Sean Haugh, the “libertarian” candidate in North Carolina, could tilt the U.S. Senate toward the statist party. I place the word libertarian in quotes to avoid associating libertarian thought with Haugh’s nihilistic high jinks.
I set out to find out what Haugh thinks about handing the election – and potentially the Senate – to a statist. This question led me on a rollicking journey into the imagination of a candidate who is not serious, not informed, and not concerned about the outcome of the upcoming election.
Reaching out to Haugh on Twitter, I asked him how much of the libertarian agenda Hagan would advance if he tilted the election in her favor. After a series of evasions (see below), Haugh ended up tweeting that fracking, offshore drilling, and the construction of the Keystone pipeline would require “big government protectionism,” which he opposes:
@EmperorSean If you tilt the election to pro-government Hagan, how much of the libertarian agenda do you see her advancing? Honest question.
— John T. Bennett (@Jthomasbennett) October 31, 2014
@Jthomasbennett About as much as Tillis would advance were he elected. — sean haugh (@EmperorSean) October 31, 2014
@EmperorSean Hagan gave 95% support to a statist agenda. Do you think that Tillis would promote a pro-government position to that degree?
— John T. Bennett (@Jthomasbennett) October 31, 2014
@Jthomasbennett Look at how he ran the state house, esp. in state power taking away local autonomy. He is just as big govt as Hagan. — sean haugh (@EmperorSean) October 31, 2014
@EmperorSean Hagan supports fed command & control regulation, like ACA. Can you name a comparable Tillis position? Your example was trivial.
— John T. Bennett (@Jthomasbennett) October 31, 2014
This is where Haugh went out to left field:
@Jthomasbennett Thom Tillis wants lots of big govt to promote fracking, offshore drilling and Keystone XL. — sean haugh (@EmperorSean) October 31, 2014
@EmperorSean (1) I asked for a position comparable to ACA. Your reply refers to removing gov regulation and allowing drilling, Keystone, etc
— John T. Bennett (@Jthomasbennett) October 31, 2014
@Jthomasbennett That’s a dumb lie. You can’t have these efforts without lots of big govt protectionism. — sean haugh (@EmperorSean) October 31, 2014
And there we have it. Haugh opposes private business activity that would bring jobs to the state of North Carolina. In Haugh’s mind, private businesses are somehow unable to drill or build a pipeline without “big government protectionism.” Of course, those who support fracking, offshore drilling, and the construction of the Keystone pipeline simply want government regulation to be removed. Yet, by some bizarre mangling of logic, Haugh labels the removal of regulation “big government protectionism.”
What’s worse, this baffling perspective comes from a candidate who could tilt control of the U.S. Senate to an avowed statist party.
Haugh holds other questionable positions. On immigration, he is admittedly in favor of “open borders.” Informed libertarians – as opposed to purely ideological ones – recognize that open borders plus the welfare state equals a disintegrating society. As Milton Freidman said, “[i]t’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” Haugh also favors Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.
The NC Senate race, according to which poll you look at, is tied, or Democrat Kay Hagan is ahead by one or two percentage points. Recent polls show Haugh with between four and seven percent of the vote, far more than the margin separating Republican Thom Tillis and Hagan.
At this point, Haugh can accomplish nothing but the hijacking of a Senate election. Haugh’s unintelligible agenda would be amusing if it weren’t for the lasting harm he could do to the cause of limited government. He could trash the efforts of countless NC voters and citizens.
It’s worth asking whether someone like Haugh is in the race for principle or for self-promotion. Haugh seems to be as ill-informed as he is self-centered, and it is one of the sad oddities of our time that a supposedly liberty-loving candidate could be such a willing tool of statists.
Cross-posted at American Thinker
