Tulsi Gabbard, a 37-year old congresswoman from Hawaii, has announced her intention to run for the U.S. presidency in the 2020 election. There could end up being a couple of dozen or more candidates from the Democratic Party, but Gabbard stands out from the other names being mentioned.
She doesn’t stand out just because she is young and attractive. It also isn’t because she was a member of the U.S. Army National Guard and an Iraq War veteran. The main reason she stands out is because she is anti-establishment, particularly when it comes to the issue of war and foreign intervention.
Some would say that Gabbard is the left-wing version of Ron Paul. But we have to get a bit more specific. On cultural and economic issues, Gabbard is certainly mostly on the political left. On the issue of foreign policy, Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul are basically in the same camp.
Gabbard will be 39 years old when the 2020 election is held. She would be the youngest president in the history of the United States. She would obviously also become the first female president.
The establishment has already taken their digs at Gabbard. I suspect that the establishment media will try to ignore her as much as possible. They will give her the Ron Paul treatment to a certain extent. If she starts to gain significant support, then she is going to start to experience the Donald Trump treatment by the media.
Some so-called progressives have already come out against Gabbard to a certain extent. They criticize her for having once been opposed to gay marriage, even though Obama did the same thing, and even though she would have been in her early 20s when she was vocal about it. They criticize her for aligning with the BJP Party in India, as if most leftists in the U.S. have any idea about Indian politics. It’s as if someone working for the establishment on the inside of the progressive movement has put out the talking points against her to be repeated.
On economic issues, Gabbard really is terrible from a libertarian point of view. She favors a $15 minimum wage. She also is a believer in the climate change agenda, i.e., using government to solve an unproven problem.
There are other issues aside from foreign policy where libertarians could potentially support her. Gabbard has advocated for decriminalizing marijuana and for criminal justice reforms. And while her economics are not good, she has opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other managed trade deals.
Where It Matters
Libertarians should pay attention to the candidacy of Tulsi Gabbard. She could be a game changer, or at least make things interesting. She will have to find ways to avoid a media shutout and to strike down false and misleading stories about her.
While I believe good economics is crucial in achieving a free society, I think foreign policy is the most important issue. It is an issue of life and death. And even from an economics standpoint, the U.S. empire would have to be significantly scaled back in order to achieve any semblance of fiscal conservatism.
Gabbard was one of the few Democrats who actually met with Donald Trump after he was elected president. She does not have Trump Derangement Syndrome as much of the left does. She was positive about meeting him. Interestingly, Steve Bannon was actually very complimentary of Gabbard.
Gabbard has been critical of Trump where it actually matters, such as striking Syria with missiles. In other words, she has actually shown consistency.
The one thing that is really baffling about Gabbard is that she is listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). This is as establishment an organization as they come. But when you consider her outspokenness on the issue of war, it is hard to believe that she would be under the thumb of the establishment.
Gabbard was in Iraq for a year in 2005 after having enlisted in the Hawaii Army National Guard. If she were really anti-war at the time, then she probably never should have signed up. But at the same time, it was probably her time in Iraq that made her into the war opponent that she is today.
Gabbard has been incredible in her opposition to the war in Syria. She met with Bashar al-Assad in 2017 and opposes trying to overthrow him. She has not accepted the word of the establishment that Assad has been using chemical weapons against his own people. She seems to understand that a lot of lies and propaganda are fed to the population in order to support war.
Gabbard has been great (from a libertarian viewpoint) on most everything dealing with foreign policy. She opposed the wars in Iraq and Libya. She opposes funding the Saudis. She has supported removing sanctions against Iran.
This is really where the presidency matters. It is where the president should have the most control. We have seen how hard it has been for Trump to follow through with some of his campaign promises. The deep state opposes him at every turn whenever he takes an anti-establishment position. Trump can’t even get 2,000 troops removed from Syria. All of the war hawks in his cabinet are opposing him.
It is too bad that Trump did not get Gabbard into his cabinet. She would have been great as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Instead he puts people like Nikki Haley, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo in there. If Gabbard were in Trump’s cabinet, at least he would have an ally in trying to pull troops out of Syria.
A few have suggested that Trump could dump Pence and run for president in 2020 with Gabbard. I think this is highly unlikely, especially given the animosity between Democrats and Republicans. If Trump couldn’t get someone like Gabbard in a high position in his cabinet, then I have no reason to expect him to join forces with her now. Something would have to change drastically for him to take such a step.
A Libertarian Best-Case Scenario
If Gabbard were to get the nomination for the Democratic Party, I would actually consider voting for her. It would be a treat watching two major candidates who are not complete war hawks.
For me, it would depend on where Gabbard focuses her attention. If she spends half or more of her time talking about climate change and the right to free healthcare, then I wouldn’t support her. I want to see most of her time being spent opposing war and the empire.
When Ron Paul ran for president as a Republican, he definitely made it a point to bring attention to the Federal Reserve and to promote a general message of liberty. But probably his biggest focus was on foreign policy. Even when he was asked questions on economic policy, he would often return to the subject of foreign policy. It was clear that his number one priority, if elected, would be to end the wars overseas. I would want to get the same feeling from Gabbard.
If Gabbard did become president, I wouldn’t worry too much about her bad economics. The best-case scenario from a libertarian standpoint would be to have a Republican majority in Congress. They could oppose the more radical (radically bad) elements of her domestic agenda. Meanwhile, if Gabbard is sincere and could resist the deep state, she could order all of the troops home and put an end to the wars.
Again, I understand her chances are slim. Nobody should be naïve enough to believe that it won’t be an extremely hard road for her just to get the nomination. Most of the left hates Trump more than they hate war. Therefore, it will be quite difficult to win over the left to her side.
Even though her chances are slim, I really hope that she is at least able to be in the debates. If she can promote her anti-war and anti-intervention agenda on the debate stage, it could change the whole tone of the debates. It could force some candidates to adopt a less hawkish stance, even if they are insincere about it.
For this reason, I see only positive things coming from her candidacy, assuming she mostly sticks to her anti-war message. She has the potential to be a good president where it matters most. Most of all, she can help move public opinion into a more libertarian direction when it comes to foreign policy.