Finding America’s Next Great President (Part Two)
by James Kilbourne
In part one of this article, I set forth the reasons as to why I consider four American Presidents to be the men most responsible for the advancement of freedom throughout the United States and now throughout the world. It was the American Revolution that first consistently defined and established political freedom under Washington, then expanded the concept of extending these freedoms to all her citizens under Lincoln; under Reagan America conquered the greatest foreign threat to freedom militarily and ideologically, and under Bush II expanded the concept that all nations of the post 9/11 world need to be democracies. The next great American President will need to work to diminish the government’s interference in its citizens' lives by redefining and privatizing the welfare policies of the 20th century into a more libertarian ownership society in the 21st century. He or she will also need to liberalize the social restrictions made worse during the essentially conservative period from Nixon to Bush II, while maintaining an anti-terrorist, pro-democratic foreign policy. To borrow and expand on Reason Magazine’s wonderful tag line, the next great president will need to champion free minds and free markets for all citizens of the world. From where will this person come?
In order to answer that question, we first need to understand where we have come from. America was founded as a one-party system. Well, actually, it is more accurate to say that at first the United States of America didn’t have any political parties. If you ever question the unique qualities of George Washington as a politician, think of this fact: when it came time to select our first president, no one else was seriously considered. Can you imagine one person so completely dominating politics today? Among the problems facing America’s new government, Washington worried more about the establishment of political parties, or factions as they were called in those days, than any problem save perhaps foreign political entanglements. He felt that it was necessary for the country to rally around its greatest leader under one philosophy, a situation in history that only occurred once - when that leader was George Washington. There has never been another man great enough to carry it off, and with the departure of Washington, we quickly had the Adams Federalist Party and the Jefferson Democratic Republican Party. There have been times when we have had a third political party come into being long enough to put up a candidate capable of drawing a reasonably high percentage of the votes for an election or two. Sometimes this has even affected the result (Perot probably switched the election result in 1992 from Bush I to Clinton, for example). But America has essentially been a two-party country since 1800. Of our two current main parties, the Democratic Party traces its beginning (but certainly not its current philosophy) directly to Jefferson in 1800. The Republicans go back to 1860 and Abraham Lincoln. Sometimes, political parties screw up so badly that they disappear, such as the Federalists and the Whigs in the 19th century. I don’t think that is likely to happen in the near future to the Democrats or Republicans, but if it does, friends, the prevailing new party will NOT be the Libertarian Party. The Socialist Party had the prevailing ideas of the 20th century, but it never won a presidential election. The Socialists and Libertarians take purist stands on all subjects, something which is a great idea for a philosophy club, but a lousy idea if you are try to field a winning political candidate. The Socialists got most of their major ideas written into law through the Democratic Party last century. In my opinion, Libertarians will similarly need the Republican Party to have their ideas prevail in this century.
In a two party system, a major political party needs to attract over 50% of the vote to gain power. To remain competitive, this requires both parties to stay somewhat near the center of the political spectrum, and to put together interest groups (factions) that can fund party activities and deliver the necessary votes. I think most people confuse politics and philosophy and expect too much of the political party with which they most identify. I call myself a Republican not because I agree with all their positions, but rather because I understand that politics is not philosophy, although that does not mean that they are in conflict. It is important to understand that politics is the art of trying to advance your philosophy as quickly as you can in a non-coercive manner, and that often requires some strange bedfellows.
It is my opinion that the Republican Party has the potential to advance an essentially libertarian philosophical agenda at this time in history. The political parties have been moving more toward their extremes over the last several decades. Positions on controversial subjects have become black and white, and both parties have come to an interesting place: the positions that need to be adopted in order to get the nomination of the party are further and further away from the positions that are needed to be elected. The most loyal and extreme factions of each party are the ones who pick that party’s candidate for the general election, but it is the people of both parties who elect a president.
In my opinion, the Democratic Party is in an even more serious intellectual decline than its recent close political losses shows. It has become nothing more than a party of large special-interest groups, such as unions, trial lawyers, and the educational establishment. There are no core beliefs any longer around which a healthy majority could be established. However, the Republicans offer a much more promising opportunity for libertarians. In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the Republican candidate for president. I believe he was the most libertarian candidate nominated by any major party in my lifetime. There was only one problem: he lost to the Democrat Lyndon Johnson 43 million to 27 million. It was the worst defeat in modern times. In 16 years time, the second most libertarian candidate in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, won a smashing victory over his Democratic challenger and an independent candidate who was a former Republican. How did he accomplish that? Ronald Reagan took the libertarian base of Goldwater and added to it the Christian Right. Victory!
My point is that with the Republicans, we start off with a moderately libertarian base and the Christian Right as its two main factions. How can we nominate an essentially libertarian candidate? By keeping as much of the Christian Right as possible, essentially to win the nomination, and then to peel off enough of the more socially moderate Democratic vote to get 51% in the general election.
In part three, I will identify a Republican agenda that can be broadly libertarian and still retain enough of its core support to prevail at the Republican Convention in the summer of 2008, and which can go on to victory in November. I will describe the current forces that can be put together to have a general election victory. I will also identify a few candidates that might have the appeal to hold together a diverse Republican Party and appeal to a tired, moderate middle that is looking for libertarian answers - but just doesn’t know it yet!
Discuss this Article (40 messages)
|
