The prospect of a common person running for president is intriguing because it is the belief that in a democracy the people are truly represented by their government. But is that true in American democracy today? Do credible presidential candidates need to come from elite circles? Can a commoner be an effective president, and can he or she truly represent the people?

In the below interview with Smith, conducted by phone, KATU.com seeks to begin exploring these questions and the commoner's quest for representation on the national level.

Interview by Steve Benham
KATU.com

Smith for president Web site

Previous Story:

KATU's Political Page

Q. What do you hope to accomplish by running for president?

A. Well, primarily the point I'm hoping to make is that the rhetoric out of the party [Republican] has been dominated by the far right, particularly the religious and social issues, and I think that leaves a portion of the Republican constituency a little bit alienated. So I'm hoping that by presenting a little bit more of a traditional Republican message of smaller government - a less intrusive government into our private lives - that I can gain delegates to the National Convention and represent that message that's currently not well served.

Q. Where would you rank the importance of social issues like abortion and gay rights on the political agenda? In other words, how much should social issues be a concern of government?

A. I tend to be somewhat Libertarian on those social issues. I think that, although religious values should inform an individual's perspective and their views, that those are topics that really don't belong [or are] legislated into the government. So I really lean toward a position of a less intrusive government that steers clear of those issues.

Q. What issue do you most care about?

A. I think one of the biggest issues facing us right now is economic and particularly our competitive status with the rest of the world. I believe that our current tax structure is not well suited to that international competitiveness.

So in conjunction with dramatically cutting the size and scope of the federal government, I think we need to look at a different way of how we fund government. Particularly at getting away from an income tax. I would go so far as to say we should abolish the income tax and go towards a consumption-based tax, similar to how most of the rest of the world works.

This would put us on a better economic footing with the other economies of the world and it would [encourage] the right sorts of behaviors here at home. It would provide much better incentive for savings here in our own economy.

Q. How do you think a national consumption tax will make America's tax system fairer and more efficient?

A. I think, for example, the administration of it would be a lot cleaner - a lot less loopholes. As it is right now the income tax code is just full of various loopholes, incentives, [and] exceptions.

A consumption-based tax is pretty straightforward. There may be some areas of a gray market that it doesn't cover, but in general, it would be fairly easily administered across the board.

Now the one issue that people have some reservations about is that at face value it appears to be a regressive tax [because] lower-income people spend much more of their income for food, housing, [and] necessities.

I've seen at least one approach to that is the "Fair Tax" proposed by Rep. [John] Linder out of Georgia I believe, and he suggests that people across the board would get sort of a standard rebate to cover those basic necessities of life of food and housing, etc. I think that's one approach. I'm a little concerned that might generate a rather cumbersome bureaucracy.

I think it might be a little easier to manage if we exempted groceries and certain necessities from the tax. The argument against that is then people would start playing games positioning things within that exemption and that there would be a lot of lobbying to exempt certain things within that exemption.

I think that could be managed, though, in such a way that the tax wouldn't be unduly burdensome at the lower economic levels.

Q. What do you think is holding up the implementation of this kind of tax reform?

A. I think there are a couple of things. Our political process does not lend itself to anyone taking strong leadership on these sorts of issues. No one wants to go out on a limb and really propose anything particularly innovative.

The other thing I find as I talk to people about this [is] their first response is, 'No, not another tax!' I think it has to be thoughtfully framed in such a way that people understand that it is a replacement for the current system. I think most people would acknowledge that the current income tax system has its problems. I think if they then can accept that we are going to do away with that then [they are] more open to a new system. But particularly here in Oregon, you mention a consumption tax and people say, "No, No, No, we voted down a sales tax.' And I'm like, 'No wait, this is different. This is a nationwide issue, and it is a replacement for an income tax.'

Q. With so much money in politics, the common person can't get his foot in the door to influence government. Do you agree with that statement, and if so, how do you suggest financing campaigns or changing the system to allow the commoner access to the political process?

A. The chairman of the FEC recently made a comment that it would take a credible candidate $100 million prior to the first primary and obviously that precludes an awful lot of people from even getting in the game … my resources are nothing at all like that. I think though that it doesn't necessarily mean that I can't have some influence in the system.

The way the primary systems work and the way the Republican National Convention is structured, I could get a delegate or two and then have a credible presence to say, 'Look, here is a constituency that is not being represented.'

I can do that here in Oregon with relatively limited resources. It only takes 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot. I've been looking at a few other states and in some states it's relatively easy to get on the ballot. In New Hampshire, for example, if I read their materials correctly, it just takes $1,000 and your name's on the ballot.

So I think it's possible to wage this sort of micro-campaign and in fact one of the things I would really like to see - rather than two or three big-money people dominating the conversation - it would be great to have dozens of candidates show up at the National Convention. If there were one or two from each state - or maybe candidates that have picked a narrow set of topics and campaigned regionally - I think the conversation could be much richer and the debate much richer.

I think we've seen some changes, particularly the growth of the Internet that might facilitate these sorts of micro-campaigns.

Obviously, I don't have the resources to go out and market my message, but if my message is sound and has an appeal it can stand on its own, and like I say, with the Internet it can find an audience.

Q. How do you think the interests of large corporations and interest groups can be balanced with the overall good of society?

A. There are a couple of trade-offs here, and I definitely believe in the principles of free speech: Interest groups, corporations, they all have a stake in what the Legislature does and what government does. They should have a voice in that process.

The part that is troublesome is that these collective voices often have a disproportionate influence. I've heard arguments on the Republican side that, for example, labor unions have too much influence, and this is sort of a self-serving argument from the Republicans. But they come along and they say union members shouldn't be allowed to opt-out of their union's political funding. Fine, I get that, and I understand that. The flip side of that is I think any stockholder ought to be able to opt out of their corporation's political voice.

Now some people would argue that you can always sell your stock. That's true, but then again, if you're in a retirement fund, you don't always know what stocks are there and don't have individual control over that. I think, at least for the sake of balance, that there should be much greater transparency to what the corporate political funds are going towards and there should be some degree by which individual shareholders can either influence that activity on those issues or opt out of that activity.

Q. You said in a previous interview with KATU that you would need help from experienced people if elected president. Do you think these "experienced" people would have the interest of the commoner in mind when making recommendations to you?

A. I think it would take a certain amount of judgment on my part. For example, you tend to see a habit with these politicians of sort of surrounding themselves with like-minded associates and staff that they don't get a very good diversity of opinion. I think it would be critical to an administration to look for diversity of viewpoint and to encourage dissent within the group.

I think one of the knocks against the Bush administration and some of the lead-up to our involvement in Iraq was that they weren't open to alternative views and tended to all fall in line with the "group-think" mentality that then was not productive.

So I think if I found myself in that position and was careful about how I constructed that team, I think that could be overcome.

Q. Is there anything else you would like to add?

A. I look out at the political process we have today and it's just sort of the nature of the process that the money and the activism tends to be on the extremes. This goes for both parties, and I think that has really built a lot of discontent within most voters. I think we see relatively low voter turnout and low voter involvement because most voters look at what's being presented by both parties and don't really find a message that represents them well.

I'm hoping that my campaign, by presenting something a bit different, can give people a sense that, 'Hey wait a minute, there can be a different message out there' and honestly, as I mentioned before, I think if we had dozens or hundreds of candidates in the primary process it would be a much richer process. But as it is right now, on both parties, we typically have six candidates that sort of lead the discussion. And most of them come from the connected elite that don't necessarily have a very good perspective on what most voters are going through.

Q. A follow-up question to that: What would you suggest the average person could do to change our political system?

A. I think one of the things people need to look at is not to get too hung up on one or two hot-button issues. A lot of people select their candidates on one or two issues, [or] one or two key pivotal issues. I think people need to look beyond those and think more about a philosophy, and think about some of the principles of the Constitution. For example, although I might have a strong belief in a particular issue, do I want that embodied into governmental policy?

I think people need to think in those broader terms of the Constitution and what's good for the nation and not necessarily stay so focused on single issues.