My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.Bottom line, she is likely to be incompetent and inefficient in the White House. That's what makes her an attractive candidate from a libertarian perspective.
So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...
Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.
When we, as libertarians, are facing a list of candidates that are all statists don't we want in office the candidate who will be the least competent in exercising interventionist schemes?
As the great libertarian Murray Rothbard once put it:
In addition to being incompetent, there are plenty of people who hate Hillary, It would be very difficult for her to rally the country, or even parts of it, the way a Donald Trump might be able to. Further, a Hillary presidency would provide libertarians with the opportunity to serve as the intellectual vanguard in teaching the Hillary haters why her interventionist ways are evil.Who wants good people in government? Good people should be in the private sector. Helping us out, helping themselves out in the private sector. We want schmoes in government. We want people who can’t find the doorknob.
Admittedly, it is not much. I would much rather have Ron Paul running this year, a man that I could support, and gathering Trump-like votes, or a person even half the libertarian that Dr. Paul is,but that is not the case.
The libertarian battle is mostly an intellectual battle and for strategic reasons, the best we can hope for in this presidential cycle is a hated bumbler where we can provide the intellectual fire power as to why the bumbler should be hated and why liberty is the best alternative.