Being a libertarian offers several advantages for both the individual and the country. One of the advantages for the nation is a stronger president. Another benefit is the rise of respect and friendship between current political adversaries. Although there are several more benefits to list, it must be recognized that the libertarian party faces its own issues and problems. Somewhere between the benefits and risks lies the individual’s choice to become a libertarian or retain the status quo of current politics in America.
So how does the libertarian philosophy offer us a stronger Commander in Chief? Perhaps the question should be; why would a libertarian even want a stronger President? Our President is weakened by the deals he must strike to gain the political support needed to get into the Oval Office. Whether they are left or right, the financial backing needed for victory in our current system guarantees that most opinions and goals of the President are necessarily congruent with the views of those who provided support during the campaign. The President of the United States of America ought to be able to think on their own and make decisions based on the facts and not the political mindset of campaign contributors. We should be electing Presidents based on their ability to deal with the unforeseeable, not in order for them to pass social legislation promised during campaigns. We should not be electing Presidents based on social engineering goals in any way. The more we bog down our President with legislation which properly resides within the individual states, the less he is able to coalesce the nation and the more he contributes to the divisive nature of our current political system. A libertarian point of view would allow our President to be stronger in terms of foreign policy, immigration issues and national defense for several reasons. Obviously the first reason comes from the focus on national issues which are the constitutional responsibility of the President and Congress. A second reason is the movement towards defining the President as a unifying presence instead of the divisive one we have seen for decades. If we restrict the powers of Washington to those provided in the constitution we might see that Americans agree more often than not when it comes to national defense, immigration, fair economic competition between states or foreign policy. This focus on constitutional demands upon the Congress and President would allow our President to avoid the alliances which prevent him from acting as a true executive. Is it not preferable that our President lead the country rather than his party? Is it not wise to distribute the power of government to as many places and people as possible to avoid the corrupting influence power so often brings? If a President has fewer responsibilities, doesn’t it seem logical that the focus on those issues would be far greater? Some of our best Presidents followed their heart, their character and their beliefs instead of their party. Lincoln was far from popular, even with his own party, yet he ensured the future of a nation and the eventual end of the deplorable retention of freedom from the black community. Washington was not popular for his stance on the war between France and England, yet by not giving in to the popular opinion, he kept our fragile infant nation out of a war that could have weakened us to the point of collapse. Of course he was just as unpopular over the whiskey tax, but no one is perfect and the taxation example only shows one of the problems of taking state issues and making them national ones. The President would be a more powerful office in regard to the world if he actually focused on the international relationships for which he is responsible. The President would be a more powerful domestic influence if the limitations of his power were enforced so that his focus remained on the good of the nation and not the good of his party. By avoiding the current addiction to legislating everything from cell phone bills to health care insurance, the President could rise above the fray the Congress produces and unite both the parties and the country. Finally, by limiting the power of Washington to legislating only that which constitutionally falls under their charge, the relationship between industry and government would be weakened thereby allowing the corrupting influence of money to lose its place at the legislating table. The freedom procured by removing personal gain would allow the voters to base decisions in the booth upon character and ideas instead of alliances and campaign bank accounts. Only a President with a strong character could survive an election based on philosophy and debating skills and a President with a stronger character would undoubtedly make a stronger leader. Beyond that, only a person of strong character would want the office of the President in the limited capacity provided by the Constitution.
Our nation is a union among people who disagree. This has been the case since its inception. Whether it is the Federalists and the Republicans, the followers of Jefferson or Hamilton, or the North and the South; our nation is built upon the idea that even though we can’t all agree we can provide for ourselves a nation which allows for both the variety of opinions and the common good. Part of the common good is the protection of those different opinions. Legislating behavior at the federal level goes against this founding principle of our country. By allowing the States to handle social issues we create a form of government which allows those who fiercely disagree on social matters to unite for the common good of our country at a national level. This unity at the federal level ensures the protection of all of our opinions by protecting the future survival of our country. The rule of law is dependent upon the ability of government to act as an agent of brutal force and coercion. If our government can’t hold us in jail, fine us, or take away our rights; then the law becomes impotent. Based upon this fact, isn’t it wise to formulate our social laws at the most local level possible in order to allow for those groups of people who disagree to live within their own beliefs while still retaining status as a valuable part of our country? How many federal laws are ineffective due to the inability of our federal government to enforce them? How many laws made within a city, county or state are more effectively enforced due to the support of the community? How many social laws only serve to divide our nation? For instance, does anyone actually believe that the issue of abortion will ever go away? It will be used to divide the nation into left-wing and right-wing voters until the country realizes that these beliefs aren’t going anywhere. Why shouldn’t we take such an issue and delegate it to the States, where it belongs, and allow for pro-life and pro-choice Americans to vote based on what is good for the country instead of voting in order to try to force their opinion upon those with whom they disagree? By allowing States to become truly reflective of their people instead of trying to create a nation of one belief system, we could make ourselves allies to each other and thereby form the more perfect union we should constantly seek.
Coming in Part III
The problems of being a libertarian (as well as the problems for the party)
Why anyone can be a libertarian (and why anyone can’t be a Dem or a Rep)
A Party of Humility vs. parties of arrogance
The reformation of Washington
No comments:
Post a Comment