EXCLUSIVE: Part Two Of My Interview With Senate Candidate Austin Petersen

In part I of my interview with Senate candidate Austin Petersen, we discussed abortion, criminal justice reform, the Second Amendment, and more.

In part II of this exciting series, Petersen talks about war, interventionism, religious liberty, black and white thinking, and the political mind games in Washington.

Intervention & War

On foreign policy, specifically American interventionism, Petersen reveals shades of his libertarian background, affixing necessary standards to the beginning of international conflict:

“Sometimes, intervention and regime changes are absolutely necessary. The perfect example would be Germany in World War II, and imperial Japan. Those were interventions and regime changes that were absolutely necessary. We had to destroy the fascist regimes of imperial Japan and Germany and Italy, and we did so. We did it with total mobilization of our country.”

“The difference between those interventions and other regime changes,” Petersen stressed, “is that in those instances, we had a full vote of Congress, and a signing of the declaration of war by the president, which means that the people, as well as the Executive Branch, were entirely behind the efforts.”

Petersen criticized the way in which the United States currently conducts foreign conflict, saying that “at the moment, it feels as though we have a totally unilateral approach. For example, we have a kill list. The president, in some ways, is judge, jury, and executioner when he has executive agencies determine the guilt of a suspected terrorist or criminal, and uses drones to assassinate people extrajudicially — which I think is a violation of due process and the proper executive authority.”

Religious Liberty

Petersen’s defense of religious liberty during the Fox Business Network debate has become a flashpoint in his political career. During an exchange with Gary Johnson, who believes Christian businesses should be forced to participate in activities they find morally objectionable, Petersen flatly stated: “Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a Nazi wedding cake?”

When asked about his position on defending religious liberty and freedom of conscience, Petersen said that he believes “the issue lies in a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

“The question centers on protected classes. If homosexuals are a protected class in this country, the unintended consequence is that the government can force the purveyors of private businesses to provide services to someone with whom they disagree — often a violation of their religious conscience.”

Petersen made sure to note the historical circumstances around which this issue exists: “I understand that discussion of the Civil Rights Act is devoid without context because of the problems we had with racial strife in the 1960s, and I’m not interested in going back and overturning the Civil Rights Act. What I am interested in is protecting religious liberty. There have been religious freedom laws that have been passed, federally and in many states, that would allow people to have the freedom of conscience regarding whether or not they should participate in a ceremony that they disagree with.”

“I support the right of Christians or Muslims or Jews or anyone to have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason — anybody should be able to,” Petersen stated. “People should have the freedom of conscience. I defend religious liberty because despite the fact that I have a historical understanding of the issues of race relations in this country, the unintended consequence of that has been to force people to associate in a manner that is anathema to their beliefs.”

Petersen continued, explaining why discrimination legislation is a well-intentioned but ultimately corrosive idea in his opinion:

“Because of discrimination legislation, you’re not allowed to discriminate whatsoever in many ways. In housing, for example, you’re not allowed to discriminate for age, race, gender, or anything else. People think this is obviously good. The issue, however, is that it stifles the speech of people who would like to know who the prejudiced people are in their community. I would never want to live on the property of someone who is prejudiced against blacks or Jews. I would like to know who they are so that I can organize a boycott if I wish.”

“If a bakery in my community refused to serve Jewish people, I would like to know who they are. Right now, what we’re doing is driving these people underground, so we don’t know who is bigoted or prejudiced. I would prefer to know who the bigoted people are so that I can use my free speech rights to boycott them or refuse to use their services.”

Whitewashing History

Regarding the recent trend of protesting and removing statues and monuments dedicated to individuals who were products of their time, often called the “whitewashing of history,” Petersen walks a different path than most conservatives:

“These things often go too far. The problem is that people are victims of bifurcated thinking; it has to be 100% one way or 100% the other way. I don’t celebrate confederate generals, people like Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was the founder of the KKK. If he’s being celebrated on public property, I may have a problem with that.”

“Probably the best solution,” Petersen stated, “is to either sell the monuments to private owners, or put them in a museum. It’s a local issue, and the locals should be able to solve that. I’m running for federal office, and as a federalist, it’s not quite any of my business.”

That said, Petersen made clear that there are differences between certain historical figures: “I wouldn’t put Nathan Bedford Forrest on par with someone like Thomas Jefferson. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves, but in many ways, he was the architect of the future of freedom that would eventually result in the release of the slaves.”

Nuance vs. Black and White

I pressed Petersen on the notion of bifurcated thinking, specifically because, as someone in the liberty movement, his opinions sometimes fall in the gray areas between conservative and liberal:

“The problem with our thinking today is that ‘everything I like should be subsidized, and everything that I don’t like should be banned.’ That’s the mainstream way of thinking. If we think something is a ‘good,’ like education or agriculture or churches, there’s going to be some constituency that thinks the American people should subsidize it. On the opposite side, if there are people who don’t like agriculture or don’t like churches, they want to ban it.”

Petersen got specific by offering a recent instance of bifurcated thinking: “Here’s a good example — transgenders in the military. The nuanced opinion that I have is that you shouldn’t kick them out of the military, but we also shouldn’t be paying for gender reassignment surgery. That makes nobody happy because one side is saying ‘ban them from the military,’ and the other side is saying ‘subsidize them.’ I’m in the middle saying, ‘Don’t ban them, but don’t subsidize them.’”

Instead, Petersen offered a simple solution for the issue: “I think that serving in the military is a privilege, not a right, and combat readiness is something that has to be considered when it comes to who serves on the front lines. But, as we understand, these people have already served honorably. I believe there was a former Navy Seal who transitioned after they got out of the armed services. I think that’s probably what will happen, is that you’ll have people who will self-identify while they’re in the military, but probably wait until they get out to transition. That’s probably the best way to go about it.”

He also cited the hypocritical nature of some critics: “The big issue, of course, is with the commanders in the military. People say, ‘We need to listen to the generals. We need to listen to the commanders.’ Well, I have listened to the generals and I have listened to the commanders, and they say that it doesn’t diminish combat readiness and we shouldn’t be trying to kick these people out who are basically saying they want to take a bullet for us. As soon as you say that, the conservatives will say, ‘Well, don’t listen to those commanders. Don’t listen to those people. They were appointed by Obama.’”

“We’re all waiting for the warrior monk, Mad Dog Mattis, to make a ruling on this. I think he’s probably going to sit and wait, and hope this all blows over because it was probably just a distraction from the failure to pass an Obamacare repeal anyway.”

Political Games

Transitioning from the topic of transgender individuals in the military, Petersen spoke of the toxicity of modern politics:

“In the end, we all lose because the issue has divided us against each other. Remember, politicians love dividing us on racial, gender, cultural, and class lines because when we’re divided against each other and warring with one another, it’s easier to conquer us. I’m trying to preach a unifying message, one that brings all Americans together,” Petersen said before offering his personal pitch to voters.

“I think the liberty message — while it can sometimes be difficult to understand, not to mention terrifying because it involves personal responsibility, which is the most politically incorrect theme today — is incredibly valuable. But that’s a difficult sell. It’s much easier to play the game, and to buy into the black and white thinking of ‘everything I like, subsidize it; everything I don’t like, ban it,’ because that will get votes.”

“I’m out searching for a constituency of people who are not willing to give in to the confirmation bias game most political actors are playing. I’m playing a different game by my own rules.”

Make sure to come back for the final part of my interview with Austin Petersen in which we discuss agnosticism, Christianity, lying politicians, taxation, sticking to principle, as well as some lighter material.