Posted on 03/30/2004 5:55:51 AM PST by Dutchgirl
From time to time some kind readers suggest that I run for public office, including President of the United States. No need for those on the left to panic. It is not going to happen.
Such suggestions, however, cause me to imagine what my platform would be if I were in politics. Once you see what that platform would be, you can understand why it will never happen.
Since politicians like to have campaign slogans, instead of "Bring it On!" my slogan might be "Get rid of it!" to describe all the laws, policies, and government agencies that I would abolish.
A more positive slogan would be "Conservative Radicalism." That is, my policies would be based on traditional values but would make radical changes in order to restore or enhance those values.
Cabinet-level departments, for example, would be reduced to just two -- the Defense Department and the State Department, with the latter purged of the weak-kneed internationalist crowd who have dominated it for so long. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, etc., would all be abolished as just money-wasting bureaucracies serving outside special interests, instead of the people whose taxes support them.
Government subsidies would be drastically reduced, starting at the top. That is, there would be a prohibition against giving a dime of government money to anyone whose annual income or total assets exceed one billion dollars. Why should agricultural subsidies be going to Ted Turner and David Rockefeller, or "universal health care" pay for their medicine?
Who could object to cutting off subsidies to billionaires? Once that was done, however, the next step would be to cut off millionaires. Then we could proceed on down the income scale until people making a hundred grand a year could no longer expect to be subsidized with the taxpayer's money.
The great advantage of this way of proceeding is that it would rob the media of opportunities to run sob stories about how some poor person was hurt by cutbacks in some government program -- even when the vast majority of those who were hurt were the bureaucrats who run these programs and slick special interests who hide behind the poor.
By the time we got down to cutting off all government subsidies to people making $100,000 a year or more, the federal budget would probably not only be balanced but have a surplus. Of course, there would be hordes of unemployed bureaucrats being interviewed on TV, complaining that the world was going to end, without their vital contributions. But that could be brushed aside.
With all the money saved by ending vast numbers of subsidies, the government could afford to pay the kinds of salaries that would attract highly qualified people from the private sector. For example, if every member of Congress were paid a million dollars a year, that would cost less than one percent of what it costs to run the Department of Agriculture.
As things stand today, a successful doctor, lawyer, executive, engineer or economist would lose money by becoming a member of Congress. This means that Congress is largely filled with people who either already have great wealth or people who don't have what it takes to earn a high income in the private sector -- or people hungry for power, who are the worst of all.
These are not the kinds of people who should dominate the making of laws in Congress or enforcing them in the courts. Short-sighted critics might object that the kinds of people we have in politics and the courts don't deserve to get a million dollars a year. But that is the very reason for trying to get better people.
If a million dollars a year won't do it, you could raise the pay to ten million and it would still be chump change compared to what is wasted by cheap politicians, who turn out to be very expensive politicians when wasting the taxpayers' money.
Then there should be term limits. In fact, elected officials should be limited to just one term. Otherwise, they and their staffs would be spending most of their time doing things to get re-elected in all but the last term.
These are just some of the things I would do in the name of "conservative radicalism." But it may be enough to show why there is no clear and present danger of my being nominated, much less elected.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice
I probably would too. I wish I were able to ask Thomas Sowell where we could find such a candidate or who he is voting for.
Nader is probably the only candidate whose positions are even remotely similar to Sowell's positions. What are the odds on Nader's success?
I favor third parties and run-off presidential elections. Without run-off elections, Thomas Sowell, or any third party, has little chance. Imagine if Republican candidate Bush, Democrat candidate Kerry, and third party candidate Sowell were running for president and candidate Sowell was excluded from the debates. American would be denied from hearing one of the most brilliant minds in America debate issues with the leading candidates. To compound the sanctimony the leading candidates tell the citizens that voting for Sowell is a wasted vote.
However, consider the same scenario if no candidate received a majority vote and there were a run-off election between the two candidates receiving the most votes. Thomas Sowell may not be one of those two but under these circumstances, all citizens could have truly voted their conscience without fear of wasting their vote.
I had to read these sentences several times to try to grasp the concept of the first one--since Nader is an advocate for cradle to grave socialist nanny government.
As for the second-I hate to sound like the impeached rapist in chief, but it really depends on what the meaning of "success" is.
Nader has been assuring McAuliffe that his presence on the ballot is not going to take votes from democrats...but the fact is that when the slime on Kerry finally oozes through the cracks of the partisan press, democrats of concience - and they all consider themselves people of concience- will not be able to pull the handle (or punch the chad) for Kerry.
After watching the Dick Cavett interview and seeing Kerry's responses to the FBI files proving he was present at a meeting where the assasination of US Senators was discussed, my husband has already stated that he could never vote for Kerry.
Their only alternative will be Nader, which equals success for Bush, but unfortunately, the election of a Republican no longer guarantees the promotion of conservative ideas or policies. It's like process cheese food, you know it's not the real thing, but you swallow it anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.