Document:LP News 1972 April Issue 5: Difference between revisions

Line 189: Line 189:


To begin with McGovern, it must first be noted that he is by the far the worst of all the prospects -- including Nixon -- in the area of economics.  H e makes no bones about being in favor of massive income redistribution, and has voted in favor of sociialistic proposals even more consistently than Hubert Humprehy -- which takes some doing.
To begin with McGovern, it must first be noted that he is by the far the worst of all the prospects -- including Nixon -- in the area of economics.  H e makes no bones about being in favor of massive income redistribution, and has voted in favor of sociialistic proposals even more consistently than Hubert Humprehy -- which takes some doing.
In the area of civil liberties, however, he is probably the best of the lot.  His long-standing opposition to the draft, and to Big Brotherism in the area of government surveillance of the citizenry, are particularly commendable.
In the area of foreign policy, McGoern deserves a "plus" for his basically isolationist views, but this is offset by his apparent willingness to disarm the United States unilaterally, leaving us open to nuclear attack by totalitarian aggressors.
On balance, then, Mc Goern rates only a low "fair" by our standards -- making him perhaps less odious than Nixon or Humphrey, and thus deserving of silent good wishes in his fight with Dick or Hubie, but hardly worth bleeding and dying for.
Wallace, on the other hand, is better than any of his competitors on economic issues -- although this is hardly a claim to fame. At most, he rates a "fair," in contract to everyone else's "poor" or "abysmal."
In the area of civil liberties, Wallace offers a strangely mixed bag.  His aversion to "hippies, punks and anarchists" iw well-known, and the thought of Wallces extending amnesty to draft resisters, or signing a bill repealing all laws against victimless crimes, stretches one's credibility beyond its limits.  On the other hand, Wallace has spokenout against government snooping, favors abolition of ht eFCC, and supports the right to bear arms.  And, unlike virtually all of his competitors, he opposes laws which ignore or eliminate distinctions between public and private property. Thus, overall, Wallace rates a "fair" on civil liberties, as well as on economics.  In the foren-policy sphere, Wallace is probably the best of all the major-party hopefuls.  Like McGovern, he is basically an isolationist; he has long said that the U.S. should not have gone into Vietnam, but should have accepted Chaing Kai-shek's offer to assume this tasks, for instance.  Yet, unlike McGovern, Wallace recognizes the need for a strong domestic defense system.  So, on balance, Wallace rates a "good" (although not "excellent") on foreign policy.
Thus, overall, Wallces rates perhaps a half notch above McGovern -- which is hardly good enough to send libertarians flocking to his banner, but which nonetheless makes him the best of a bad lot.
What does all this mean, from our viewpoint? Very little, actually, as the chances of the Democrats nominating a McGovern - Wallace or even Wallace-McGovern ticket are very remote (although not absolutely zero). And, even if this were to happen, it is doubtful that many libertarians would be willing to devote much energy to supporting such a ticket.
In sum, as we said regarding Ashbrook and McCloskey two months ago, any LP member who wishes to work or vote for Wallace or McGovern between now and June should certainly feel free to do so, for as was noted above, anything that serves to drive wedges between existing po.iltical factions is to our advantage.  Primary emphasis should be placed on building the Libertarian Party, however, to assure that the disaffected will have some place to go when the Democtas nominate Hubert Humphrey, as they are almost certain to do.


=BITS & PIECES=
=BITS & PIECES=