Since announcing my candidacy for the office of President (of the United States, dummy!!) I’ve been flooded with requests about the specifics of my platform. I’d like to use this essay to answer both of them.
But first, I’d like to respond to the complaint raised by many: why would someone with an affinity for anarchy even consider running for President? The answer should be obvious. I can do more to reduce the size of government from within than without. If you think a society can go from an all-embracing, fascist-type government to NO government in a matter of a year or two, you’re dreaming. Let’s face it: people LIKE fascism, even if they object to the name. Having your neighbors compelled to assist you in educating your children, paying for your drugs and medical care, augmenting your retirement income, etc., is very appealing. In fact, so appealing that change may not be possible. My candidacy may be fifty or a hundred years too late.
Now to specifics: what about foreign policy? That couldn’t be easier. My foreign policy is isolationism, insofar as government is concerned. My administration would have no concerns about tourism, international business, etc., but interfering in some other country’s political affairs, signing treaties, etc., just isn’t going to happen.
The UN? We’ll get out of the UN with all possible speed, and require that organization — if it survives our departure — to leave our shores. The UN building could be sold — to Wal-Mart, maybe? Or some group could buy it to turn it into a museum, much like the Holocaust museum, but less specialized. That museum deals with evils perpetrated by a particular government against a specific group of its victims. The former UN building could become a museum dedicated to memorializing the killing brought about by ALL governments just, say, during the last century. The building might not be large enough for the necessary exhibits!
Foreign aid? Need I say that it would stop, immediately? I understand that, by virtue of some treaty or other, such "aid" is to continue for a specified length of time. Too bad. It stops at once. Foreign aid is unconstitutional; to claim it must persist according to some un-constitutional "law" won’t save it.
Some will say that my platform is simplistic. I think "simple" would be a better word, because solutions to many major problems are, in fact, simple. That doesn’t alter the fact that putting solutions into action may be complicated, or that the solutions may result in discomfort for many. Attempts to avoid the obvious, simple, solution usually lead to more problems, more complications, and more pain and suffering than simply doing the right thing in the first place.
Next time we’ll talk about the economy. The solution to America’s economic problems is simple, too, although its implementation may not be. That’s another essay.