Presidential Opponents to Bush in ’92

Did Ross K. Baker (“What If No One Opposed Bush in ‘92?” Commentary, Feb. 19) get his degree from the two-party school of political science? For he writes as if no other options exist. The Libertarian Party would welcome the absence of a Democratic presidential candidate in 1992. For it would then become apparent that the only real alternative to the welfare-warfare state is the Libertarian Party and its candidates.

Baker writes, “The Constitution does not require an opposition candidate and there is no legal way that anyone can be forced to run.” That such an event should occur is an impossibility in the absence of a coup d’etat. The Libertarian Party has been on the ballot in enough states to win the presidential election in the last four presidential races, and is a nationally organized party.

Other parties exist as well, which would no doubt be encouraged by the absence of a Democratic presidential opponent. Contrary to Baker’s vision of a lack of opposition, it is likely that in the absence of a Democratic nominee, the American people would have more choices in the race than they have been offered at any time in the last hundred years.

If the Democratic Party lacks a candidate for President who can take a principled stand in opposition to the policies of global interventionism on which the current war is based, the Libertarian Party is in no such quandary. We would welcome such a situation as the golden opportunity to be heard on the matter of the proper role of the United States government in world affairs. Quite simply, it is to protect Americans in America. In the worlds of Thomas Jefferson, it is “free trade and honest friendship with all nations: entangling alliances with none.”

JOHN VERNON

At-Large Executive Committee

Representative, Libertarian Party

Van Nuys