This article was originally published on GrasstopsUSA.com.

            Fred Dalton Thompson, who served as United States Senator from Tennessee from 1994 to 2003, is a possible Republican contender for the presidency in 2008. Thompson’s candidacy is not yet official, but numerous grassroots movements have emerged to “draft” him to run for office, and the former Senator himself has indicated that his agreement is a possibility. On June 5, 2007, Thompson has even set up his own site, ImWithFred.com, which has options for donations and an announcement of Thompson’s intentions to “change Washington and help America meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.” A formal announcement of Thompson’s candidacy is likely only a matter of time.

            On some of his positions, Thompson is likely to strongly appeal to conservative Republicans. For instance, the former Senator has mentioned Federalism as his guiding principle and emphasized the advantages of different states serving as competitive “laboratories for democracy and experiment[ation] with different kinds of laws.” From this competitive approach, the laws that work best might be adopted by other states, while the laws that fail to achieve their purpose can be tossed aside more readily.

            One of the best guides to understanding Thompson’s stances on the issues is his voting record during his time as Senator. He has a good history on the abortion issue, having voted to ban abortion in military bases (2000) and to abolish partial birth abortion (1999). Furthermore, Thompson has rightly voted against expanding the definition of “hate crimes” (an Orwellian concept in itself) to include sexual orientation; he has moreover consistently voted against the legalization of the oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.”

            Thompson’s other favorable aspects include his past support for restricting the scope of class-action lawsuits and limiting product liability punitive damage awards. In this way, Thompson might serve as a formidable challenge to a legal system that presently holds numerous American businessmen, doctors, and other professionals in terror of paying potentially unlimited fines to people who are allowed to sue them with the slightest pretext, even an absurd one. Thompson has also supported decreased government control of education, voting in favor of Educational Savings Accounts in March of 2000 and advocating greater flexibility in the federal government’s rules regarding public schools. He has furthermore shown support for school vouchers in Washington, D. C.

            In protecting Second-Amendment rights, Thompson has demonstrated his opposition to all forms of increased gun control. In 1999, he voted in favor of less stringent background checks at gun shows; in 2000, he opposed increases in penalties for gun violations. While Thompson is strong in his opposition to crime and has even voted to limit the number and kind of acceptable death penalty appeals, the former Senator is correct to refuse to punish a violent crime more severely simply because a gun was involved.

            But Thompson does not seem to have a strong opposition to the government-enforced racial discrimination of affirmative action. In July of 1995, Senator Thompson voted against ending federally-funded affirmative action in hiring. In October of 1997, he voted to oppose the cessation of special federal funding to businesses owned by women and minorities. But why ought the federal government use taxpayer funds to give special privileges to certain people, solely on the basis of their race and gender? Surely, most conservatives in this country are strongly averse to the practice of affirmative action and will thus take issue with Thompson’s past voting record on it.

            Thompson’s votes indicate that he considers a reduction of the national debt and the establishment of a balanced budget a priority. In March 1997, Thompson strongly supported a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Yet his view on the subject might also have its downsides, as Thompson has indicated that he sees the elimination of the national debt as a higher priority than lowering taxes. Thus, in April 2000, he voted in favor of making national debt reduction the government’s favored objective over tax cuts.

            The danger of this position comes from the possibility of Thompson’s support for tax increases to pay off the national debt. While this is a tempting approach to take for someone of Thompson’s priorities, it will accomplish nothing. An increase in taxes will only lead to an increase in federal spending, as politicians gain the illusion that they have more resources to devote to government programs and pet projects. Thus, deficit spending will persist, and the American people will be deprived of a larger portion of their incomes. As a mark in his favor, Thompson has in the past indicated a preference for across-the-board cuts in government spending, but it is uncertain whether this means that he will refrain from considering a tax increase.

            As Senator, Fred Thompson expressed his repeated support for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, voting for it as early as 1997 and through its ultimate passage in 2002. This bill was a disaster for America’s electoral process, as it literally restricted the free speech of non-incumbent candidates for federal office and made it increasingly difficult for new candidates to obtain funding for their campaigns. The well-connected incumbents who knew how to maneuver around the bill’s immensely complex provisions were thus able to get an artificial competitive advantage.

            To be fair, Mr. Thompson has stated in 2007 that the campaign finance reform bill did not function as he had expected, and that he might consider a different set of policies on this issue. But it is uncertain how much of this statement is sincere and how much of it is an attempt to cover up the political embarrassment of having supported such legislation. If Thompson becomes President, will he take steps to combat the McCain-Feingold bill and its effects? To find out the answer, it is necessary to watch his future behavior and statements.

            Mr. Thompson’s past advocacy of another government program, the National Endowment for the Arts, is a cause for concern. In August of 1999, Thompson voted in favor of funding for the NEA, a program that stands in blatant violation of taxpayers’ sovereignty over their own esthetic preferences. It is not the function of the government to encourage certain kinds of art; such choices ought to be left to individuals spending their own money to support the artists and artworks they admire.  Through the NEA, the government uses force to give money to artists whom taxpayers do not necessarily favor – some of whom have been outright obscene in their “creations.”

            The name of Fred Thompson will almost certainly obtain greater prominence in the coming months, when he will announce his candidacy. Like virtually every one of the Republican contenders, Thompson has issues on which he is principled and will appeal to a large number of conservative voters. On the other hand, some of his prior record indicates advocacy of or at least a lack of opposition to certain big-government policies: affirmative action, campaign finance reform, and the National Endowment for the Arts. It has been over four years since the end of Thompson’s term as Senator, however, and it is possible that some of his ideas on these issues have changed. Advocates of limited government might have some grounds to hope that they have changed for the better.

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician, composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right, Le Quebecois Libre,  Rebirth of Reason, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Senior Writer for The Liberal Institute, weekly columnist for GrasstopsUSA.com, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator, a magazine championing the principles of reason, rights, and progress. Mr. Stolyarov also publishes his articles on Helium.com and Associated Content to assist the spread of rational ideas. His newest science fiction novel is Eden against the Colossus. His latest non-fiction treatise is A Rational Cosmology. His most recent play is Implied Consent. Mr. Stolyarov can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new four-act play, Implied Consent, a futuristic intellectual drama on the sanctity of human life, here.