Should Libertarians be excited about Tulsi Gabbard? Well, there are a lot of pros and cons, but it’s the pro that makes the decision hard. The weight of that pro very well could balance out all the cons.
When Ron Paul came out in mild support of Gabbard, the Libertarian world erupted. There is just one issue; Dr. Paul never endorsed Gabbard. Dr. Paul never said he would vote for her. As a matter of fact, Dr. Paul was asked about the number of candidates in the democratic party, and specifically, which ones looked promising. At this point, Dr. Paul talked about Gabbard’s outspoken disdain for the ongoing wars and nation building. Dr. Paul even went as far as to clarify that they wouldn’t agree on economics. Still, there is a push to get Libertarians behind Gabbard.
We all know how anti-war and anti-foreign intervention Libertarians are. This is why people are so obsessed with Gabbard. Gabbard is for ending the “war on terror” and ending the war in Syria. Well, at least that is where she stood during her run for Congress. Unfortunately, Gabbard has no political platform lined out on her presidential page.
This is a big issue to Libertarians. Many believe that it is the central issue. Now I try to be practical as I possibly can. I agree with the idea that if we have the opportunity to take an inch to take it, but also I do not think that we should give any up.
Gabbard is not for saving the budget that is being spent, but rather has her own plan for spending all that money. We all know that the war budget isn’t coming back to us. Instead, I am sure that Gabbard knows just how to spend that money. She already has several ideas laid out like environmental policies, net neutrality, jobs programs, housing programs, government mandated GMO labeling, Medicaid for all, social security, and more.
Now there are single issue voters, even in the libertarian world. These people would vote for someone who is anti-war over anyone else. I am not saying that Gabbard is going to flip like Bush and every other president, but I am saying that just because Gabbard is good on war doesn’t mean that she is the right choice, nor do I believe that she is going to do more for the liberty movement.
I will concede that the slaughtering of people overseas, and the nation-building should be the top priority. However, at what cost? If we were going to reinstitute slavery as a trade-off to ending the wars I would say that I would hold out on voting for that person. Also if they were advocating for the complete overhaul of the economy to be state-owned, then I would certainly say that is not the person that I want in office. I realize that these two examples cannot be carried out without an immense amount of political negotiations and the like, but the point still stands. There are areas that would not make the pay off worth it.
A Gabbard presidency, if she doesn’t go the way of JFK, would inevitably end in less foreign intervention, but far greater domestic intervention. Many argue that this will happen anyways. Unfortunately, this is so. However, I believe it will come at a much quicker pace under Gabbard. We are all aware that once we lose any ground to the government, the likelihood that we ever see an ounce of it again is a pipe dream. We may get the wars ended, but it will come at a cost, but if Gabbard doesn’t end the wars, she will surely still advocate for the programs that she currently would fund with the war budget. Therefore, creating inflation, theft, and extortion.
Many might think that I am a purist, or perhaps no one will ever be good enough for my vote. This is not so. I voted for Johnson. I didn’t vote for him based on what he said, but rather his record. As the governor of New Mexico, he had a list of liberty-minded successes, which also led to prosperity in New Mexico. I will vote for people when I believe that they will do right. I am not going to vote for a socialist simply because Ron Paul says that of the two dozen, or so, democratic candidates, Gabbard looks to be the most promising.
If you think that Gabbard will be the best then vote for her. If you believe that ending the wars is so important that it could cost us anything, then vote for her. If you think voting is aggression then don’t vote. However, I won’t be voting for Gabbard just because she is ex-military and wants to end the wars. Gabbard would have to demonstrate some economic literacy before I could even begin to say that she is seriously on my radar.