The Libertarian Party has a mixed batch of contenders for the presidential nomination come 2020 (SEE: Libertarian Party getting interest for 2020 election). But it looks like the leading candidate is former Massachusetts Republican Governor and 2016 vice-presidential candidate Bill Weld.
And George Will thinks the party has a shot in 2020… if Weld leads the party.
A non-libertarian leading Libertarians. OK…
Will posted a column in The Washington Post last week, titled “Can this libertarian restore conservatism?”
He then wrote:
“If in autumn 2020 voters face a second consecutive repulsive choice, there will be running room between the two deplorables. Because of its 2016 efforts, the Libertarian Party will automatically be on 39 states’ ballots this fall and has a sufficient infantry of volunteers to secure ballot access in another nine. So, if the Libertarian Party is willing, 2020’s politics could have an ingredient recently missing from presidential politics: fun. And maybe a serious disruption of the party duopoly that increasing millions find annoying. Stranger things have happened, as a glance across Lafayette Square confirms.”
Great! So libertarians will be given the choice of a Republican (President Donald Trump), a Democrat, and a Democratic-Republican (Weld). Now that’s certainly a way to win the White House.
Tom Woods may have had the best commentary in his latest newsletter:
Here I am supposedly the right-wing fuddy-duddy, yet I consistently endorse the most radical candidates around. They, on the other hand, are supposed to be chic and radical, and — without fail — they support the stuffed shirt.
Bare minimum for a libertarian candidate or party: anti-Fed, antiwar.
Weld has said that he supports both the employment and the inflation mandates of the Fed. He thinks we need a central planning agency to maximize employment.
I can get that from the Democrats or the Republicans.
Some people say, “Woods, we have to ease people into libertarianism!” Is that really what you think Weld is doing? He’s secretly anti-Fed but keeping his views to himself for strategic reasons? Ha, sure.
As for easing people into it, what political campaign provides a successful example of this? Ron Paul (whom these pro-Weld libertarians by and large think themselves superior to) shocked people into libertarianism when he told them the empire was bleeding us dry and spreading destruction around the world. (Truer words have never been said.)
Weld supported the war in Iraq. He later said it was a “mistake.” Nice try, creep. Walter Jones has legitimately done penance for his support for that war, and will never be snookered by the military-industrial complex again. Is that the vibe anyone gets from the status quo Weld?
Pro-Weld left-libertarians are fond of smearing their opponents as fascists and hypernationalists. But consider:
Suppose Weld had supported bombing Los Angeles instead of Baghdad, and later said this was a “mistake.” Would these libertarians be saying, “Hey, man, nobody’s perfect! He said it was a mistake”?
I’ll give them enough credit to assume they’d still be horrified, and say this was a disqualifier, period.
So why is it a disqualifier when it’s Americans being killed, but not when it’s Iraqis?
I thought left-libertarians were supposed to be the great protectors of the world’s brown people. But evidently when you kill a whole lot of them in an obviously avoidable conflict, why, this is a mere policy difference!
George Will says the Libertarian Party may be “ready for prime time,” which of course means boring, and 20 percent different from the other parties.
Simply put: the Libertarian Party alienated a lot of libertarians by having Weld on the ticket. Sure, the LP raised a lot of money and received the most votes in its federal electoral history, but it certainly did not advance the libertarian movement like Ron Paul did in 2008 and 2012. Historians are not going to look back and say, “Hey! That William Weld really added to the libertarian discussion on monetary policy and foreign policy in 2016 and 2020.”
Halfway through the campaign, Weld appeared to give up and just endorsed Hillary Clinton.
That’s some libertarian!
How about Robert Wenzel? Now that’d be a radical pick to helm the LP in a couple of years. What do you say, Mr. Wenzel?
I have just one question for any true Libertarians: Why would we listen to our (political) enemies telling us who we should nominate?
This is a lesson that even the Republican Party sometimes needs to learn, as they tend to fall into the trap of nominating the candidate that’s getting the best press coverage from the liberal elite media. It certainly happened in 2008 and 2012 at the Presidential campaign level. Now Mr. Conservative himself, George Will, is telling the Libertarian Party who their best choice for President is!
Seriously?
I wouldn’t vote for a person for any office just because someone I’m not politically aligned with says that he’s the best hope. I am almost certain that Mr. Will will not (no pun intended) vote for William Weld for President, let alone endorse him, in the run-up to the 2020 election.
I was opposed to the nomination of Mr. Weld for Vice-President in 2016, and had a different choice for nominee as President (John McAfee). Unfortunately, I couldn’t convince enough of my fellow Libertarians to come to my side. However, there is one piece of good news from the last election cycle, and that is the Libertarian Party is now on the Presidential ballot in all 50 states, and will be again in 2020.
The one reason I can see for Mr. Will suggesting that Mr. Weld is the future of the Libertarian Party is because Weld is already a member of the political class. Will’s perspective is that it’s better to have the enemy you know on the ballot, instead of the unknown enemy against you.
Typical big-government thinking if I ever saw it!