Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are running one of the better third-party races and that’s the problem. Stop running a third party race. Third parties historically are associated with fringe politics.You on the other hand reflect the big center. Right now you’re fielding endless objections from the left and the right have always leveled at libertarians. Big government from the left and culture from the right. “Have you stopped smoking dope?’ “Without regulations we’ll all choke to death.” .You’re on the defensive. How do you overcome this? Deflect this line of questioning by just stating a fact evident to everyone, a President Gary Johnson without a single member of congress would have zero ability pass any kind of extreme legislation. The best you could do would be to guide legislation in the direction of smaller leaner government and enhancing personal freedom and advancement. Instead, paint a big picture so people can visualize.your administration as the best and logical choice. You sell a house by encouraging the prospective buyers to see themselves in it. How this house takes care of their needs. Good schools in the neighborhood, each kid has a bedroom, the great kitchen and family time in the backyard, just visualize.. How do you apply this to this campaign? First layout the problems in dire need of attention. Extraction from costly wars and nation building while maintaining peace and open trade routes abroad. Getting control of entitlements including Obama care and our debt before they swallow our national budget. Showing how a rational immigration policy would greatly contribute to a solution. Confronting our rising drug problem and bringing education into the 21st century along with sensible tax and regulatory policies returning the US to the top rank of places to do business.all need to be faced.
Thinking about government’s relationship to its citizens especially in these times, we remembered some memorable lines Marlon Brando spoke as Mexican revolutionary leader Emiliano Zapata in the movie “Viva Zapata”
….You’ve always looked for leaders. Strong men without faults. There aren’t any. They’re only men – like yourselves. They change, they desert, they die. There are no leaders but yourselves. A strong people is the only lasting strength! …..That’s how things really change – slowly through people. They don’t need me anymore. A strong man makes a weak people. Strong people, don’t need a strong man.
We have had the good fortune through our inherited English common law and our constitution for individuals in the United States to enjoy the protections and freedoms that have enabled us to bring about unprecedented “More”. An expansive open home market and “Yankee” traders abroad led to a rising standard of living. Never perfect (for instance just think about slavery), we have moved forward in our irregular fashion enhancing the abilities of each and every individual to achieve the best that’s in them. While this may always be a work in progress, we must first avoid backsliding while implementing ways to ever strengthen individuals.
Our morning email inviting us to read the latest Washington Post Opinions led us to the erudite Marc A. Thiessen’s latest column “The Election is a Train Wreck.” In it he cites the erudite Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens’s conclusion that in light of Trumps numerous transgressions one couldn’t possibly vote for him as he “morally unfit for any office, high or low.” Without any challenge to Stephen’s position, Thiessen countered that “That Hillary Clinton is also morally unfit for any office, high or low’. He likened it the dilemma of seeing speeding train headed bearing down on unsuspecting workers. You could pull a switch lever but that would divert the train onto a relative, ultimately summing up the choice between one set policy and appointment horrors against the another. He especially pointed to the supreme court as his greatest terror. He sums it all up:
This week we had both Trump and Clinton present their economic plans. Since then we have been inundated with media contrasting and comparing them. We saw it differently. What struck us was how similar the plans were in fact and tone. First of all their shared hostility to trade. Both turned thumbs down on the pending Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement while vowing to upset agreements already in place such as NAFTA. In our series on “More” we pointed out governmental entities can gain “More” in only three ways. 1. Take from someone else 2.Trade for it 3. Innovate. As we have seen, the latter two often go hand in hand. Before you can talk about how it’s distributed “More” has to exist. If you aren’t creating “More” you are dividing the same old pie with those closest to power grabbing the biggest slices. Without incentive to even maintain, the entity will stagnate or implode. Cuba and Venezuela are just the latest examples. Trade is at the heart of capitalism. Obviously these two have no acquaintance with Adam Smith and David Ricardo. (What do they teach at the Wharton School of Business?).
Both would severely penalize businesses relocating operations beyond our borders. It takes by most estimates more than $100,0000 in invested capital to create the average private sector job. Who would want to invest in production in the US if like the Hotel California you can check in but never checkout? We’ve historically benefited from foreign investment but this would be an enormous beware sign. The same problem would affect US corporations that hold huge amounts profits overseas that otherwise might take advantage of Trump’s lower Corporate tax rate. The US has already dropped out of the top-tier of countries rated best to do business. This could position us to bring up the rear. How is this a plausible plan to expand employment? Likely it would have the opposite result.