An Analysis of the Ideas of Fred Thompson
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Gennady Stolyarov II
06-15-07
Fred Dalton
Thompson, who served as the United States Senator from Tennessee
from 1994 to 2003, has not made his candidacy official, but numerous
grassroots movements have emerged to “draft” him to run for office,
and the former Senator has indicated that his agreement is a
possibility.
On June 5,
2007, Thompson set up his own site,
ImWithFred.com, which has options for donations and an
announcement of Thompson’s intentions to “change Washington and help
America meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.” A formal
announcement of Thompson’s candidacy is likely only a matter of
time.
On some of his
positions, Thompson is likely to appeal to conservative Republicans.
For instance, the former Senator has mentioned Federalism is his
guiding principle and emphasized the advantages of different states
serving as competitive “laboratories for democracy and
experiment[ation] with different kinds of laws.” From this
competitive approach, the laws that work best might be adopted by
other states, while the laws that fail to achieve their purpose can
be tossed aside more readily.
One of the
best guides to understanding Thompson’s stances on the issues is his
voting record during his time as Senator. He has a good history on
the abortion issue, having voted to ban abortions at military bases
(2000) and to abolish partial birth abortion (1999). Furthermore,
Thompson has rightly voted against expanding the definition of “hate
crimes” (an Orwellian concept in itself) to include sexual
orientation; and he has consistently voted against the legalization
of the oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.”
Thompson’s
other favorable positions include his past support for restricting
the scope of class-action lawsuits and limiting product liability
punitive damage awards. Thompson might serve as a formidable
challenger to a legal system that presently holds numerous American
businessmen, doctors, and other professionals in terror of paying
potentially unlimited fines to people who are allowed to sue them
with the slightest pretext, even an absurd one.
Thompson has
also supported decreased government control of education, voting in
favor of Educational Savings Accounts in March of 2000 and
advocating greater flexibility in the federal government’s rules
regarding public schools. He has furthermore shown support for
school vouchers in Washington, D. C.
In terms of
protecting Second-Amendment rights, Thompson has demonstrated his
opposition to all forms of increased gun control. In 1999, he voted
in favor of less stringent background checks at gun shows; in 2000,
he opposed increases in penalties for gun violations. While Thompson
is strong in his opposition to crime and has even voted to limit the
number and types of acceptable death penalty appeals, the former
Senator is correct to refuse to punish a violent criminal more
severely simply because a gun was used in the commission of a crime.
But Thompson
does not seem to have strong opposition to the government-enforced
racial discrimination of affirmative action. In July of 1995,
Senator Thompson voted against ending federally-funded affirmative
action in hiring. In October of 1997, he voted to oppose the
cessation of special federal funding to businesses owned by women
and minorities. Why should the federal government use taxpayer funds
to give special privileges to certain people, solely on the basis of
their race and gender? Surely, most conservatives in this country
are strongly opposed to the racially discriminatory practice of
affirmative action and will thus take issue with Thompson’s past
voting record.
Thompson’s
votes indicate that he considers a reduction of the national debt
and the establishment of a balanced budget a priority. In March
1997, Thompson strongly supported a balanced-budget amendment to the
Constitution.
Yet his views
on this subject might also have a downside, as Thompson has
indicated that he sees the elimination of the national debt as a
higher priority than lowering taxes. Thus, in April 2000, he
voted in favor of making national debt reduction the government’s
favored objective over tax cuts.
Is it possible that Thompson would support a tax increases to
pay off the national debt? While raising taxes is tempting to
many politicians, actually raising taxes usually accomplishes
nothing (or makes our budgetary problems worse). Historically, an
increase in taxes often goes hand-in-hand with an increase in
federal spending, as politicians delude themselves into believing
the illusion that they have more resources to devote to government
programs and pet projects. Thus, when taxes go up, deficit spending
often persists (and even increases), and the American people are
deprived of a large portion of income. As a mark in his favor,
Thompson has in the past indicated a preference for across-the-board
cuts in government spending, but it is uncertain whether this means
that he will refrain from considering a tax increase.
As Senator,
Fred Thompson expressed his repeated support for the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance reform bill, voting for it as early as 1997 and
through its ultimate passage in 2002. This bill was a disaster for
America’s electoral process, as it literally restricted the free
speech of non-incumbent candidates for federal office and made
it increasingly difficult for new candidates to obtain funding for
their campaigns. The well-connected incumbents who knew how to
maneuver around the bill’s immensely complex provisions were thus
able to get an artificial competitive advantage.
To be fair,
Mr. Thompson has stated in 2007 that the campaign finance reform
bill did not function as he had expected, and that he might consider
a different set of policies on this issue. But it is uncertain how
much of this statement is sincere and how much of it is an attempt
to cover up the political embarrassment of having supported such
legislation. If Thompson becomes President, will he take steps to
combat the McCain-Feingold bill and its effects? To find out the
answer, it will be necessary to watch his future behavior and
statements.
Mr. Thompson’s
past advocacy of another government program, the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA), is a cause for concern. In August of 1999,
Thompson voted in favor of funding the NEA, a program that blatantly
violates taxpayers’ sovereignty over their own esthetic preferences.
It is not the function of the government to encourage certain kinds
of art; such choices ought to be left to individuals spending their
own money to support the artists and artworks they admire. Through
the NEA, the government uses force to give money to artists
whom taxpayers do not necessarily favor – some of whom have been
outright obscene in their “creations.”
Fred Thompson
will almost certainly obtain greater prominence in the coming months
after he announces his candidacy. Like virtually every one of the
Republican contenders, Thompson takes stands on issues that will
appeal to a large number of conservative voters. On the other hand,
some of his prior record indicates advocacy of, or at least a lack
of opposition to, certain big-government policies: affirmative
action, campaign finance reform, and the National Endowment for the
Arts. It has been over four years since the end of Thompson’s term
as Senator and it is possible that some of his ideas on these issues
have changed. Advocates of limited government should hope that they
have changed for the better.
Gennady Stolyarov II is
Editor-in-Chief of
The Rational Argumentator, a magazine championing the principles
or Reason, Rights, and Progress. His works have been published by
Le Quebecois Libre,
Enter Stage Right Magazine, the
Ludwig von Mises Institute,
Rebirth of Reason, and other organizations. Mr. Stolyarov can be
contacted at
gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.
GrassTopsUSA is a 501c4
not-for-profit organization. Contributions are not tax deductible.
Copyright
GrasstopsUSA.com 2007
