The Soho Forum hosted a debate featuring Libertarian presidential candidate Chase Oliver and economist Art Laffer in downtown Manhattan on Monday. The debate resolution was, “Among the candidates actively running for President in November, Donald Trump is the best choice,” with Laffer supporting the motion and Oliver opposing it.
Before the debate, the Soho Forum conducted a poll among viewers to determine their stance on the resolution. The pre-debate poll showed 21.93% in support of the resolution, 47.37% against it, and 30.70% undecided.
The debate began with opening statements. Laffer discussed Donald Trump’s economic record and argued that, as an economist, he believes Trump is a true fiscal conservative. Meanwhile, Oliver, in his introduction, criticized Trump’s record on trade.
During the rebuttals, both speakers offered respectful and insightful responses on how to handle trade. At one point, Gene Epstein, the debate moderator, asked Oliver whether Trump was the “lesser” of two evils. Oliver replied that if it came down to a choice between Trump or Kamala Harris with a gun to his head, he would choose the gun.
The audience then posed various questions on topics such as culture war issues and the events of January 6. A notable area of disagreement between Oliver and Laffer was how to approach foreign wars. Laffer advocated for “peace through strength,” while Oliver argued that America should be open to negotiation and trade with all nations, including adversaries.
At the end of the debate, both speakers delivered closing statements. Laffer urged Libertarians to vote for Trump based on his economic policies, while Oliver emphasized the importance of ideological consistency and breaking the “duopoly.”
The post-debate poll results mirrored those of the pre-debate poll but with more decisive margins: 24.56% in support, 69.3% against, and only 6.14% undecided. Overall, as an attendee, the author found the debate engaging and appreciated the display of civility in our politics.
A second Soho Forum debate is scheduled for later this week, with the resolution being, “Among the candidates actively running for President in November, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the best choice.” Speakers will include author and former Congressman David Stockman in favor of the resolution and Mike ter Maat, the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential candidate, opposed.
Very nice to see Chase Oliver being diligent and getting out there.
Of the statement “Among the candidates actively running for President in November, Donald Trump is the best choice”, presumably.
“The post-debate poll results mirrored those of the pre-debate poll but with more decisive margins: 24.56% in support, 69.3% against, and only 6.14% undecided.”
Of who? Laffer? Oliver? The gun?
I don’t see voting third party as pulling the trigger or spoiling anything. Then again, I don’t see voting as my civic duty, or at all likely to change any outcomes, or an honestly conducted and counted system, so it is a waste of time, like commenting here. I don’t particularly like any third party candidate this year. There will probably be few if any on my ballot. None of the races are any mystery as to outcome here, from presidential electors to local, so I probably won’t vote. If I did vote, I’d probably vote third party, if there was one I liked, but there’s not.
I have a marginal preference between the big two, but Trump will easily win my states electors without my help. The other choices are also unappealing for various reasons, if they even make it on. Write in votes aren’t even individually tallied or reported. So, no point in voting.
He’d probably argue, correctly, that Hillary Clinton would have done even worse, and that Biden has. But no, definitely not a true fiscal conservative. Laffer is older than Biden (b. 1940), so senility could account for some of the more bizarre statements, if they were in fact correctly summarized here.
In a sense, plurality voting DOES put a gun to the voter’s head. By NOT choosing one of the two leading parties, a voter who prefers to pick a third party or independent candidate risks having the least preferred outcome. A voter who casts a third party vote because, in fact, his dislike of both major parties is equal has chosen to pull the trigger.
Rather that reform the political system by using run-off or alternative voting, it appears that both major parties actually prefer third party voters to commit political suicide.
Laffer is laughable.
Given the holes Trump blew in federal deficits, without even dealing with the bulk of COVID? That’s nowhere close to “true fiscal conservativism.”
The article’s summary also implies that laffer would oppose negotiations to prevent war with adversaries, regardless of trade. That’s not what peace through strength means.
In the absence of peace negotiations and fair trade, the only path open to adversaries is war. The strength part is having the military might backing up the negotiations as the stick part of a carrot and stick approach. But even with overwhelming military odds, an adversary could be backed into a corner and forced to go to war if there is no trade and no negotiations of any kind, depending on how important the trade or other items up for negotiations are to them.
If an adversary nation’s economy is hopelessly damaged by lack of trade and their national pride is wounded by lack of negotiations, their governments only path forward is to ramp up propaganda, military buildup, and preparations for war. The odds will be heavily against them, but they will lie about the odds to their population, and probably whip up religious fervor mixed with nationalism to convince the population that god(s) are on their side and they will triumph miraculously through divine intervention.
Any government of that country not taking such an approach would find itself deposed through elections or coup by one that would.
Therefore, a peace through strength approach has to include negotiations and trade.
War should still be the last resort even when you are in a position of strength, only when negotiations and trade have failed to prevent it. To posit war as a preferable option before those other options are exhausted ignores the history of empires.
I really don’t think Dr. Laffer could be that ignorant or stupid, unless he’s as or more senile than Biden.
“Oliver replied that if it came down to a choice between Trump or Kamala Harris with a gun to his head, he would choose the gun”
I’d choose taking the gun too if some one held a gun to my head. Why would you want some psycho who would put a gun to your head to retain control of the weapon?
He may have meant he’d prefer the bullet in his brain. In which case he should get the unnecessary suspense over with and commit suicide, given that one of them is virtually guaranteed to win. In his position, I’d have said I’d flip a coin. My actual position is that Trump is marginally better.
“notable area of disagreement between Oliver and Laffer was how to approach foreign wars. Laffer advocated for “peace through strength,” while Oliver argued that America should be open to negotiation and trade with all nations, including adversaries.”
There’s no contradiction between those positions as summarized here. Strength bolsters the negotiating position in both security and trade. I suspect this article’s author incorrectly summarized their answers.
I doubt Laffer prefers war to fair trade, and I somewhat less ardently doubt that Oliver prefers trade deals at the nation state level to trade deals at the individual company level without government interference, which at least used to be the official L.P. position (and may be still is).
“Laffer discussed Donald Trump’s economic record and argued that, as an economist, he believes Trump is a true fiscal conservative. ”
Only compared to Biden or Harris. Certainly not in absolute terms.
“Laffer advocated for ‘peace through strength,’ while Oliver argued that America should be open to negotiation and trade with all nations, including adversaries.”
These are in no way contradictory or incompatible.
“post-debate poll results mirrored those of the pre-debate poll but with more decisive margins”
“Against” gained more support both absolute and relative.
“Speakers will include author and former Congressman David Stockman in favor of the resolution and Mike ter Maat”
Soho Forum is part of the anti-libertarian Reason Foundation, which has a stake in the Oliver-ter Maat campaign. Hence the invited speakers. That should be explicitly disclosed.