WI: Ross Perot Ran as a Libertarian

To a Libertarian less government is good government, but I doubt anyone of substance in the party believes that upon winning the Presidency a Libertarian President will simply abolish the US Government. The fact of the matter is that a potential Libertarian President would have to conduct the role using the structures in place, such as Congress and the States, and anyone involved in politics knows this.

So a Lib POTUS would govern with a Libertarian bent; balanced budgets, not expanding government and contracting it where they can and thinking about other Lib stuff but isn't going to create an anarchist state within 4 years of assuming the Presidency. But like all Presidents the office is constrained by the checks and balances and a Lib POTUS will be bound by these in any event.

In that case a Perot/Lib alliance for 92 could drag the party out of the ranks of fringe organisation into a contender for major office, perhaps a balancing role in state and federal legislatures because of Perot's resources and success.

(1) If all the Libertarians were interested in was backing a candidate who might get them more votes, they would have supported John Anderson in 1980 (he was in double digits in the polls for a long time) or for that matter Ralph Nader in 2000 (with whom the Libertarians actually did have a few things in common, in terms of attacking "crony capitalism"..).

(2) "Balanced budgets?" Yes, Perot wanted to balance the budget--but to do so very largely by *raising taxes.* http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-17/news/mn-93_1_business-taxes Do I have to tell you what the Libertarians would think of that idea?

(3) Perot wanted to make government more efficient. This is *not* a Libertarian idea. On the contrary, I once heard Milton Friedman say something to the effect of "thank goodness the government is so inefficient--if it were efficient, we'd have no freedom left at all!" I can't find that exact quote online but I do notice where he says " "An efficient governmental organization and not an inefficient one is almost surely the greater threat to a free society." http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/friedman-on-stability-of-freedom

Once again: Yes, the Libertarians have nominated presidential candidates who were not "pure" libertarians. But they have had to be at least libertarian-*ish.* Perot was not even that.
 
Once again: Yes, the Libertarians have nominated presidential candidates who were not "pure" libertarians. But they have had to be at least libertarian-*ish.* Perot was not even that.

Sure, but the OP asked what if he did, not to think of all the ways it wouldn't happen. I'm not really interested in how the two would come together, I'm interested in the aftermath of an election where an established 3rd party gets ~18% of the vote.

Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett, after decades of activism in fringe political groups joined the Labor party, won a seat and became a Minister in the Rudd government. People accused him of selling out, but he justified the move by saying he could achieve far more being a minister in government than he ever could as an outside agitator. So political accommodations at a high level do happen in the interests of power, just saying.
 
Sure, but the OP asked what if he did, not to think of all the ways it wouldn't happen. I'm not really interested in how the two would come together, I'm interested in the aftermath of an election where an established 3rd party gets ~18% of the vote.

Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett, after decades of activism in fringe political groups joined the Labor party, won a seat and became a Minister in the Rudd government. People accused him of selling out, but he justified the move by saying he could achieve far more being a minister in government than he ever could as an outside agitator. So political accommodations at a high level do happen in the interests of power, just saying.

But presumbaly Garrett was on the far left originally, and gravitated to the centre-left when he ran for Labor. So, he was basically embracing a watered-down version of what he already believed.

With Perot running for the Libertarians, he'd be embracing not a milder version of what he believed, but, at least on many key issues, the POLAR OPPOSITE of what he believed. You're pretty close to the territory of "If Perot was a Libertarian, he wouldn't be Perot".

And I get that it's a WI, not a Challenge, but I think even the former have limitiations about how far they can defy reality. "If Ronald Reagan had run for the Socialist Party in 1980, how would that effect the Socialist Party?" I can't imagine a way to meaningfully debate that question, even strictly as a WI.
 
Last edited:
Top