ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Neither dictator nor a king

| Friday, Sept. 2, 2016, 8:57 p.m.

It was refreshing to moderate a “town hall” with the libertarian presidential and vice presidential candidates last week because Govs. Gary Johnson and William Weld respect limits on presidential power.

On Sunday, when Fox News' Chris Wallace challenged Johnson's plan to replace the IRS with a consumption tax, Johnson pointed out that he's “not getting elected dictator or king.”

Wallace suggested that means, “Don't take my policies seriously because they won't get through.”

I disagree.

It means Johnson understands that America is a constitutional republic and there are (and ought to be) checks on what presidents can do.

In response to Wallace's comment about Johnson not taking his promises seriously, Johnson said, “Take them very seriously. Count on certainty that we're always going to support taxes going lower ... being in business being easier, rules and regulations not getting worse.”

Johnson and Weld hold clear positions — unlike aspiring dictators Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Clinton changes positions from year to year: praising trade deals, then condemning them; condemning gay marriage, then praising it — then scolding anyone who doesn't share her new position.

Trump changes positions even faster, sometimes day to day. After saying he'll deport millions of illegal aliens, now he says he won't if they pay taxes and fill out paperwork — roughly the same position Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio held when Trump trashed them.

Libertarians don't shift to fit the whims of the day because we have core principles. One is: On most every issue, less government involvement is better.

“Government doesn't create jobs!” said Johnson when a young woman asked what Johnson and Weld would “do about jobs.” The libertarians said jobs get created when government gets out of the way, imposing only a few clear and predictable rules.

While Trump makes vague promises about making government “great” and Clinton about making it “fair,” Johnson and Weld talk about getting rid of as much of it as they can.

Unlike Trump and Clinton, Johnson specifies cuts — and he's willing to go after sacred cows such as Defense spending: “You can't balance the federal budget — something we're promising to do in the first 100 days — you can't do that without cutting military spending.”

Where markets thrive, people thrive. Weld understands that.

Applying these free-market lessons across a range of policies, Johnson and Weld would roll back the drug war, decrease our involvement in foreign wars and give individuals more control over how their Social Security funds are invested.

When an audience member suggested that voting for a third party is a “wasted vote,” Weld replied, “We're fiscally responsible. We're socially inclusive and tolerant, (but) if you agree with us and you want to go waste your vote on Trump or Clinton, be our guest. We're libertarians.”

Johnson and Weld don't promise they can get rid of the Washington leviathan overnight. But taking a few steps closer to liberty sounds like a good start to me. It's a lot better than the path the two major parties want us to take.

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on Fox News and author of “No, They Can't! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me