by Joseph C. Hinson
Monday July 24, 2000

Ah, yes, I remember well the first time I could vote in a national election. The year was 1988 and I was 18. It was a presidential election year and there were two choices: George Bush, vice president under Ronald Reagan, former head of the CIA and a man with a penchant for the English language unmatched by anyone other than Bob Dole. Choice number two was the shortest man with the biggest eye lashes anyone had ever seen, Michael Dukasis. Some choice.

Not that there was ever any doubt in my mind who I would vote for. I had come to age in the Reagan 80s, when anti communism spewed out of Washington unmatched since the McArthy era. Even then I got the feeling that Ronnie Reagan was nothing more than a clown at a carnival, sent in to make us feel good about ourselves and the nation while in the back rooms of the White House, men who had been appointed, not elected, hashed out the policies that were running this country. George Bush was part of this. How anyone could have ever voted for him, I do not understand.

And then came 92. Bush at one time had an approval rating that rivaled the current Neilsen ratings of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire." Them were dark days for a 22 year old guy who saw more of the same from Bush and his cronies for four more years. But then something happened. The governor of Arkansas began making waves, first within his own party, then through the national media. This guy was no Walter Mondale or Michael Dukasis. This guy was Bill Clinton.

Clinton v. Bush circa 1992 was a no-brainer for me. It had to be Clinton. The man even made it part of his campaign that gays would be allowed in the military, showing what I thought to be compassion for a group of people not many have compassion for. I forget at what point I thought this guy might win, but I remember Election Night 1992 watching the results come in, ecstatic beyond compare as I realized the Reagan Era was officially about to come to an end.

1996 rolled along and the Republicans nominated someone that I don't think any Republican in power wanted to be nominated, Bob Dole. But who were they going to nominate? Pat Buchanan, a Nixon man who has defended Nazi sympathizers? Alan Keyes? Forget the Keyes is African American, something that would work against him in the Republican Party. But Keyes is also insane. Who then? Dan Quayle? What can I say about Danny Boy that hasn't been said before? He reminded me of a student class president in high school, stupid beyond words, who seems to be running for no other purpose than to see how popular he is.

But at some point, Clinton did something. He moved from the left to the center and then began eyeing the right. Meanwhile, the GOP moved from the right to the far right to the far, far right. As a matter of fact, they're so far out of touch with what I think most people want, that it could be said they're on an island somewhere fighting amongst themselves. Meanwhile, the real world is just trying to get by.

Even back in 1992, I remember taking a survey to find out if I was Democrat, Republican or, horror of horrors, Libertarian. But I basically ignored this, questioning the wisdom in voting for someone who had no chance on God's green earth of winning. That was my thoughts then and, well, even up until a few weeks ago.

And then came the death of Peter McWilliams, a man who wrote a strong indictment against the War on Drugs in a book called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdities of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society. I had read this book in 1993 after hearing the man interviewed by Alan Handelman on Handelman's "East Coast Live" call in show. What he was saying made sense. I was in Charlotte at the time riding down South Boulevard and immediately went to the Barnes and Noble store in Pineville. Reading the book only refortified the belief in my mind that all drugs should be legal, thus making it the personal responsibility of the citizens to choose for themselves what is right.

Furthermore, unburdening the police and the court system of non violent drug related offenses would allow them to go after and convict, then incarcerate for a long time people guilty of violent crimes such as murder, rape and robbery. The fact that we are jailing more people for using and possessing marijuana then we are for these violent offenses makes no sense to me. We as a country are then regulating morality. But the question that raises is a serious one: Whose version of morality are we then regulating?

So Peter McWilliams and his basically made me aware of things I already believed. That none of the Democrats seemed to take seriously the notion that the War on Drugs was anti-American and just damn wrong saddened me.

And then I was listening to Neal Boortz on WBT out of Charlotte, North Carolina. I really don't like him much or listen to him frequently as I find him more irritating than even Rush Limbaugh. But on this night, there I was, listening to Boortz explain why he was not voting Republican this time around, but instead was supporting the Libertarian Party and its candidate, Harry Browne.

He made me think about why I was ready and willing to vote for Al Gore when I really would only be voting for the lesser of two evils. (Who was it that once said current politics is not the lesser of two evils but rather the evils of two lessers?) Should we not vote with our conscience? Should we not vote on our principles? I mean, if people had voted for who they thought would win and not who they wanted to win, no one would have voted for Bush in 92 and Dole in 96.

Which brings to mind Ross Perot. A lot of Republicans blame the victories of Clinton/Gore on Perot and the Reform Party. But as crazy as the little guy is, he had the gumption (and the money) to form a new party so that others may vote their conscience and their principles. Of course, the argument goes that voting for the Reform Party is really a vote from your pocketbook.

I do think it a sad statement on today's polictial arena when the Reform Party gets more attention, more votes than the Libertarians. Jesse Ventura? Come on! Get real!

Oh, I mentioned the quiz I took back in 92, To take a similar quiz from the Libertarian Party web site, click here: The World's Smallest Political Quiz

I retook the quiz and my results were not surprising to me at all. From their web site:

"According to your answers, your political philosophy is on the border of libertarian and left-liberal. Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity. Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality."

The thing that got me somewhere on the border was economic issues such as the minimum wage act and free trade tariffs. The latter I do not understand fully and am generally not interested in. As far as repealing the minimum wages laws, I don't comprehend that either. There are people out there who can barely survive off the minimum wage as it is. Who should we do? Repeal the law so that the employees don't even have to pay them that?

But no one ever said you had to agree down the line with the party of your choice. On the social matters, I was in agreement with everything on the quiz, except for the question of the borders. (The question was, "Let peaceful people cross borders freely." On the quiz, you either agree with a statement, might agree with it or disagree. My answer was on the might.) The question of immigration is not an easy one. And I guess it's still too close to the Elian Gonzalous matter to answer without prejudice. But this statement wa a little vague. Let peaceful people cross borders freely without any thought as to their health? And what constitutes a peaceful person? One who is peaceful at customs? Never mind the fact that he's a known terrorist with plans to blow up the United Nations. So this one I found the hardest of all to answer.

But back to the Libertarian web site. Out of this one and web sites for the Democrats and Republicans, this one tells you more about their party. To find out what the two big dogs stand for, you kinda either have to already know or have to, well, take a wild stab at it. But the Libertarians tell you right on their site at this link: Issues and Positions. Whether you agree or disagree with them, at least you know where they stand. The closest thing I found to this on either of the other sites was the 1996 Campaign Platform for the Democrats. The GOP had nothing at all. Perhaps with their respective conventions on the horizon, this will change in due time.

Meanwhile, as stated above, the Libs put their beliefs on their site where a idle surfer can easily find them. At a glance, some of them are:

Q. Should drugs be legal?

A. Libertarians would like all Americans to be healthy and free of drug dependence. But drug laws don't help, they make things worse. The professional politicians scramble to make names for themselves as tough anti-drug warriors, while the experts agree that the "war on drugs" has been lost, and could never be won. The tragic victims of that war are your personal liberty and its companion, responsibility. Whenever there is a great demand for a product and government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand. Today's war on drugs is a re-run of Prohibition. Approximately 40 million Americans are occasional, peaceful users of some illegal drug who are no threat to anyone. The laws don't, and can't, stop drug use.

Q. What about privacy issues?

A. The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant.

Q. Why do Libertarians support equal rights for America's gun owners?

A.  Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. But, gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns. although millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded.

This is just a brief over view of some of the beliefs of the Libertarian Party. This is a political party that believes in personal freedom, liberty, personal responsibility and compassion for others. What could be more American than that? I urge you to go to the Libertarian web site and see for yourself.

to my next rant (when posted)
My Rants and Raves
The Joseph C. Hinson Home Page