Libertarian Presidential Candidate Austin Petersen Redeems Himself on the 'Glenn Beck Program'
After going down in burning flames on the Steve Deace Show earlier this month, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Austin Petersen has, like a phoenix, risen from the ashes on the "Glenn Beck Program."
On the show, Beck asked several serious and difficult questions. Petersen answered every single one of them in style, with charisma, and -- more importantly -- in a constitutionally sound way.
Sidekicks Stu and Pat jumped in every now and then, with especially the latter demanding an explanation from Petersen on his immigration policies. Petersen had in the past said that, in a perfect world, he'd be for open borders. Many libertarians share that view -- the great economist Milton Friedman was one of them when he was still alive.
Petersen explained, correctly so, that you can't have a welfare state and open borders at the same time. This means that if his views would ever become mainstream and accepted, the welfare state first would have to be dismantled. Conservatives can surely agree with him on that point. That'll take us 20 or 30 years, at which point America can have a debate about the advantages and disadvantages of a no-borders immigration policy.
What's more, Petersen said, as commander-in-chief he has to obey the law, even laws he wouldn't support in a perfect world (which it obviously isn't). There are immigration laws on the books; they've been written by Congress. As president, Petersen will implement them. This is unlike Barack Obama, who's routinely ignoring them, and Hillary Clinton, who's set to do the same. Although Donald Trump is thought of as an immigration hawk, nobody can be sure about his views on the matter -- or any matter at all.
Petersen handled the subject in a professional, calm manner that won't turn off anyone -- libertarians or conservatives.
He did the same with every single issue that he, Beck, Pat and Stu talked about. His most important point was, time and again, that as a libertarian he's looking for the most virtuous policy positions. For instance with regards to abortion: he's convinced that an unborn baby is just that, a baby, and has certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means that he's pro-life, which makes him the only anti-abortion candidate left, among Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats.
What struck me most about his pro-life message is that he's able to sell it to voters in a calm manner. He even emphasized several times that citizens are supposed to build a community based on love and understanding; somehow he pulled that off without sounding like a 1960s hippie. Which makes me very happy indeed.
He also reiterated his support for the freedom of religion. No, he said, Christian bakers should not be forced to bake wedding cakes for a gay wedding. The contrast with his main opponent, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, couldn't be starker. That self-declared Libertarian proved himself to be a totalitarian autocrat in all but name by declaring on stage during a debate that a Jewish baker should even be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding party. That's how sick Johnson is... even Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton don't take it that far.
Petersen calmly explained why he would defend those Christian and Jewish bakers, even if he may be more socially liberal than they are. There's this thing called "the Constitution," he explained, and he'll defend and serve it no matter what.
A lot of constitutionalists are debating among themselves whether they should or should not vote for Donald Trump because they believe that Hillary Clinton may be worse than the Trumpster. Perhaps so, but they're taking a tremendous risk. Trump never mentions the Constitution and seems to believe only in the power of his own personality. That may be better than Hillary's views on the Constitution (she confuses it with the Great Society) and Bernie Sanders' (who wants to replace it with Das Kapital), but not by much.
Petersen offers constitutionalist voters a clear alternative: he's the last constitutionalist standing. He may not be the perfect candidate for all of us, but he's significantly better than Clinton, Sanders and Trump.