View Poll Results: Will you help Dan Druck?
- 2. You may not vote on this poll
RPR: rEVolution interview with Dan Druck
RPR: rEVolution interview with Dan Druck
by RS Davis
The Freedom Files
Hello Freedomphiles! Time for another rEVOLution candidate interview. Today, we are talking to Dan Druck, who is running for Denny Hastert's old Congressional seat in Illinois' 14th District.
Mr Druck is forty-nine years old, and lives with his wife and three children in Huntley, Illinois. He writes a column, as I do, for The Nolan Chart, under the pseudonym USAF Vet Dan.
A graduate of the Illinois Institute of Technology, he has a degree in architecture, winning the Alpha Rho Chi National Architectural Award and established the school's first chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
Before college, though, Mr Druck enlisted in the air force, serving from 1976 to 1980, where he was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal, Longevity Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and Marksmanship Medal.
This is not his first foray into the political realm, having campaigned in 1996 as a Democrat, but as Dan tells us, "The Democratic Party filed a protest with the IBE, challenging petition signatures. The IBE, without review, invalidated my position on the ballot." He ended up running a write-in campaign.
He also co-founded The Council on Domestic Relations (CDR), which he describes as "the antithesis of the CFR. It focused on ferreting out unConstitutional components that were buried in pending legislation. Our nation-wide volunteers would read all pending legislation (unlike most of our Congressmen) and then we'd organize phone blitzes to our elected officials in an effort to defeat these nefarious bills. The CDR also fought against state calls for a Constitutional Convention."
The CDR also was responsible for the 10th Amendment / State Sovereignty Resolution:
- The principal motivation came from the myriad of federal mandates which have been placed and are planned to be placed on the states. State legislatures feel they have little choice but to implement these mostly-unfunded mandates and pass the cost for implementation to the state taxpayers. For most state legislators, this is a very frustrating dilemma.
The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp. Article IV, Section 4 says, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.....", and the Ninth Amendment states that..."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
We have, through apathy and lack of will, allowed federal legislators and bureaucrats to assert their will over us and commandeer our funds for their own use.... most of it today outside the authority granted to them by the Constitution.
When a state passes this resolution proclaiming its sovereignty, that state may then claim exemption to most federal mandates under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This was what happened with New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992). The federal government was attempting to mandate that the State of New York accept radioactive waste for disposal. New York pleaded they were exempt from the mandate under the Tenth Amendment and the court affirmed the Tenth Amendment protection. Thus, by having proclaimed sovereignty, a state is in the position to select those mandates they will follow, now by choice, not by edict.
A sovereignty resolution does not preclude any state from participating in any program they choose, but the proponent may no longer claim, "It's a federal mandate. We have to do it". Each state legislator, in compliance with his/her oath of office, must then examine closely before passage, the Constitutionality of any law being considered.
It passed in 26 states, but the CDR ran out of funds and could not continue to pursue it.
I had a chance to have an email sit-down with Mr Druck, and ask him a few questions about why he was running and what he wanted to accomplish.
FF: So, under which party's banner are you running, and why?
DRUCK: Libertarian. The local Republican organization has, like most around the country, rejected Ron Paul's platform. Rather than further complicate my campaign by having to fight against my own party, I chose the Libertarian Party because it most closely reflects my staunch pro-Constitutional views and is the most organized of the third parties.
FF: How's the organizing going?
DRUCK: While the 14th CD has long been known as an "ultra-conservative" district, the much-hated Republican (Jim Oberweis) lost to the Marxist Democrat (Bill Foster). This makes us believe that a real Constitutionist will be well received come November when their only other choice will be the same two RepubliCrats. We really have a shot at winning this... but we have to clear the first hurdle - ballot access.
The RepubliCrat candidates require only about 800 petition signatures. I, running on the Libertarian ticket, am forced to obtain more than 11,000! (15,000 to ensure that we are "challenge-proof") Yes, I know... we should sue the Illinois State Board of Elections but there isn't time. The petitioning deadline is June 23. While we have volunteers out collecting signatures we are going to have to hire petitioners. As soon as our website is done, we intend to collect donations to cover the costs of paid petitioners. In the mean time, we are trying to get the word out.
FF: So, what is your general philosophy of good government?
DRUCK: Government that governs least, governs best. I believe that the founding fathers were spot on target with defining the limited role of the federal government. They properly identified those areas and services (i.e., common defense, postal roads, etc.) that are best provided by a central government.
They were also on target when they reserved all other powers to the states and to the people by way of the 10th Amendment. The closer the citizen is to his government, the better. The more government we can shift to the states, counties, and townships - closer to the citizen - the more impact the citizen has on their elected officials who administer government.
FF: How are you like Ron Paul? How are you different?
DRUCK: As a strict Constitutionist, my platform is almost identical to Congressman Paul's. The only difference is in the area of foreign trade. I believe free trade cannot exist unless both trading partners are practicing it.
FF: Now, Milton Friedman likened that to saying, essentially, "I'll stop hitting myself in the head with this hammer, but only if you stop hitting yourself in the head with that hammer." Do you stray from the free market economic analysis that trade barriers harm the country enacting them far worse than the country they are enacted upon? If so, why?
DRUCK: I'll admit that I have not studied Austrian economics at a level of detail enough to consider myself wholly proficient. I have a general understanding of its principles and generally view it as the valid economic theory of a free society. I don't embrace a collectivist, micro-economic approach of economic management. I do, however, believe that modification to the application of Austrian economic principles is required when considering global economics - specifically, that true free trade can only exist when both trading partners are practicing it.
To date, all of the discussions I've had with staunch proponents of Austrian economics has led me to conclude that, with regard to the effects of trade tariffs, they focus on the outcomes and impact to the consumer and somewhat ignore the manufacturing side of the trade equation. "Manufacturers" (whether of goods or services) are germane in the equation as they employ the consumer and are, therefore, a conduit within the flow of money. If Country A imposes substantially higher tariffs than Country B, then B's consumers will enjoy lower prices but B's employers will be placed at a disadvantage - a disadvantage that will reduce their volume of business and therefore flow of money to B's consumers. $100 plasma TVs, as inexpensive as they would be, are still out of reach of the unemployed.
To resolve this inequity, I believe in the use of a simple, standard policy whereby tariffs are adjusted to match that of the trading partner's. Not only will this minimize and balance the detrimental effects of tariffs on and between both the consumers and the manufacturers, it will encourage all trading partners to lower / eliminate their tariffs thus promoting true free global trade. I do not, however, propose the use of tariffs in a protectionist fashion - that is to say, in a manner intending to pander to the manufacturers' desire for more than a level playing field. This can lead to trade wars which can lead to real wars.
Again, admitting that I am not wholly proficient on Austrian economics, I reserve the right to change my position on tariffs. I sincerely have an open mind on this issue and encourage input that would demonstrate flaws in my position. As they say, the truth shall set you free and truth is what I seek. I also intend to further educate myself on Austrian economics (time permitting). But, until such time that additional information proves my position as flawed, I stand by it. By the way, Ken Prazak, my campaign manager, is a staunch proponent of pure Austrian economics. I'm sure we'll be discussing this issue further.
FF: Libertarians are extremely varied on their foriegn-policy views. How would you describe yours?
DRUCK: Thomas Jefferson said it best: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." Good foreign policy is akin to being a good neighbor. While I may help him plant a tree on our property line, invite him to my house for dinner, and lend him a tool when he needs it, I don't stick my nose into his personal affairs. I believe America's prime interaction with other countries should be in the area of the promotion of free trade. We can best encourage and promote freedom and liberty by our own example.
FF: As a veteran, I'd imagine that you'd have a special place in your heart for our women and men in uniform. Do you have any plans regarding veterans?
DRUCK: Combat veterans do not receive proper assistance required to successfully transition them back into civilian life. They need more substantial, long-term psychological assistance to address post traumatic stress problems as well as bolstering the programs designed to retrain them into civilian jobs.
FF: A couple of quick shots. Federal Reserve - keep it or lose it?
DRUCK: Lose it. Ron Paul is right.
FF: Gay marriage - for or against? State or federal issue?
DRUCK: State Issue. Ron Paul hit the nail on the head on this one.
FF: What if you were a state legislator? What would your position be on gay marriage, or marriage in general?
DRUCK: Marriage is a moral contract and, therefore is a matter for the church, not the state. As it relates to civil law, all people should be free to enter into any kind of agreement they wish, including those that specify the details of their personal financial relationship, property ownership, etc.
FF: Agreed. What about the War on Drugs? Fight or surrender?
DRUCK: Get rid of it. It doesn't work, puts drug sales in the hands of gangsters (just like Prohibition Period alcohol), costs us billions, and fills our prisons.
FF: Agreed. Thanks for your time, and we'll have to have that free trade/fair trade debate on The Nolan Chart sometime.
He's working on a campaign website right now, but until then, you can read his work on The Nolan Chart. Also, if you are in his district and want to help him collect the 15,000 signatures he needs before June 23, download this petition form and get started!
Top blogs since the last RPR:
Is That a Ho-Ho? Whew! Just a Shank...
Islamic Religious Fredom in the Western World
Conyers Questions the War on Sick People
Hottie Nagila...Hottie Nagila...
RPR: Want to Move to Ron Paulville?
But What About the Coaster Tax??