Background:
He was born in Provo Utah in 1976, and grew up near Seattle. He holds a bachelors in international law and diplomacy from Brigham-Young, and a masters in business administration from the University of Pennsylvania.
in 2001 he worked in Amman Jordan as a Volunteer Refugee Resettlement Officer for the UN, and worked for the CIA from 2001 to 2011, serving overseas in counter intelligence and intelligence operations in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. in 2011 he started work at Goldman Sachs, and in 2013 became a senior adviser to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for national security matters, and most recently, in 2015, worked as chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, a position he resigned to run for President.
In May of 2016, he presented a TEDx talk to the London Business School "Why saying 'never again' to genocide is not enough"
Political Stances
Here is his Issues page if you would like to check out what he has to say directly.
Overall, he appears to be a solid small government conservative, as well as being pro-life. However, I do have some personal concerns.
He would continue federal involvement in education, while he rightly critiques common core, and talks about state and local governments leading the way, which is good, and expanding choices and encouraging states to support homeschooling, also good, constitutionally, education is entirely a state and local issue. Better than Trump or Clinton for sure, and scaling back federal meddling is definitely a positive step, it isn't a step far enough.
His foreign policy, while this is certainly an area where, of the candidates running, he has perhaps the most extensive direct experience, I get the impression of reading his views on our role in the world, that while he rightly condemns the irrational policies of Trump, his only real critique of Clinton on foreign policy is that she is not trustworthy. I get the impression that he would continue foreign interventions. I understand defending our interests and national security, but many of the issues he discusses, while noble, seem to allude that he would continue our role as world police, meddling in sovereign affairs overseas, including increasing our military presence in the Baltics to counter Russia. On foreign policy, I would class him as a hawk for sure. I'm all for a strong military and protecting our interests, but I do not support an aggressive and confrontational foreign policy, that is part of what has gotten us to where we are now.
On healthcare, he starts well with repealing Obamacare, but then he talks about giving a tax credit to uninsured families, as well as other federal entitlement programs. The federal government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, and, while some of his ideas may well be interesting to see tried on a state level, I can't support a candidate who would involve the federal government in healthcare matters when there is no constitutional place for federal involvement.
On energy policies, he would eliminate federal subsidies. A great start for sure, however, he would push through the Keystone pipeline and other pipeline projects. My greatest concern here is encroachment on native lands, which he makes no mention of, however, overall, I like what he has to say regarding energy policy and the environment.
On poverty issues, he again has some interesting ideas, but again, they are ideas that, constitutionally, should occur on the state level. While he mentions encouraging states to lead the way, he discusses various tax credits and programs that, while again, are noble ideas that could indeed work well as state programs, have no place as federal programs.
Overall, he has several good ideas, and is a step ahead of Trump and Clinton for certain. I like several of his policy ideas, and think he would certainly be an improvement if he were to become president. Were he running for state office, I would seriously consider giving him my vote. However, as a presidential candidate, while he is certainly a step towards returning to constitutional limits, he would continue to involve the federal government in constitutionally state issues, admittedly in a reformed and more limited way, but still overstepping constitutional bounds. His foreign policy is also to interventionist for my preferences, although it is certainly preferable to Trump's. I'd say on foreign policy matters, he would closely compare to that of George W. Bush, although I do get the impression that he would allow military leaders more discretion, which, if you are going to have a hawkish policy, is important to having a successful one.
Ballot Access
Due to his late announcement in August, he does have limited ballot access. He is on the ballot in 11 states:
- Arkansas
- Colorado
- Idaho
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Minnesota
- New Mexico
- South Carolina
- Utah
- Virginia
And has write in status in
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Delaware
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Montana
- Nebraska
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- Ohio
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Vermont
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
Overall, he is certainly an interesting and thought provoking candidate. I will not be supporting him due to the reasons I stated above, however, I will say he would certainly be a better choice than Clinton or Trump. As I have made clear in the past, Johnson is my first choice, and Keniston would be my second, were I rating candidates in order of my own preference, I'd put McMullin at 3rd choice. An interesting Republican, but still essentially a Republican.
No comments:
Post a Comment