Scenario: You want Indian food. Your friend wants Mongolian barbeque. You know what you get? Chinese. Why? Look at a map; it’s in the middle. Compromise is good, unless you want Mexican, then bargaining is out of the question.
You know what’s cool about the libertarianism? It’s like Chinese food, except less communist.
We’ve got a country that’s divided into two groups: the left and the right. Each side is then divided into more groups, stemming from specific ideological concerns.
Within the left, for example, we’ve got economic progressives, pro-choicers, greenies and the most modern major influence: gay marriage advocates.
Within the right, there are the gun rights advocates, pro-lifers, capitalists and the major influence: the fiscal conservatives.
I get so hyped when I think about America’s democracy, because there is a party that can appease both parties’ majorities simultaneously. No strings attached. It buys you the beer and cures the hangover all in one.
Allow me to introduce libertarianism. Libertarians want a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
Let’s break this down. The left pushes for social freedom and economic progressivism. The right pushes for social order and economic freedom. Libertarianism believes in total freedom, both social and economic.
It is arguable that social and economic freedom could appease the majority of modern voters. So let’s hear from Rand Paul, a liberty-minded Republican Senator. In March, CNN political analyst Mo Elleithee described Paul as “the effective leader of the Republican Party.” According to a Sept. 23 article in the The Hill, Paul has repeatedly polled as the leading contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
Seriously, doesn’t a libertarian president sound almost too good to be true for a solution to this country’s ideological division? I believe a libertarian president could solve the current and controversial gay marriage push by removing marriage as a federal government entity.
Personally, I am a Christian, and I do believe that marriage is a religious ceremony under God, between a man and a woman. Call me any name in the book you want, but there is a solution between my view, and the opposing view.
I’ll let Paul take this one.
“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he said. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”
Okay, so I’m only fan-girling a little bit, but come on, how can anyone deny that? It’s a compromise that really does work. Besides, it’s a true separation of church and state that is outlined in our constitution.
Our tax code needs a little bit of simplifying anyways. Can I get an “Amen?”
Now we’ve got one major issue down, and onto the next: fiscal policy. Some Americans on the left, the right and even moderates agree that the debt needs to be reduced. Of course conservatives believe that our spending needs to be a little more, well, conservative, but so do libertarians. See, isn’t this fun?
Paul supports cutting government spending, a balanced budget amendment and lowering taxes.
I can tell you, from personal experience, that this policy will please every single fiscal conservative out there.
In all, a libertarian will multiply freedom, detract spending, appease all the equal signs on Facebook and hopefully cure this country’s deep divide.
I’m not saying utopia exists. One president cannot make everyone happy, but they sure can try. Open your mind up to libertarianism. If not for yourself, please do it for me, because I’m in love with Paul’s perm.
Laura Meyers is a freshman in journalism and political science. Please send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.