Choosing to support Justin Amash, especially as a candidate for the Libertarian Party, involves the adoption of a far more prudential outlook on my part than some might think.
This article is from The Editor’s Corner, with insights, short-posts, links, and general ramblings from Editor/Owner Justin Stapley.
There’s something I’d like to clarify real quick.
While Justin Amash is an excellent candidate in so many ways, he is not a perfect representation of my political stances. My support for him is not born out of a demand for ideological purity. It is, in fact, a prudential decision.
While I do consider myself a classical liberal, I am not libertarian. That’s because I am also a modern conservative and a federalist, and there are aspects of those stances that often don’t jive well with typical libertarian viewpoints.
In 2016, I supported Evan McMullin over Gary Johnson based mainly on the gulf of agreement between myself and the Libertarian Party on several issues. Specifically, I had concerns with their general stances on abortion, drug legalization, foreign policy, and other social issues.
And, to be frank, the Libertarian Party has not often seriously conducted itself nor taken pains to offer itself as a serious alternative to Americans outside their ideological bubble.
But Justin Amash represents the more serious segment of the liberty movement, the segment I try to play a part in myself. Until Trumpism changed the dynamics of the GOP, he found ways to work within the party framework to actually apply his principles and have a seat at the table.
He also maintains a clear connection to the founding vision and a firm understanding of constitutional values, demonstrating that he tempers Randian notions of libertarianism with healthy doses of true classical liberalism and an appreciation for federalism.
There are still many aspects of the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism in general, that are far too minarchist, isolationist, and socially liberal for my traditionalist, ordered liberty perspective (and even Amash leans more that direction than I might like).
But the Libertarian Party’s openness to embracing a dissident Republican with one foot in the Liberty Movement and another in the Conservative Movement as their presidential candidate, and their efforts to provide a viable and respectable third option to the American people, is exemplary.
Further, to have a candidate who has a core belief in limited government, a firm understanding of constitutional values, a love for the founding vision, and is a moral and upstanding human being is worth setting aside some genuine concerns I have over a Libertarian president, worries I still have even with Amash.
My ideal scenario would be more along the lines of a fusionist ticket representing both segments of the traditionally Republican coalition. A Goldwater/Reagan approach, if you will.
So, don’t think I’m making my political decisions based solely on purity tests. There’s genuine and prudential give-and-take going on when it comes to my support of a Libertarian candidate.
Do you have a response to this article? Would you like to offer your own take on this topic? Feel free to submit your own article or offer a comment.