​“You know your candidate has no chance to win, right?”
“You’re just taking a vote away from (preferred candidate) and helping to elect (undesirable candidate).”
“You’re wasting your vote if you vote for him.”
 
If you’ve ever voted 3rd party in America, you’ve probably heard one or more of these bromides.  I’ve been hearing them, from people I like & respect, ever since I cast my first vote for president for H. Ross Perot in 1992.  One former coworker told me that I “basically helped to elect (Bill) Clinton.”  Why do some folks say such things? 
 
Any implication that Mr. Perot had ‘no chance to win’ was mathematically untrue since he was on the ballot in all 50 states.  Regardless, when did voting for president become akin to going to the racetrack to pick a winner??  Your vote is an expression of your beliefs.  The collective will of all who vote for the same person could influence public policy.  Look at the effect socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders had on the democratic platform.  The only wasted vote is for someone not seeking the office.
 
My friend likely knew about Perot’s ballot presence.  I believe he was coming from the ‘herding the sheep’ point-of-view.  When I started paying more attention to politics years later, the caricature of a politician started becoming clearer to me: kissing babies, photo-ops of feeding the homeless, speaking from an aircraft carrier, etc.  These are public relations efforts to present themselves in the best possible light to voters who pay the least possible attention to politics.  Sheep.   
 
Some sheep feed you the ‘wasted vote’ drivel themselves.  That could emanate from their insecurity, since you’ve likely given it comparatively more thought, and your principles are probably more firm.  You know what republicans & democrats working to “get things done” means; $19,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, 10s of 1000s of pages of onerous regulations, compromised freedoms, excessive foreign intervention, etc.  A sense of inadequacy overcomes them and they get defensive.    
 
The ultimate peddlers of the ‘wasted vote’ silliness are those who derive their power from the status quo.  It’s the politicians, like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who recently bent reality when he said “you don’t get a third option.”  It’s the ‘party strategists’ who flow seamlessly from campaigns to cable news.  It’s the favor-seeking lobbyists, “80% of whom would get pink slips” if former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson could “wave a magic wand” and institute the Fair Tax.
 
My friend is a party guy, once a delegate to a national GOP convention.  He’s currently a local elected official here in Texas.  In recent years however, he’s credited me for his move in a more libertarian direction, going so far as to possibly voting for that party’s nominee this year, Governor Johnson.
 
When you stick to your guns, and can civilly back up your position with more than mere talking points, you’ll get people’s attention.  I’m not even 100% comfortable with the label ‘libertarian’.  All I’m doing is voting based on the principles of our founding, as I understand them: freedom, liberty & the constitution.  Those values are simple to understand & maintain.  The constitution itself is only 21 pages long.  Add a little humility regarding issues you know less about and reasonable people will listen.
 
If you encounter such an opportunity, here are a few questions to put to them:
 
Why do some on the left think I should be forced to serve someone?  According to the 1st amendment, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”.  If I refused service to someone based on her ethnicity or sexual orientation, how long would it take to be publicized?  Only as long as it takes to post on social media.  There is no better way to succeed in a free society than to treat others fairly.  Why do we need Big Brother to enforce that upon us??
 
Why do some on the left think the government knows best how to allocate charitable giving?  According to one of their ads I saw recently, HEB grocery donated enough food in 2015 to feed 21,000 people three squares a day.  If the 16 bigger, Texas-based public companies made commensurate charitable donations, 1.2 million more Texans would be equally fed.  If all the time & monetary donations of every company & household in Texas is taken into account, is it much of a stretch to think that all those who truly need help could get it??
 
Recently, a young, homeless black man was found by police under a tent he pitched in the bushes of the college in Georgia where he was waiting for his dorm to open.  Instead of arresting him, they put him up in a hotel for two nights.  The rest community paid to keep him there until the dorm opened, also donating tens of $1000s to help him out.  And, a local pizzeria gave him a job.  He knew none of them had to help him, and that they were taking some measure of risk in doing so.  Isn’t that the kind of thing tightly-woven communities are made out of, rather than a faceless government bureaucracy?
 
Why do some on the right feel the need to regulate what goes on in my house if no one gets hurt?  If a man & woman want to marry, one stay at home with their kids, eschew every drug right down to caffeine, great!  Not everyone chooses the same path, though.  Some may choose a partner of the same sex.  Some may choose daycare.  Some may not want kids.  Some may choose to drink coffee, or ingest other drugs.  Some may divorce.  If the kids are well-cared for, going to school, and not running afoul of the law, why is THEIR business any of YOUR business, or that of your neighbor, or someone 5 states away?? 
 
Why do some on the left feel a higher rate of taxation is in order the more I earn?  When Adam Smith said we should “contribute towards the support of the government … in proportion to … the revenue which (we) respectively enjoy under the protection of the state”, he didn’t mean increasing proportion. 
Only ignorance or envy could explain that.  At first glance, it’s understandably counterintuitive that tax revenues rise when taxes are cut or streamlined.  Yet that has always been the result.  We don’t live in a static society.  Private funds freed up for productive endeavors create more taxable activities.  Once that’s learned, we’re left with envy.  How else to explain the forfeiture of adequate tax revenues to fund the social programs the left so cherishes? 
 
I was fortunate to grow up with people who make productive contributions to society.  They help people rehabilitate their bodies.  They ship goods across the country.  They keep us up to speed technologically.  They make our downtowns sparkle.  They keep our neighborhoods aesthetically pleasing.  They’ve defended our country.  They promote healthy & sustainable living.  They give to charity.  They adopt orphans.  Must have been something in the water down in Victoria, Texas …
 
They shouldn’t have to hassle with regulation borne of laziness, willful ignorance & bruised feelings.  They shouldn’t have to spend countless hours & resources to learn how much they have to fork over to Uncle Sam.  Insult, meet injury.  In economics, we call this deadweight loss.  Moreover, we have whole industries, run by good & decent people, built to help companies deal with such hindrances.  Tax preparers/departments, expanded audit outfits, compliance professionals/lawyers, etc.  They’re like barnacles attached to the freighters of commerce. 
 
Why do some on the right feel the government should be run by God’s will?  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”  Yet some folks vote republican because it’s the “party of god”, or protector of religious liberty.  The latter has some relevance since the left seems uptight about religious public displays, or prayer in public school, etc.  I’m no expert on first amendment court cases, but the text is pretty clear.  We neither need the government to promote God, nor to protect our delicate sensibilities.
 
Why do some on the right feel they need to control the art I enjoy?  Fortunately, my parents never came down too hard on me as my musical tastes progressed from Hall & Oates to Slayer.  I check out the music my girls want to buy.  That’s my job as their parent.  What’s troublesome are the groups of moralists like those in the Kevin Bacon movie “Footloose”.  Gene Simmons of KISS once hit the nail on the head when he said “If you don’t like what you’re hearing, change the channel.”    
 
Why does the left fail to comprehend the logic of human nature? 

• Low skilled workers earn low wages.  If wages are artificially propped up by government, such folks are less likely to find jobs;
• If someone wanting to do harm knows a place is ‘weapon-free’, she knows she’ll face little-to-no resistance.  If private citizens can carry a concealed weapon, such an attack is less likely;
• If a person can pull more from unemployment, ‘disability’ or some other form of public assistance than he would earn from a job, he’s less likely to take a job.

Do they want to prevent young & low-skilled people from self-improvement?  Do they want people to be couch potatoes dependent on the state?  I shudder to venture a guess on gun control, nevermind the whole “right of the people to keep & bear arms” bit.
 
Why do some on the right feel the need to meddle in the affairs of other countries?  Since World War II, we’ve established hundreds of military bases around the world in an effort to contain the Soviet Union and secure a reliable supply of oil.  Today, the U.S.S.R. is gone, and American ingenuity has produced so much oil that the world price recently cratered by 3/4!  So why can’t the defense budget be trimmed?  Is there some unwritten rule that we have to spend more than other countries, while they maintain their social welfare states (nevermind that ours is on track to cripple us)?  Why do we need to maintain such a permanent global footprint?  Moreover, why do we remain so involved in a region so steeped in internal strife, switching sides depending on the decade?  Why, when many of them have values so different than ours? 
 
I count as friends almost a dozen former military folks, as well as an active-duty colonel.  A majority of them are supporting Governor Johnson for president, while a couple more say they might, too.  One of them tells me that “a majority” of the soldiers with whom his daughter serves are also pro-Johnson.  This is borne out in a recent poll of active duty military that finds Governor Johnson leading businessman Donald Trump & former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 39 to 31 & 14, respectively.  Maybe a more authentic way of ‘supporting the troops’ is giving some respect to these figures, rather than reflexively supporting more funding for military operations about which their preferred candidate is skeptical.
 
I was a sheep when I voted for Perot back in 1992.  When I asked that future colonel who he was voting for, he replied “I dunno, probably that billionaire.”  Based on some polling, young voters today indicate they’ll vote for Governor Johnson over Mr.  Trump.  And that figure will probably grow now that the support they gave to Senator Sanders is unlikely to shift en masse to Mrs. Clinton. 
 
We do a disservice to those younger folks if we allow ourselves to become so jaded that we vocally ‘choose between the lesser of two evils’.  I wonder how many of those folks tell pollsters that America is on the “wrong track”, or that they expect future generations to be worse off.  How hypocritical to then so disparagingly dismiss a more reputable 3rd option. 
 
What’s more ‘evil’ than such prophetically self-fulfilling behavior?

So here's the final tally on publications:
https://fee.org/articles/taking-the-low-road-on-free-trade/
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/2016/06/24/candidates_take_the_low_road_on_free_trade_180450.html
https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2016/jun/27/taking-low-road-on-free-trade/
https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2016/jul/04/properly-understanding-the-trade-deficit/
​http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Taking-the-low-road-on-free-trade-8347965.php

​During the holidays, I took my daughters to my aunt & uncle’s house in Rogers, TX.  Over the last few years, when not working their day-jobs at Scott & White hospital in Temple, they have grown a large garden of marketable produce, devoting more than 4 acres to the operation.  I sent some photos to a friend of mine who has his own backyard garden.  His enthusiasm was palpable.  This is a guy who once told me “everyone should have a garden.”
 
Fast forward to this spring.  I finally got around to buying a bookshelf.  As I set about putting it together, I started thinking “I could put together a nicer, sturdier one than this.  All I’d need is some wood, sandpaper, stain/paint, braces … nevermind.  This one will do for now.” 


I don’t have all the tools at my disposal to carry out that sort of a project, any more than I do for gardening.  My interests lie elsewhere.  In a free society like ours, each person is allowed to pursue their own preferred interests.  Eventually, however, we do require other goods for sustenance, and leisure, so we trade with each other. 
 
Since I can’t exactly barter my accounting & teaching skills on the open market, I provide them to my respective employers in exchange for monetary compensation.   Otherwise, I’d have to figure out how many hours of my labor to trade for such goods.  Money is the instrument that greases the skids of all levels of commerce.
 
In what has been the most unpredictable & surprising election season of my lifetime, one issue that has come under unusually widespread attack is free trade. 
 
Resistance to free trade (agreements) has typically been found in the Democratic Party.  Its union supporters fret about their jobs being “shipped overseas”, and environmentalists express concerns about trading with countries that lack “adequate” protections thereof.  A few decades ago, that bloc was countered by the more market-friendly Democratic Leadership Council, whose influence peaked with the election of Bill Clinton as president.  He signed into law the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, and a bill granting ‘permanent normal trade relations’ to China in 2000. 
 
Remaining democratic opposition was joined by a couple of protesters from the center-right, H. Ross Perot & Patrick Buchanan.  Mr. Perot famously claimed during a 1992 presidential debate that we would hear “a giant sucking sound” of manufacturing going south to Mexico as a result of NAFTA.  Four years later, while seeking the republican party nomination for president, Mr. Buchanan campaigned on a fear of losing nationality as goods & labor move more seamlessly across borders. 
 
Nowadays, the DLC is defunct (2011) while the spirit of Messers Perot & Buchanan has morphed into this election seasons wild card, Donald Trump.  The similarities amongst the three are many: businessmen (Perot & Trump), populist streaks, insurgent outsiders, meticulously crafted coifs, etc.  They also share a skepticism of free trade. 
 
A few Trump talking points have jumped out at me: “we don’t make things anymore”, we’re in “imbalance (deficit) with” other countries & threatening a 45% tariff on Chinese goods.
 
Trade protectionism has been around for ages.  Our Founding Fathers supported tariffs, which used to be a prominent source of government revenue.  Alexander Hamilton even coined the “infant industry” argument, whereby the government shields from international competition new & developing industries deemed important to self-sufficiency & independence. 

In trade debates of modern times, republicans have typically argued for “free” trade, whereas “fair trade” was sought by democrats.  Mr. Trump has picked up the mantle of the latter, saying the 45% tariff is merely a threat to achieve such fairness. 
 
I’m reminded of the interrogation scene in “Starsky & Hutch” where Ben Stiller tries to coerce some information out of a suspect … by pointing the gun at his own head.  Why threaten the American consumer with price hikes?  Why not, for example, allow domestic steel-input consumers to benefit from rock-bottom prices that result from Chinese overproduction?  How does it make sense to protect the American steel industry with a tariff of more than 500% if employment in, and value produced by, those input consumers is greater?? 
 
The answer also happens to explain why we’re lagging behind the rest of the world in the sugar trade: concentrated benefits (domestic industry) vs. dispersed costs (artificially inflated prices for consumers).  Such beneficiaries typically have more clout with policymakers than consumers do.  It’s this kind of rent-seeking that prevents us from being able to take advantage of the shortcomings of a centrally-planned (though certainly less so than a couple generations ago) economy like China’s, or the fact that some countries just flat out produce something more efficiently than we do.
 
Ironically enough, if Mr. Trump is so concerned with illegal immigration from our south, perhaps he should first take a look at the agricultural & dairy subsidies Uncle Sam doles out that put Mexican farmers out of business & drive them north to get a piece of our artificially inflated industry.
 
Moreover, when he asks “(w)ho the hell cares if there’s a trade war?", someone should remind him of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930.  In an effort to protect domestic agricultural & industrial interests, President Herbert Hoover signed it into law over a petition signed by a thousand economists.  Other nations retaliated & the world headed toward depression.  And that was when trade was a smaller part of the global economy.
 
Lesson learned, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was signed by 23 nations shortly after WWII ended, with the goal of lowering trade barriers.  A hundred nations were added by 1994 as it evolved into the World Trade Organization (WTO).  In that time, our real exports of goods & services rose steadily, accelerating in the mid-1980s, belying the claim that “we don’t make” stuff.  Furthermore, since NAFTA was enacted, the proportional makeup of our exports (food, industrial supplies, physical capital, autos & consumer goods) hasn’t changed more than 3% one way or the other for any category.

​As Harvard professor & former Chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers Greg Mankiw recently pointed out in The New York Times, manufacturing is currently at an all-time high.  The problem, as it were, is that we’re doing it with less manpower.
 
That very transformation is currently underway in the energy industry.  Even after the price of oil started tanking, and rigs were idled, and jobs were being eliminated, production still increased.  We became more efficient.  It won’t take the same quantity of capital & labor to respond to $50 oil the next time it rises to that level.  The displaced resources can be redeployed to other areas of the economy. 
 
There are undoubtedly industry shakeups in freer markets.  Labor, capital & entrepreneurs are reshuffled.  But our society encourages innovation by safeguarding intellectual & property rights.  That allows us to find new & better ways of doing things.
 
This is just the latest example of our capacity to achieve the self-sufficiency that was the goal of our first treasury secretary (Mr. Hamilton) when he submitted to the second congress suggestions of “encouragement” and “protection of government” in his “Reports on Manufactures”.  All the “protection” we need for the aforementioned “encouragement” is between our ears.  The human capital that we’ve built up over the years doesn’t go away, but rather accumulates. 
 
Without free trade, there might be an erosion of two of its most important exports: peace & freedom.  The world has to cooperate & get-along if we all want to prosper.  And the freer the people, the likelihood of greater prosperity.  Besides, should that peace unfortunately break down again someday, the 2nd amendment & our bread basket give us time to dust off & tap that know-how to rev up the necessary industries.
 
Nevertheless, more trade liberalization is afoot.  My industry has a new market: the rest of the world, thanks to the repeal of the oil export ban last December.  That’ll surely alleviate something else nearly all our leaders are prone to complain about; our trade deficit.

​It’s a curious thing that you rarely hear that it’s actually only half of an equation, but it is.
 
The balance of payments (BoP) is basically an accounting of our international transactions.  The current account (trade) is the one we always hear about when it’s in deficit.   Interestingly enough, it tends to trend back toward breakeven only when we’re heading toward recession.  It makes sense that imports rise in good times.  “We’re Americans,” I tell my students, “we like to buy stuff.  We like to buy stuff so much, we rent storage facilities in which to put all our extra stuff!”  Regardless, there’s nothing inherently wrong with a trade deficit.
 
The counterbalance is the capital account.  We have a big example of that in our backyard; the Toyota plant in south San Antonio.  This is foreign direct investment.  That plant is in the heart of truck country.  It gives Toyota direct access to that market here.  And, they employ highly-skilled Texans.  That seems like a win-win, a sign of strength perhaps, when a foreign company wants to locate operations here.

​YOU actually contribute to the capital account when you crack open a Bud Light after feeding Purina to Scooby, who was hungry because you forgot to feed him while you were eating a Smithfield ham steak (that had been stored in a GE freezer) for dinner before going to see “X-Men: Apocalypse” at the AMC Rivercenter 11.  All those companies are foreign-owned.  The profit portion of the prices paid for those goods is exported to another country.  Foreign entities saw value in the brand recognition of items Americans know & love.  And they were able to buy those companies in part because they do more of something that we don’t; save. 
 
When the consumer expenditure portion of the Gross Domestic Product [GDP] started climbing in the 1980s from 60% to almost 70% today, it was arguably fueled by the concurrent proliferation of the all-purpose credit card.  Perhaps it goes without saying, but when you’re spending, you’re not saving.  And when you’re borrowing, you are dissaving.  Much of the consumer savings derived from more efficient global production of goods could go to more savings.  Instead, it seems to go toward buying more stuff.

​When you think about it though, our incentive to save has slid right alongside available interest rates.

​A couple years after they were pushed way up to break the inflation of the 1970s, interest rates have been on a steady march downward~ 7-8% in 1980s, ~ 5% in the 1990s, half that in the 2000s, and now near 0%.  Monetary policy that could be enticing us to invest in learning new skills, opening a new business, guarding against unforeseen events, etc. instead has nudged us toward $1,000,000,000,000 in both credit card AND automobile debt this year.  What was the current trade deficit again??
If bringing down the trade deficit is the goal, increasing domestic savings & investment is preferable to erecting trade barriers.  And if curbing interest-bearing consumer indebtedness happens as well, all the better. 
 
While former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems like little more than a 21st century version of the pandering, “meaningless platitude-spouting” Kevin Fogerty from a classic episode of “Cheers”, Senator Bernie Sanders & Mr. Trump have been more consistent in their views toward free trade.  But the aggressive tone they sometimes take toward it and our trading partners reminds me of when my four daughters (average age, 9) bicker with one another.  Only it’s more understandable that my girls have to be taught to take the high road.
 
As for me, one of these days I could take up woodworking, or gardening, or some other hobby/trade that produces tangible output.  Right now though, my spare time is best served educating.  It’s what I like to do.  It’s where I feel most productive.  And given this season’s crop of presidential aspirants, there seems to be a need for it. 

If your concern is voter disenfranchisement, democrats are not the answer, and here’s why, IMO.

Voter disenfranchisement needs to be snuffed out, just the same as voter fraud.  That should be the goal, knowing, as in any other aspect of life, we’ll never do so 100% (it’s a challenge to impart such advice on my daughters).  Getting an ID card isn’t a tall order in my book.  If you can get a ride to vote, you can get a ride to DMV for an ID.
As I’ve said before, I think it’s too sweeping a generalization to tag the GOP in its entirety of supporting voter suppression, including the south.  If it was so widespread, how would the likes of Artur Davis, Angela McGlowan & Tim Scott rise to prominence (not to mention Nikki Haley)??  The media can blow up whichever stories they want, whatever suits the purposes of whomever wants to make a point.  We, along with the aforementioned folks, can exert pressure to squeeze out such nefarious behavior, just like we can on the folks who choose not to bake cakes for this demographic or that (the only real thing that bothered me about Gary Johnson in the debate last Friday).  The 1st amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech & to “peaceably assemble” empowers US to affect such change toward a more desirable society.
​
Once they get into office, the majority of democrats’ policies are destructive to everyone.  And what Bernie wants to do is that on steroids!  Those policies tend to foster dependence & entrench in power the already-strong/wealthy.  I usually tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I don’t subscribe to the notion that they do it on purpose … but maybe they do.  If that’s a rap on the GOP, democrats, being human, can’t be immune to the possibility.  Perhaps they are driven solely by the power derived from handing out freebies to those in lower income quintiles with one hand, while simultaneously handing out favors with the other hand to those at the other end of the income spectrum, to help them maintain their status. 
 
Kinda abbreviated, but there it is.

Anyone who knows us knows that, for a while, these two had the most contentious relationship of my girls.  That's why this video is such a treasure.

Just before her 7th birthday.

Priceless fun in an otherwise darkest of times.