Constraints Loom Large in Mr. Krugman's Anti-Libertarian Agenda

Vote as if It Matters by Paul Krugman (my comments in red)

nytimes.com/2016/09/19/opinion/vote-as-if-it-matters.html

9/19/2016

Does it make sense to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president? Sure, as long as you believe two things. First, you have to believe that it makes no difference at all whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump moves into the White House — because one of them will. Second, you have to believe that America will be better off in the long run if we eliminate environmental regulation, abolish the income tax, do away with public schools, and dismantle Social Security and Medicare — which is what the Libertarian platform calls for. These scare tactics do not scare me more than continued wars with Mrs. Clinton; but elimination of the income tax shouldn't be in this list as Mr. Johnson has stated he wants a consumption tax with vouchers given to the poor to offset the inordinate hit that a consumption tax would have on them. However, when Mr. Krugman or someone else who shall remain nameless buys that third home, watch out! Public schools and Social Security I've addressed below but let me seay a word about environmental regulation: we've signed treaties, Mr. Johnson can't revoke them.

But do 29 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 believe these things? I doubt it. Yet that, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, is the share of millennial voters who say that they would vote for Mr. Johnson if the election took place now. And the preponderance of young Americans who say they’ll back Mr. Johnson or Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, appear to be citizens who would support Mrs. Clinton in a two-way race; including the minor party candidates cuts her margin among young voters from 21 points to just 5.

So I’d like to make a plea to young Americans: your vote matters, so please take it seriously.

Why are minor candidates seemingly drawing so much support this year? Very little of it, I suspect, reflects support for their policy positions. How many people have actually read the Libertarian platform? But if you’re thinking of voting Johnson, you really should. It’s a remarkable document.

As I said, it calls for abolition of the income tax and the privatization of almost everything the government does, including education. “We would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.” And if parents don’t want their children educated, or want them indoctrinated in a cult, or put them to work in a sweatshop instead of learning to read? Not our problem. This may turn out to be one of his best ideas. First, parents should 

have a hand in determining their children's education; certainly more so than turning them over to the 

despotic public education bureaucracies that curtail freedom of speech and drill our children to becoming sheeple which everyone knows is their prime directive. There is absolutely zero competition 

between public schools--I'd like the idea of a voucher that will grant me some political power in 

assuring a quality education for my kids. The only kids who come out ahead with a public education are those who would succeed anywhere.

What really struck me, however, was what the platform says about the environment. It opposes any kind of regulation; instead, it argues that we can rely on the courts. Is a giant corporation poisoning the air you breathe or the water you drink? Just sue: “Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.” Ordinary citizens against teams of high-priced corporate lawyers — what could go wrong? So, Mr. Krugman thinks that the Libertarian platform is drastically different than that of the Democrats? I draw his attention to the TPP that allows foreign governments to sue us if our environmental policies (e.g.) affect their bottom line. It is also one-sided of Mr. Krugman to talk about "high-priced corporate lawyers" when their are many activist organizations with, if not high-priced, equally capable lawyers who are probably more passionate than those of corporations. With the TPP, foreign entities would have the weight of a treaty on their side.

It’s really hard to believe that young voters who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary think any of this is a good idea. But Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein have received essentially no media scrutiny, so that voters have no idea what they stand for. And their parties’ names sound nice: who among us is against liberty? The truth, that the Libertarian Party essentially stands for a return to all the worst abuses of the Gilded Age, is not out there. I refer the reader to the University of Houston's digital history site for the flip side of the Gilded Age: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraid=9 But when Mr. Krugman talks about the "worst abuses" of that era, let us acknowledge that the top contender was corruption and it is as rampant today as it was then. Has Mr. Krugman heard of the abuses of today's corporate lobbyist? Back then, however, we may have had more transparency. But what of Mr. Johnson? I dare Mr. Krugman to compare his honesty with that of his top candidates for the presidency or should we say, crown; because Mr. Krugman seems to think that a POTUS can implement every item on the platform. Perhaps, if corruption is allowed to continue and POTUS morphs completely into a puppet of the oligarchs. Misters Johnson and Weld never let that happen as governors--that's a record to beat, Mr. Krugman.

Meanwhile, of course, it does make a huge difference which of the two realistic prospects for the presidency wins, and not just because of the difference in their temperaments and the degree to which they respect or have contempt for democratic norms. Their policy positions are drastically different, too.

True, much of what Mr. Trump says is incoherent: in his policy proposals, trillion dollar tax breaks are here today, gone tomorrow, back the day after. But anyone who calls him a “populist” isn’t looking at the general thrust of his ideas, or at whom he has chosen as economic advisers. Mr. Trump’s brain trust, such as it is, is composed of hard-line, right-wing supply-siders — whom even Republican economists have called “charlatans and cranks” — for whom low taxes on the rich are the overwhelming priority. Mr. Krugman can't refrain from contrasting Mr. Trump with his favorite Wall Streeter. Too bad he can't stay on topic.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has staked out the most progressive policy positions ever advocated by a presidential candidate. There’s no reason to believe that these positions are insincere, that she would revert to 1990s policies in office: What some are now calling the “new liberal economics” has sunk deep roots in the Democratic Party, and dominates the ranks of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers.

Now, maybe you don’t care. Maybe you consider center-left policies just as bad as hard-right policies. And maybe you have somehow managed to reconcile that disdain with tolerance for libertarian free-market mania. If so, by all means vote for Mr. Johnson. Perhaps Mr. Krugman has found no reason for insincerity because Mrs. Clinton has not released her Wall St. speeches? Ya, think?

But don’t vote for a minor-party candidate to make a statement. Nobody cares.

Remember, George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but somehow ended up in the White House anyway in part thanks to the Nader vote — and nonetheless proceeded to govern as if he had won a landslide. Can you really imagine a triumphant Mr. Trump showing restraint out of respect for all those libertarian votes? Do your research, Mr. Krugman, polls have shown that in the absence of a Mr. Nader choice, voters would have gone with Mr. Bush. In other words, he was not a spoiler for Mr. Gore.

Your vote matters, and you should act accordingly — which means thinking seriously about what you want to see happen to America. You too, sir.

I'd like to end by saying that I do not believe in turning over government services to private firms if it were done today. Tomorrow, with a Johnson/Weld presidency, I believe these two men are as empathic as any and perhaps more so. When one of them took people off of welfare, he made sure that they had the training to pursue employment and, I might add, greater dignity. Now, for one alleged privatization that hits home (Social Security) I believe that there is a simple fix: do not allow the funds to be used to buy stocks or, alternatively, create a new type of stock that isn't as volatile.