They say that one of the worst things you can say to your child (from your child’s perspective) is not that you are angry at them or that they are in trouble, but that you are disappointed in them.  I don’t really know if that’s true, but I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed in Tulsi Gabbard.

Of course, disappointment implies that you had expectations to begin with.  I don’t know if I ever had great expectations of Tulsi, but I certainly hoped that she would be a shining light in the darkness.

And don’t get me wrong; to a certain extent she was.  The Democratic debates would have been completely awful if she had not been in them (for those she was in).  Without her on stage, it is just a bunch of hacks arguing over who can better control the lives of 330 million people (or more, if you count foreign policy).

Tulsi had some great moments in the debates.  She took down the worst person of them all – the authoritarian Kamala Harris.

Tulsi repeatedly criticized U.S. foreign policy, particularly what she called the regime change wars. As a libertarian, this is what I think matters more than anything.  Not only is it a matter of life and death, particularly for the people in those countries, but it also ties back to our own civil liberties and our living standards.

Tulsi was probably the least bad on domestic issues, which isn’t saying much in this crop of candidates.  She didn’t stand up on stage and act like everything was free.  She didn’t continually engage in class warfare as the other candidates do on a regular basis.

And yet, with all of this praise I give her, she could have been so much better.  To paraphrase an old quote, she coulda been a contender.

Government Of, By, and For the People

It is probably good she will not be in the December debate.  If I hear her utter this phrase one more time, I will probably throw something at my tv.

It’s not that there is anything particularly bad about this saying – “Of the people, by the people, and for the people”.  It’s just that it is so commonplace in the realm of politics.

She complains that the media silences her, which to a large degree it does.  So she gets maybe a total of 6 minutes in a two hour debate to make her pitch, and she actually wastes 10 seconds or more, sometimes multiple times in one debate, making this statement.  It is something that could just as easily be said by Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.  It is a meaningless phrase.

She also wasted her entire closing statement in the last debate talking about Hawaii and the Aloha spirit.

The reason I write about Tulsi is because there is something unique about her, at least as compared to the other Democratic candidates.  She is the only one speaking consistently about a more peaceful foreign policy.

Bernie Sanders will say a few good things in regards to foreign policy, but it is only when he is specifically asked.  He puts no emphasis on foreign policy.  He is too busy taxing the rich in his mind and coming up with more free stuff for the voters.  This is also the man that campaigned for the evil warmonger that is Hillary Clinton.

Tulsi will not be in the upcoming December debate.  She did not qualify.  And while I think this is partially because of the establishment and the establishment media, I do think she shares a bit of the blame.

Tulsi stated earlier in the week that she would not participate in the debate even if she qualified.  It was her form of protesting.  Maybe she saw the writing on the wall and knew she wouldn’t qualify anyway.  But what good does this protesting do?  It doesn’t help convey your message to anyone.

In fact, I didn’t even know that Tulsi had made this statement that she would not participate. The only reason I found out is because I looked up to see if she would qualify for the next debate. That’s when I found a story about her refusing to participate.

What purpose does this serve?  If you believe there is major injustice in the world because of U.S. foreign policy, wouldn’t you take every little opportunity you have to try to convey that message to the public?

I had a few minor frustrations with the Ron Paul campaign in 2007/2008 and again in 2011/2012. I was more frustrated with some of the commercials that were being run (and what was not being run).  I thought his commercials should have been more bold, particularly when it came to foreign policy.

But there wasn’t a lot of frustration when it came to the debates.  Ron Paul didn’t speak a lot of meaningless slogans.  Sure, some of his answers at times could have been better, just as is the case with any candidate.  For the most part though, Ron Paul stood his ground, and we wasn’t afraid to be bold in criticizing U.S. foreign policy. In fact, he would oftentimes get questions on the budget or economics in general, and he would take it back to foreign policy saying that we can save the money and reduce the budget by ending the wars.  This is what Tulsi should have been doing.

I don’t remember Ron Paul chewing up his time with slogans about “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

Foreign policy is the one issue that distinguished Tulsi Gabbard from everyone else on the Democratic stage.  She should have been hammering this issue home on every question she got.

I know she is not a libertarian.  I know her foreign policy isn’t perfect.  I know that much her domestic policy is horrible.  But whether you are a libertarian or not, you have to admit that she was a bit different than the others.  This is why the establishment hates her.

The problem is that she didn’t emphasize this enough.  The establishment and its media wouldn’t like her no matter what, so she should have gone all-in.  Skipping the debate is the opposite of going all-in.

If Tulsi had been bolder in the last debate, maybe she would have met the threshold for this upcoming debate.  But that didn’t happen, and she already said she wasn’t going to participate.

The Tulsi Gabbard campaign is basically over at this point.  It was fun for the short time it lasted.  She made a very minor impact.  Compared to Ron Paul, it really was very minor.  There are hundreds of thousands of libertarians today who probably wouldn’t be if it hadn’t been for Ron Paul.

I hope Tulsi learns some lessons from this, and I hope radical libertarians also learn a lesson. It doesn’t help to issue slogans in an attempt to suck up to people.  What does work is a radical and principled message. Honesty also works.  This is a lesson that Rand Paul should have learned from his failed presidential campaign.  In contrast, the Ron Paul campaigns were not failures. He didn’t win the presidency, but he won the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands of people.