Q: Dr. Hurd, what do you think of voting for the Libertarian Party this year?
A: I generally avoid the Libertarian Party. First of all, they have no chance of winning. They split the non Obama/Pelosi vote, and ensure the victory of that crowd. The only possible value of voting for them is as a protest vote. It’s an alternative to staying home. It could also send a message to Republicans to shape up — i.e., keep religion out of politics, and to get serious about cutting government and starting to dismantle the welfare state/Big Government, not just slowing it down. You can use this as a voting strategy if you have no reason to trust or like your Republican candidate running for a particular office. A major problem I have with the Libertarians is that they tend to be against strong defense. Their most prominent leaders oppose the Iraq war, for example, not because of the war itself, but because they’re against the use of military force by the United States in general, on principle. This is a dangerous view, especially since Western civilization depends on oil resources under the power of Arab and Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East. We have to intervene abroad, at times, to protect our interests. Iran is the biggest gathering storm in this regard, and the Libertarians have no more answer to this than the far-left of the Democratic Party who nominated Obama on the premise that no war involving the U.S. is a just war.
Things are changing, because the 40 percent who are not one party or the other are looking for change, and not change as Obama defined it. The Democrats have gone over the cliff with Obama, and I don’t believe there is any redeeming that party, ever. The thirty percent of the country who form the core of Democratic Party support are hard core liberals and will be to their dying day, no matter what happens. The Republicans have to get religion out of politics and to move from being tax collectors for the welfare state to people offering innovative proposals for dismantling it. There is almost no indication of this happening, even as Obama implodes, although the proof will be if they take over Congress and the White House in the next two elections and do something like the Republican governor of New Jersey is reportedly doing — massively cutting state spending and in the process, the state government. This is what has to be done on the national level, including even Social Security and Medicare. It’s not possible to dismantle these overnight, but they will be bankrupt at some point and it makes sense to pass legislation taking that inevitability into account. There are huge opportunities for Republicans to take on these challenges but they just won’t do it. The Tea Party movement, although I do NOT like the religious elements, has the right idea: Emphasize reforming and taking over the Republicans, which they are doing in nominating contests to a remarkable degree. For the most part these candidates emphasize spending, limited government and possibly defense, while leaving religion in the background. The question is to see if they can win, and if so, will they really be different Republicans once in office or the same old Bush lightweights that brought us the current disaster? The Tea Party, like the libertarians, are right about many things but do not yet represent the majority. Yet, you have 70 percent of the country against Obama’s hard core socialism, so Tea Party/libertarian elements of the Republican party could conceivably at least push things in the right direction. This will not save America, but it can buy time, at least if the wrecking balls known as Obama and Pelosi don’t literally ruin what’s still a pretty great country. Ultimately I blame the majority of the people, though, for letting it get to this point.