If we wait for a candidate who agrees with Ron Paul on everything, election of someone we otherwise like to national office may never happen.
Not that NAFTA isn't important. But I think I read that even Rand Paul doesn't agree 100% with his dad on Afghanistan. Does that make him bad?
I've been leaning towards libertarianism since about 1966, after my college roommate attended some sort of freedom school in Colorado. This was years before the LP was founded. But later I lost interest after decades of bickering over minutae. Purists ruled the party, insisting that every candidate, and sometimes seemingly every member, must adhere to everything the party espoused.
What kind of freedom is that?
Not to mention that after nearly 40 years, the number of LP candidates elected to national office remains zero.
I came back to the philosophical fold like a lion in heat when Ron Paul ran in 2007-2008. Created my own radio spot for him, then spent like a drunken sailor to air it in four states. Given how things ended, I'm undecided about whether I will ever do that again. Here it is, with video added by a supporter in Texas. More than two years after I wrote and announced it, the first three topics mentioned are still making headlines:
Please don't eliminate candidates based on one position. There are so many issues it's virtually impossible to agree on everything. Plus it's counterproductive; it could mean we'll never find anyone else who measures up.
If we don't allow just a teensy-weensy bit of flexibility, we'll scare away candidates who actually have a chance to win. Certainly Gary Johnson, as a successful businessman and two-term governor, warrants such a chance. But if potential supporters rule him out because of a single issue, we're never gonna get anyone elected to national office.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: