Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson: Cut Federal Spending by 43% - and Cut Social Issues From GOP Agenda

According to the latest CNN/ORC survey, former two-term Gov. Gary Johnson (R-N.M.) is polling at 2 percent, neck-and-neck with pizza magnate Herman Cain and ahead of former Gov. John Huntsman (R-Utah) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Yet while Cain, Huntsman, and Santorum will mix it up with Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.), and Reps. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) at the next GOP candidates debate on September 7, Johnson has been told to stay home once more. This latest exclusion has prompted writers at National Review, which isn't particularly amenable to Johnson's libertarian-leaning platform, and elsewhere to wonder what's going on with the selection process.

While Johnson may not make it to the Republican debate at California's Ronald Reagan ranch, Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie caught up with him at FreedomFest in July to talk tax reform, cutting federal spending across the board by 43 percent (the amount currently being financed by debt), and how focusing on social conservatism could reduce the GOP to minor-party status.

Shot by Jim Epstein and Zach Weissmueller, and edited by Epstein. About 4 minutes.

Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by around 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians a year. Reason.tv spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks. For a playlist of videos released so far, go here.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

For more Reason coverage on the GOP 2012 field, go here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Restoras||

    That's a headline I can live with.

  • PIRS||

    Gary Jonson would make an excellent running mate for Ron Paul.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I'd vote for Ron Paul, and I'd even vote for a shit-kickin' asshole like Rick Perry, if I had to. But Gary Johnson? No thanks, I'm already sick and tired of being ruled by metrosexual twits, regardless of what ideological rock they crawl out from under.

  • GILMORE||

    I'm already sick and tired of being ruled by metrosexual twits,

    ?

    you find something *sexual* about politicians? Is it the color tie they wear or something?

    I don't think you should fear the 2% threat dude. also, I'm not sure anyone is campaigning for your vote at the moment. Better luck next time.

  • Brian E||

    Dude climbed Everest. You might want to reevaluate your definition of "metrosexual twit".

  • Realist||

    Everybody climbs Mt. Everest.

  • cynical||

    He just means "anyone who isn't a racist, bigot, or xenophobe like me."

  • ||

    Terrible

  • ||

    I don't think we have the same definition of metrosexual.

  • Apogee||

    I'd vote for Ron Paul, and I'd even vote for a shit-kickin' asshole like Rick Perry, if I had to. But Gary Johnson? No thanks...

    But this isn't about who you would vote for, it's about whether or not you want to be able to make up your own mind. Because for you to do that, you can't have other people decide who's important enough to be able to speak.

  • GILMORE||

    neck-and-neck with pizza magnate Herman Cain

    ...and slightly ahead of a child rapist and a dead frog.

    we're so screwed.

  • PIRS||

    There is a dead frog running? I would rather have a dead frog as president than either Barack Obama or Mitt Romnobama.

  • some guy||

    HypnoToad for President?

    He can count on me!

  • Brian E||

    Sorry folks, but as much as I like Johnson's no-nonsense sensibility and practical cost-benefit arguments for libertarian positions, he's doomed. I love ya Gary, but the only way I'll be voting for you now is for Vice President.

  • Realist||

    Most politicians, when talking about a "fair" tax, state that it will be revenue neutral. Who gives a shit if it is revenue neutral??? Set the tax so it is fair....say 10% and stay within budget.
    Means testing is redistribution, plain and simple.

  • Apogee||

    he's doomed.

    That's what they said about his candidacy in NM, too.

  • ||

    I'm a strong social conservative, but I love this platform. I no more want Republicans in my personal life than I do Democrats.

  • ||

    We're all entitled to our own "social" positions. As long as they stay the hell out of politics and government.

  • ||

    I am a strong social conservative, and the candidate who works to devolve power to the states is one who can get support from both social and fiscal conservatives. There are social issues (e.g., education, abortion, homosexuality) about which conservatives may not all agree on the proper federal role or action, but they can all get behind the rollback of federal intervention, mandates, and funding. A lot of social conservatives would be happy at this point just to see the federal government stop subsidizing the replacement of Western civilization with leftist groupthink.

  • ||

    Overturning Roe would get the Federal government out of abortion and return the issue to it's proper Constitutional place. Ditto for education and homosexuality.

    But, that's not what people are really about when they say they want the Federal government out of social issues.

    Anyone who wants to keep Roe does want the Federal government front and center when it comes to this 'social issue.'

  • Kroneborge||

    I guess it really depends on if you think aborition is killing of a human life.

    If so, I don't see how you can say it should be ok in CA, but wrong in Texas.

  • some guy||

    Yeah, the abortion issue is sticky for Libertarians because you have to weigh the rights of two individuals. Is the fetus an individual? If so, it has the right to life. But does it have the righ to live off its mother without her consent?

    Frankly I'm willing to go either way on the abortion issue if it will get a candidate like Paul or Johnson into office.

  • ||

    She gave consent when she started down the path to creating that baby. Her consent became irrevocable the moment the sperm she solicited met the egg she carried.

    Try again.

  • Chris Maple||

    The claim that a woman having sex means she consents to having a child is completely baseless. She may have used contraception and the contraception failed, but even that is irrelevant. Only human beings have rights, and nothing is human being until it is born.

  • ||

    All those pregnant mothers out there certainly know they're carrying around live human beings that recognize and respond to the voices and sounds they hear through the womb. Go tell them that what they're carrying is not human, and prepare to get your ass whipped.

  • ||

    You don't have to say it's OK. You only have to respect that Californians should have sovereignty in California and Texans in Texas. The alternative, one single standard, requires one single government; if you demand that, you might as well demand one world government.

  • ||

    Wow...I'm amazed. You seem to be the one rational social conservative I've seen anywhere, seriously. :)And I agree with your statements, man.

  • ||

    Where does Gov. Johnson stand on TARP, bailouts, corporate welfare, socialized losses, and the overall culture of fraud and bezzle? Will he claw back ill-gotten gains and put fraudulent banksters in pound-me-in-the-ass prison where they belong?

  • ||

    He's not for corporate welfare in general, but I doubt he's going to claw back ill-gotten gains any more than he's going to advocate for taking TVs away from welfare recipients or take GM shares away from unions & give them to creditors. What's done is done.

    You do understand that there are limitations to the president's power don't you?

  • fish||

    You do understand that there are limitations to the president's power don't you?

    Really? If he can go to war in Libya just because Cass Sunsteins girlfriend thinks she's saving the world he ought to be able to pick Lloyd Blankfeins pocket!

  • ||

    you're right I totally forgot about that

  • ||

    The way the presidency is set up the president possess a lot more power to act externally than internally. We don't think about it but the president is essentially a six star general even though he is not an active member of the military. Presidents, including Thomas Jefferson, have long used the traditionally strong executive powers in the international arena. It's one reason why whenever a presidents ratings start too fall, or if they are unsuccesful with their domestic agenda, that they focus on the internation sphere, i.e war, peacekeeping, humanitarian missions.

  • ||

    Where does Gov. Johnson stand on TARP, bailouts, corporate welfare, socialized losses, and the overall culture of fraud and bezzle? Will he claw back ill-gotten gains and put fraudulent banksters in pound-me-in-the-ass prison where they belong?

  • JB||

    Yeah, ok...that's all real nice.

    You know what's a "social issue"?

    Libertarianism. Liberty.

    While our kids are being indoctrinated into Cultural Marxism by their educators and the media, the oh-so-clever libertarians want "social issues" not to be part of the Republican agenda.

    Libertarian? Stupid!

  • ||

    I can put lightning in a god damn jar, and I still can't figure out what the fuck you just said.

  • Colin||

    +1

  • ||

    Very nice, JB, but I'm pretty sure your logic went right over the head of some of our libertarian friends.

    Joshua, liberty itself is a social issue. Got it yet?

  • ||

    I would say instead that liberty is the ONLY social issue that should drive government action.

    It's not an "issue". It's the fundamental principle from which all else flows.

  • Chris Maple||

    The fundamental principle from which all political principles derive is the nature of human beings: what they are and what conditions are necessary for them to live well. Liberty is one of those conditions; it is not fundamental.

  • ||

    I was speaking from a libertarian philosophical standpoint. I own my body and my mind. All else flows from that.

    I respect that you're attempting to approach the issue from an objective scientific standpoint, but when it comes to politics & what I choose to believe in, I don't feel like that's enough for me.

  • ||

    This is quite possibly the most ridiculously pedantic post I've ever seen.

  • Lee Reynolds||

    Except that what social conservatives have to offer is not liberty, but merely an alternative flavor of tyranny.

    They don't want to limit the power of government, but expand that power and use it to force everyone to walk to the beat of their drum; just like the left.

  • M||

    Every damn thing is "tyranny" in the eyes of libertarians. It's a bit like the way communists see everyone to their right (which means everyone, period) as "capitalist imperialist running-dogs".

    Allowing the people, via their elected representatives, to make law? Tyranny!

    Libertarian "tyranny" looks a lot like the freedom the Founders fought for.

  • seguin||

    Except it isn't. The Founding Fathers put a whole bunch of shit in the Constitution to preempt mob rule, or tyranny through democracy. They fought for Individual Liberty, not for the right for a slightly larger group of people to tell the smaller group what they can and can't do.

  • M||

    The Founding Fathers put a whole bunch of shit in the Constitution to preempt mob rule, or tyranny through democracy.

    No, they did not "put a whole bunc of shit in the Constitution to preempt mob rule, or tyranny through democracy". The Constitution can be altered at any tme, by the majority.

    They fought for Individual Liberty

    The words and the concept of "Individual Lberty" are almost entirely missing from the Founders wrtitings. Individual liberty is a modern idea.

  • White Laplander||

    No, they did not "put a whole bunco [sic] of shit in the Constitution to preempt mob rule, or tyranny through democracy".

    You need to take a basic civics course, oh mediocre troll. Preventing the excesses of pure democracy was very much at the heart of the design created for the Federal system of government. The existence of two houses with an independent judiciary was to prevent the legislature from being too democratic. You’d be a lot more credible if you had a clue what you are talking about.

    The Constitution can be altered at any tme, by the majority.

    Thanks for playing, but you don’t even get a lousy copy of our home game.

    The Founding Fathers made it pretty darn hard to modify the constitution. The majority (50% + 1 vote) cannot modify the constitution at all. In fact the electorate is never even consulted directly.

    A two-thirds majority is required in both houses with ratification by three-quarters of the States. So no, the Constitution cannot “be altered at any time, by the majority.” The founders deliberately made it very hard for the majority to change the constitution. The bounds go even beyond super majority.

    The words and the concept of "Individual Lberty" [sic] are almost entirely missing from the Founders [sic] writings [sic]. Individual liberty is a modern idea.

    Since your idea goes against essentially all scholarship on the Constitution, all historical research, and all common-sense readings of the actual writings of the Founders, the burden is on you to prove this point. You won’t be able to do it.

  • White Laplander||

    No, they did not "put a whole bunco [sic] of shit in the Constitution to preempt mob rule, or tyranny through democracy".

    I have to apologize that my autocorrect took your error and tried to make sense of it. So the [sic] was inappropriate, but autocorrect did improve the sense of what you wrote.

  • M||

    You need to take a basic civics course, oh mediocre troll. Preventing the excesses of pure democracy was very much at the heart of the design created for the Federal system of government.

    Fuck off, you moron. The so-called "excesses of pure democracy" did not figure much in the debate over the Constitution.

    The existence of two houses with an independent judiciary was to prevent the legislature from being too democratic

    No, you fucking nitwit, it was not "to prevent the legislature from being too democratic". It was to limit the power of the central government in order to protect the power of the states. Democracy was not the danger - the US Senate was not even democraticlly elected. Power was the danger, and what had to be protcted from power was "the people".

    your idea goes against essentially all scholarship on the Constitution, all historical research, and all common-sense readings of the actual writings of the Founders

    You simpering idiot, my "idea" is based on the actual writings of the Founders, the US Constitution, the Notes from the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalist papers. All of which are notably lacking in any interest in your stupid "individuals" and their "right to self ownership" - which would have been a downright peculiar idea to cross the minds of slaveowners.

  • White Laplander||

    Wow. Go take a basic high school civics course and then come back when you have a clue. Just because you can curse does not make you right.

    Democracy was not the danger - the US Senate was not even democratically elected.

    What you wrote confirms my point: the U.S. Senate was not even democratically elected. That was the point of the structure. If they were so in favor of pure democracy, why have that structure?

    Protecting the states from the central government doesn't contradict that at all. And if there was no notion of individual rights, why are so many of the rights enumerated in the constitution ones that can only vest in individuals? If they only vest in groups, then freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and so many others are meaningless.

    I also notice that you didn’t bother to argue against being caught out in your idiotic and easily falsifiable statements about amending the constitution. Why, when you get the basic facts wrong and can’t respond when caught out, should I grant you any credence on anything else you say?

  • White Laplander||

    Wait a minute. Didn’t I see the film about you starring Peter Lorre?

  • Almanian||

    M - I'm not as nice as Laplander. You're a fucking moron, and quit bringing that weak shit around here. If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about - and you don't - then don't post at H&R

    Unless you want to be the new Choney McMax, in which case I look forward to rhetorically slapping the living shit out of you into the foreseeable future.

  • M||

    I look forward to rhetorically slapping the living shit out of you into the foreseeable future.


    I look forward to making a seat cushion from your skin.

    Rhetorically, of course.

    The idea that the Founders were terrified of democracy and "the majority" and concerned for the plight of "the indvidual" is revisionist history on the scale of Holocaust denial.

    They established a majoritarian democracy, overturning the Articles of Confederation in the process. They had previously rejected the British Crown, which was sufficiently anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic that even libertarians would have approved approved of it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    They had previously rejected the British Crown, which was sufficiently anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic that even libertarians would have approved approved of it.

    Libertarians would have approved of being forbidden from settling outside the colonial boundaries and paying taxes on everything?

  • White Laplander||

    What in the world gives you that idea?

  • ||

    Democrats starting position is that we are all stupid imbeciles that need somebody to take care of us.

    Republicans starting position is that we are all immoral assholes who need somebody to keep us from harming ourselves and others.

    You're welcome to opine that one form of authoritarianism is better than the other, but you're just fooling yourself.

  • ||

    Ooh, ooh, there's a hole in the market--we could start a party that thinks everyone else is a stupid asshole or an immoral imbecile. Political gold.

  • ||

    I believe the Reason-Rupe poll calls them communitarians.

  • Realist||

    "They don't want to limit the power of government, but expand that power and use it to force everyone to walk to the beat of their drum; just like the left."
    Yes.

  • ||

    While our kids are being indoctrinated into Cultural Marxism by their educators and the media,...

    ...you, sir, are fighting full bore to cast aside the only weapon with which one can hope to fight them - man's ownership of his own mind and soul.
  • ||

    Should read

    While our kids are being indoctrinated into Cultural Marxism by their educators and the media,...

    ...you, sir, are fighting full bore to cast aside the only weapon with which one can hope to fight them - man's ownership of his own mind and soul.

  • Colin||

    The media is clearly much more frightened of Johnson than Paul. They can't call him "kooky" or "out to lunch."

    They much rather pump up a liberal Democrat disguised as Republican like Huntsman than give any opportunity to someone who could actually change things.

  • Apogee||

    The media is clearly much more frightened of Johnson than Paul.

    And it ain't just the media. It's the GOP as well.

    GJ's exclusion from the debates doesn't pass the smell test. The GOP can't do anything about Paul, but they're really scared of Johnson.

  • ||

    Any chance Johnson's campaign can spring for a new rug for him? I like him but want my candidate(s) to try to avoid looking ridiculous.

  • ||

    I can't stop looking at it while watching him.

  • ||

    Presidents seem to fit a certain mold in terms of their physicality. They tend to be taller, not overweight (Clinton kinda pushed the envelope there), no beards or moustaches, and they always have a full head of hair.

    America is not ready for a president with a toupee.

  • Mainer||

    We're told we've come so far in terms of tolerance and open-mindedness.

    Yet, could America today elect a(nother) president in a wheel chair ?

  • ||

    We elected a Senator with no real legislative or executive experience based on his ability to say a few talking points so I'd say anything is possible.

  • ||

    not that legislative experience is really a plus, rather, his lack of a real coherent plan based off of real world externalities while campaigning was glossed over.

  • ||

    He has hair, it is just styled really badly. Dang, spring for $40 haircut.

    Other than that, I think he's terrific. Which means I will never be able to vote for him.

  • ||

    It would be helpful if discussion of social issues could be separated from a discussion about the use of the "religious impulse" to try and force one's fellow citizens to live according to a preconceived notion of the good, the true, and the beautiful. This can be undertaken without any basis in religious life whatsoever, and nowadays is practiced more by our priestly class of atheistic academics than by any five other groups combined.

  • M||

    He sounds like an idiot.

  • Almanian||

    And you ARE an idiot - weird!

  • M||

    Cut Social Issues From GOP Agenda

    What a new birth of freedom THAT would be. Does this clown know that the Republican Party was founded based on a "social issue" - slavery?

    Oh, and he also looks like an idiot.

  • White Laplander||

    You sound like an idiot. I think I'd rather look like an idiot than sound like one.

  • ||

    Social issues are important to people. The idea that the GOP should cut them isn't realistic at all. What the GOP should do is reframe it so that the federal government has no business taking part in that discussion. Let individual states do it. If nebraska wants to model its laws off of a religous ideals what do I care as long as it doesn't interfer with my rights that are protected by the constitution. And if I happen not to like certain laws, say dry county laws, then I always have the option of moving to a new state which is a helluva alot easier than leaving the country.

  • ...||

    Gary Johnson: "I don't want to say I'm gaining traction in any way."

    Well, you've got to give him credit for being honest...

  • ||

    Swell. The fiscally-conservative-socially-moderate gambit has never been tried in the GOP before. Except Arnold Schwarzenegger, that is. And Arlen Specter. And Colin Powell. And Lincoln Chafee. And Susan Collins. And Charlie Crist. And Olympia Snowe. And Mike Castle. And Chuck Hagel. And....

    Sorry, Gary, but there is a reason why you are a 2% bottom-feeder along with intellectual flyweights such as Huntsman. You are demanding that the GOP adopt the Democrat Party's seek-and-destroy position on abortion and euthanasia. History show us that once the “socially moderate” camel sticks its nose in the GOP’s big tent, the entire nanny-state kit-and-caboodle comes barging in as well. Include me out.

  • ||

    Wait, you listed Arnold, Specter, Powell, Chafee, Collins, Snowe and Crist as fiscally conservative?!?! To me, they are maybe fiscally moderate. Actually, outside of Gary Johnson I struggle to think of any other fiscally conservative but socially moderate Republican, so to me the fiscally-conservative-socially moderete/liberal Republican has hardly been tried.

  • M||

    to me the fiscally-conservative-socially moderete/liberal Republican has hardly been tried.

    Like communism, libertarianism is a great idea which for some mysterious reason has never been implemented.

  • White Laplander||

    for some mysterious reason

    The reason isn’t so mysterious: it’s that most people think their noses belong in everybody else’s rear ends. It takes effort to realize that you don’t have to control everyone else who disagrees with you. Libertarianism isn’t a natural state of affairs: it’s one that requires effort and commitment and knowledge. As your inane comments here have shown, most people don’t do to well when asked to think and take responsible for themselves.

  • Robert||

    So, it seems we have a lot of posters who are perfectly happy to have "big government", as long as it conforms to their ideas and dogmas.

    Fucking hypocrisy, how does it work?

    Gee, how about being as socially "conservative" or "liberal" as you want--just leave others who don't share your views alone? (as long as they aren't harming others)

  • ||

    I don't see why I should ask government to prohibit someone killing you, if it allows them to kill infants in utero. Wouldn't it make me a hypocrite?

  • The Unborn||

    Thank you. Actually the gov't only catches the killer after the fact.

  • Apogee||

    Wouldn't it make me a hypocrite?

    Not as long as you imprison the mother.

    Oh, that's right, she's the other victim. How convenient. No bad photo ops for you!

  • M||

    leave others who don't share your views alone? (as long as they aren't harming others)

    But that's YOUR view. So what you're really saying is "How about all the rest of you accept my views?"

    To which my response is: no.

  • Chris Maple||

    Being socially conservative and leaving others alone is self-contradictory. Socially conservative means punishing those who don't behave in the approved manner.

  • ||

    As a conservative, here's my thinking on the issue. Let's say the libertarian impulse has its way, and we have a culture that refuses to protect the unborn, a culture that refuses to distinguish between marriage and sodomy or marriage and polygamy, a culture that no longer thinks immigration need be legal or that family is the foundation of society, a culture that marginalizes the religious and tolerates really nothing short of fundamentalist secularism... Well, in that case, I frankly don't care if you raise or lower my taxes. I can hardly think of why, if nothing that actually matters about life is part of our public conversation, tax rates would mean anything to me. Am I supposed to be against social welfare programs still because of the way they create dependence and undermine churches and families? No, because that IS a social issue. So I guess I'm supposed to be against them because I'm just selfish now. Am I supposed to oppose a government run healthcare system, not because I believe in individual autonomy and don't want the state making life or death decisions (which is a social issue), but solely because I want to pay less taxes?

    Honestly, this attempt to separate social issues from economic issues is borderline idiotic. It reeks of intellectual laziness and a kind of cultural apathy that is the antithesis of actual leadership.

  • ||

    At this point, I'm wondering what you're doing on the hit & run blog comment board.

    This isn't about our public conversation. This is about the men with guns. You should be able to talk about the perversions of sodomy all day long, but you shouldn't be able to send the men with guns after my buddy because he likes to fuck his lover in the ass.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    WHO'S YOUR BUTT BUDDY? SAY IT BITCH.

  • M||

    you shouldn't be able to send the men with guns after my buddy because he likes to fuck his lover in the ass.

    Why not?

    Libertarians have this habit of stating their opinions very vehemently and thinking that this constitutes making an actual argument.

    The way we decide who to send the men with guns after is by having elections. That's the difference between us and tyrannies.

  • ||

    The libertarian argument from a philosophical standpoint is really simple, so I guess I forget that not everybody knows it. I own my body and my mind. Everything follows from that.

    I ALSO believe that society as a whole is also better off when libertarian principles are the law of the land, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

    So M, you've never made a normative statement with a shouldn't? I don't know your politics, but
    "They shouldn't harrass kids for selling lemonade" or "The government shouldn't punish people for burning an intoxicating plant."

    If you want me to make an actual argument, I'll be glad to, but I didn't see any point in doing so on the Hit&Run; blog long after most posters have abandoned it.

  • Uncle Joe||

    I lost interest after the word "sodomy", perused the rest without caring, and then noticed that you seem to think we care about "leadership".

    I should only speak for myself. I don't NEED A FUCKING LEADER.
    I need to be fucking left alone to live my life as i damn well please.

    This may be a concept that goes flying over your head with 200 miles an hour, which is why you keep using arguments that just plain don't mean shit to libertarians.

    "Honestly, this attempt to separate social issues from economic issues is borderline idiotic."

    There is no separation. Neither category of issues is any of the government's goddamned business.

  • ||

    Yes, I was an adolescent too, once.

  • LOLbertarian||

    rofl @ this. How would the "Secular" impulse of libertarians harm you, since we don't believe in public schooling. Religion is a personal choice up to the individual, the effect that "social" programs have on people "needing" church is irrelevant. You basically argue that you want a system set up where people HAVE to rely on their church. We want a system where people can choose to rely on any institution they damn well please, as long as it doesn't trample on the rights and property of others.

  • ||

    that is the antithesis of actual leadership.

    Herein lies the fundamental difference between conservatives and libertarians. As the other poster elegantly mentioned, only a dipshit would want or need a "leader." I don't need a leader. I want someone who will govern the least.

  • ||

    Yes, you two are perfectly capable of living in anarchic conditions. Until someone bigger than you beats your faces in and takes your stuff.

  • ||

    The advocates of social conservatism here are missing the point. Once you've declared that the individual is not the sole owner of his (or her) own life and liberty, you've ceded the whole argument to the left. Once you've declared that 50%+1 has unbounded domain, you really don't have much to whine about when 50%+1 decides that kids should be indoctrinated early into a life of sex, drugs and rock-and-roll, coupled with a heavy dose of Gaia worship and "family-is-whatever-you-want-it-to-be" pap sociology. The majority has spoken; sucks to be you.
    On the other hand, a society that relegates government to its proper role, protecting the rights of the individual, very quickly converges to virtuous world. Do you think that God Almighty created a world where virtue is impotent and self-destruction is practical? Self-destruction can only sustain itself to the level it is subsidized. If you take away the subsidy, people have to decide between the self-destructive behavior or the consequence of their actions. THAT, is stronger deterant than any law or regulation you can impose.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Yep!

  • ||

    Agreed. Moreover, one thing that always confuses me when talking to social conservatives, not all but many, is this belief that without active government involvement social values will go down the drain. But if they really believe that their way of life is beneficial then people will naturally be drawn too it. The US is largely a christian nation, for better or worse, and the simple truth is that whether or not the government tries to enforce christian values, christian will remain. I mean you could even take an example of the old testament. Ancient Israel had state sanctioned religion but it did nothing to stop individuals from engaging in orgies and other illicit behaviors that eventually led to the nations subjugation. When a social conservative insists that government became the arbiter of morality I always counter saying that their stance is more indicative of their lack of real faith than the amorality of a nation. In my mind a true person of strong faith should be confortable enough in the idea that their beliefs will win out in the long run that they shouldn't feel the need to spread them by point of sword or tip of pen.

  • ||

    Of course the counterpoint is that the government probably does tip the scales in favor of sinners. Why that is an argument for adding a counterweight, rather than not tipping the scales in the first place isn't terribly clear to me.

  • Apogee||

    Why that is an argument for adding a counterweight, rather than not tipping the scales in the first place isn't terribly clear to me.

    Scale tipping is profitable.

  • ||

    Point taken. :-)

  • M||

    Once you've declared that 50%+1 has unbounded domain, you really don't have much to whine about when 50%+1 decides that kids should be indoctrinated early into a life of sex, drugs and rock-and-roll, coupled with a heavy dose of Gaia worship and "family-is-whatever-you-want-it-to-be" pap sociology.


    If that's what the majority says, I don't have a problem with it. But it's not the majority saying that, it's the minority. Libertarians have this peculiar notion that if the minority "decides" something, that's cool.

    Do you think that God Almighty created a world where virtue is impotent and self-destruction is practical?

    God did not create that world. You know who did create that world? The poor fucking oppressed "minority" you libertarians are always whining on about.

    Your ideology is insane. If 51% of Americans vote to elimuabte HUD, you cry about the "tyranny of the majority". You want certain outcomes, but you want them to be arrived at in a certain way. A certain un-democratic way. The perfect libertarian state is one where the Supreme Court bans all the things you dislike, and legalizes all the things you approve of.

  • sevo||

    "God did not create that world. You know who did create that world? The poor fucking oppressed "minority" you libertarians are always whining on about."

    Really? Did it take 7 days? Or are you just blowing bullshit?
    Pretty sure it's the later.

  • ||

    If that's what the majority says, I don't have a problem with it.


    So if the majority jumped off of the Brooklyn Bridge, I guess you'd join them in that too.

    Libertarians have this peculiar notion that if the minority "decides" something, that's cool.


    No, libertarians have the peculiar notion that individuals have rights and that it isn't the province of a majority or a minority to violate those rights.

  • sevo||

    "Do you think that God Almighty created a world where virtue is impotent and self-destruction is practical?"

    No, and I'm pretty certain of it.
    There isn't a shred of evidence for you sky daddy existing at all, let alone creating anything.
    You hear voices, that's all. Please keep your superstitions to yourself; it only makes others embarrassed for you when you whine about them.

  • ||

    Well, if God doesn't exist, my point still stands on the basis of natural law. On the other hand, whether or not God exists, you're still going to be a douche.

  • ||

    When you say the individual is the sole owner of his life, you can't allow one person to choice to terminate another's life (abortion). So you fail there.

  • ||

    But, that's presupposing a point of metaphysics that isn't established. Most libertarians (and most voters, for that matter) don't consider a fetus a person. Those that do largely oppose abortion.

  • ||

    Cut Federal Spending by 43% - and Cut Social Issues From GOP Agenda

    And I want all my french fries to be amphibious-land-craft-shaped and served by a nake Emma Stone riding a pink unicorn that farts cotton candy.

  • Almanian||

    pervert - I like the way you think

  • ||

    Cut Social Issues From GOP Agenda

    This statement is the kiss of death for Mr. Johnson. No way this would ever fly with the Free Republic set.

  • ||

    2% Gary Johnson is proposing the exact oppose of Ronald Reagan, the Presdeint who won in a landside on his three pillars National Security, Fiscal Conservatism and SOCIAL CONSERVATISM:

    Ronald Reagan 1977: “The New Republican Party”

    Those polls confirm that most Americans are basically conservative in their outlook. But once we have said this, we conservatives have not solved our problems, we have merely stated them clearly. Yes, conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.

    You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues—law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems—are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues—inflation, deficit spending and big government—are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.
    ..........
    I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity.” Whatever ideology may mean—and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it—it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country “ideology” is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don’t happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.

    I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.
    .........
    And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply “making room” for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.

  • Apogee||

    The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.

    And it did - and was quite successful at it.

    But something happened after the 70's and 80's.

    What happened was the inevitable collision between what you quote Reagan as saying and his other famous quote:

    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.

    Because, for many, you can't have social conservatism without a legitimized enforcement mechanism - and that mechanism is government.

    You're not at a Republican site, you're at a libertarian site. Government has grown exponentially since the Reagan administration, to the point where it is de facto unsustainable at this level. This is the time for someone talking huge cuts who can be counted on to administer them, just as it was in 1977 for Reagan to tap the unattended social conservatives.

  • ||

    we hear whining from the ron paul folks that he is 'ignored'...and johnson is, certainly, barely heard from...but have you seen any, and i mean ANY coverage of the bright and witty thaddeus mccotter's campaign??

  • Apogee||

    ANY coverage of the bright and witty thaddeus mccotter's campaign??

    McCotter has been elected to office, which makes him legitimate enough to warrant exposure by the media.

    Again, we're told that "there isn't enough time" or "there's too many people" - but these are excuses to play kingmaker by the current parties and the media.

    Not enough time to have all the candidates debate? Really? When a CAT 1 hurricane that did minimal damage had hundreds of hours devoted to it?

    The fix is obvious, and the two political parties and the national media are scuttling whatever shred of respect they still have by defending it.

  • ||

    He's like Santorum Light.

    "McCotter is a member of both the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership and the conservative Republican Study Committee.

    In May 2007, House Minority Leader John Boehner labeled a bill by House Democrats aimed at stopping energy price gouging "as pointless political pandering"[2] however McCotter and 55 other Republicans voted for the bill.[unbalanced opinion]

    McCotter has been an avid supporter of the United States' involvement in the Iraq War.[unbalanced opinion]

    On September 22, 2008, McCotter became the first Republican in the House of Representatives to oppose the Paulson bailout plan, calling it "American socialism." A week later, he and 132 other Republicans voted against the $700 billion bailout bill.[unbalanced opinion]

    A July 24, 2009, press release from McCotter's House website states that McCotter will introduce a House Resolution on July 27, 2009, calling on President Obama to apologize to police Sergeant James Crowley for his remarks about the latter's arresting Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for disorderly conduct on July 16, 2009, if President Obama doesn't first issue an apology on his own.[3][unbalanced opinion]

    McCotter has supported a variety of union-friendly measures such as collective bargaining agreements for government jobs and card check.[4]"

  • Apogee||

    Like him or hate him, he should be able to debate his beliefs and his record, not because he is popular, but because he is legitimately running.

  • ||

    If I am doing you no harm, then I have every right to pursue my own happiness, regardless If you approve of my actions. I need neither you or society to approve of my choices, nor do you need my approval to live the way you want. How is that so complicated? I don't care who you fuck (consenting adults), what you smoke, eat, drink, buy, sell etc ad nauseum. Leave me the fuck alone and let me live according to my best interests.

  • ||

    Fuck whatever you want however I should not be forced to subsidize other people sex lives. For example-- Planned Parenthood, Free Government Condoms, mandated Gardasil yada yada.

    Further; if people were actually responsible for their own fucking lives then we would not be living in a wealthy country where the majority are highly dependent upon government welfare, mortgage bailouts, Planned Parenthood, free methadone, National Public Radio, free fucking art for shit etc etc and ad nauseum.

  • ||

    Susan,

    Please don't take this the wrong way, but your comment there completely dispels your critique of libertariainism. Libertarians don't believe that the government should be in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices.
    Planned Parenthood, Free Government Condoms, mandated Gardasil, welfare, mortgage bailouts, Planned Parenthood, free methadone, National Public Radio, free fucking art for shit?? These are all things libertarians say the government has no business financing, just like it has no business financing "good Christian values". It's the social conservatives who decide that, once they're in power, welfare, NPR, public art, etc. aren't such bad things; that they just need to be focused on more wholesome themes.

  • ScottyB||

    As Johnson wants to ACTUALLY cut spending and doesn't care about social conservative issues.

    OF COURSE the repubs don't want him. All they want is the illusion of cutting spending without doing anything requiring courage and the teaparty is hiding their social conservative crusading under a false banner of fiscal responsibility.

    Gary's too good for them.

  • ||

    When I heard Johnson speak a few months ago, I thought, "There's a guy I could go to the polls completely sober and STILL vote for!" Unsurprising, I suppose, he's an also-ran.

  • Sasha||

    I'm a big Ron Paul supporter, and Gary Johnson doesn't quite live up. But I'm also a native New Mexican..if RP weren't in the race, I would support Johnson 100%.

    My question is, why has he been totally excluded from the race in every meaningful way?

    Probably RP won't run in 2016, and I sincerely hope that Johnson tries again then.

    Of course, beating an incumbent Ron Paul might be difficult ;)

  • Nike Dunk High||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement