Why Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Will Likely Be the Next President

I am going to take a moment to step away from my common practice of libertarian ideological promotion, “taxation is theft” chanting, and Rothbard worshiping to get into some good old fashion nerdy political junkie discussions.

Will it be a discussion on real issues such as policy or local races? No, silly! It’s another talk on who the next president is going to be, and my money is on Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

Before saying why I see Gabbard as the strongest candidate, let’s just review the senior citizens home known as the 2020 Democrat field.

– Joe Biden will be unlikely to run, he’s very old and has never been good at campaigning to begin with.

– Liz Warren is holding the issue that she’s going to become the Rand Paul of 2020. She will come in with a strong following, but decisions to be more moderate and reach the larger base will haunt her. There are also some clear issues already with her record in the senate where some hard leftist have labelled her as a phony.

– Cory Booker will get treated as a mixture of Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio. An establishment pick that people find to be overly polished, not genuine, and while he will never sink below the top 3-5, his chance of getting the front spot is going to be tough, with the hard left going against him and tough competition for the moderates.

– Andrew Cuomo will be the Jeb Bush of 2020, he will win the war of getting the gold, but will find that it doesn’t buy him much love outside of K street.

There are Democrats who will possibly run, but that nobody will give a shit about, like: Martin O’Malley, Kamala Harris, Jon Bel Edwards, Kirsten Gilibrand, Caroline Kennedy, Tim Kaine, etc.

Then there are people who would change the game, but have a low chance of actually running: Oprah Winfrey (we are doomed), Mark Cuban (I’d consider it), Howard Schultz (another billionaire), Bill Weld (unlikely, but I’d back him in the Democratic Party), Jesse Ventura (the greatest thing to happen to SNL since Trump if he makes the Democratic debates).

But while that list is long, let me say why the young and beautiful veteran from Hawaii will likely run, likely win the nomination, and likely beat Donald Trump.

Why she will win the nomination

For that, let’s make this a top five.

5. Everyone in the Democratic Party knows her

Bernie Sanders lost due to relationships. The fact is, outside of Ben & Jerry’s Vermont offices, he had no contacts with big money, not many members of the house knew him well, and even the senate never formally worked with him, due to him having the independent registration. Gabbard was vice chair of the DNC and unlike Bernie has all the billionaires, senators, governors etc. in her phone book already. They know who she is and she knows them.

4. White girl Buddhist

Gabbard, if elected, would be the first Hindu president in American history. The left has this culture where many women get classified as “White girl Buddhist” and on that perspective alone, she could gain some interest from that community of people, due to her ethnic origins, and being a Hindu who is also Native American – real Native American, unlike Liz Warren. This gets her some classic liberal street cred.

3. She’s pro-gun

Believe it or not, a lot of Democrats actually do like guns. Outside of California, and some core states, there’s a spree of Democrats who want free healthcare, legal marijuana, and the power to be packing.

2. She’s the youngest Democrat

If Gabbard runs, she will be, by far, the youngest candidate in the Democratic field. At the age of 39, she would be the youngest president – if elected. AS we’ve seen with JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, there’s just this fact that the youngest person tends to hold an advantage in the Democratic Party. Gabbard being over three decades the junior of Biden and Warren, while also almost 15 years younger than Booker, holds this advantage. The fact she is extremely attractive also doesn’t hurt.

1. She endorsed Bernie

In an age of NowThis, US Uncut, Occupy Democrats and so on, this is all it’ll take: a video showing Tulsi Gabbard, with her basic resume and one line “Elizabeth Warren refused to endorse Bernie Sanders. Tulsi Gabbard resigned as vice chairwoman of the DNC to endorse and fight for Bernie.”

Do that, and watch it get 30 million views, and in a day, she’ll be the most beloved person on the far left, and Liz Warren becomes yesterday’s socialist. Gabbard betting on Bernie in the 2016 primary was the strongest pick she’s made.

Why she will fire Donald

5. She can claim to be a change

If Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee, it’s a battle between Barack Obama and Donald Trump. When Trump defeated Hillary, he partially defeated Obama. Biden won’t reflect a spirit of change and new management. Gabbard being not formally attached to any administration can get that outsider edge which a Donald Trump, who’s failed many of his promises, can’t fill.

4. She is willing to cross aisles

Tulsi Gabbard made national headlines with a rumour she was in consideration for Secretary of State. She also was the second Democrat in America to have a real meeting with Donald Trump after he won. That story and method of not going after Trump as a racist or Russian spy is going to be an edge in swaying other supporters.

3. She’s pro-gun

A lot of people are single issue voters who tend to make their issue the dumbest issue. If Hillary Clinton was pro second amendment, she’d have defeated Donald Trump. She didn’t, but Gabbard holds this clear edge.

2. She’s economically vague, but Bernie appealing

The reality to winning in politics is claim to have answers, but never have supporters actually know what those answers are. Bernie Sanders had bat-shit ridiculous ideas. He did a debate on healthcare and Ted Cruz cut him to shreds, that’s just a sign of his nonsense.

With Bernie, everything on economics was just the land of make believe. Because Gabbard endorsed Bernie, and has some hard-left stances, she already owns the Bernie people. She can keep them excited and make promises, for example single payer light or free college,  and still have it appeal to that base. Another truth is that she can be like Donald Trump and say she wants something like single payer, but word it to be more of an effort over a clear promise.

Gabbard can, unlike Bernie, not be bat-shit crazy on economics.

1. She’s a veteran and gets foreign policy.

If Gabbard was elected, she’d be the first veteran since H.W. to take office, and can actually poise herself on real middle eastern policy talks where she has front line experience from the Iraq war. Being able to talk about that experience and drive it to her very libertarian foreign policy views, she has a good shot.

The final question: Would I vote for her?

In 2012, I supported Gary Johnson in the Republican primary, and later backed Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman after Gary left that race. I voted for Gary Johnson as a New Yorker. While I wasn’t a fan of Romney, I asked friends in swing states, who were backing Johnson, to vote trade for Romney.

In the Trump and Clinton wars, I was proud to say Clinton was the lesser of the evils, and I still stand by that. I did vote for Gary Johnson, but if I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for Clinton. I’m open to play nice with the left.

However, I’d probably not vote for Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbards economic views currently strike me as being too far to the left. I could see her being worse than Trump.

In the Democratic primary of 2016, I said I’d support Clinton over Trump, but I’d support Trump over Bernie. However, Gabbard has had a career of being very open, trustworthy and having a genuine concern for policy over her own career. So, unlike Hillary Clinton, I’d say I think Gabbard deserves some respect as a candidate.

I didn’t get to have my first or second picks for president in 2012 or 2016, and I doubt I’ll get that with 2020. So, my money is on President Gabbard.

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

The following two tabs change content below.
  • Chris Todd

    Okay, slowly put the joint down and back away…

  • Saul Brenning

    Libertarian foreign policy, pro-marijuana, and pro-second amendment. Do we really know her economic stances yet? If she starts talking debt reduction without raising taxes, then sign me up.

    • DC

      She won’t, in order to keep the Bernie supporters. But everything else is libertarian with her, or very close to being libertarian.

      • Elias Johnson

        I think she can be center on many econ policies and still keep the Bernie supporters. Trump will likely (as would’ve Hillary) get us caught up in another spendy war that will make a huge deficit for us. That and his stupid wall if it ever happens. SO, if Tulsi really is anti military-industrial, that alone could save our collective pocketbooks. She wouldn’t need to even do the “free college” thing to win over many Berners, but it wouldn’t hurt!

    • Nickfgh

      She is not pro gun, look at her own website. She calls for the federal assault weapons ban to be reinstated

      • Michael B

        That is not inconsistent with being pro-gun.

        • Nickfgh

          It absolutely is. Banning one of the most common weapons in the country because of features is progun? Delusional.

    • Chris Moses

      How do you get debt reduction fighting multiple front wars consistently, and continually increasing the military budget which dwarfs what multiple countries spend, combined?

      We cannot continue to lower tax rates on corporations, and expect the government to work effectively. As Mark Blyth put it, we don’t have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

  • Pingback: Why Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Will Likely Be the Next President – Kiwi Lead()

  • I thought Bernie should have named her VP well in advance of the convention, as Reagan had done in 1976 with Schweiker.

    • Chris Moses

      I think that would have been a great idea too.

  • Pingback: Why Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Will Likely Be the Next President – Being Libertarian | Prometheism.net()

  • I sure hope you’re right. I was a registered Libertarian for many, many years BTW. I’m not any more because libertarian ideology is not going to work in the age of intelligent machines. It’s literally not possible for it to work. Such ideas will inevitably lead to an oligarchy or worse and a dysfunctional society. If you don’t believe it then you either don’t understand what’s happening with artificial intelligence or you don’t understand economics. Labor is no longer going to be needed — at least a whole lot less of it will be needed. That fact really screws things up. We will need a new system and it’s not going to be libertarian, which again cannot possibly work.

    • Chris Moses

      Correct… We are in for a paradigm shift, and this shift cannot be a shift to more plutocratic ideas of treating labor as a comoddity. If capitalism is supposed to pull people out of poverty, it clearly has a ceiling to where it stops being productive for the poor and middle class of industrialized, first world countries. With automation cutting into the mundane job markets, the lie of capitalism becomes clearer to those who dive in and pay attention. Wage stagnation, and increasing wars across the planet show the capitialist system in free-fall. They can limp it along with QE and no inflation for so long, so we need to all brace for the next consolidation of wealth (which they call an economic downturn)… Happens at least once a decade, and our national debt doubles every 8 years, no matter which party is in charge. We do need a new system, and that system must be based off resources, and the common good of the citizens, not quarterly earnings of the Corporatocracy.

      • archie

        Its fine to denounce Corporatocracy…but system of free market competition has led to enormous growth in technology. History gives us may other systems of govt. which were stable, but stagnant. There was no incentive to innovate.

        Also, a nation doesn’t exist in isolation. If your system of govt dosent give you competitive advantage over your rivals, then other nations are gonna trounce you– remember Imperial China, Japan, India, USSR…heck the whole old world.

        Only way we can go back to old systems is a world wide cataclysmic event…which frankly is very much possible.

        • Chris Moses

          Where has the “free” market led to enormous growth in technology? You can point to any technology in our private sector today, and trace its iception, development, and funding to the PUBLIC sector. So, this continued false narrative peddled by the corporatist think tanks leaves out those very important details. It is easy to point to Apple, Microsoft, and say thay they gave us enormous growth in technology, but it just isn’t true, when you look at where the ideas were born, vetted out, and used for the government first.

          You are stuck on “competition”, like it is suppposed to mean something. We are no longer hunters and gatherers, we have evolved past it for the time being, but we will be back there, if we continue to act as if “survival of the fittest” is still a real thing where our economic system is concerned. If that were really the case, how many banks would be standing after the 2008 economic collapse? How many insurance companies, or automakers, or oil companies would be standing without subsidies, and bailouts on the public purse?

          Socialism for the weallthy, survival of the fittest for the rest of us. How nice they set this type of system for themselves.

          What more of a competitive advantage do corporations need? America owns the world currency (we manipulate and devalue our currency all the time), which is backed by oil sales (petradollar), which is why we are always at war, making sure all nations sell their oil on the dollar. See 2003 Iraq War, and the 2011 Libya overthrow as proof of this. (Hussein was selling oil on the euro, and Gaddafi floated idea on a new African dinar for the sell of their oil)

          The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, however, after loopholes, write-offs, subsidies, and offshore tax havens, how many corporations do you think pay anything close to that? Now Trump wants to take the corporate tax rate to 15%, which is less than individial tax rates. Expect a budget deficit like in the Reagan/Bush years, and with his posturing for more military spending, and never-ending war costs, more war costs on top 6 trillion dollars in lost tax revenue over 10 years, expect yet another depression…

          You are right about one thing… A world wide cataclysmic event is very much possible. It won’t happen because we tried to change the system to a more egalitarian, sensible, resource based economy. It will happen, because people continue to chase free market capitalism down the drain, as it continues to collapse under its own weight. These market corrections, QE, and bailouts are temporary band aids, but they never fix the systemic issues of the problem, so only a fool would expect the problem to be solved. You are also right, that history has shown us many different economic systems, and they all failed… Capitalim is no different, so you shouldn’t be surprised it is failing at such an alarming rate, because it is largely predicated on these older systems that failed. We have plenty of resources for every person on this planet to be clothed, housed, fed and educated, and we can continue to prosper in a system that uses resources wisely. It will take work to reinvent our cities, rebuild our infrastructure to facilitate the paradigm shift, and to create this new paradigm, but it will never happen at the rate we are going. I don’t see the owners, or the politicians doing anything for the species, so I expect we will endure much pain when everything fails, and that is a waste of an opportunity.

  • DC

    GJ supporting Libertarian that supports Tulsi right now.

    I don’t like many of her socialist ideas, but the fact that she believes in a foreign policy that uses the military as a last resort gets my backing immediately.

    The financial things? We can worry about that later. GET US OUT OF THESE WARS NOW!

    • Chris Moses

      We already have many socialist ideas in our system already, and they are usually the things most people really love. Seems free market economics has us in a very large hole currently, and a war economy isn’t really helping most people… Something has to give, and socialism should not be looked at as a “problem”. What got us into this economic mess should be what we consider the “problem”.

      If we are going to be against socialism, we need to stop implementing a system of socialism for the rich, while the middle class and poor are left to fend for themselves. If Trump gets this 15% corporate tax rate through, expect our government to come screeching to a halt, except for the incessent bombing of other countries. Bush 2.0, on the horizon. Budgets need to be funded, and we already know that trickle down economics (Republican Party), and trickle down change (Democratic Party) doesn’t work. What would you suggest we do, if more socialist (collective) ideas aren’t a good idea?

      • archie

        Any system if followed to extreme has its issues. Pure socialism has shown its spectacular failure around the world, I hope you remember that.

        Unbridled free market slowly results in concentration of power and consolidation— leading to monopoly. Here role of govt to ensure Free market ecosystem is maintained, no 1 organization has too much power, and income disparity is reduced.

        I see the role of Govt as a Gardner, making sure plants grow in their boundaries, cutting those who threaten to overwhelm others, watering those who are dying.

        What is interesting in your point is that you never put blame on public. Politicians are bad, there is military indistry complex…etc, but ultimate responsibility in a republic lies with the public.

        If in information age with near 100% literacy, people still cant figure what’s good for them, then how can you blame the system?

        • Chris Moses

          Please help me out, and point out to me where “pure” socialism spectacularly failed on its own, with no outside interference.

          Your notions of free market capitalism and the “market” being the savior are very indoctrinated, unsubstantiated ideas, indeed. They are mere theory that has never come to fruition, because the “invisible hand” of the market has also never been a real thing, as the wealthy always manipulate it.

          I never said the public had no blame, but what I will say is the public is perpetually misled by their leaders, and by the propaganda from the owners of the planet.i certainly don’t agree with your 100% literacy rates, and there aren’t even close to half of our country that has a working knowledge of geopolitics or economics.

          Maybe in the time of Washington, it could have been a gardener, but our government, and the system created by the wealthy, for the wealthy, is long gone. Continuing to act as if it’s the same existence is why it is failing so spectacularly now.

          • archie

            But the point is NO country lives in Isolation. You economic policy should be capable of withstanding competition from other countries, else its useless. North Korea, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China…all are shining examples of “pure” socialism and what they did. Same in Cuba. A quick Wikipedia search will give more info 🙂

            America is MOST unequal planet…that is true, but its also one of richest. Equality IN wealth dosent mean people’s standard of living will be higher. Frankly, unless one lives in tribal environment, in-equality will be there…that is by product of civilization.

            For me, Invisible hand of the market means the technological progress due to imperative of competition. We, as a species have grown almost vertically in past 300 years, when you compare the growth to 10,000 year history of recorded civilization.

            Surely something in our political and economic system must be very right…

          • Chris Moses

            North Korea had sanctions set against it, so did not crumble on its own. Russia, same thing. Cuba was not communist, it was socialist, and was pushed that way due to sanctions put on it by the United States.

            Maybe you need to read the real history of these countries, before acting as if you know something about them.

          • Chris Moses

            The invisible hand is complete nonsense… Not invisible, and certainly not guided by the market. It is manupulated and pushed by the money powers. Corporations and banks are completely anti-competition. Why do you think they buy patents that would make their products less attractive? If our society was actually geared for the betterment of the species, and truly for humankind, our world would look very different today, and equality would be much closer to a realization. You have been reading far too much pro-capitalistic propaganda, and not nearly enough actual history books, or statistics on economics.

  • Albert Ainuu

    Just a correction her ethnicity is part Samoan which is Polynesian, think Moana altho she is no cartoon, but that is the culture she comes from, her fellow Samoan the Rock, Dwayne Johnson may be another potential candidate for president. Imagine him dealing with Putin or ISIS, we wouldnt need a military just strap a grenade launcher on his back and hand him a machete …lol

    • Michael B

      Unless he behaves like his character did for his cameo in Reno 9-11: Miami!

  • rhoner

    I like your views on Gabbard. I would certainly vote for her in the NH primary. If there is a decent LP candidate they get my vote. However, I am not hopeful on that score.

    • Chris Moses

      I already see the Democratic establishment beginning their smearing of Gabbard, in anticipation of her run. They know the progressive (Bernie) wing of the party loves Gabbard, so they will do all they can to stop her. They have already sent her letters, denouncing her, and made promises not to help her next campaign with funding, or DNC resources. That will work to her benefit, because the further she is from the Un-Democratic Party internal workings, the better she will be received by Independents, left-leaning Libertarians, women (if they are truly “feminists”), minorities, millennials, and progressives.

      I feel with Sanders (and his large base) at her back, and a lack of social issue mumbo jumbo (which is important, but should not be the focal point of a political campaign), Gabbard could punch the establishment on the right and left right in the teeth. Trump and his ridiculously wealthy cabinet of special interest swamp people will implode on their own, and all the failures to come down the pike will make him ripe for the plucking. I feel Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive, and if they once again put their finger on the scale, favoring an establishment candidate over someone like Gabbard, it could be lights out for the Democratic Party, because they are currently on life support.

  • rogerscorpion

    Tulsi is great. I don’t get the ‘white girl buddhist’ reference. Liz Warren easily can be Native American. Johnny Depp & Burt Reynolds have Native blood. She’s no socialist, though. Just a classic liberal.

  • Rolf Friis

    Mostly a good article but Cruz did not rip Bernie to shreds. That statement is laughable. Cruz does not have the intellect capable of ripping anyone to shreds, much less Bernie.

  • Nickfgh

    “Pro gun”… her own website states she is fighting to reinstate the “federal assault weapons ban”. That is absolutly not “pro gun” and exactly what hillary wanted to do. No thanks.

    • Michael B

      Hate to break it to you, but being pro-gun does not mean being pro assault weapon.

      • Nickfgh

        You’re wrong. And what they want to ban is not an “assault rifle”. It’s a semi auto with plastic parts. One of the most common sporting rifles in the country.

  • Chris Moses

    I like the article, and you hit many points correctly. One critique would be the economics of Bernie Sanders. These are not bat-shit ideas, because these ideas are being implemented very successfully (far more successfully than the current economic system in America) in many countries around the world. From tuition-free education to single payer healthcare, America is the only industrialized country without universal single payer (in one form or another), with the highest healthcare costs, with the lowest efficiencies and quality of care. The real bat-shit crazy idea is attempting to protect such a broken system.

    If America didn’t hold the world currency, we would be in big trouble! These countries are doing these supposed “bat-shit crazy” economic ideas without the world currency, and have great economies, higher happiness indexes with its citizens, the unemployment/bankruptcy rates are lower, while education level, wages and quality of life is much higher. So, if this is what you call batshit crazy, Sanders and Gabbard can sign me up. America is in deep trouble economically, if they don’t change course, no matter who is in office. We cannot warmonger ourself out of this hole. It takes real thinkers, not platitudes. It take BIG ideas, not status quo ideas, wrapping ourselves in nonsensical ideas like the “market is king”… It is a fiction, and a story the rich tell the poor and middle class, to remain in power.

    • danCjr

      It always annoys me when people start bringing up European countries that have socialist programs and think it’s a 1-to-1 comparison with the USA. When you look at population size and land size these countries are equatable to one (maybe two) of our states. These are huge, important factors to take into consideration when attempting socialist programs.

      How large of an infrastructure do you have to create to monitor and provide services to all those areas? How many people do you have in the system that you have to provide services to? Sure Canada can match us in area but in population is smaller than California. A Libertarian model of smaller government control would actually benefit socialist programs and make them significantly more successful. If we didn’t try to expand the Massachusetts program of RomneyCare onto the whole country we might have seen other states (most likely neighboring ones) who would have looked at what worked and didn’t work and created a better system. States that improved the lives of people would attract more people and states that find a way to do that while making it work for business owners would dominate.

      We would see competition in these programs that would address issues more specific to each region. The biggest lie most Americans (and the rest of the world) tell themselves is that there is a single “American culture”. There are nuances and differences in every part of the country and the one-size-fits-all approach to Federal socialism just will never work properly here. In homogenous Norway, sure, where one specific type of white culture dominates everything you can make a system that appeals to vast majority of people, but you are lying if you ignore the fact that the country and it’s systems aren’t under strain now that they have a large influx of immigrants. It might adjust and survive just fine but that’s partially because it is still a small country and can tweak those fine details more easily. Washington D.C. just never will be the most efficient way of managing that system.

      If you want to look at comparable socialist states to the USA you have to look at China or Russia. And in both cases, large, central government rule always devolves into some form of totalitarianism and human/civil rights violations. I don’t mind your sentiment of looking to the European nations for inspiration but you are applying it to the wrong level of government for it to work in the USA.

  • Texian for Independence

    I honestly don’t think she’s any worse than the average Democrat on economics, and she’s so pro-civil rights, anti-war that I’d be THRILLED if she won the Dem primary. I doubt I’d vote for her in the general, but I might campaign for her in the primary (assuming Bill Weld didn’t run, which would be awesome).

  • “drive it to her very libertarian foreign policy views”

    Gabbard has less awful foreign policy positions than 99% of US House members. Does that make her position libertarian? No it does not. Let’s not delude others on that point.

  • disqus_O8hpwtlm6F

    Aye, you might not support her economic wise, but I respect that. I myself didn’t like Bernies economic policies that much either (I support market socialism. Its a lot more right wing than his version) However, I was a full supporter of him. He represented change. And whether or not its a good or bad change, I’d support it. As long as we get a piece of shit out of office I’m good.

    Now, just for Tulsi’s foreign policy I’d support her. Less wars will help us economically no matter what her economic views are. Now, if she decides to have our country pioneer in green technology, then holy fuck she’s smart. We can’t let China take this opportunity.

  • Tai Ta

    Don’t forget, she’s also a military and war veteran. That’ll garner a lot of center-right people.

©2017 Being Libertarian | Site design by Nerdy Zombie

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

%d bloggers like this: