by Charles Barr
While Scott Walker is touring the country trying to stay atop of the polls for the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination, his home state of Wisconsin is struggling to keep people in the state. Since 2013, nearly 2,300 people have left the state of Wisconsin and the household income has slipped about .01%.
If we don’t consider these small, nit-picky numbers, the economic prospects of the state are great – Wisconsin went from number 49 on the economic prospects to number 21. Walker himself laid out most of his economic success stories in his CPAC speech this past weekend, most of which is a far stretch, especially considering there is still a $280 million budget deficit that the state is still grappling with.
Since his name has been at the top of numerous polls, Walker has been trying to hone in his viewpoints to fit the traditional conservative view for the Republican primary. In other words, Walker has been trying to get votes, not just in Wisconsin this time, by being a politician around the country. Recycling one of his popular lines, Walker said at CPAC, “Up there in Washington, we have a president who measures success by how many people are dependent on the government. There’s a reason we celebrate the Fourth of July and not April 15, because in America we celebrate our independence from the government and not our dependence on it.”
Most libertarians don’t have a problem with this type of rhetoric. After all, Walker did improve the economy of Wisconsin ever so slightly, no matter how many Democrats or libertarians (or other Republican Presidential candidates) really want to argue it. Libertarians don’t celebrate April 15 either, that’s for sure. But the point is, no matter how big Walker wants the state’s private sector to be, there is no way that the economy could improve without allowing a free-market economy to actually take root. This means removing the government from the equation, not keeping it there. Essentially, there is no reason to believe that if a Democrat or another Republican were the Governor of Wisconsin that the economy would be better or worse than under Walker. Economically, Scott Walker is the same old flavor that the Republican Party has been embracing ever since 1989. He is doing some things, such as breaking apart public employee unions, which are a drastic departure of their usual behavior. But his overall approach is the same.
His views on foreign policy are worse than his mediocre economic policies for the state of Wisconsin. At CPAC, he compared his success with unions in Wisconsin with his ability to challenge ISIS rebels abroad. This triggered a firestorm against the governor. Following the convention, he immediately came out and said that his initial views on immigration, where he favored a slight form of amnesty, were changed. On civil liberties, he supports Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment defining a marriage between a man and a woman. In addition, he believes marijuana is a gateway drug to more dangerous substances and does not support its legalization.
Ideally, a more libertarian candidate for president would have a sound economic background while supporting civil rights and a more constitutional approach to governing – both at home and abroad. This puts Walker at odds with this limited approach to governing a state, and would likely put him at odds with this limited approach to governing a nation. Additionally, it also means that a plan to win the presidency is in place that includes minority outreach, young voter support, and a message that is consistent with is or her governing record (which also appeals to these voters).
Unfortunately, Walker believes in a campaign for president that is polarizing and unapologetic. This translates to a divisive victory in a primary election, and probably a staggering loss in a general election. That’s the larger problem for Scott Walker, and ultimately, why he should stay in Wisconsin.
America isn’t ready for Hillary, or Elizabeth, or Bernie, or Biden. But these four people have the advantage of minority outreach, young voter support, and a message that is (arguably) consistent with their governing record. That’s where Scott Walker fails short. Walker is one of the most polarizing politicians in this nation, and has little regard to how others view him on a national stage – as long as he gets the headlines and the poll numbers. Why turn voters off to a limited approach at governing? A consistent message of limited government should welcome new people, not turn them away. That’s how the election will be won.
Running a campaign at odds with factions of voters and dividing them may work in a primary election, but it will backfire in a general election just like it has in the past two general elections for president of the United States. That’s why Scott Walker’s technique of dividing people in the nation should raise a red flag to those who are working to bring people of all types together in the name of liberty. Scott Walker should worry about uniting everyone Wisconsin before he worries about dividing us across the nation.
[divider]About the Author[/divider]
An aspiring filmmaker with a passion for liberty-minded politics, Charles Barr resides in Monmouth County, New Jersey and attends Montclair State University with the intention of graduating in 2017 with a double major in filmmaking and political science and a minor in communications. Charles has volunteered for various campaigns including: Ron Paul for President 2012, Stephanie Ziemba for State Assembly, Steve Lonegan for US Senate, Ken Kaplan for Governor, Brian Goldberg for US Senate, and Dorit Goikhman for US Congress. In addition to politics, Charles was the assistant director for the feature length film, My Brother’s Girlfriend that premiered in early 2015 and has helped with the production of various shorts. Currently, Charles serves as the Associate Director for the Empowerment PAC, the Assistant Chair of Herrera PAC, and is writing a web-series based on the dangers of prescription painkillers.
