Libertarian Leader Says Less Government Equals Less Corruption

As the executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a non-profit libertarian think tank, David Boaz has become a regular contributor to leading publications, including the Wall Street Journal and National Review, and has appeared on numerous TV news programs. Boaz spoke with Washington D.C. Correspondent Ben Austin about money, corruption, and the possibilities of the libertarian movement.

Ben Austin: What intra-party dynamics have stood out to you during the primary season, and how will they shape the general election?

David Boaz: On the Republican side, you have McCain, who places a lot of emphasis on making the individual subservient to the collective. This is something new for the Republicans, and if he is elected, it would be a big change from traditional conservatism ... With the Democrats, the thing that strikes me is the total lack of ideological debate. There is hardly any difference between the candidates on economic policy.

BA: Are there enough disaffected voters for a third-party candidacy to be successful?

DB: There will be a Libertarian candidate and a Green candidate, but ballot access laws make it very difficult for third parties to run candidates. In order to have a successful third-party run, you have to be a multimillionaire, which is why Michael Bloomberg is receiving so much attention.

BA: Do college students function as an interest group by voting with their financial interests on issues like student loans?

DB: I wouldn't say that. College students tend to be more idealistic. This is something that amazes me. Young people are very aware that social security is financially insolvent. When you look at surveys of young people, you see that more of them believe in UFOs than believe that they will ever see a social security check. They should be making this an issue at every town hall meeting. When they are working, 20 percent of their paycheck will be going to Social Security and Medicare.

BA: Did the Ron Paul narrative have an effect on the Republican debates and race?

DB: It was kind of like the Howard Dean candidacy. It's interesting, because he raised more money than possibly anybody, and he had a lot of enthusiasm online, but people didn't go out and vote for him. The growth in technology and so many new means of communication have the potential to change the race. Now Obama and Clinton are raising more money online, and from more donors.

BA: You wrote that "Politics is corrupting money." How can corruption be addressed most effectively?

DB: The only way to reduce corruption--you'll never eliminate it entirely--is to reduce the size and power of government. When the government spends more, there is more of an incentive to pay off politicians. The campaign finance reforms won't fix the problem. If anything, I think things should be more out in the open. I think that if someone wants to be able to give one million dollars to John McCain, they should be able to do so, and we should know about it. If George Soros wants to give one million dollars to a candidate, he should be able to do so. Now whether this will be acceptable to voters is another matter. People may not want to vote for candidates who have openly received large donations.

BA: Can PACs and the political machine institutions be used to build a libertarian majority?

DB: It's hard to organize people who don't want anything from the government. When the corn lobbyists want a subsidy from the government, they have an incentive to lobby, but when people want nothing, it's harder to bring them together ... I think a lot of Americans want to be left alone by government.

BA: Can McCain reassure small-government conservatives who are dissatisfied with the doubling of the federal budget under Bush?

DB: He's well known for opposing federal spending, especially pork and discretionary spending. It's part of his reputation as a maverick, which is why many libertarians like him ... He'll say, "Would you rather have me or Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi," and the Democrats will do the same thing. They will compare McCain to Bush, and say that he's going to keep us in Iraq forever ... I talk to some libertarians who say, "I'm voting for Obama to get out of Iraq."

BA: Iraq is a smaller slice of the budget than social security, medicare and the entitlement programs. Are libertarians being rational when they vote for Obama to end the war while there are bigger spending items at stake?

DB: The difference is that in Iraq, people are being killed, and so the issue is more urgent. Right now, they just want to get out.

BA: Personal accounts were partly a Cato idea. Did they fail because they attacked a widely popular program, or because of political impetus?

DB: I think that these programs will have to collapse for us to address the problem. You're seeing that in some other countries. In France, the pension system is in worse order than it is here, but they aren't addressing it there either. When the program was brought on the agenda in 2005, Bush was very unpopular. When they did surveys which just described the program, it was 20 percent more popular than when it was described as President Bush's personal accounts program ... It was a popular proposal, but we needed a more popular candidate to put it forward.

David Boaz is the author of several books, including the most recent release, "The Politics of Freedom."