Mark Caserta: Libertarian candidate has merit, but he’s no conservative

9 Sep


Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor




Only 10 presidents in history have won the presidential election with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. But it will likely be 11 very soon.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are currently among the “worst-rated presidential candidates of the last seven decades” with “highly unfavorable” ratings of 33 and 42 percent respectively, according to Gallup’s long-term “scalometer” polling trend.

The most memorable president in my lifetime winning with less than 50 percent would be Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election in which many (including myself) believe third-party candidate H. Ross Perot became the “spoiler” of the election for George H.W. Bush by garnering 18.9 percent of the popular vote as an Independent.

Now, during that particular election, the Libertarian candidate, Andre Marrou, received only .28 percent of the popular vote. But the times, they are a changin’ and so are the attitudes of the American people.

Disdain for our top two presidential candidates has given rise to Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who is blossoming in his third-party candidacy.

Johnson, the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, has been consistently rising in the polls. An NBC News “political profile” lists Johnson as a “libertarian-minded conservative” who has been active in libertarian causes, including marijuana legalization, since leaving office.

Interestingly, Johnson’s platform does have some good components. I like the “pre-amble” I pulled directly from the Libertarian platform website.

“As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; 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.”

It goes on to say Libertarians “believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world … and those individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways” without government interference or any authoritarian power.

But while portions of the platform are plausible, in reality, Libertarian aspirations are currently somewhere over the rainbow.

Under the “Statement of Principles” section on the party’s platform website, there are a couple of elements that don’t align with Christian conservative values.

Article 1.5 “Abortion,” states that Libertarians recognize abortion as a sensitive issue and that people can hold “good faith views” on all sides. “We believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

Well, conservatives believe abortion is murder – period. And it should be illegal. Leaving this matter up to the individual is pro-choice, pure and simple.

Article 1.7, “Crime and Justice,” states that libertarians “favor the repeal of all laws creating ‘crimes’ without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or ‘recreational’ purposes.”

Conservatives believe that the use of illegal drugs in our society is “not” a victimless crime and results in the destruction of lives, family and society every single day.

Conservatives will not “progressively” compromise these principles. We plan to use this election to defend the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

That leaves a single candidate – Donald Trump.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.



2 Responses to “Mark Caserta: Libertarian candidate has merit, but he’s no conservative”

  1. John O'Reilly September 16, 2016 at 5:54 pm #

    Enjoy reading both yours and Doug’s blogs. I usually agree with them.

    This time I don’t.

    While I absolutely agree that abortion is murder, I don’t believe that either a Republican or Democrat is going to bring about any change. At least by taking it out of the control of the Federal government where it has become “settled” law we might be able to open it to reconsideration by the population.

    As for drugs, This war doesn’t benefit the people of the United States, it benefits the drug lords and the government fiefdoms that have been expanded to prosecute this war. Addicts are obtaining the money for their drugs by any means possible meaning more home invasions, robberies, car-jacking, muggings and purse-snatching. And unregulated street drugs can be deadly, can cause incurable injury and are a hotbed for transmission of blood borne pathogens. I consider the rise of massively wealthy drug cartels with their own armies, the increasing practice of bribing government officials, the unconscionable increase in our prison populations and a move toward for profit prisons; all of this is a result of the war on drugs.

    The system we have now is so wonderfully efficient and effective, why-ever would we consider changing to a system like that governing the distribution of alcohol?


    • markacaserta September 16, 2016 at 10:37 pm #

      Thanks John for your input. It’s an emotional subject. God Bless!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: