This interview mostly goes over social policy, so I hope there's a follow-up with fiscal policy as well.
Here's an AI-generated transcript, which has some mistakes but hopefully is helpful. I tried copying it here, but it was too long.
Some interesting tidbits I liked:
- Liz challenged Chase on gender affirming care - his response was "no to surgery before 18, yes to medication if parents and doctors agree"
- open borders - wants an "Ellis Island"-style system where you register and then get to work, while still maintaining a strong police presence to keep out criminals
- courting those on the right of the LP - wants to work together on common causes, but will disagree on social issues
- vaccine mandates - no mandates from the government, but private businesses absolutely can; he thinks businesses requiring masks/vaccines is stupid because it limits customers
The whole discussion was pretty interesting, and I think it's interesting that Liz Wolfe came out as more conservative than Zach (apparently, Zach rarely discusses personal opinions).
So far I'm pretty happy with Chase as the candidate because:
- he's pretty well-spoken - reminds me a bit of Gary Johnson with less "aloof"-ness
- he appears confident and seems to do a good job justifying his positions on core libertarian principles
- very different from both Trump and Biden, so he should contrast well
- going after young voters - he's young, and he's highlighting issues that young people seem to care about, so I'm hopeful that'll resonate with young voters
I certainly disagree with him on some issues, but I think he'll be a good voice for the party. I would like to see more discussion on economic policy though.
Anyway, what are your thoughts? Are you excited for a Chase Oliver campaign, or do you think the Libertarian Party should have made a different choice?
Big yikes!
? It's "no gender-affirming surgery," medically necessary surgery is absolutely on the table. He's also against any cosmetic surgery before 18, such as circumcision, breast augmentation, etc. The idea is that it's not reversible, so it shouldn't be the parents' choice.
I think that's a "small yikes" at best. It's a pretty reasonable middleground policy. It should get some of those on the left interested without scaring too many on the right. I actually agree with him, though I'm not confident that chemical treatments are fully reversible.
Hello, am on the left. Can confirm it's a reasonable policy thatakes him a pretty reasonable candidate to me.
If it's the arbitrary age that has you hung up, the best solution I've seen is to appeal to the courts to emancipate from your parents and be granted age of majority rights.