Here’s the frustration about talking with a libertarian.\u00a0 You can agree about the issues, but when you ask about solutions, the response is not intelligible as an answser \u2013 unless you speak that libertarian jargon.<\/p>\n
I had such a conversation recently with David Clements, who calls himself not a libertarian but a constitutional conservative.\u00a0 He\u2019s running in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, against Allen Weh.\u00a0 The winner will face Senator Tom Udall in November.<\/p>\n
Clements is the underdog against the well-funded and better known Weh.\u00a0\u00a0 He’s youthful, likeable, handsome, energetic and exudes earnestness.<\/p>\n
Clements is reluctant to support any intervention by government, even to solve problems government has created.\u00a0 So I found it challenging to get specific answers about what he would do on major policy matters.<\/p>\n
In the Senate, would he stick with principle, even if it leads to gridlock, or seek compromise?\u00a0 Gridlock sometimes serves the interests of liberty, he says.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0But he would work with Democrats on matters where they agree.\u00a0 An example he offered is reducing government surveillance of private citizens.<\/p>\n
His positions on foreign policy are easier to understand.\u00a0 What should the U.S. do about Crimea, for example?\u00a0 No U.S. military and intervention unless it is in our national security interest, he says.\u00a0 And then only with the declaration of war, as the Constitution requires.\u00a0 What about sending arms to Ukraine, as some have suggested? \u00a0Would he regard that as an act of war on our part? \u00a0He says yes.\u00a0 We should only send arms to Ukraine if we declare war.<\/p>\n
We should not be occupying countries or nation-building at our expense, he says.\u00a0 The greatest threat to our national security, he says, is our national debt. I worry more about terrorists with bombs, but I agree the debt is a very serious issue and we\u2019re not doing nearly enough about it.<\/p>\n
We can do more for national security by spending money at New Mexico\u2019s national labs, researching ways to keep us safe, he says.\u00a0 I wonder if that\u2019s his way of placating New Mexico economic interests while sticking with his principles.<\/p>\n
And what about our national economy?\u00a0 I asked about the so-called \u201cone percent,\u201d who have more wealth than the rest of us combined, and the consolidation of money and power in fewer and fewer people and organizations.\u00a0 What would he do about that?<\/p>\n
What we have now is not capitalism, he said.\u00a0 It\u2019s corporatism or crony capitalism.\u00a0 Then how should we fix it?\u00a0 His answer was a mini-lecture on the private sector, capital formation and the virtue of the profit motive.\u00a0 Government misallocates resources, he said.\u00a0 He\u2019s not interested in enforcing antitrust laws because he believes that should be left to consumers.<\/p>\n
This is where we part company. \u00a0I think the extreme consolidation of wealth and power is a national security issue as grave as the national debt.\u00a0 It occurred because of government policies, it needs to be changed by changing government policies, and I want to know specifically what my senators propose to do about it.\u00a0 Anti-trust can\u2019t be left to consumer choice because the consolidation of markets has left consumers powerless.\u00a0 I think free markets are sustainable only if there is some regulation, because the most successful companies use their power to corrupt the marketplace, as they have done.\u00a0 We didn\u2019t have enough time to debate that.<\/p>\n
Clements said his policy positions derive not from any abstract philosophy but from talking with New Mexicans, such as farmers and ranchers who are tugged in all directions by conflicting regulatory mandates.\u00a0 He says he\u2019s pro-environment but favors leaving environmental regulation to the states.\u00a0 Many environment issues cross state lines; we didn\u2019t have time to talk about that, either.<\/p>\n
He said I asked the best questions of any interviewer he\u2019s met so far.\u00a0 I\u2019m flattered, I\u2019m impressed by his sincerity, and I\u2019ll be genuinely delighted to talk with him again.\u00a0\u00a0 But I still need answers, not theories.<\/p>\n
Triple Spaced Again, \u00a9 New Mexico News Services 2013<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Here’s the frustration about talking with a libertarian.\u00a0 You can agree about the issues, but when you ask about solutions, the response is not intelligible as an answser \u2013 unless you speak that libertarian jargon. I had such a conversation … Continue reading