The Iowa Libertarian Party Presidential Forum: Food for Thought
The Libertarian Party of Iowa Presidential Forum may have been the most fun I have ever had in politics. The Gazette's Adam Sullivan was a fantastic moderator.
I will get to that at some point, but today, I want to focus on my big three takeaways.
First, I was amazed at the fraternity and camaraderie that I observed before and after the debate.
Contrast this to the Democrats who have slowly aligned behind Joe Biden. If you are reading my log, you likely watched at least part of one of the Democratic debates this cycle. I mean, there were like, a dozen of them.
Can you picture any three of the candidates onstage having a cordial conversation afterwards? Could you imagine Bernie and Elizabeth laughing together? Did you feel the tension when Tulsi Gabbard, Mike Bloomberg, and even Tom Steyer were on stage? Would John Delaney be welcome in a crowd?
That's all speculation, of course. The Dem Crowd of 25 may have been 'thick as thieves' off camera, but one may also speculate otherwise.
At the end of the day, I do suspect the Libertarian candidates will all support each other. The signs are already there, sharing resources and support.
I find this interesting, because for some of these candidates, it's not their first campaign. Some like Vermin Supreme are perennial candidates; and I also know that there are plenty of smaller political parties that would offer any of these men or women a top ballot November slot. Yet, I genuinely believe everyone on stage that day will work together after a nominee is named.
Which isn't to say the debate wasn't passionate or contentious. It certainly was one of the most emotional and energetic political conversations I have ever seen.
And no reason it shouldn't be! Being a Libertarian means 'less government and do no harm' but really how do you interpret that? Less taxes or no taxes? Does it mean literally No government? How do you interpret Libertarian policy and what it mean when it comes to immigration? Abortion?
Most importantly, what about THE ROADS?!?!?
I joke about the roads thing, but Libertarians are a diverse crowd, and it was interesting that while the debate was heated, there was no personal animosity to be seen afterwards.
It's good advice for all people regardless of where you fall on the ideological spectrum. Life is too short to be legitimately mad at your friends over minor political differences.
One of the most interesting debates was brought up by the platform of Adam Kokesh, in which he says he will dissolve the Federal Government when he takes (or I suppose, more accurately 'doesn't take') the office of the President on Day One when he's elected.
It sounds a bit nihilistic, huh?
Yet, it might actually be the opposite. Kokesh suggests making government Local and Customize-able
It's a fascinating proposition. It's a Big Idea and a way more interesting conversation than the usual debate topics.
Think of all of the people who might be interested in this. Those on the right, sure. Rural voters who feel that they are being ruled by those in big cities, for example. But also, those on the left. Progressives. Those very liberal areas of the country might be interested in the same deal.
I am not necessarily going on record that I agree with Kokesh. What I would suggest is imagining what it would look like, and what it would mean.
It is a great political thought exercise.
For the Libertarians, it has some real implications.
In a current example, the strongest of Second Amendment advocates have interest in the recent activity of gun control laws in Virginia.
Jacob Hornberger would suggest the Federal Government is needed so it could protect against state and local governments passing laws (in this case gun control, but ostensibly, similar types of anti-Libertarian regulations) that were in violation of the Constitution. If state government trample on rights, the Federal government will step in.
Kokesh would suggest that Hornberger's answer to solving government problem like this constitutes of "More government".
No one can doubt Hornberger's (or Kokesh's) Libertarian bona fides, which makes this a fascinating political discussion.
The other big takeaway I had was how the Libertarian candidate will stand up against Trump on the Debate stage.
Or more eloquently, to paraphrase Mark Whitney- "How are you going to make Donald Trump your b*tch?!?"
Needless to say, Whitney has the vocabulary of a night club stand-up comedian, but it is a valid question.
Democrats might say they have found a candidate in Joe Biden who could do that (critics of the gaffe-riddled Biden would suggest otherwise).
Trump is a politician, unlike near all we have ever seen. In the past, he has easily dispatched well-researched, well-spoken candidates like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.
Have any of the candidates in this current cycle shown the ability to do so? Buttigieg seemed pretty level-headed, and wouldn't get rattled, but didn't show much offense. The attorney Kamala Harris seemed a likely option, but really only was able to put together one good debate performance. Warren shook down Mike Bloomberg, but Trump is a much different beast.
Billionaires have the resources to fight, but the two that ran, also failed- Steyer (too nice), Bloomberg (too old). If there was anyone running who might be able to out-Trump President 45 it might have been Michael Avenatti. Now, to say he was problematic is an understatement.
Whitney is as about as a quick thinker as I have ever seen holding a microphone. His career started with him defending himself in court, and has just expanded from there - as comedian, podcaster, and businessman.
Unfortunately, Carlin is gone, Williams is gone, and Hicks is gone; but maybe we need to be checking night clubs for the next batch of candidates. Guatemala (Jimmy Morales 2016-2020) and the Ukraine (Volodymyr Zelensky (2019-present) found popular leaders who started off with comedic careers.
Perhaps, we need someone with the wits to handle a crowded room, or as Whitney says it on his website:
The Office of President is unique in all of politics. In addition to being the second highest constitutional office — the office of Citizen being first — it is a role that actually requires comedic talent. The ability to get a chuckle on demand may not be dispositive. But, if you want to be the President and you do not have that skill, you have no chance.
It's a thought.
As this post focused heavily on three of the candidates, it will not be the last on the Forum, as next, I look at the memorable moments from all eight.
I will get to that at some point, but today, I want to focus on my big three takeaways.
First, I was amazed at the fraternity and camaraderie that I observed before and after the debate.
Contrast this to the Democrats who have slowly aligned behind Joe Biden. If you are reading my log, you likely watched at least part of one of the Democratic debates this cycle. I mean, there were like, a dozen of them.
Can you picture any three of the candidates onstage having a cordial conversation afterwards? Could you imagine Bernie and Elizabeth laughing together? Did you feel the tension when Tulsi Gabbard, Mike Bloomberg, and even Tom Steyer were on stage? Would John Delaney be welcome in a crowd?
That's all speculation, of course. The Dem Crowd of 25 may have been 'thick as thieves' off camera, but one may also speculate otherwise.
At the end of the day, I do suspect the Libertarian candidates will all support each other. The signs are already there, sharing resources and support.
I find this interesting, because for some of these candidates, it's not their first campaign. Some like Vermin Supreme are perennial candidates; and I also know that there are plenty of smaller political parties that would offer any of these men or women a top ballot November slot. Yet, I genuinely believe everyone on stage that day will work together after a nominee is named.
Which isn't to say the debate wasn't passionate or contentious. It certainly was one of the most emotional and energetic political conversations I have ever seen.
And no reason it shouldn't be! Being a Libertarian means 'less government and do no harm' but really how do you interpret that? Less taxes or no taxes? Does it mean literally No government? How do you interpret Libertarian policy and what it mean when it comes to immigration? Abortion?
Most importantly, what about THE ROADS?!?!?
I joke about the roads thing, but Libertarians are a diverse crowd, and it was interesting that while the debate was heated, there was no personal animosity to be seen afterwards.
I can't imagine anybody can get too mad at Mark Whitney when you're doubled over in laughter.
It's good advice for all people regardless of where you fall on the ideological spectrum. Life is too short to be legitimately mad at your friends over minor political differences.
One of the most interesting debates was brought up by the platform of Adam Kokesh, in which he says he will dissolve the Federal Government when he takes (or I suppose, more accurately 'doesn't take') the office of the President on Day One when he's elected.
It sounds a bit nihilistic, huh?
Yet, it might actually be the opposite. Kokesh suggests making government Local and Customize-able
It's a fascinating proposition. It's a Big Idea and a way more interesting conversation than the usual debate topics.
Think of all of the people who might be interested in this. Those on the right, sure. Rural voters who feel that they are being ruled by those in big cities, for example. But also, those on the left. Progressives. Those very liberal areas of the country might be interested in the same deal.
I am not necessarily going on record that I agree with Kokesh. What I would suggest is imagining what it would look like, and what it would mean.
It is a great political thought exercise.
For the Libertarians, it has some real implications.
In a current example, the strongest of Second Amendment advocates have interest in the recent activity of gun control laws in Virginia.
Jacob Hornberger would suggest the Federal Government is needed so it could protect against state and local governments passing laws (in this case gun control, but ostensibly, similar types of anti-Libertarian regulations) that were in violation of the Constitution. If state government trample on rights, the Federal government will step in.
Kokesh would suggest that Hornberger's answer to solving government problem like this constitutes of "More government".
No one can doubt Hornberger's (or Kokesh's) Libertarian bona fides, which makes this a fascinating political discussion.
The other big takeaway I had was how the Libertarian candidate will stand up against Trump on the Debate stage.
Or more eloquently, to paraphrase Mark Whitney- "How are you going to make Donald Trump your b*tch?!?"
Needless to say, Whitney has the vocabulary of a night club stand-up comedian, but it is a valid question.
Democrats might say they have found a candidate in Joe Biden who could do that (critics of the gaffe-riddled Biden would suggest otherwise).
Trump is a politician, unlike near all we have ever seen. In the past, he has easily dispatched well-researched, well-spoken candidates like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.
Have any of the candidates in this current cycle shown the ability to do so? Buttigieg seemed pretty level-headed, and wouldn't get rattled, but didn't show much offense. The attorney Kamala Harris seemed a likely option, but really only was able to put together one good debate performance. Warren shook down Mike Bloomberg, but Trump is a much different beast.
Billionaires have the resources to fight, but the two that ran, also failed- Steyer (too nice), Bloomberg (too old). If there was anyone running who might be able to out-Trump President 45 it might have been Michael Avenatti. Now, to say he was problematic is an understatement.
Whitney is as about as a quick thinker as I have ever seen holding a microphone. His career started with him defending himself in court, and has just expanded from there - as comedian, podcaster, and businessman.
Unfortunately, Carlin is gone, Williams is gone, and Hicks is gone; but maybe we need to be checking night clubs for the next batch of candidates. Guatemala (Jimmy Morales 2016-2020) and the Ukraine (Volodymyr Zelensky (2019-present) found popular leaders who started off with comedic careers.
Perhaps, we need someone with the wits to handle a crowded room, or as Whitney says it on his website:
The Office of President is unique in all of politics. In addition to being the second highest constitutional office — the office of Citizen being first — it is a role that actually requires comedic talent. The ability to get a chuckle on demand may not be dispositive. But, if you want to be the President and you do not have that skill, you have no chance.
It's a thought.
As this post focused heavily on three of the candidates, it will not be the last on the Forum, as next, I look at the memorable moments from all eight.
Comments
Post a Comment
Contact us