"Spain," wrote the Basque philosopher Miguel de Unamuno in 1934, "is divided between the Anti-Zs, who support X, and the Anti-Xs, who support Z". How aptly those words apply to the United States in 2016.
A foreign observer of American politics doesn't see Republicans and Democrats. He doesn't see conservatives and liberals. He sees two angry and inchoate blocs called "Stop Hillary!" and "Never Trump!"
The more he listens, the more it seems to him that both sides have a point. Neither candidate appears to be fit for office. Both evidently regard the presidency as a bauble fashioned for their pleasure rather than as an office that should simultaneously elevate and humble its holder.
Clinton cannot quite hide her annoyance that others have so far stopped her from having her turn with the toy. Trump, for his part, sounds less like a businessman than like a sinister, bullying mobster.
So, absolutely: Stop Hillary. And, while we're about it, Never Trump. We're all agreed on what we're against. But what are we for? As Unamuno could see, negativity takes you only so far. Two years later, the Anti-Zs and the Anti-Xs had moved from arguing in cafes to shooting each other, and Unamuno himself had died, broken-hearted, under house arrest.
Alright, America isn't about to descend into a civil war. But surely the country can do better than two disliked, disreputable and dishonest candidates pointing at each other and saying: "I am the only alternative!"
Remember the classic "Simpsons" episode where the alien invaders Kang and Kodos contest the presidency, both promising to enslave the human race? The point was that people were foolish to fall for the "don't waste your vote on a third-party candidate" shtick. A surprising number of commentators seem to have taken that line, not as a joke, but as a kind of quasi-official constitutional norm.
In a contest between two spoilt and petulant shysters, the only wasted votes are the votes cast without conviction. If ever there was a moment for a credible third-party bid, it is now.
Me? I like Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. He's a self-made businessman of unimpeachable integrity. Indeed, the main case against him is that he sticks flintily to a number of positions that he knows to be unpopular.
Conservatives generally approve of his plans radically to scale down federal spending; of his uncomplicated support for free trade; of his enthusiasm for gun rights. But they tend to be rather warier of his relaxed attitude to gay marriage, abortion and marijuana.
Then again, these things have nothing to do with the presidency — a point which the former governor, a strict constitutionalist, understands in a way that neither Mr. Trump nor Mrs. Clinton does.
On foreign policy, which really is part of the job, Johnson is what we might call a Libertarian moderate — almost a LINO. He is no interventionist, and strongly opposed the Iraq War. But he offends some Libertarian purists by refusing to blame the ills of the world on Western meddling.
It's true that, as a rule, Libertarians don't win elections. The closest they get to power is when they form broader conservative coalitions, as happened under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Still, if anyone can perform respectably, it's the quiet, likeable, fitness-obsessed Johnson, who took New Mexico against the trend in 1994, vetoed more bills than his 49 fellow governors combined, and won comfortable re-election. At a time when the Right badly needs to win support among Hispanic-Americans, he can point to a solid record of success.
In any event, whether or not he can win, there are three good reasons to back Governor Veto on principle.
First, it would show that there are still Americans who care about what ought to be the central issue in politics, an issue that is becoming dull through familiarity and has been overlooked among the shenanigans of the primaries, but that has not gone away, namely the incredible fact that the federal government is more than $19 trillion in debt.
Second, it would allow people to participate in this election without, as it were, soiling their hands. They could carry out their civic obligation in good conscience.
Third, someone has to make the case for free enterprise and limited government. It is bad enough that Donald Trump has succeeded in his hostile takeover of the GOP. But if the wider conservative movement doesn't take a stand, then the entire American Right will become tainted with his brand of foul-mouthed nativism. And that, my friends, wouldn't be just America's tragedy; it would be the world's.
Dan Hannan is a British Conservative MEP.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by JK/SEA
Connect With Us