[606] in libertarians
Harry Browne for President
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Raymie Stata)
Tue Feb 7 10:33:46 1995
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU, objectivism@MIT.EDU, vanu@lcs.mit.edu,
nicoles@restrac.com, ray.stata@analog.com
From: Raymie Stata <raymie@larch.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 95 10:29:19 EST
I found this to be interesting and well-written. Enjoy!
------- Forwarded Message
X-Url: http://www.rahul.net/browne/why.html
Why I Am Running for President
******************************
by Harry Browne
***************
For a century and a half, government has grown ever larger and more
powerful. But the tide may be about to turn. Public opinion is moving
in a new direction -- toward less government, and toward more freedom
for each person to control his own life.
We hear a lot about the widespread anti-Clinton, anti-Congress, and
anti-Washington feelings. But I believe the underlying sentiment is
simply anti-government. The complaint isn't against the way things are
being done or the politicians who are doing them. The issue is
government itself. Government doesn't work.
If you ask people -- store clerks, barbers, taxi drivers, anyone --
whether they want more government, less govenment, or what we have now
-- at least 7 out of 10 will say they want less. Their reasons and
hopes may be different from ours in some ways, but they want to move
in the same direction.
WHY THE TIDE IS TURNING
=======================
The desire for less government isn't a passing fad -- prompted by
revelations of Bill Clinton's philandering or his shady dealings in
Arkansas -- nor by the Congressional scandals of the past few years.
Anti-government feeling has been building for a long time. I believe
two factors have encouraged it.
One is the educational campaign of the past 20 years or so. The
Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, the National Taxpayers Union,
the Heartland Institute, and hundreds of other organizations have
pointed out the failures in government programs and explained
free-market alternatives. Magazines such as Reason and Liberty have
exposed the many ways in which government isn't working, and much of
this has been finding its way into the mainstream press. And today
more libertarian books are published in a single year than were
published in the entire 1950s and 1960s.
These educational activities are bearing fruit -- as more Americans
join the movements toward term limits, school choice, and privatizing
government services; as voters turn down bond referendums and tax
increases; as millions of Americans begin to realize that government
isn't the way to get what they want.
Another reason for the changing sentiment is that government has
become too large and oppressive to help one group without visibly
harming several others. Until recently, the harm was diffuse and easy
to hide. A government program typically would provide a large benefit
to a small group of people -- say, a million or so -- while spreading
most of the cost thinly over 200 million others. The beneficiaries
would lobby for the special privilege -- while those paying the bill
barely noticed the program or its cost.
Now government is so big that it runs into itself coming and going. It
has reached the point where new programs provide relatively little
benefit while the costs are conspicuous and the impositions
intolerable. Health care "reform" is an obvious example. Every
proposal benefits only a small group, while it jeopardizes existing
health-care arrangements for tens of millions of Americans who, on the
whole, want to keep what they have. Not surprisingly, resistance is
widespread.
Government has lost the latitude to promise benefits while hiding
costs. As government has become bigger and further extended, it has
become more self-evident that it doesn't deliver on any of its
promises.
And so the simple statement "Government doesn't work" strikes a
responsive chord. Ten years ago it required philosophical abstractions
to explain the problems and dangers of government. Today it's
necessary only to point to the obvious -- that government can't keep
the streets safe, can't educate our children, can't deliver on
anything it promises. Its War on Poverty is a recruitment program for
welfare. Its War on Drugs fosters gang wars, drive-by shootings, and a
growing criminal class -- even as drug use continues unabated.
Most people can see for themselves that government doesn't work.
Taking Advantage of the Trend
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In short, our time has arrived -- if we take advantage of it.
We need to provide a campaign on which the rising tide of
anti-government sentiment can focus - -- something to which the
average person can point and say, "I want that because it will reduce
government." The political issues in the news -- health care, welfare
reform, crime control, and the like -- are all framed in ways that
ignore less-government alternatives. And even "fiscally responsible"
politicians speak only of "holding the line" on taxes or resisting
Clinton programs -- never of reducing government.
A presidential campaign can overcome this. The right candidate could
be a lightning rod for all the anti-government feelings. He could
offer a clear-cut choice by standing for less government on every
political issue. He could refuse to concede the merit in any
government program, and promise to veto any bill that would increase
the size and power of the federal government. He could pledge to "just
say no" to Congress, to force Congress to forgo any new government
program that couldn't muster a two-thirds majority to override his
veto. Even more, he could use his veto as leverage to compel Congress
to reduce or eliminate many taxes and abolish government programs.
The presidency is the single place where one person can make a
difference -- where one person can rally all the anti-government
sentiment, and where one person can actually reverse the direction of
government.
THE CANDIDACY
=============
Over the past two years my wife Pamela and I discussed whether I could
achieve anything by running for president as the Libertarian Party's
candidate. On August 14, 1994, I decided to run. This is what I
intend to accomplish:
1. Victory: I want to win the presidency. Of course, this is a
long-shot, with odds of perhaps 100 to 1 against. But it isn't
impossible. In fact, I wouldn't run if I thought there were no
chance of winning. Most people are on our side; the challenge isn't
so much to persuade them that our alternative is right as it is to
let them know our alternative exists.
Whether or not I win, I have three other goals.
2. Change the political lineup: I want the Libertarian Party to be the
third major party, rather than the first minor party. The
Democrats will continue to propose new programs to reduce our
freedom, and the Republicans will continue to make their wimpy
responses. But I want the press to be obligated to report the
Libertarian view -- that, whatever the social or political problem,
it was caused by government and that only a reduction in government
will cure it.
3. Change how people think about government: After this campaign, I
want millions of Americans to see government in a new light. When a
politician says they have a right to some benefit, they'll know
immediately that he's planning to take more of their freedom and
more of their money -- and that the benefits are only a come-on.
And I want future political discussions to be over how much
government to cut -- not whether new programs are needed.
4. Have a good time: I want the campaign to be fun and exciting -- for
myself and for everyone who joins me. Libertarians are the party
of prosperity and joy -- not of sacrifice. So I don't want anyone
participating out of duty -- but, rather, because we'll enjoy
discussing our ideas for a change, instead of getting bogged down
in arguments over whether a new government program should take two
pounds of flesh or only one.
This last objective is important. Collectivist organizations are the
least efficient way to achieve anything complicated. And it's the
essence of collectivism to say that "If we all sacrifice for the
cause, we'll all be better off someday." I want you to participate for
the joy and satisfaction you will get now -- no matter whether the
national goals are achieved -- because that's the only way the
national goals will be achieved.
One reason for satisfaction is that, at last, we'll be on the
offensive -- talking about reducing government -- instead of trying to
head off new government programs. Finally, you'll see someone on TV
saying the things you've been shouting at your set for the past
decade. When an interviewer like Larry King says, "Doesn't it bother
you that America is the only country in the world that doesn't
guarantee health care for all its citizens?," I will say:
Not at all. Apparently it bothers you that America is the most
productive country in the world, because you seem to want us to be
like less prosperous countries. Let's talk about the ways government
has run up the price of medical care and made health insurance
unaffordable for so many people, and how reducing government could
improve health care and make America even more productive and
prosperous . . .
CAMPAIGN THEMES
===============
Every campaign theme should strike a responsive chord with the public:
o Government doesn't work. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
So I promise to get rid of as much government as practical -- to
transfer as many of its functions as possible to realistic private
agencies that do work -- so you can have your life back, so you can
use the money you've earned.
o Politicians and bureaucrats think they know how to run your life
better than you do. They think they can spend your money better
than you can. They think they can run your business better than you
can. They fail over and over -- but you have to pay the bill.
o If we don't stop the politicians now, how much more of your money
will they take in the next four years? How much bigger will
government be at the end of the next presidential term? How many
more of your freedoms will they take away?
o Let's make this a free country again.
The last theme is an important one:
o In a free country, the government doesn't go rifling through your
bank account looking for evidence with which to hang you;
o In a free country, the government doesn't keep life-saving
medicines off the market for years while bureaucrats pose as your
protectors;
o In a free country, the government doesn't pile costs on the
producers and sellers of goods and services -- running up the price
of everything we buy;
o In a free country, the government doesn't load costs and mandates
on your employer -- preventing you from getting the raises and
benefits you've earned;
o In a free country, government at all levels doesn't take 45% of
national income and parcel it back to us as though we were
children.
The Income Tax
++++++++++++++
The income tax should be a key issue in the campaign.
We must get rid of hundreds of federal programs, but we can't remove
them one at a time because each program has beneficiaries that will
fight us. We can overcome that resistance only by combining all the
spending cuts in a single package that includes the largest tax cut in
American history. That way most people will save far more in taxes
than they might give up in lost subsidies.
The income tax is the biggest single intrusion suffered by the
American people. It forces every worker to open his records to the
government, to explain his expenses, to fear conviction for a harmless
accounting error. It wastes billions of dollars in compliance costs.
It penalizes savings and creates an enormous drag on the U.S. economy.
It is totally incompatible with a free society, and we aren't
libertarians if we ignore it.
Early in 1995 I will introduce a plan that will reduce the federal
government to about a third its present size. The plan will include a
low single, flat-tax rate -- such as 10%. Any employed person can have
the tax deducted from his paycheck each week, and he won't even have
to file an income tax return. He will never again have to deal with
the IRS. But if it's to his advantage, he can choose to file a return
using today's tax system -- so that no one will be worse off because
of our program.
This can be a dramatic issue. Every voter will know that the cost of
retaining today's federal programs is a bigger, more intrusive income
tax. Every voter can measure for himself exactly how much he pays each
week to support the package of programs we intend to eliminate. With
adequate publicity, the plan can put the Democratic and Republican
candidates on the defensive -- requiring them to justify making the
average person pay through the nose to support wasteful programs.
This is a powerful issue. And it is a big first step leading to the
eventual abolition of the income tax entirely.
DIRECTION, NOT DESTINATION
==========================
Each of us has his own idea about how much government is needed or
justified. But we would all welcome a government only a third the size
of what we have today.
And until we accomplish that, it would be foolish to throw away this
precious opportunity by debating irrelevancies. I doubt that Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, and George Mitchell argue over the limit at which
they'll stop adding to the size and power of government. So why should
we waste our time and strength arguing now about the point at which we
should stop cutting government? It's not only irrelevant now, it could
cost us the chance to achieve what we all agree we want.
Once government is a third of today's size, we can rent the SuperDome
for six months to argue over how far we want to go from there. Until
then, let's focus on the direction we want to go -- not the
destination.
The Public Will Respond
+++++++++++++++++++++++
If we focus on the direction, and if we keep pointing to the obvious
-- that government doesn't work -- there's no issue that isn't ours
for the taking and no question we can't answer. No one should feel
threatened by our message. We're not taking anything away from people,
we're just giving back to them their own lives and money.
Even the most hostile questions will be opportunities to take the
offensive and tell our story our way. For example, suppose an
interviewer says, "Libertarians are extremists. I understand you
people want to do away with the police and the army":
Like any group, Libertarians have many different opinions. But none
of us wants to live in an unsafe neighborhood or in a country that
can be overrun by foreign marauders.
Unfortunately, most of us do live in unsafe neighborhoods, because
government doesn't deliver on its promises to keep our communities
and schools safe. Plus it taxes us to death so that we can't afford
to protect ourselves.
We need to find better ways. We need to get rid of the welfare
programs that breed crime; we need to stop filling up the prisons
with non-violent people who pose no threat to society; we have to put
an end to the Drug War that makes the drug trade lucrative for
criminals, fosters gang violence, and drives addicts to steal to
support their habits.
Government isn't working -- so, wherever feasible, we need voluntary
arrangements that do work, that allow people to choose for themselves
how to participate -- replacing government programs that are
subverted by political pork and bureaucratic nonsense.
The extremists are those who refuse to change the system -- who will
let innocent people die to protect their political programs.
"Don't you think the government should protect children from
pornography?"
That's a worthy ideal, but the fact is that government doesn't
protect children. For as long as I've been alive, government has had
laws against pornography, prostitution, gambling, drug use, and
myriad other activities. And yet these activities have thrived.
Government doesn't work; it makes big promises, but it never
delivers. If you want your child protected from pornography, it's up
to you -- the government won't do it for you, with or without a law.
Unfortunately, the government subverts family values with welfare
programs, with anti-family textbooks, and with an income tax that
forces both parents to work. So we need to get rid of the ways in
which the government prevents us from raising our children properly.
"I understand you want to take Social Security away from people."
No, I want to make Social Security secure for a change. I want to
transfer it to private companies that will guarantee their contracts
permanently. Today, every retiree is afraid each year that Congress
will take away some of his benefits or destroy the system by
overpromising. And every young person must fear another hike in
Social Security taxes and the addition of new benefits that could
bankrupt the system before he retires. I want to transform the system
into one in which everyone knows what he is paying and getting -- and
can count on it.
"Shouldn't government protect us from unsafe products and unscrupulous
businessmen?"
Government doesn't protect us from these things. The savings and loan
crisis, every financial scandal, every class-action law suit is a
testament to the failure of government regulation.
Government's war on drugs, its war on insider traders, its promises
to clean up the environment or reduce crime always have the same
result -- the innocent lose more of their freedoms and the guilty
slip through the net.
Government doesn't work, and the money government has taken from us
to provide this "protection" is money we could have used to take care
of ourselves. So let's get the money back into the hands of the
people.
Philosophical arguments are no longer necessary. Now that government
has created such a mess, we are the ones who can use the one-liners,
and they must take minutes to explain how they will somehow improve
their failed programs.
People can see for themselves that government doesn't work, and we're
the only credible party that recognizes this. Most people are on our
side, because they want more control over their own lives and they
want to escape the chaos and misery the government has inflicted upon
them.
There is no reason to compromise what we believe, and no reason to
threaten anyone. All we have to do is tell our story honestly.
SPOILER?
========
A major challenge will be to convince voters that they will achieve
more by voting for me -- even if they think that would help reelect
Bill Clinton -- than to vote for the Republican candidate.
We need to point out that electing the lesser of two evils merely
assures that you will have to choose between two evils again the next
time.
We need to tell the American people:
If the Democrat or the Republican wins the election, the next four
years will bring bigger, more intrusive government, more crime, and
continued deterioration of schools. The winner will help expand the
government, and it will be eight more years before his party can
nominate someone who could turn the tide toward less government. The
most you can hope for is that one of these two candidates will
increase government control over your life at only 95% of the speed of
the other.
But if the Libertarian wins, we will move in the other direction --
actually reducing government, giving you back control over your life,
increasing your take-home pay, and finally doing something positive to
reduce crime. We will end a 60-year trend and change the course of
history.
And if the Libertarian loses but gets a large vote, this probably will
pave the way for the next Libertarian presidential candidate to be
elected -- just four years from now -- and he will change the course
of history.
So you have to decide how you want to use your vote. Will you use it
to slow the growth of government by maybe 5%, or do you want to change
the course of history forever?
CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
=================
The Libertarian Party's nominating convention will be held July 4,
1996 -- just four months before the general election.
Obviously, a third party can't mount an effective campaign in only
four months. So I hope that by the spring of 1995 my nomination will
be a foregone conclusion and I will be the party's de facto candidate.
I can then direct 95% of the campaign toward the general public
throughout 1995 and 1996.
I will give radio and TV interviews and in-person speeches. We plan to
produce one or more TV shows that local libertarian groups can air on
stations around the country or show to people in living rooms.
We will build support at first through the many social groups that are
on our side -- small businessmen suffering from government regulation,
gun owners appalled by the loss of their rights, property owners
chafing under high taxes and environmental regulations.
We have started with investment newsletter writers -- whose readers
are strongly anti-government. These newsletters are already publishing
enthusiastic endorsements -- urging readers to get involved and to
contribute money. For example, Mark Skousen told his 50,000 readers:
We already have a good man who has decided to run for president on
the Libertarian ticket: Harry Browne! He's articulate, a great
writer, and an intelligent thinker. I suggest you contribute to his
campaign by sending a donation (up to $1,000 per person).
From these groups, we can work outward to the entire public. I plan to
have a new book, The Breakdown of Government, published in September
1995. That will bring about further national and local TV/radio
interviews -- talking about the campaign and the book. At the same
time, we'll start an energetic campaign in New Hampshire to attract
the attention of the 2,000 journalists covering the primary there.
I hope that by the time the primary season is well under way in early
1996, I will have sufficient name recognition that poll-takers will
list me along with the Democratic and Republican candidates.
By the spring of 1996, we need to have at least triple the present
membership of the Libertarian Party, so that our videos are being
shown everywhere and the campaign is being talked about. And we need
to have raised at least $8 million by then, so that we can buy enough
TV time to have an impact. That can be the leverage that gets me into
the campaign debates in the fall of 1996 -- so that our message will
reach millions of people.
We can't expect to raise enough money to compete toe-to-toe with the
two old parties, so we will rely on originality and media events to
let people know there's an alternative to more government. Some very
creative people are already helping plan these activities.
Dealing with Surprises
++++++++++++++++++++++
There will be many surprises between now and November 1996. New
parties will spring up to exploit the public's disgust with the two
major parties. Famous people may decide to run as independents.
President Clinton could resign, stripping his opponents of their
favorite issue. President Gore would have a fresh start and would
command more respect -- even if it isn't merited.
We can't foresee these things. So we must be ready to take advantage
of whatever comes.
To capitalize on the unknown future, we must establish ourselves early
with the press and the public as the only authentic, credible party
that can speak for those who want less government.
To do this, we need to get off to a fast start early in 1995. So we
need support and money right away. We can't wait for 1996.
AM I THE CANDIDATE?
===================
I believe I'm uniquely qualified to be the Libertarian candidate.
My philosophical and political views gelled about 35 years ago, and I
have lived most of my adult life as a libertarian. I have been writing
and speaking about government and individual liberty for over three
decades. Unlike most candidates, I don't need to be "prepped" for a
debate or public appearance; I know what to say, and I can answer any
question. No one will maneuver me into a position of conceding the
need for any government program.
I've made hundreds of radio and TV appearances -- on national networks
and local stations. I focus on winning over the audience, not on
scoring debating points. I can think on my feet, and I know how to
deal with hostility, ignorance, or honest disagreements.
Compromise?
+++++++++++
Most of all, my libertarian beliefs are unshakable.
I've discussed libertarian ideas for over a quarter of a century --
and never felt the need to soft-pedal anything. Each of my books --
investment or otherwise -- has been a libertarian tract. The
philosophy is so deeply a part of me that there's no question for
which I don't have an effective, persuasive answer.
A political candidate often softens his views as his prospects for
winning improve -- trying not to offend any voter or contributor. Even
if he is running to further some principle, he may believe he can do
so only if he wins -- and that he can't win without compromising.
Once in office, seemingly libertarian candidates often go over to the
other side. First, they make deals -- giving large concessions to
obtain small victories for their principles. Then they make bigger
concessions merely to stay in office. Always the rationale is, "I
can't do any good if I lose the next election."
But I know that such temptations are disastrous. As a third-party
candidate, my greatest strength is that I'm the only candidate with a
consistent, less-government message. If I compromise that in any way,
my message is meaningless, my strongest asset is lost, and the whole
enterprise is a waste of my time. If I stand for more government on
even one issue, no one can know for sure how I stand on other issues
-- and the campaign will collapse.
We don't have to compromise. We are the mainstream now -- the only
credible group offering ways to reduce the cost and impact of
government. We must recognize the opportunity we have. Our chance has
finally come, but to make the most of it we must be like no other
political party -- we must be 100% consistent. Only if we run the
campaign on clear principles can the Libertarian Party overcome the
two old parties.
I understand this, and so I will never be tempted to compromise or
trade a principle for a bloc of support. Neither will I be tempted to
shade my beliefs to make them palatable; I have never been afraid to
speak honestly, because honesty always brings me more than it costs.
Lastly, I have a wife whom I love very much, and who loves me for what
I am. If I became a glad-handing, compromising politician, I would
lose the most important things in my life -- her love and respect.
That's the greatest possible incentive to remain as I am.
SHOULD YOU PARTICIPATE?
=======================
I've undertaken this project because I wouldn't be happy not doing it.
I believe I have a unique opportunity to tell a wide audience what I
believe about government and about living freely in a civil society --
and perhaps to change the course of American history. The next two
years will be an exciting time for me.
Should you become involved?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Only if you want to. You have no duty to do anything but what you
believe is best for you and your family.
I hope you do decide to participate. Here are some ways you can
provide valuable help:
o You can mention the campaign whenever you find yourself talking
politics. This allows you to transform abstract principles into a
concrete issue on which people can take action.
o You can feed ideas to me by writing or faxing the campaign office.
o You can use the coupon below to join the campaign. If you're not
already in the Libertarian Party, we'll send you an application.
From time to time you'll receive material from the campaign or the
party -- policy papers, campaign news, and other items.
o You can arrange meetings to view the first videotape when it's
ready. Or, you could arrange for me to speak before an
organization. Either way this will get your views to people who
mean something to you. Let me be your voice.
o You can contribute money to the campaign. It's an easy way to get
the satisfaction that comes from acting on what you believe. By
1996, we may be dealing with millions of dollars in campaign funds.
But at this stage every $1,000 or $100 makes an enormous difference
and will eventually be leveraged many times over. Without money
now, the of idea of slashing government is just a dream.
o You can organize a fundraising event at which I could speak.
Even though we've just begun, we already have energetic support from
libertarians inside and outside the party. I hope you will choose to
join us.
THE OPPORTUNITY
===============
A great deal has been said about Bill Clinton's philandering,
arrogance, abuse of power, waffling, policy reversals, lies, and
trading of favors for Congressional votes. But these attacks often
miss the point.
His sins are merely symptoms of the weakness of government itself, and
the sins have become scandals precisely because people are fed up with
government. Mr. Clinton's arrogance and philandering are encouraged by
the power and insulation that government provides. His waffling, lies,
and reversals are necessary (to him) because government has run out of
room to maneuver.
People are sick of all this -- not just of the Clintons, but of the
whole political game. But up to now the Clintons have provided the
clearest target for their anger.
Bill Clinton may be the last of a long line of powerful politicians
who have had their way with the American people for a century or more.
These people have assured their own reelections by rewarding the
politically powerful. They have been free to use their offices as
lavish endowments -- as though they were princes or viceroys.
But that time is passing. Government has become so big, so cumbersome,
so incapable of hiding its own costs and drawbacks, so useless that no
one can keep a straight face when calling politicians "public
servants." Now people see them as self-serving manipulators who cost
us money and freedom.
All that's needed is for someone to shout the obvious -- that the
problem is government itself, not the current cast of characters. And
that's what I will do. We will suffer in silence no longer.
Whether I win the election remains to be seen. The opportunity is many
times greater than it would have been just a decade ago. But the next
two years will bring many surprises -- some helpful and some
hindering. So we can be certain only that we have a remarkable chance
to make an impact far beyond anything that's been possible before.
Even if we don't win this election, we can change forever the face of
politics in America.
Two Generations of Freedom
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But what if we do win? Will it have any lasting benefit?
If we succeed in reducing government to a third its present size and
scope, we may gain the time and opportunity to go much further -- to
reduce government at all levels to a small fraction of its size today.
But the tide might someday turn back against us. Government is a
parasite -- a cancer that by nature tries to spread itself deeper into
society. Those who want to run others' lives won't give up and start
minding their own business.
So it may be that after 20 or 40 years the cycle will begin anew, and
government will resume its relentless growth. If that happens, will
those few years of freedom have been worth the trouble we went to?
I believe they will.
The next two generations will have lived their lives free of the
crime-ridden culture the government promotes through welfare programs
and its no-win Drug War. They will be free to use their money to build
their own futures, free to choose their own retirement plans, free to
get medical care from a greater array of choices than we have today,
free from fear of the IRS, free to make of their lives whatever they
want.
We will have given our children and grandchildren two generations of
freedom. What they do with that will be up to them. But at least they
will know an atmosphere freer than most of us have ever known.
The prospect of two generations of freedom is enough to motivate me.
It makes this the most exciting thing I've done in my life.
I hope you'll join me.
------- End of Forwarded Message
