Are Libertarian's views mainstream enough to win election?
Well, I do my best. And so do my cohorts from The News-Herald who sit alongside me on the firing line and join in asking questions of officeholders and wannabes who seek to replace them.
It’s just that it is so simple when we are facing only two candidates (an R and a D) and so much more complicated when an L is added to the mixture.
The latter is a Libertarian. You are all familiar with the designations R and D, so I won’t have to go over that familiar ground.
This year, we have three candidates running for Congress in the 14th District, and because I become easily confused, I have a hard time remembering whose turn it is to respond to a question and whose turn it is to ask the next question when we are faced by, not two, but three candidates.
It is easy to keep the R and the D straight in my mind. Dave Joyce, the incumbent, an R, is a traditional Conservative.
He has all the Conservative values and his answers are easy to follow.
His main challenger, Michael Wager, a D, I would classify as a traditional Liberal. His answers are equally as easy to follow. They don’t happen to fit very well into my particular set of values, but that is just me, and when I pose questions I am totally non-partisan, or should I say, un-partisan.
In other words, I don’t allow my sentiments enter into the discussion. That is for the candidates to do.
But then along comes David Macko. He is a Libertarian, and may I say, a hard-line Libertarian.
We invited David this year. He has a solid background. But I am not certain his views are congruent with a majority of those I hear on the street.
I could be wrong. There is a Libertarian I hear often on TV who articulates his positions in a manner I find quite appealing. Maybe it’s that I can’t take a full load of them in one sitting.
Some years ago, there was a third party candidate I wouldn’t allow on the program. He insisted. He said he had a First Amendment right to state his views. I told him I was not denying his First Amendment right to speak. I was merely telling him that he was not invited to be on our program. He could go outside, stand in front of the Clocktower at Lakeland, and speak for as long as he wished.
He filed suit. Lakeland’s attorney, Jim Hackenberg, filed a very persuasive brief. We prevailed.
In recent years, several third party candidates have accepted our invitation to participate. So this year I invited David Macko.
He is a nice man. He made all of his points quite forcefully.
But David has as much chance of winning as I have, and I am not on the ballot.
(Please do not call me, David. I know what I am talking about.)
I will acquaint you with some of his views. First, he wants to impeach Barack Obama. (So does Sarah Palin, but never mind that.)
I am sure there are millions of Americans who agree with David’s distaste for Obama. David says of him, “like all communist and other socialist would-be dictators, Obama seeks to destroy our God-given rights...”
A few other quotes from David’s literature:
“Macko proposes to end the police state.” I wasn’t aware we lived in one.
“Macko wants to stop World War III.” There are a lot of problems in the world, but I have not heard them defined as WWIII.
“End the Federal Reserve System.” Easier said than done.
“Repeal Obamacare.” He would have a lot of company on that one.
“Equal rights for everyone, even white people.” That kind of talk will get him branded as a racist.
His other proposals are too lengthy and too complicated to get into here.
David, obviously, has done a lot of homework. I learned some things from his literature about the Oathkeepers Oath, Jury Nullification and the Skull and Bones Class of 1895.
But at bottom, his is not a mainstream campaign. But who knows? Maybe the mainstream is not where we want to be this year.
We will find out in November.