I'd Rather Have Mike Pence for VP, But...

…But I’d still rather vote for the Johnson-Weld ticket over Trump-Pence any day of the week.

No one can argue with any intellectual honesty that Bill Weld is more conservative than Mike Pence. On nearly every issue, from abortion and gun control to taxes, foreign policy, and the size of government, Pence is by far the more conservative of the two. Weld endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, praised Stephen Breyer and Merrick Garland as ideal Supreme Court justices in a recent interview, and has supported a number of liberal causes throughout his career. Even many in the Libertarian Party, both before and after his nomination, questioned whether he truly believed in a libertarian vision of government.

Mike Pence has his own flaws, to be sure. Most recently, and of most relevance to his potential service as Vice President, has been his repudiation of his own past statements and policy positions merely to earn the approval of Trump and his closest supporters. He has proven himself unwilling to stick up for his beliefs and for what he knows to be the right course of action, a key requirement for anyone wishing to serve as the Vice President of Donald Trump.

But comparing his flaws and policy positions with those of Bill Weld, Pence would still be the better, more reliable VP. If given the opportunity to vote separately for the next Vice President, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat.

Of course, that’s not the way national elections are conducted in America, and the top of the ticket has to be the prevailing concern. Considering the options put forth by the organized political parties, Gary Johnson is by far the best choice for the Presidency. Allowing the running mates of each nominee, candidates for an office which holds little formal constitutional authority, to significantly influence the choice between the nominees themselves, is foolish.

So I will happily vote for Bill Weld for Vice President, because every ticket is a package deal, and Gary Johnson would be an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.

Gary Johnson for President

I have long said that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are corrupt, liberal power-mongers without morals or any ethical compunction whatsoever. Both care more about winning elections and improving their own brands than about the future of the country. Neither is fit for the office of the Presidency.

Gary Johnson is neither corrupt, liberal, nor lacking in moral fiber, which by definition makes him the best choice for President in 2016.

Johnson, a former Republican governor now running under the Libertarian banner, is everything Trump and Clinton are not—namely, a fierce proponent of limited government and constitutional liberty. He alone among the significant candidates for President has consistently stood up for all rights enumerated in the Constitution, from the right to bear arms to the right of religious liberty. He alone has made the national debt and entitlement reform key aspects of his campaign, recognizing that a balanced budget is key to securing America’s future. And he alone has proven that he can be trusted to put principles and country ahead of personal gain.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson proved that he has the will to follow through on his promises. He managed to balance the state budget while cutting taxes fourteen times, and vetoed over seven hundred bills approved by the heavily Democratic state legislature. At the same time, he worked to find common ground with Democrats, leading to a comfortable reelection in a solidly blue state.

Johnson is a libertarian, not a full-spectrum conservative, and therefore some of his positions will leave conservative voters dissatisfied. He, like Clinton and Trump, disavows the Iraq War, as well as the “chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies” of both Barack Obama and George W. Bush. He, like Clinton and the Trump of 2013, also supports some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and opposes increased border security. And he opposes the death penalty for any and all offenses.

Yet even on many issues most likely to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians, Johnson walks a fine line between appeasing the base of his own party and reaching out to disaffected conservatives. Most notably on abortion, which the platform of his own party endorses as a woman’s right, Johnson declares himself to be personally pro-life. While supporting some legal abortion access at the state level, as governor he also signed a bill banning late-term abortions, supports parental-notification laws, and believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. His pro-life credentials are already therefore stronger and more consistent than those of either Trump or Clinton.

And beyond issues of policy, Johnson has proven himself to be a man of high character and strong moral fiber. With him in the White House, there will be no mishandling of classified information, shady financial dealings, or lawsuits brought by scammed customers of discredited universities. He will truly do credit to the office of Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan.

Gary Johnson for President.

Thank God for the Olympics

The Olympics are exactly what America needs right now.

After months (feeling like decades) of unending controversies, personal attacks, and general political chaos, we finally have two weeks of coming together as a country. Nobody cares what party Michael Phelps or Katie Ledecky are, or whether Simone Biles supports Trump or Allyson Felix is voting for Hillary. We can finally take something of a break from worrying about how close the nation might be to destruction, cheer on Team USA, and remember everything that brings Americans together.

I will be stunned if Donald Trump does not make at least half a dozen ridiculous statements over the course of these Games, but he finally will not be the only story in town. We can all watch, and cheer, and feel good about our country when an American takes gold and the national anthem begins to play.

The Olympics were designed to bring the world together, but they can also serve to bring the country closer together. This may not be the most divisive election in American history—yet—but it is easily the most divisive in decades, for good reason. The Olympics this year will hopefully serve as a cooling off period for the country, however brief, and remind all of us that no matter the politics, we are all on the same team in the end.

How Long Before Gender-Segregated Sports Are Eliminated?

As I’ve said previously, what were considered eternal pillars of human culture just ten years ago are now being challenged on an almost daily basis. The latest examples of this are the debates over “bathroom bills” which seek to clarify that only biological men can use the men’s public restrooms, and conversely that only biological women can use women’s restrooms. (The reality, which usually isn’t reported, is that most conservatives are fine with transgender individuals using the bathroom of their chosen gender, as long as they’ve undergone reassignment surgery.)

The most common compromise suggested in such debates is to have gender-neutral bathrooms set aside specifically for transgender individuals. This has the added benefit of accommodating “gender-fluid” individuals who don’t identify as either male or female. But some of those individuals respond by arguing that by being directly to special restroom facilities, they are being discriminated against. This, coupled with the notion among some radical feminists that separate facilities for men and women serve as gender discrimination, is slowly giving rise to the notion that gender-segregated restrooms and similar facilities should be done away with entirely.

To be clear, only a very few on the hard Left have advanced this idea so far. But I could see it taking hold among a larger proportion of liberals in the years ahead, possibly to the point where the issue will be debated in the political mainstream.

The many reasons why such proposals must be rejected out of hand should be clear. But along with the debate over bathrooms will come a broader debate over other facilities and activities segregated by gender, and in honor of the opening of the Olympics I want to look at that possibility as well.

Specifically: Within the next decade, will we see the end of gender-segregated sports? Will men’s swimming and women’s track be eliminated in favor of events open to both genders? And what would such an arrangement look like?

Change is already coming to the Olympics, with the IOC issuing new guidelines allowing, for the first time, transgender athletes compete in events corresponding with their gender identity, without having to first undergo reassignment surgery. To be clear, those athletes must still be undergoing hormone replacement therapy, but the change is still significant.

But take a movement away from specialized gender roles in recent years, such as the American military allowing women to serve in combat roles; a resistance by many on the Left to recognize any sort of biological difference between genders, coupled with a movement away from biology and toward psychology as a way to determine gender; and the long history of the IOC and other international bodies in actively promoting a variety of liberal causes—and the possibility, at the very least, of the eventual elimination of gender-segregated sports at the international level becomes clear. From there, it is a practical matter of the U.S. Olympic trials and other national competitions becoming gender-neutral, a change that would eventually filter down to the state and local levels of competition.

It’s impossible to know for sure how just how likely any of this is of actually occurring. The only thing that’s clear is that the current trend suggests that such an outcome, within the next couple of decades, is at least possible.

But if it does occur, and gender-segregated sports are eliminated? There would be no ignoring for long the scientific fact that men and women are biologically different, which leads to differing average results between genders in physical activities, and is the reason segregated sports exist in the first place. Assuming every athlete continues to perform at their absolute best, a wide discrepancy would emerge between men and women in terms of those athletes making it to the World Championships or the Olympics, as well as those who eventually won medals.

The only option to keep both gender-neutral events and a more even ratio between male and female victors would be to institute some sort of affirmative action program, at both the initial qualifying stage and to determine the final individual medalists. Of course, this would seemingly undermine the whole point of having gender-neutral events in the first place, but realistically it would be the only way such an arrangement could survive over the long term.

Policy Spotlight: Gay Marriage

The speed with which same-sex marriage has become an accepted part of mainstream American life is stunning. Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to recognize gay marriage, by order of the state Supreme Court, in 2004. Only eleven years later, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage was protected under the Constitution, it had already been legalized in thirty-six states. A final victory for a movement which had only begun in earnest in the 1990’s, and in a few decades succeeded in overturning thousands of years of tradition on what constituted marriage.

And in the vast majority of those thirty-six states, as well as at the national level, it was a bare majority of judges, many of them federal judges unelected and unaccountable to the people, who made the ultimate decision to change the longstanding definition of one of the core institutions of human society. By doing so, these judges overturned dozens of laws and constitutional amendments approved by both the elected legislatures of the respective states, and the people through direct referendums.

Overturning these popularly approved laws and constitutional amendments was a direct strike at the idea of federalism central to the American experiment, and the ability of the states to serve as, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “laboratories of democracy”. A central principle of federalism is to enable states to pass laws reflecting the values and policies best suited to their unique circumstances. Often, what’s best for Maine is not best for Georgia or Oregon—and if it is, states are free to learn from the experiences of others and implement similar laws tailored to meet their own unique needs. The same process was happening organically with the question of legalizing same-sex marriage, when federal judges—culminating with the Supreme Court and the Obergefell decision—stopped it cold and forced an identical solution on all fifty states.

Gay marriage was already winning the public debate—in 2012, four states approved referendum legalizing marriage between two people of the same gender, the first time the issue had actually won at the polls. If the majority in Obergefell had instead upheld the principle of federalism by allowing each state to continue making their own, democratic policies, it’s probable the majority of the country would have come to the same conclusion over time, with the added benefit of having people arrive at the decision freely, rather than being coerced into accepting a particular point of view.

All this is to say that both the conservative and tolerant policy with regard to gay marriage is continuing to allow each state to decide for itself whether or not to continue to recognize the practice. If Obergefell had been decided correctly this would be the current national policy, but as it is it will necessitate overturning that decision, whether by constitutional amendment or a later Court decision, both of which are obviously unlikely. But the end result should be promoted regardless, and the basic lessons of Obergefell can easily be applied to other, more current, debates, such as forcing individuals to perform and cater for same-sex weddings and bathroom use for transgendered people.

It’s also an easy policy to get behind and form compromises around, at least in theory. Supporters of gay marriage or abortion regulation or anything else will be comforted with the fact that no federal action will be taken to dissuade their favored policies in states which implement them, and vice versa with opponents of those policies, in states which ban same-sex marriage, or offer unregulated access to abortion.

In reality, the Left, which favors a top-down approach in which dissenting views are not to be tolerated, would not be content with such an arrangement for long. But this doesn’t change the fact that such an approach to issues like gay marriage or transgender bathroom use is the most tolerant option in respecting different viewpoints, and is also most in keeping with an original interpretation of the Constitution. Aggressively promoting this approach also has the added benefit of pushing back against the liberal narrative of intolerant and discriminatory conservatives, by pointing out the hypocrisy of a movement which itself is biased and discriminatory against any and all opposing opinions.

Above all, however, when long-established social norms such as the definition of marriage or appropriate bathroom use are challenged, it should always be the people and their elected representatives who make the final decision, not a few unelected oligarchs dictating what is best for the entire country.

Comparing The Nominees for Vice President

For all their perceived differences, Hillary Clinton and her donor-turned-general election opponent have shown similarity on a wide range of issues and personality traits. Now that comparison extends to their choice of running mates as well. Both have chosen boring, timid men afraid to overshadow or second-guess their arrogant running mates.

Tim Kaine is a prime example of a politician who stays popular only by avoiding a strong position on any controversial issue. He supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership two weeks ago, but came out strongly against it the day Clinton named him running mate. He claims to personally oppose abortion, but also opposes defunding Planned Parenthood, banning late-term abortions, and basically every other federal pro-life measure.

In short, he has made little meaningful impact in the Senate and has been a loyal foot soldier for the Democratic Party, silently supporting every major liberal proposal without taking firm, principled stances on anything.

Mike Pence, meanwhile, pledges allegiance to conservative doctrine but, similar to Kaine, has displayed no willingness to aggressively fight for his beliefs and values, instead showing a tendency to cave under pressure. The minute he was selected as Trump’s running mate he attempted to disavow his long record of support for free trade agreements and the Iraq War, as well as past criticism of Trump himself, in order to gain the VP nomination and extract himself from a difficult reelection fight.

In the House, when Pence had the ability to vote for conservative proposals but no occasion to face extreme outside pressure, his voting record was solidly on the Right. But as governor, he became less reliable, caving on Medicaid expansion and the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, among other issues. And during the presidential primary he infamously gave Ted Cruz one of the weakest endorsements in history, while praising Trump and making it clear to everyone that, once again, he placed popularity above principle.

Neither Mike Pence nor Tim Kaine have shown much inclination over their careers to be principled leaders, but rather have placed a quest for popularity above all else. Neither has demonstrated a willingness to stand up to their respective running mates in the name of doing the right thing. Both are content to be trophy wives and see to it that their running mates’ every desire is carried out without question. The ideological integrity and resoluteness of Ted Cruz or Elizabeth Warren, or even Paul Ryan or Joe Biden, is sorely lacking in both Pence and Kaine.

To be clear: Were the roles reversed, I would happily vote for Mike Pence over nearly any Democrat. For all his flaws, he would be infinitely better than a Democratic candidate. But Pence as Trump’s sidekick does not make the latter any more fit for the Presidency, nor does Kaine as a potential Vice President make Hillary Clinton more palatable to conservative Republicans alienated by Trump.

Why I'm Not Leaving The Republican Party

After last week, the pace of Republicans, conservatives and moderates alike, leaving the GOP has quickened. The nomination of Donald Trump for President, coupled with the egregious denial of a roll call vote on the rules package, has led to a mass exodus, and everyone from convention delegates to National Review columnists to ordinary voters across the country have joined in.

I sympathize with all of them, but I won’t be following.

For all its mistakes and outright abuses of power this year, and especially last week, the Republican Party remains the best vehicle available for instituting conservative reforms, at all levels of government. The reality is that the American political system as it is currently constituted effectively allows for only two political parties to be viable over the long term, a liberal party and a conservative party. The Democratic Party became uniformly liberal years ago, and now tacks further to the left with every election cycle. This leaves the Republican Party as the only one of the major parties where conservatives can realistically find a home and hope to have their voices heard.

Whether they will be heard is a different matter entirely, as the events of the past week have proven. What is certain, however, is that a voter separate from both major parties will not have a voice in the affairs of either. In many states, they are barred from voting in primary elections. For Republicans disgusted with the nomination of Trump, that means that, should a Trump-like candidate run for office in a future election, those voters would have no opportunity to vote against that candidate until the general election.

Whether the Republican Party can long survive as it now exists, deeply split by both the Trump nomination and other issues, is another question entirely. I’m inclined to believe it will, for the simple reason that any party which has survived being shut out of all national power for twenty years, a literal civil war, and numerous convention walkouts and third-party efforts over its century and a half of existence is by nature hard to kill. But if it does not survive, the foundation of a new party to carry on the fight for conservative reform would obviously be vital to the nation’s future.

But until then, working within the framework of an existing party is infinitely preferable to building a new, competing party from scratch. For now, fighting cronyism, liberalism, and Trumpism from within the party is a better strategy than fruitlessly standing outside the party looking in.