THE LIBERTARIAN FORUM REVEALS ALL

by Rob Loggia

Saturday, April 2, 2016

The first portion of the much hyped Libertarian Forum on the John Stossel show has aired and the opinions are already flying from every direction. And despite the risk of devaluing the second portion, it must be said that no more need be seen. What has been seen already tells us all that we need to know about the two most important questions facing delegates this year: who would make the best president and who has the greatest chance to win.

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER

John Stossel and his team did a tremendous job coordinating and preparing the event and it showed in the results. But more importantly, the affair was treated and conducted with dignity and respect by Stossel and his crew, and nowhere was there a trace of the "kiddie-table" coverage the establishment media loves to bestow on non-machine candidates and parties. The Libertarian Party owes them all a debt of gratitude.

One other individual also deserves a debt of gratitude, and if it has been properly expressed anywhere I have not seen it. Most people know that Austin Petersen used to work at FOX. It does not take a great mental leap to extrapolate the fact that he was likely instrumental in brokering this historic event. And, in fact, that is the case. Yet it seems that among those celebrating this achievement and the publicity that it will bring are individuals that also will do nothing but sling more and more mud at Mr. Petersen. And it is ironic that an individual that helped make this possible was himself excluded from a Libertarian Party debate earlier this year.

This is unfair, unbecoming and deplorable. This man does not need to be your favorite candidate, and you do not need to like his style or even his beliefs. But he sure does have a healthy supply of one thing the Libertarian Party needs more of. Austin Petersen has fight in him. He is young. I am only 3 years older than him and so I know intimately - he still has much to learn. But he chooses to stand on the side of Freedom, and I am glad he is on our side. Regardless of whether or not you agree, every Libertarian should, at the very least, thank him for his efforts in making this thing happen.

All of the candidates deported themselves in a manner any longtime Libertarian party member should be proud of. Both backstage and on stage the chemistry between the candidates was one of independent respectfulness and somewhat aloof camaraderie. They behave as if they are all on the same team, despite the competition in play and the disagreements they may have. In my short time interacting with the party I have already observed many Libertarians that would do well to learn from this example. The guns should be facing forward - not at each other.

Despite all of this, the event was painful to this reviewer for the same reason that other reviews and verdicts published so far have been more or less useless. The questions posed in the debate, and the subsequent discussion and analysis of the answers given by the candidates, are almost entirely irrelevant. All they demonstrate is a lack of understanding of what is really happening in 2016, and a failure to recognize that "the issues" are designed to keep the opposition divided and inured to the real menace - the political ruling class and the grip they have over all of us.

WHO CAN WIN?

So what can this debate actually tell us about who has the greatest chances of winning? There are many different variables and perspectives germane to that calculation, but only one need be examined to make the case. This is the indisputable fact that 2016 is the year of "The Outsider."

As the campaign season opened both parties rolled out their picks, and both parties quickly found their anointed candidates on the ropes. They expected everyone, as usual, to choose among their selected and safe few and to not complain. But to their surprise they found that The People by and large are sick of it. As a result the Republicans find themselves fending off the momentum of a man that has never served a single day in any elected office and the Democrats are working feverishly to undercut a maverick senator with a similar (though more perplexing) populist appeal.

One could make the case that any Libertarian is an Outsider to Washington and therefore would have an advantage, but while partially true this is largely missing the point. Running a candidate that even remotely sounds like a politician will negate this advantage instantly. Have you not noticed that the more Trump tries to sound like a politician, the less popular he is becoming with a crucial segment of his supporters?

Our best chance to win, therefore, would come from running a candidate that neither sounds, acts or exists like a politician does. Realizing this makes the choice very easy. Austin Petersen, while not exactly a politician, has cultivated and clearly practiced the look, sound and demeanor of one. Listening to the barrage of talking points he gives in answer to a question leaves no doubt in this regard. And Gary Johnson? Not only do some of his answers suffer from the non-answer syndrome common to savvy politicians, he in fact is one. As a two-term Republican governor he will be a very hard sell as an Outsider, and vulnerable to attack on that front.

John McAfee entered the forum with no papers and referred only to his memory and his heart while giving his answers. You may disagree with those answers - that is your right - but let the man speak who will say that his answers sounded canned, prepared, or anything like a politician's answers. Placed on the stage with any combination of Republicans and Democrats the contrast would be stark, immediate and undeniable. And we will have the advantage in the current climate.

THE PRESIDENT WE NEED

And what is that climate? Why is the population, including longtime voters, so eager to have an alternative? If we turn the word Outsider inside-out we can see what is being rejected. The People are rejecting the idea that those that govern for a living are actually fit to govern. They are rejecting the idea of Career Politicians. But less has been said of what should replace that paradigm.

Some suggest that business-oriented people should come in to run the government like a successful corporation. I have worked for corporations and I could not disagree with this idea any more strenuously than I do. To be sure, there are some aspects and principles that could be applied with success. But what kind of leader do we need as a nation? A CEO, spewing the same meaningless garbage that politicians do?

John Stossel actually reminds us of a better answer in a post-debate interview. And the answer was recognized and recorded so long ago that we should all be ashamed for not taking it for granted by now. Plato described for us the idea of the Philosopher-King, and held it up for us as an ideal. And while we Americans will suffer no king, fighting and winning a great war to prove it for all time, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. After all, the Founders were Philosopher-Warriors - had this been different the American Revolution would have been a simple coup instead of the birth of a Republic.

When asked about the candidates, John Stossel mentioned that John McAfee came off like a Libertarian philosopher. He may not have realized that he was giving the strongest possible endorsement to John McAfee. For this is indeed what we need, more than anything, to heal the divides and fractures in our nation's foundation. Our next president must be a thoughtful person, not an impulsive one. Our problems as a nation are great, and they require reflection as well as action. If we want to make things better and not worse, we should give the nation a Philosopher-President, for the first time in a long time.

CONCLUSIONS

Every delegate should go back and watch the debate again with these concepts in mind. Everything you need to see is there.

The only appropriate context for this election is the same one as the American Revolution, only this time with the political process taking the place of battleground and weapons. The people in control will do everything in their power, which is vast, to stop us. If you agree with this premise, you must recognize that such a fight will look nothing like a political campaign - this will never be enough. Yet two candidates on the stage propose, through their words and demeanor, to wage just such a campaign. John McAfee, however, clearly does not.

If you believe that the Libertarian Party has a chance at a level playing field - that there is any hope to compete in a general election following the rules of engagement set by the opponent - by all means nominate Gary Johnson or Austin Petersen. But they will lose the general election, both of them, not because they are unfit but because they are doomed from the outset by their very approach. In a different time or place either would have their merits. In the now - there is only one acceptable choice.