***
Vote as if It Matters
by Paul Krugman Sept. 19, 2016
Does it make sense to vote
for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president? Sure, as long as you
believe two things. First, you have to believe that it makes no difference at
all whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump moves into the White House —
because one of them will. Second, you have to believe that America will be
better off in the long run if we eliminate environmental regulation, abolish the
income tax, do away with public schools, and dismantle Social Security and
Medicare — which is what the Libertarian platform calls for.
But do 29 percent of
Americans between 18 and 34 believe these things? I doubt it. Yet that,
according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, is the share of millennial voters who
say that they would vote for Mr. Johnson if the election took place now. And
the preponderance of young Americans who say they’ll back Mr. Johnson or Jill
Stein, the Green Party nominee, appear to be citizens who would support Mrs.
Clinton in a two-way race; including the minor party candidates cuts her margin
among young voters from 21 points to just 5.
So I’d like to make a plea to
young Americans: your vote matters, so please take it seriously.
Why are minor candidates
seemingly drawing so much support this year? Very little of it, I suspect,
reflects support for their policy positions. How many people have actually read
the Libertarian platform? But if you’re thinking of voting Johnson, you really should.
It’s a remarkable document.
As I said, it calls for
abolition of the income tax and the privatization of almost everything the
government does, including education. “We would restore authority to parents to
determine the education of their children, without interference from
government.” And if parents don’t want their children educated, or want them
indoctrinated in a cult, or put them to work in a sweatshop instead of learning
to read? Not our problem.
What really struck me,
however, was what the platform says about the environment. It opposes any kind
of regulation; instead, it argues that we can rely on the courts. Is a giant
corporation poisoning the air you breathe or the water you drink? Just sue:
“Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to
the injured parties must be required.” Ordinary citizens against teams of
high-priced corporate lawyers — what could go wrong?
It’s really hard to believe
that young voters who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary think
any of this is a good idea. But Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein have received
essentially no media scrutiny, so that voters have no idea what they stand for.
And their parties’ names sound nice: who among us is against liberty? The
truth, that the Libertarian Party essentially stands for a return to all the
worst abuses of the Gilded Age, is not out there.
Meanwhile, of course, it does
make a huge difference which of the two realistic prospects for the presidency
wins, and not just because of the difference in their temperaments and the
degree to which they respect or have contempt for democratic norms. Their
policy positions are drastically different, too.
True, much of what Mr. Trump
says is incoherent: in his policy proposals, trillion dollar tax breaks are
here today, gone tomorrow, back the day after. But anyone who calls him a
“populist” isn’t looking at the general thrust of his ideas, or at whom he has
chosen as economic advisers. Mr. Trump’s brain trust, such as it is, is
composed of hard-line, right-wing supply-siders — whom even Republican
economists have called “charlatans and cranks” — for whom low taxes on the rich
are the overwhelming priority.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has
staked out the most progressive policy positions ever advocated by a
presidential candidate. There’s no reason to believe that these positions are
insincere, that she would revert to 1990s policies in office: What some are now
calling the “new liberal economics” has sunk deep roots in the Democratic
Party, and dominates the ranks of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers.
Now, maybe you don’t care.
Maybe you consider center-left policies just as bad as hard-right policies. And
maybe you have somehow managed to reconcile that disdain with tolerance for
libertarian free-market mania. If so, by all means vote for Mr. Johnson.
But don’t vote for a
minor-party candidate to make a statement. Nobody cares.
Remember, George W. Bush lost
the popular vote in 2000, but somehow ended up in the White House anyway in
part thanks to the Nader vote — and nonetheless proceeded to govern as if he
had won a landslide. Can you really imagine a triumphant Mr. Trump showing
restraint out of respect for all those libertarian votes?
Your vote matters, and you
should act accordingly — which means thinking seriously about what you want to
see happen to America.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment