As the Democratic primary adds more and more people to the ever growing list, it seems like a slew of leftist degeneracy. However, some devils are more evil than other. With that being said the two that stand out most to me for what I consider decent positions are Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Entrepreneur Andrew Yang. Another exception is Mike Gravel, but he has stated he simply wants to participate in two debates and then drop out, so I wont consider him to be anything but a sort of Kamikaze candidate with one goal to move the conversation in the Democratic party left ward.
Yang and Gabbard on the other hand are much more serious and formidable candidates who are, to the best of my knowledge, principled, open minded, anti-imperialism, and non wonkish. I have been following Tulsi for a long time, and although her economic progressiveness for the most part makes me cringe (medicare for all, universal health care etc), she has been consistently anti-war. She has also made certain people, who I have little but disgust for, very mad. People like Bari Weiss at the New York Times, and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, along with many other on the corporate/establishment Democratic party.
Likewise, Gabbard is known for doing many unorthodox moves that shows she has intellectual curiosity. Such as taking on a meeting with Donald Trump after his presidential election victory, and under taking a ‘fact finding’ mission in Syria back in the midst of the civil war which included meeting with the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. She has also been consistently been slandered by the corporate media like CNN. Moreover, she has been consistently anti-war including urging Donald Trump to pull troops out of Syria, criticizing Trump’s hawkish advisers, and encouraging a diplomatic solution between the US and North Korea.
As I stated above, she’s not a perfect candidate that I 100% agree with. She’s almost always wrong on economic policy aside from wanting more auditing and cutting the military budget. But a lot of her rhetoric of cutting the military budget is followed with something about using that money at home in the US. And while if that money is going to be spent, better is be in the United States, I’d much rather her say simply cut the military budget.
And now going back to the other person I mentioned. Mr. Andrew Yang. Unlike Gabbard, Yang is not a career politician. He is an entrepreneur who is most famous for running his presidential platform on Universal Basic Income (UBI).
He is advocating for giving everyone $1,000 a month as long as you’re over 18 regardless of however much money you make. So from a homeless person all the way up to Bill Gates. However, there are a few caveats. If you already receive government services you wont get the full $1,000.
For instance if you get $700 in federal welfare programs then you would only get $300 from the UBI program. While I don’t agree with UBI at all, because it’s just another wealth confiscation and redistribution program, at least it’s something to the problems that he sees. Namely automation and AI, he often cites how Trucking is one of the largest bread winning Jobs in the US and will soon be replaced by automatic trucking.
Yang reminds me a lot of Donald Trump but without the bold and brashness of him. He’s appealing to many white people who feel like they have no place in the proverbial system and is saying “listen, I am your guy.” And Although I disagree with him on UBI, I can concede some things about him.
Namely that there will be a pretty taxing transition as we have to deal more and more with AI and that some folks are going to be left out and UBI will help some of them out. But, the question is “at what cost”. How much money will we have to leach from productive people to subsidize people who are making a job transition?
However, Yang has a whole list of policy positions on his website that I could get behind. Including extending daylight savings time, decriminalizing opioids, his foreign policy, make it harder to launch nuclear weapons, reduce federal bureaucracy, and reduce zoning laws.
What I think makes me like Yang more than all of the other boiler plate candidates is that he’s not simply dishing out the standard democratic line. He actually knows what he is talking (see his interview with Joe Rogan) and has an intellectual curiosity that few of the other candidates have. He addresses real problems that many Americans face and doesn’t focus on some boogey man like racism, climate change or white supremacy.
However, while browsing his website I did find something Ironic. Under his section about limiting federal bureaucracy. He says that “Technology is advancing to the point where we should be able to get more done with fewer people”, but he will complain about trucking jobs being replaced by AI. Which is essentially the same thing. We will be able to preform a task with less people due to better technology. Just like with the federal workforce.
But despite all of the problems I have with these two Gabbard and Yang, should, spice up the Democratic debate stage and I would love to have a Gabbard-Yang presidency in contrast to all of other candidates. Although I might prefer them not to be president and vice president, but rather have Gabbard be secretary of state possibly?
It’s all speculative though and it’s unlikely either will win due to the other candidates being massively funded by the corporate donors despite Gabbard and Yang having huge grass roots support.