presidential candidates?

I think this is not only great for the Libertarians and the Greens, but also good for the country — and I hope it proves good for CNN.

When the Cable News Network started, it was the only player in its league. Then Fox News pulled away its right-​leaning viewers. MSNBC followed, offering a safe space for the far left. And there remains the center-​left of the rest of major media.

So CNN has to distinguish itself. Why not appeal to those left … out of the political process?

By opening up to libertarians and radical environmentalists, CNN may bring in more viewers. And temper its well-​known bias.

With the libertarians, though, CNN may really be just appealing to the new center.

Which is now libertarian … -ish.

Surely, with Trump harrumphing from the apparent “right” and Hillary Clinton dominating the neo-​con left — and Dr. Jill Stein trying to soak up the far left — moderates need a voice.

And with moderate libertarian Gov. Gary Johnson and libertarian-​leaning centrist Gov. Bill Weld, there does exist a reprieve from the scary extremes. Surprised? Well, that is precisely the case Johnson and Weld make. They pitch themselves, as Walter Olson perceptively argues in Reason, as “the ‘sane’ choice, the ‘responsible’ and ‘adult’ ticket … campaigning not on fear and anger but on a positive message of problem-solving.”

More of that, please.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

CNN, debates, town hall, libertarian, green, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, centrism, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers Popular

Smash the Duopoly

presidential, debates, duopoly, two party, illustration

When Donald Trump called our country’s electoral process a “rigged system,” he was not wrong. The system is a legally secured duopoly.

I’ve discussed a number of the elements of this system previously. But one I may not have explored enough is the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The League of Women Voters sponsored the first televised presidential debates in 1952, and from 1976 till 1988 ran a “tight ship,” as How Things Work puts it. After the League refused to cooperate with the bullying major parties, the CPD was established by former R and D bigwigs aiming to fully accommodate the major party candidates.

And no one else.

The CPD calls itself “non-​partisan,” but that’s a misnomer. It is a bipartisan commission, as everyone who knows its history knows. The commission raised the bar on minor party candidates to polling 15 percent in a number of polls.

Recently, we’ve been hearing that the commission is preparing a third place on stage, for Libertarian candidate Gov. Gary Johnson. But he still hasn’t quite yet hit the prescribed percentage, though he has met the most important qualification: he is the only minor party candidate likely to be on all state ballots.

And now there’s a kicker. According to Brian Doherty, historian extraordinaire of Reason, “The Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative PAC (Solifico) [yesterday] morning sent a letter to Janet Brown, executive director of the [CPD], threatening to send the IRS after them over their policy of not allowing all legitimate candidates for president in their debates.”

The case looks solid.

And could secure for Johnson a podium at the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.   

Printable PDF

presidential, debates, duopoly, two party, illustration

 

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers

Libertarianish, Democratish?

Gary Johnson, Weld, Libertarian, moderates, presidential, election, illustration

With the two most disliked and distrusted politicians in American history snatching the two major party presidential nominations, lots of voters — free-​market conservatives, libertarians, liberals concerned about civil liberties and war, moderates, decency advocates — are looking for an alternative.

The Libertarian Party, our age’s perennial “third party” on state ballots, has a golden opportunity.

Perhaps that’s why delegates to 2016’s Libertarian Party nominating convention chose two two-​termed former Republican governors to take up the freedom banner: New Mexico’s Gary Johnson and Massachusetts’s Bill Weld.

Both are nice men. They are the most accomplished and credentialed politicians in the race — more than Hillary Clinton; far more than Donald Trump. They don’t seem radical or threatening.

But that might be a problem. They are too nice. They are not threatening enough.

I’m not suggesting they threaten anyone, but in ideological terms they often appear more as moderates than as libertarians, as Ilya Shapiro noticed last week when he asked the pointed question, “Is Johnson-​Weld a Libertarian Ticket?”

The Johnson-​Weld take, economist Mark Thornton noted, is more libertarianish than libertarian: the pair are “fiscally conservative and socially liberal for Republicans which is great, but they fall short of Libertarian.”

This isn’t exactly a shock. Anyone who watched the bizarre CNN town hall with Johnson and Weld will remember that odd moment when Johnson called Democrat Hillary Clinton “a wonderful public servant” and Weld dubbed her a “lifelong friend.”

No need to attack Mrs. Clinton personally, of course, but when a Libertarian cannot find one discouraging word about what a President Hillary would mean, it seems they want to appear Democratish.

And not libertarian.

Well, it’s a strategy. But it won’t appeal to #NeverHillary voters, or impress many #NeverTrumpers, either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.   

Printable PDF

Gary Johnson, Weld, Libertarian, moderates, presidential, election, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers porkbarrel politics responsibility Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

The Clinton Chasm

Hillary Clinton, trust, lie, truthful, Ezra Klein, illustration, VOX

Hillary Clinton is roundly disliked by millions of outsiders, but admired by hundreds of politicians and activists. What sets her apart?

She listens.

Well, that’s Ezra Klein’s take in “Understanding Hillary,” an almost-​believable piece of apologetics courtesy of Vox.

He calls Hillary’s problem “The Gap,” though “Vast Chasm” is more like it.

There’s a huge difference between how the public sees her — “Polls show most Americans doubt her basic honesty” — and how her fellow insiders feel about her. “She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-​staff,” Klein informs us, “and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.”

Klein emphasizes Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to talk naturally and listen carefully, when dealing one-​on-​one with insiders and constituents, and in small groups. “She gets things done,” he asserts, though I think what he really means is she moves her agenda forward. Actual accomplishments? Open to dispute.

On the crucial issue of trust, Klein buys into what Hillary is selling. She says people doubt her because she’s been so often attacked.

I don’t know about you, but I doubt her because … well, cattle futures, for starters. Her ridiculous “vast right-​wing conspiracy” dodge to all those rich 1990s scandals: the blue dress, President Bill losing his law license, even the crony takeover of the White House travel office. Hillary has led the way more recently with the Benghazi “video” lie and her private server and email scandal. Plus, witness the ongoing conflict presented by the Clinton Foundation raking in millions from unsavory foreign sources..

Klein, on the other hand, argues that the media is against her.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, trust, lie, truthful, Ezra Klein, illustration, VOX

 

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies political challengers too much government U.S. Constitution

Is That a Constitution in Your Pocket?

Khizr Khan, Pakistan, Democrat, convention, Democratic, Donald Trump, illustration

“We were blessed to raise our three sons in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams.”

Those eloquent words came from the lips of Khizr Khan, the Pakistani immigrant who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last week about losing his son, Capt. Humayun Khan, to a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Describing his family “as patriotic American Muslims with undivided loyalty to our country,” and charging that, “Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims.” Khan asked Donald J. Trump a great question: “Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?”

Then, reaching into his suit pocket, Khan pulled out a copy, adding, “I will gladly lend you my copy.”

Yesterday at Townhall, I declared Khan my Person of the Week. Not just because Mr. Khan is fond of handing out pocket-​sized copies of the U.S. Constitution and told the New York Times that his “real hero” is Thomas Jefferson, but because he asked a great question.

Let’s ask all the candidates. That question, for sure, and three additional ones:

  1. Do you favor repealing parts of the First Amendment to allow incumbent congressmen to regulate their own campaigns and their opponents’ in regard to raising and spending money?
  2. In the Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment provides individuals a “right to bear arms” — will you appoint justices who agree or disagree with Heller?
  3. As president, will you issue an executive order instructing all federal agencies and police agents to cease any use of civil asset forfeiture?

I’ve got more questions. I bet you do, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Khizr Khan, Pakistan, Democrat, convention, Democratic, Donald Trump, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability political challengers responsibility term limits too much government

Who’s the Boss?

Paul Jacob, Gary Johnson, FreedomFest, 2016, Nevada, illustration

This week, Republicans have chosen Donald Trump to be their standard-​bearer. Next week, Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate.

But the only candidate on your ballot to take the U.S. Term Limits pledge is Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. Last week, I rubbed elbows with the former two-​term governor of New Mexico on a panel about term limits at FreedomFest in Las Vegas.

“I believe that if term limits were in effect that politicians would do the right thing as opposed to whatever it takes to get re-​elected,” Johnson told the capacity crowd.

The U.S. Term Limits pledge is straightforward, a commitment to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to help push Congress and the states to propose and ratify the congressional term limits Americans have been voting for and demanding for quite some time.

U.S. Term Limits Executive Director Nick Tomboulides asked me what it says about our democracy that even with overwhelming public support for many decades, Congress has blocked this reform.

Noting that Congress is thoroughly despised by the public, I pointed out that only one incumbent congressman has been defeated for re-​election so far this year. And that incumbent, Rep. Chaka Fattah (D‑Pa.), was under 23 felony indictments, including racketeering, for which he was later convicted.

I argued that term limitation “is a critical issue at the very core of governance. Are we the boss or are the politicians the boss? Today, I think we all have to be honest and admit the politicians are the boss.”

Adding, “And we have to do something about that.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Printable PDF

Paul Jacob, Gary Johnson, FreedomFest, 2016, Nevada, illustration