Libertarian Strategy and Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard

Every time I have put up a post about Tulsi Gabbard, I get emails and comments that seem to miss the point.

The latest post, Sayonara, Tulsi?, is no exception.

A commenter came in with this doozy:

"Fit shaming eh? I disagree. She is clear, she is direct. She is correct on the most important economic issue out there, world wide war. Every other issue, save family, is secondary."

First of all, I was not "fit shaming." I have absolutely no problem with women who are in shape. What nonsense.

My point was merely that her putting up the workout post was not going to get her any more support for her presidential campaign.

That was the essence of my complaint. For example, I also noted she put up a video about Silicon Valley social media censorship. It didn't mean that I thought that Lefty Valley censorship wasn't a legitimate topic, just that it made no sense from a campaign perspective to put up that video. I am personally shadowbanned by a couple of the Lefty giants so it is not a topic I am uninterested in. My perspective throughout the post was simply: How is this going to help Tulsi get enough support to get into the Septemeber debate? I didn't think either post did that.

The second part of the comment implies that I no longer support her because she is not strong enough on all the issues. This is simply a reading comprehension problem. I closed the post by saying:

 I would still support her, because she remains the best out of a very terrible pack, if she somehow triggered major support out of her debate performance this coming Wednesday in Detroit.

But I added that I expect it to be the case that she is not going to make it to the next debate, so that yes it was "Sayonara, Tulsi."

This brings me to another point. When I was more actively supporting her campaign, I would often receive emails along this line:

 Tulsi is against foreign intervention for regime change, she is fully in support of foreign intervention if it is against designated terrorist groups (e.g. al Qaeda). 

My answer to this has always been two-fold. First, I have never considered Gabbard a libertarian. She is especially terrible on economics. I have always made this clear. I consider her what I am now calling a rearguard tool for liberty. That is, she is not going to get us to liberty land, she, may, if she is in power, possibly limit the advance of some growth in government, that is all.

My view on Tulsi has always been, compared to what and how different is she from the other candidates. And she has by far been the most consistent in her opposition to regime change war. That is big. But now, the point appears to be moot, she is not going to make it into the September debate.

I hasten to add that though she is good on regime change, and that is why I support her relative to the pack, this does not mean that in some absolute sense, that I consider regime change, as the commenter above puts it, the most important compared to every other issue.

If there was, somehow, a candidate that was weak on regime change wars but 100% hardcore libertarian on, say, all domestic issues, I would support that candidate---again as a rearguard tool.

But sad to say, it looks like there is going to be no one to support, even if it is for just rearguard action, from the current pack. They are all very bad on almost every issue with Elizabeth Warren and  Marianne Williamson probably the worst. John Delaney might be the best of the worst but I wouldn't take a bullet for him, even in my pinkie.

. -RW