Tag Archives: elections

Op-Eds

They Want to Talk About Israel. OK, Let’s Talk About Israel.

4 Comments

American and Israeli Flags (public domain)

In The Best and the Brightest, David Halberstam quotes US president Lyndon Baines Johnson on his desired qualities in an assistant: “I want loyalty! I want him to kiss my a– in Macy’s window at high noon and tell me it smells like roses.”

Nearly every “major party” presidential candidate this year and in past election cycles seems to have taken that advice to heart, but in an odd way. They come off less as applicants for the presidency of the United States than for  the position of personal aide to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The second Republican presidential primary debate looked a lot like Macy’s window at high noon:

Jeb Bush: “[T]he first thing that we need to do is to establish our commitment to Israel …”

Carly Fiorina: “On day one in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend to Bibi Netanyahu to reassure him we will stand with the state of Israel.”

Marco Rubio: “If I’m honored with the opportunity to be president, I hope that our Air Force One will fly, first and foremost, to our allies; in Israel …”

Mike Huckabee: “At the end of my presidency I would like to believe that the world would be a safe place, and there wouldn’t be the threats. Not only to the US, but to Israel …”

Ted Cruz: “If I’m elected president our friends and allies across the globe will know that we stand with them. The bust of Winston Churchill will be back in the Oval Office, and the American embassy in Israel will be in Jerusalem.”

If you expect to hear anything much different from the Democratic candidates, you’re engaged in wishful thinking. Immediate and unqualified obedience to Benjamin Netanyahu has replaced Social Security as the third rail in American presidential politics — don’t step on it or you’ll die.

The question for me is not “pro-Israel” versus “anti-Israel.”

Nor is it, as conservative pundit Ann Coulter tweeted foot-in-mouth, about courting the “f—ing Jews,” who are no longer the swing voting bloc they used to be, if for no other reason than that American Jews tend on average to be a little less “pro-Israel” than major party presidential candidates.

What it’s about is whether or not American voters should continue to give a foreign power’s  well-financed lobby significant control over US foreign policy decisions and presidential choices.

In future debates, presidential candidates of all parties should be asked whether or not Israel is one of the 50 states — and if not, why they think it deserves large welfare checks drawn on the treasury of, and veto power over the actions of, the US government.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

And Then There Were 16: Perry Drops Out

Leave a comment
Governor Rick Perry of Texas speaking at the R...
Governor Rick Perry of Texas speaking at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

I am neither a Republican nor a Rick Perry fan. Nonetheless I find Perry’s decision to drop out of the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination contest disheartening. Here’s why:

Like Perry or not, agree with him on the issues or not, he was arguably the single most experienced political executive in the race. He served three-and-a-half terms as governor of Texas, America’s second largest and second most populous state.

His executive experience arguably extended into foreign and trade policy more than that of most governors. Texas shares a long border with Mexico and boasts the busiest foreign-tonnage port in the US at Houston. And under Perry’s governorship, Texas did better than most states during the economic downturn on fronts like employment and family income.

Frankly, Perry was a dream candidate for Republicans who cared about executive ability, plausible policy proposals, and “getting things done.”

No, I wouldn’t have voted for him. I’m a political libertarian and a partisan Libertarian; he’s neither of those things.

But it boggles the mind that out of 17 “serious” candidates, Republicans chose to cut Perry from the pack first, panning him in polls and not funding his campaign. What’s going on here?

I wish I could report that Perry just isn’t libertarian enough for a Republican Party with a growing and powerful libertarian wing. But that’s not the problem. The GOP, after some flirtations with libertarianism during Ron Paul’s tenure in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, has taken a hard turn back toward authoritarianism.

Perry’s problem seems to be that Republicans are looking for the flashiest demagogue they can find this election cycle.

Topping Perry for demagoguery on immigration was a tall order. After all, he’s the guy who deployed Texas’s National Guard to “secure the border” with Mexico. But he’s been, in a word, Trumped.

He’s the first, but won’t be the last, candidate to fall to the GOP’s sudden infatuation with flash over substance. Right now, the polls show Donald Trump way out front, with loose cannon Ben Carson in second place. Moving up fast: Carly Fiorina, whose only real qualification seems to be her gender (she was fired as CEO of Hewlett Packard, and her only real political experience consists of badly losing her race for US Senate from California).

The Democratic front-runners aren’t very attractive either. But they don’t really have to be. They’re set for a walkover unless the GOP gets its act together, which seems unlikely.

If you had high hopes for a real horse-race, you’re probably bummed out . But look at the bright side: Perhaps the Libertarian Party can take advantage of the major parties’ state of disarray and start a real discussion about America’s future.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Election 2016: Can John McAfee Change the Game?

Leave a comment

The 2016 presidential election cycle got a lot more interesting on September 8 when John McAfee announced his candidacy under the banner of a newly formed “Cyber Party.”

McAfee, whose eponymous computer security software made him a multi-millionaire, sports a long record of public eccentricity that I need not waste words on here — you can look up if you’re interested. What’s important about his eccentricity is that where it touches on politics, he generally supports two important values: Freedom and privacy.

I’m definitely down with those twin emphases, and so far McAfee seems like the only bright light in a pretty dark and dismal presidential field. If the election was held today, he’d have my vote from among the declared candidates. But the election is 14 months away, and I have a few suggestions to offer McAfee for making the most of those months.

First, I hope he’ll forget his plans for a new political party. If he’s serious about freedom and privacy (and I believe he is), there’s already a party ready-made for his candidacy: The Libertarian Party.

Libertarians substantially agree with McAfee on the issues he cares about.

The Libertarian Party has a long record of securing ballot access for its candidates in all, or nearly all, of the 50 states. That alone would save McAfee millions in campaign costs versus establishing a new party (I speak from experience — in 2006 I founded a new political party; that party was only able to get on the 2008 presidential ballot in four states).

Additionally, the Libertarian Party will run hundreds, if not thousands, of down-ticket candidates in 2016 — candidates who also substantially agree with McAfee on the core issues. He doesn’t need to create a new movement. There’s a movement already in place and awaiting his leadership.

Beyond affiliating with the Libertarian Party instead of going it alone, I hope McAfee will identify freedom as the core issue and clearly mark out privacy as an emergent property of that issue, not a separate issue per se.

A well-known, reasonably well-financed Libertarian candidate who takes the US government to task for its depredations — in particular warrantless searches and wiretaps, wholesale eavesdropping on telecommunications, and imprisonment or exile of heroic whistleblowers who expose government abuses (Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, to name two) — could tear this presidential race wide open. And that’s something we desperately need.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY