Another Prominent Libertarian Ditches Gary Johnson for Mitt Romney

Former Libertarian Party chest-thumper Wayne Allyn Root made waves last month when he announced he was ditching Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party and hitching his wagon to Mitt Romney and the GOP. "Gary Johnson is a good man," Root told Garrett Quinn. "But he’s not going to win this election."

That thinking seems to be contagious. Today, Glenn Beck's The Blaze published an op-ed by Chris Barron, founder of the conservative GLBT group GOProud and one of Johnson's Electoral College electors, titled "A Libertarian for Mitt Romney."

Barron's case looks a lot like Root's:

There is a time for idealism and a time for realism, and for me, the time for realism is now. I endorsed former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson back in December of 2011, when he was still seeking the Republican nomination for President. I continued to support him even after he left the Republican Party and became the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President. Indeed, I am a DC elector for Gary Johnson. On Tuesday November 6th, however, I will not be casting my vote for Gary Johnson – instead I will be casting it for Mitt Romney.

I still believe strongly that Gary Johnson would make the best President of the three candidates running, however, it is time to recognize he will not be President. The next President will either be Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and without hesitation I can say that Mitt Romney will be a vastly better President than Barack Obama.

"Vastly better" only on the economy, concedes Barron. "When it comes to other issues of importance to libertarians – like civil liberties, ending nation-building, and the failed war on drugs – there isn’t an ounce of difference between the two candidates."

While I don't begrudge Barron his vote, his public abandonment of Johnson--in the same publication where Root first endorsed Romney--seems a little fishy considering that Barron lives in D.C., which is 75 percent Democratic, and where every non-Democratic ballot is essentially a protest vote.

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.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Prominent Libertarian? Is that like World Famous Hermit?

  • Ryan60657||

    No, Tallest Midget.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Though famous, as a target of Dan Savage and as a guest on RedEye, Chris isn't really famous qua libertarian, since he hasn't been out as one for long.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You guise we have to throw away our principles because this is THE MOST IMPOTENT ELECTION OF OUR TIMES!!!!1!!1111!!one

    If we don't vote for the guy who's policies are anathema to everything we believe in, the guy who's policies are anathema to everything we believe in might win.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not even close for me. While I see it as Johnson is greater than Romney is greater than Obama, that doesn't mean I see Romney as remotely close to my politics. Or, for that matter, my economics.

    Romney's path to suicide is likely slower, I'll give him that, but death is at the end of his path, too.

  • Doctor Whom||

    If we show Romney that we're in his pocket no matter what, he's sure to care about what we want.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Everybody respects a cheap whore.

  • Ivoted4KODOS||

    "She is like a fine, well-aged prostitute... it takes years to learn her tricks.
    [chuckles]
    She is cruel, laughs at you when you are naked, but you keep coming back for more, and more! Why? Because she is the only prostitute I can afford."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If we show both Rs and Ds that we're not going to vote for them no matter what, neither will care either.

    We have to be strategic about things if we're going to have any impact. Broad platitudes aren't going to work.

  • ||

    If we show both Rs and Ds that we're not going to vote for them no matter what, neither will care either.

    If we show them we will vote for them even when they don't support our issues, THEN neither will care. A few pieces of rhetoric does not an even slightly libertarian politician make.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    We're such a small group they're unlikely to care either way. We're essentially price takers at this point.

  • Robert||

    Added to that, the fact that radical libertarians tend to be so individualistic psychologically means we don't vote as a bloc either, so swaying us sways a small percentage of a small percentage.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Broad platitudes aren't going to work.

    Well, of course not. But they make me feel so goooood!

    Results do not matter. How I feel about things is what matters.

  • Tonio||

    Nail. On. Head. Thanks, Hugh.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I just don't see Romney doing enough slashing and burning of government to reduce significantly its drag on the economy. I hope I'm wrong. However, the one area where I'm sympathetic to libertarian votes for Romney is with the economy. Obama is so bad, and the Congress is typically so useless, regardless of which party controls it, that we could see a real disaster with more years of this nonsense.

    That may continue under Romney, too, but I'm betting it won't be quite as insane.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Is that the same kind of betting as buying a lottery ticket?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Obama has set a seriously low bar. Given that a Romney win will almost certainly be attributed to displeasure with the economy (and racism!), I think he'll be pressured to deliver some sort of slowed growth. Of government, I mean. No real cuts are likely, of course.

  • Paul.||

    Romney must lose. If he wins, failure will be attributed to him. Failure must be attributed to Obama (where it belongs) and I'm willing to endure four more years of disaster in hopes that we'll get real sunlight in 2016.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's always the fault of conservatives, rich people, and corporations. It doesn't matter who wins or holds office.

  • ||

    It is the fault of the rich and the corporations. The poor didn't create a debt money system and pass off subprime trash as AAA bonds.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No it was the government dipshit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There's plenty of blame to go around.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Nor did they spend more money than they make and sign up for mortgages they can't afford.

    Oh, wait. Whoops.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Jersey Patriot,

    It is the fault of the rich and the corporations. The poor didn't create a debt money system and pass off subprime trash as AAA bonds.

    Neither did, if that's the case, the "rich" and the "corporations". We can go on with these sweeping generalizations all day long, but the fact is that there's only one - ONE -
    agent capable of affecting the market through such perverse incentives to create this mess, and that is the government.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Instead of fighting over who controls the government, how about we weaken the government and not fight over us controlling our own, individual lives?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    How do you propose to weaken the govt?

    Voting for Johnson doesn't do it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    And, of course, neither does voting for Romney.

    There's a bare outside chance that we'll see a sufficient number of reformers join Congress who might do something more drastic, but that's a long shot. And if history is any guide, it won't last more than a year or two.

  • ||

    This election, no. But voting for Romney doesn't do that either, it only gives the appearance of it. Continually building support will do more for the libertarian movement in the long run than the miniscule or nonexistent gains we'll get by voting for Romney.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    This election, no.

    I keep seeing people write this, but it seems irrelevant. Yes, this election. That's the vote I'm talking about. It's also the vote you guys are talking about. Why are you implying this needs to be specified?

  • Paul.||

    How do you propose to weaken the govt?

    Voting for Johnson doesn't do it.

    Yes it does. The more people who vote for Johnson, the less legitimacy the two major parties have... and so on...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So one vote DOES count?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Who says it doesn't? If it had no effect at all, I wouldn't bother. Besides, some people I know are influenced by my vote, so it's more than just one.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Practically everybody in the other thread.

    At least votes for Romney are said not to count; some of them seem to think votes for Johnson somehow do count.

  • Robert||

    "Legitimacy" of the major parties is a bogus issue. There will always be major parties, and they'll always have the same legitimacy or illegitimacy. There are no qualif'ns for membership in the major parties at the grass roots, and the only qualif'n for leadership within them is self-defined: You're a leader because you're a leader, because you're a leader.... They have followers because they have followers.

    You can't deligitimize the major parties, because they will always be seen as incorporating both the legitimate y the illegitimate within them...because that's the truth.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Actually it does a better job of it than voting for Romney or not voting does. There is no argument for voting for Romney over Johnson (or Obama over Johnson) if you live in one of the 44+ non-swing states. Only voting for Johnson sends a signal.

  • Paleo-ConAvenger||

    PAULTARD ALERT!! DERP DERP DERP

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    A vote for Obama or Romney doesn't count, because it is already assumed that all votes are for one of them. A vote for Johnson might count for something, especially in a state where the votes for Obama and Romney are close. A consecutively larger percentage of libertarian voters would be a good thing too.

  • Robert||

    What are you thinking, Paul? If Obama wins, whatever he does won't be seen as a failure, but as success. They'll think the only reason he couldn't win again in 2016 is ineligibility.

    That's the most important indicator to a politician -- or to anyone seeking any kind of job. If someone's successful in getting y keeping a job, there's no point in looking at what s/he did for the business in terms of its overall success -- you do that, because that's what the boss (in this case the voters) is looking for.

  • sarcasmic||

    Romney won't slash and burn a thing except maybe your home interest deduction and tax rates for a few people at the top.

    He won't make it any easier to do business, except maybe for a few connected cronies.

    The only good argument I can see for supporting Romney over Obama is the fact that some of the Supremes will likely be retiring in the next four years. Though even that may not matter considering some of the dufuses Reagan and Bush put on there.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's the best argument I'd have, if I were pushing for Romney, and it's one of my greatest fears about a second term for Obama.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know my vote won't matter. My state will most definitely give all four of its EC votes to Obama.

  • Paul.||

    I don't see the Supreme court as a great friend of Liberty. Because it's a tax.

  • Marshall Gill||

    The only good argument I can see for supporting Romney over Obama is the fact that some of the Supremes will likely be retiring in the next four years. Though even that may not matter considering some of the dufuses Reagan and Bush put on there.

    I agree and then I think of John Roberts and think, meh.

    I think that Romney would drive us over the cliff a little slower but I am not sure that I wouldn't just prefer to go ahead and get the whole collapse of society thingy over.

  • Robert||

    And I suppose that because you're not immortal, and don't expect to become immortal, you'd rather die sooner too.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I'll take my chances.

  • Paleo-ConAvenger||

    I want time to bug out

  • ||

    The only good argument I can see for supporting Romney over Obama is the fact that some of the Supremes will likely be retiring in the next four years.

    Two words, sarc: Robert. Bork.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Bork is a constitutionalist wonder compared to Kagan.

  • ||

    Considering they both advocate ceding constitutional issues to the legislature almost as a matter of course, I don't think so.

  • free2booze||

    I just don't see Romney doing enough slashing and burning of government to reduce significantly its drag on the economy.

    I think you're right. Romney isn't even giving much rhetoric to reducing government. The only thing I have heard him say is that he would shrink government through attrition. I think it's a great idea, but it would to easy for the next guy to reverse this policy, and go on a government hiring spree.

    The only area where I hope Romney will come through, is tax reform. I don't have anything to back this up, but I would think that a business would rather have a really low tax rate with no deductions, than what we have now. Even if the tax bill at the end of the year still comes out to be the same, the savings in tax planning would have to be pretty significant.

  • Robert||

    Romney is a feather-in-the-wind moderate...which is a hell of a lot better than Obama.

  • Paul.||

    Another Prominent Libertarian Ditches Gary Johnson for Mitt Romney

    Then he is no longer a prominent libertarian. See how this works?

  • Tonio||

    And if you're a young-earth creationist and suddenly start believing in geological time-frame, evolution through natural selection....

  • Randian||

    Then you aren't a young-earth creationist. What's the problem here?

  • Paul.||

    I'm not sure what he meant there, unless he was equivocating support of Johnson with support of creationism, then I'm totally on board...totally...

    Backs aways slowly.

  • Tonio||

    Uh, I misinterpreted your comment. I agree with you.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    A better analogy would be how a civil rights activist and relatively-good mayor Cory Booker was unpersoned by the left when he said there was nothing wrong with Romney being a successful capitalist.

  • Paul.||

    I still believe strongly that Gary Johnson would make the best President of the three candidates running, however[...]

    Didn't read past...

  • Randian||

    Yep. You either vote for the person who is the best candidate, or you don't. I don't need to know the rest to know what kind of person you are.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    the conservative GLBT group GOProud

    For some reason, I'm seeing the abbreviation as "glibertarian".

  • Tonio||

    Lulz. If possible (and that's a pretty high bar) GOProud are more despised than libertarians.

  • Robert||

    I preferred GLBT to the more recent LGBT because at least you could sort-of pronounce the former "glibut".

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    That is not what it stands for, though lots of people in it describe themselves as LEANING that way.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Big Bandwagon Republicans will save us!

    Hurray!

  • ||

    I recently had both a conservative and a liberal tell me recently that Romney would halve the size of the federal government. The conservative said it with earnest pride; the liberal in abject horror. I can't imagine what kind of bizarre Wonderland Opium Den these people live in.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I would make a great President dictator (I suck at group decisionmaking); vote for ME!

    It's easy, and you'll only have to do it once.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Everybody respects a cheap whore.

    Not me.

    I always fall for the one who charges me a lot and then just laughs at me and walks out.

  • Tonio||

    Perhaps you should consider pro dominatrices.

  • The Hammer||

    founder of the conservative GLBT group GOProud

    I'm not sure where you get "Libertarian" out of "founder of a gay and lesbian group within the Republican Party."

  • Robert||

    Probably from the fact that LP nominated him a presidential elector -- even if it was LPDC.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    As one of the other Johnson Electors from DC, I can tell you there isn't tough competition of actual DC residents (most DC area libertarians live in Arlington, Virginia etc.), who are willing to register to vote (unlike many reason editors who live in DC), and are willing to have their name on the ballot and show up and be sworn in and sign affidavits etc. And Barron did campaign for Johnson and go to Las Vegas as a Johnson delegate. This story is a micro-tempest in a tea pot. No one cares except one libertarian blogger and reason.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I would get totally gay if only half that demographic supported libertarian policy.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    I offer lessons to select students. Though not until after November 6.

  • OldMexican||

    "I still believe strongly that Gary Johnson would make the best President of the three candidates running, however, it is time to recognize he will not be President."

    "It wasn't about the principles, ever. It was, all along, about winning."

  • Joea0211||

    It is important for Libertarians not to vote for Romney or endorse Romney. It is telling the Republican Party that you will get our support no matter how you dismiss us or what right wing imperialist policies you endorse. Don't vote. "Voting is the slaves suggestion box". What is you held an election and nobody came.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Since the Dems also won't get our support, the message is actually that libertarians are unobtainable and thus irrelevant, and can be safely ignored when it comes to policymaking.

  • ||

    And if we vote for the major party candidates, it shows that we'll vote for candidates who don't support us anyway and can be safely ignored. Everyone wins! Except the libertarians.

  • ||

    Don't darius404...just don't.

    Tulpa has gone insane this election season and there is no hope with reasoning with him...let us hope it is temporary.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The truth always looks insane when surrounded by falsehoods.

  • Tonio||

    And the insane are notoriously bad at recognizing that they are insane.

  • ||

    the message is actually that libertarians are unobtainable and thus irrelevant

    Plus libertarians are icky and think crazy things like deregulation will not cause an economic slow down.

    Crazies!!!

  • Robert||

    It is important for Libertarians not to vote for Romney or endorse Romney. It is telling the Republican Party that you will get our support no matter how you dismiss us or what right wing imperialist policies you endorse.


    What if they voted for a non-Republican last time and now vote for a Republican for the same office? Doesn't that show some discrimination, i.e. the ability to be swayed?

  • Robert||

    "Voting is the slaves suggestion box".


    What if you found out that over the millenia, thousands of slaveholders have taken seriously suggestions from slaves (their own or others')? Just because you may not get credit doesn't mean you shouldn't give a tip.

  • Northstar||

    Duh we know we're not going to win this cycle (barring a miracle). We're brand-building for 2016. Getting to 5% or more votes gets us $90 million or more in FERC money in 2016. We can open a lot of minds with a real campaign budget like that! Look how far we came with just $2 million this time around... one 500th of the budget but far more than 1/500th of the votes! If you're an investor you look at these numbers and have to conclude that there's something to the Liberty movement.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Leaving aside the questionable libertarianism of taking FERC money for a libertarian campaign, you're also legitimizing the arguments of myself and others that one vote does count and should be used strategically.

    If we can swing 5% of the vote, we're far better off doing it to defeat Obama rather than hoping to siphon taxpayer money from a broke-ass govt in 2016.

  • Cavpitalist||

    IF we think defeating Barack Obama is the main goal.

    If you aren't a Republican hack, there's no good reason to think this is the case.

  • Rasilio||

    Ok, I've listened to WAR on the radio a few times and IMO good riddance cause the dude is both seriously psychotic and only libertarian in the vaguest sense.

  • Tonio||

    All my friends know the low rider...

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I am not voting for Johnson because of hopes that he will win. I am voting for him because if Romney loses, it will show why that happened.

  • Brandybuck||

    Barron lives in D.C., which is 75 percent Democratic, and where every non-Democratic ballot is essentially a protest vote.


    Never underestimate the power of the knee jerk TEAM vote.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    It's actually 72% Democratic (17% independent, 6.5% Republican, and 3% Green). But that is because it is the collapsed, I am tempted to say black hole, version of the two party system - everyone registers Democrat, including people who are not Democrats, because the Democratic Party is the real election for half the races, and you must be registered Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary. So no one registers Republican or anything else, unless they are professionally employed Republican operative and must register Republican, because to do so would be to throw away one's vote.

  • BarryD||

    "That thinking seems to be contagious."

    That Gary Johnson isn't going to win this election?

    I'd love to see GJ win! But apparently I, too, have caught this contagious libertarian "disease."

    It's apparently a mutated form of the "wishes aren't fishes" disease.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    While I don't begrudge Barron his vote, his public abandonment of Johnson--in the same publication where Root first endorsed Romney--seems a little fishy considering that Barron lives in D.C., which is 75 percent Democratic, and where every non-Democratic ballot is essentially a protest vote.

    So you don't begrudge him his vote, just his public statement of his vote. You'd make a fine campaign finance reformer, Riggs.

    Plus, I don't see how any of this is "fishy". Are you implying there's some sort of tit for tat going on behind the scenes?

  • ||

    Not sure how implying how his lack of influence contradicts his message is "begrudging" him anything.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's not what "fishy" implies. Fishy implies something unethical going on behind the scenes.

  • ||

    Except my comment wasn't about the accusation of being "fishy".

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    He was no doubt under enormous professional pressure as a political consultant to dump Johnson, though he probably also genuinely believes "stopping Obama" is the only important goal.

  • ||

    Fishy in that he is trying to motivate libertarians to vote for Romney.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Making a political statement is so fishy!

  • Robert||

    Yeah, that's what I couldn't figure about Riggs's piece. Obviously his individual vote is meaningless, but his endorsement might sway some voters in a swing state. That's what discussions like this are all about.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Chris Barron, founder of the conservative GLBT group GOProud

    Hey remember how Romney treated Richard Grenell? He'll throw GOProud away just as easily the second the SoCons start whining he's not being mean enough to homosexuals.

  • Robert||

    You don't know politics, then. I know locally of people in politics who've been thrown under the bus a time or two, licked the hand that bit them, and ultimately got rewarded. You need cold blood, thick skin, and other metaphors in this game.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    I don't think he can throw them away as I am not sure he or Ryan have ever met with them.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    I'll consider Barron's argument if Barron pledges to enlist as a combat infantryman should (when) President Romney gets the U.S. in a shooting war.

  • John||

    So if Johnson did the same, Libertarians would be expected to do that? Or is it that Johnson would never get us into a war? How is that? Does he have magic powers over our enemies? Would he just surrender?

    And since every President has the power of war and peace and older people can't join the infantry, why don't we just cut to the chase and make only those who have served in the infantry eligible to vote for President or hold any kind of public opinion on war and peace?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That guy Heinlein did have some good ideas.

  • Cavpitalist||

    If you ain't Cav, you ain't shit.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Yeah if Johnson took the U.S. to war, and I had helped to elect him, then I would enlist to fight the good fight.
    Unlike, oh say, the daughters of a U.S. President who thought the post-9/11 wars were so very important for the U.S. to fight.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And when Obama, who you allowed to remain in office by refusing support to Romney, gets the US in another shooting war, will you enlist?

  • Randian||

    I am not voting for Obama, so once again logic fails you.

  • Proprietist||

    Newsflash! In shocking developments, a GOP activist ends up voting for the GOP candidate! More details coming soon.

  • np||

    addressing this comment from the blog:

    As a registered Libertarian since 1996 I’m going to vote for Romney, even tho I said I would not before. I changed my mind because I learned more about Romney. No, he’s not Ron Paul or Rand Paul or Gary Johnson but the way I look at it is, you have to slow down to make a U turn. I see this election as U turn for the country.


    This slow down to make a U turn approach is impossible. It has never happened and will never happen. Unless the great mass of the people are overwhelmingly discontent and have little to loose, there is simply too much inertia in the State to ever have a U turn. It may slow down and meander, but no matter what direction it meanders, there is always a strong vector component that points in the wrong direction.

    The only way I see to get any kind of U turn is to hit rock bottom. Romney may be slightly marginally better than Obama, but things are still going to get worse, even if at a slower rate. Fiscally and all. Because of that, if Romney wins, most ideas perceived to be associated with the right and republicans, like free markets and capitalism will be tarnished badly. Just look at how Paul Ryan is mischaracterized by all progressives and the mainstream media as somehow being Randian and the scare tactics used to rebuff his fiscal weak-tea not-so-conservatism.

  • np||

    Look at how the budget crisis is labeled as the "fiscal-cliff" when it's not even a cliff. It's a slight decrease in the slope of the spending hill, as opposed to a downward direction of real cuts. (Coupled with the fact Romney wants to keep Federal revenue the same; as well as even explicitly countering Ryan in keeping all entitlements)

    The only other method with the SHTF scenario to achieve any meaningful change in scaling back the State would be a subversive presidential candidate who campaigns on all the popular team red and team blue issues, with bias or weights adjusted to whichever side or issues are more popular.

    Then once he gets in office, he's willing to be a one-term president. He fills his cabinet with other likewise subversive members as well as the SC nominations. Again all one term sacrifice. Then he starts veto-ing every bill. Cuts everything under executive branch. Issues EOs to effectively repeal laws. Issues pardons, etc, etc

  • Robert||

    Unless the great mass of the people are overwhelmingly discontent and have little to loose, there is simply too much inertia in the State to ever have a U turn. It may slow down and meander, but no matter what direction it meanders, there is always a strong vector component that points in the wrong direction. The only way I see to get any kind of U turn is to hit rock bottom.

    Shows what you know. What about Canada? New Zealand? Sweden?

    And guess what? They can later make another U turn and wind up going the previous direction! And again!! And again!!! People change their minds. And change them again. Some change them easily, others with more difficulty. There is no single trigger point for change, not unless there's just a dictator dictating.
  • np||

    What about Canada, NZ or Sweden? All of them are heading in statist directions, whether slower or faster, one path or another.

    So what if people change their minds? Ideally people's opinions should not matter one bit in terms of coercive power

    It's false dichotomy to make the choice be between democracy (including representative democracy, where the state still retains sovereign immunity) and a dictatorship

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You think that hitting rock bottom will lead to a libertarian government? I don't think so. Historically, hitting rock bottom produces dictatorships.

    Liberty is a very unusual thing to have happen. The seeds grew out of the unique circumstances of medieval England and spread to the US and to some extent to the rest of Europe. It is absolutely not a phenomenon that is likely to happen naturally.

  • ||

    If people rebel because we've hit rock bottom, it won't be out of a sudden love for libertarian principles, it will be out of a principle of "they're screwing with me too much, I don't like it". That won't lead to a more libertarian society. Spreading libertarian beliefs will, but I don't think the breakdown of society will help with that.

    Fortunately, I don't think np's idea of "rock bottom" is the same as yours or mine. Though I could be wrong, of course.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Actually there were periodic revolutions in Europe every 300 years or so where tax serfs would rebel and kill the ruling class and get some rights recognized, which would gradually be eroded until the pattern repeated.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    "As a registered Libertarian since 1996..."

    That's four POTUS election cycles. Not too shabby.

    Try 1980. I knew Reagan couldn't make a serious go of his libertarianish rhetoric back then, not with the corrupt Nixonian-era GOP machine behind him, anyway. Reagan was the most convincing GOP pol to tempt Libertarians in my lifetime so far, and even he couldn't live up to the high expectations set by his campaign speeches. Romney is so far from this that I cannot imagine him moving us one inch close to liberty during an 8 year term. At best, we may slide toward the pit just a little bit more slowly than with Obama -- and even THAT isn't guaranteed. Remember what happened with G.W. Bush. Why should I care what Barron says, when he obviously has not bothered to learn the lessons of history (or doesn't care and hopes we won't notice)?

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    A big vote total for Johnson, regardless of whether Barry or Mitt wins in November, will do a lot more to advance the cause of liberty than the handful of anonymous votes cast for Romney by Root, Barron, and anyone else who listens to them. At the very least, Johnson is on the ballot: votes for him must be counted and reported, and a significant vote for him will be noticed. If it is large enough, without even getting CLOSE to a plurality, the two major parties will still soil their undies. The winner will be on notice that liberty has a solid constituency. Johnson will be empowered as a speaker for the liberty movement, and will be in an even better position for 2016, should he decide to run again. Of course, if enough people decide to go off the bipartisan reservation and vote for Johnson, he will, as he says, "be the next President of the United States." As desirable as that outcome may be, many good things can still happen without it, but only if people hold the courage of their convictions and vote for Johnson if they want him to be President.

  • DJK||

    What the fuck?!?! Seriously?!?! Washington, D.C. is absurdly dominated by Democratic Party voters. No matter where Root places his vote, the District and its 3 electoral votes are going to Obama. In a state where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, why bother voting unless it's to cast a protest vote for your favored candidate?

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    I am told by some libertarian I met on the street, who also worries about an Obama second term and Johnson "nadering" Romney, that DC somehow has pledged in its charter to always award its 3 Electoral votes to whomever wins the majority of the other votes in the country. I have not search engined this factoid myself, fact checkers!

  • Colleen McCool||

    It is ridiculous that our Founders philosophy is excluded from our polls and debates.

    A declaration is an affirmation. Independence means self-government. They could have called The Declaration of Independence, The Affirmation of Self-Government! Aha! The Founders were libertarian.

    Without the libertarian philosophy (Self-Government, freedom from big government tyranny and oppression) in these debates, the argument will remain how much the feds should spend regulate, rather than whether or not, they should cut spending, regulation and stop policing the world.

    People who are educated know their own power and don't surrender it to the lesser of two evils. They Stand for Peace Liberty.

    The Republocrats may as well be one party their differences are so minuscule. They deserve the bird because they have deserted the American Dream, self-government. Give them the two middle fingers bird of peace everywhere you see them and vote Johnson/Gray.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement