More on Richmond Times-Dispatch Endorsement of Libertarian Gary Johnson for President
The former New Mexico governor won't win in November but he does represent the future of policy.
Reason TVScott Shackford blogged The Richmond Times-Dispatch endorsement of Libertarian Gary Johnson for president. The major daily located in Virginia's capital argues that Johnson, a former two-term governor of New Mexico and a successful businessman, is "the most capable and ethical candidate running this year."
In a companion piece to its endorsement, the editorial board (which includes Reason contributor A. Barton Hinkle), discusses more of what they consider Johnson's selling points:
Our instincts had pointed us toward Johnson. His meeting with the editorial board removed all doubts. Our endorsement conveys enthusiasm. His person and his policies embody what either the Democrats or the Republicans ought to offer the electorate. The formal endorsement of Johnson appears on the front of the Commentary section. It cites specific reasons for our choice. The editorial above explains the endorsement in the context of the Creed, our annual recitation of our philosophical roots. In endorsing Johnson, we remain true to ourselves. Indeed, he and running mate William Weld are true to the ideals that have motivated us for many years. Johnson represents a future one of the major parties ought to adopt as its own. He appears immune to the social Darwinism that infects extreme Libertarians and misguided conservatives; he projects empathy. Trump's temperament is not first-class; there is no evidence of an intellect. Clinton's ethical lapses are disabling. Johnson enjoys a decisive edge.
It's worth lingering for a moment over the above paragraph for at least two reasons.
First is the observation that Johnson and his running mate, former two-term Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, are not "extreme Libertarians." Indeed, the ticket has taken a huge amount of abuse among longtime LP members and small "L" libertarians precisely for not being super-doctrinaire when it comes to ideological orthodoxy. Some of this is simply concern trolling (especially from conservative Republicans) and much of it is overstated (Johnson is, for instance, against carbon taxes and fully defends Second Amendment rights). But there's no question that Johnson and Weld depart from standard-issue libertarian positions on things such as anti-discrimination laws; the attention he pays to Black Lives Matter bothers not just conservatives but some true-blue libertarians as well who eschew invocations of race in almost any context. This sort of tension is widely misunderstood, I think. The issue isn't really whether the LP has run candidates who weren't perfectly in sync on issues (think former congressman Bob Barr in 2008). It's more that Johnson-Weld are truly credible and serious candidates. That shifts the party's identity and role from one of ideological outreach to actually being serious about winning and influencing elections. With that shift comes serious questions about the level of orthodoxy in candidates vs. their electability (something similar was at play in the recent Virginia campaigns by Robert Sarvis for governor and senator). It's not a small sort of growing pain, but given that Johnson is polling far, far better than any other presidential nominee in LP history, fighting over orthodoxy and specific candidates is a sign of success.
Then there's this: "Johnson represents a future one of the major parties ought to adopt as its own." I think this is not only true but likely. If the Libertarian Moment is in any sense taking place (and it is), major politicial parties of the near future will indeed be shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government. They will become "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," as Johnson says. That's driven less by ideological commitments and more by pragmatic concerns. The reality is that entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt are writing a check the future can't cash. We're already at a place where about 3/4 of federal spending is mandatory and yet both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are talking about spending even more money than we already do. Clinton would raise taxes, which has the benefit of not totally blowing out the debt levels even as it will help make economic growth that much more sluggish. Trump would simply give up on anything approaching fiscal sanity. But it's also true that Americans consistently say that we want a government that does less and spends less. It's easy to say that people always say that in the abstract, but as the deadlines for actual cuts in Medicare and Social Security benefits come into view, Johnson is the only candidate who is trying to have an adult conversation about the purposes and sustainability of safety nets. When it comes to social issues, formerly controversial topics ranging from gay marriage to pot legalization to abortion are losing their ability to whip voters in to frenzies. The future belongs to a party that says something like: We will do fewer things but do them competently; we will spend less of your money even as we help those truly in need; we will give individuals more choices in living their lives when it comes to education, marriage, and work; and we will be fair.
On Labor Day weekend, it looks less and less likely that Johnson will be in the presidential debates, which get started later this month. The candidate himself has said if he's not in the debates, it's "game over" for any chance to win the election. But that ultimately isn't the real measure of his—and the LP's—influence on 21st-century politics. Keep a copy of Johnson's platform tucked away somewhere. Over the coming years, we'll see most if not all of what he's proposing will be baseline assumptions for one or both major parties.
Matt Welch and I did a Facebook Live interview with Johnson at the Democratic National Covention in Philadelphia. Take a look now:
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.
-
Jesus Fucking Christ...
-
Somebody who knows the appropriate way to respond to SIV....
-
??? WHAHAHAPPA???
-
Yeah, where did the spambot go?
-
For my part, I expected something better than this out of Reason. I
understand that there are many things they have to
consider before they issue an opinion on
key matters and they must be somewhat circumspect in their pronouncements, but,
ye gads, surely they could have been
open to suggesting there might be some stronger language to
use in defending the
simple notion that
it is okay to cheer for
victory for even a modest libertarian. -
I know, right? He doesn't even support the wonderful Kelo decision. Hoot hoot hoot
-
He appears immune to the social Darwinism that infects extreme Libertarians and misguided conservatives
-
...as the deadlines for actual cuts in Medicare and Social Security benefits come into view, Johnson is the only candidate who is trying to have an adult conversation about the purposes and sustainability of safety nets.
And this November, when the candidate offering the bigger government wins, he'll be once again reminded that you don't do that.
-
I'd like to register my vehement opposition to the term "adult conversation"
-
adult conversation = "shut up", he explained.
-
"but he does represent the future of policy."
Gary Johnson is the future. No really.
I want the drugs you're on Gillespie, my stash has nothing on that.
-
"which includes Reason contributor A. Barton Hinkle"
Who, by the way, looks like A Barton Hinkle.
-
Indeed, the ticket has taken a huge amount of abuse among longtime LP members and small "L" libertarians precisely for not being super-doctrinaire when it comes to ideological orthodoxy. Some of this is simply concern trolling
Nick, your link on the words "concern trolling" should have been to one of the many, many freakout comments here in the comments section.
-
But… But… But I just don't know any moah!!! Shall I vote for the Hitler-Stalinist-Statist-Party candidate, or the Stalinist-Hitlerist-Statist-Party candidate, or… (Puts on industrial-strength noseclip)…
The Libertarian party's candidates, who are theologically not totally Libertarianishly Pure?!?!?
Agony and woe betides me….
-
And what's with the portrait orientation on that video?
-
One could posit that a libertarian moment is at hand because the two major parties nominated people of unparalleled negative ratings.
However, I would note that both parties use a popular elective process to nominate their candidates. Regardless of how much everyone wants to gnash their teeth, and irrespective of the amount of vitriol spewed forth in electronic ink condemning the two candidates, the truth remains that they were in fact elected by popular vote.... and fairly easily.
So I'm not sure there's any big sea change at hand for the major parties. Sure, team R blew and almost unloseable election by nominating a singularly unelectable candidate. But they blew an unloseable election with Romney as well. As the Democrats lost an unloseable election to Bush. Twice.
So I suspect that it just might be that "the people" are perfectly content with the Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche they have wrought.
-
Some of this is simply concern trolling (especially from conservative Republicans) and much of it is overstated (Johnson is, for instance, against carbon taxes and fully defends Second Amendment rights).
Only if you give Johnson the benefit of the doubt that you'd never give any Republican or Democrat, Nick. Because one day Johnson certainly said he would support a carbon tax. The next when, if my memory is correct, talking to Reason itself, he said he wouldn't. Which version of Johnson am I believe?
You want me to get off my ass and vote for a protest candidate who doesn't even represent libertarians.
-
It seems like the terms "Concern Trolling" and "Derangement Syndrome" have become convenient names to call 'any legitimate criticisms you don't have a good answer to'.
-
Assuming that he doesn't make the debates, then it is really up to Libertarians - not the candidate - to expand the voter base for future elections. LP has spent way too many elections putting too much faith in a candidate riding a white horse to come in and do the heavy lifting. It's not up to the candidate to 'educate voters' - and 'winning the election' via getting into the debates was always a long shot. Relying on some powerful Prez candidate to do everything is antithetical to what the LP purports to believe in.
The LP does a very good job getting ballot access - but never gets more actual votes than petition signatures for ballot access. And in most states a lot fewer. Its almost as if LP mobilizes to get petitions signed and then falls asleep. A newspaper endorsement is very good - but not many media will do that and bite the ad-dollars that feed them. LP can never get the big money to run big ads because bluntly there isn't much honest non-crony big money in this country. LP isn't even organized in most counties - so you can forget any GOTV/canvassing/grassroots work.
The best realistic option at this point is for those who have already decided to vote Libertarian to make that decision public to those small number of people who give a crap what you might think
-
The best realistic option at this point is for those who have already decided to vote Libertarian to make that decision public to those small number of people who give a crap what you might think
I've convinced a handful of, formerly R only, voters to vote Johnson this time around. I suspect it has more to do with Trump than principles, but they are actually doing the research and learning. I also don't think any of them would have given McAfee the time of day (given the murder investigation). Johnson is less a leap for them, so they are testing the waters.
-
Agreed.
I would also suggest that the LP should be reaching out to these people they collect signatures from to help in actually building the party at the state, and county level. Libertarians would have a much better opportunity getting their candidate elected to the Presidency in the future, if they were first able to build up strong state and local parties. Getting libertarians elected as city councilmen, mayors, state legislators, and then eventually Congressmen, Senators, and Governors is really our only shot to eventually affect the national level.
-
Johnson's candidacy is about saying wonderful things about minorities, drugs, gays, and other bullshit to appeal to millenials. He doesn't appear to give a fuck about free markets, freedom of association, low taxes, the 1st amendment, or the second.
Another words he's a democrat. If you can't stand up for the first two amendments and the economy then you're just a random POS politician IMO.
-
Johnson's candidacy is about saying wonderful things about minorities, drugs, gays,
That claim says more about you than it does about johnson.
If ever Johnson were to go into full lefty-millenial pander-mode, you'd think "The Young Turks" would provide the idea forumn. Instead, he mostly talks about the "Free markets, low taxes"-stuff you claim he's not-giving-fucks about.
There are legitimate criticisms of Johnson as being pretty weaksauce and flipfloppy on *ideas*. (e.g. he can't quite articulate what his messy concept of Freedom of Religion is and how it fits w/ freedom of association, but he makes attempts to pander to various angles of each at times; his gestures in the direction of climate change seem to suggest he wants to publically *care* about it... but when pressed, he again generally says that 'technology will deal with climate change'.)
Basically, nothing you just said is actually true. I don't like Johnson all that much, but i think if you're going to ding him, at least be accurate.
-
I'm listening to his radio adds. Sorry if you're feelings are hurt but it's the truth. Might as well run Shika. Whenever presented with an actual freedom question he defers to statism. When I ask wtf I should vote for someone who is shitty on the first amendment and second I get cuz gay marriage and pot. I think the Constitution is more important so I'm not wasting my time on him.
-
I'm very happy for you.
-
Clinton-proxy floats new-version of "Not Her Fault"
Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine on Sunday defended Hillary Clinton against criticism over her handling of classified information as secretary of state, saying she was unaware of the sensitivity of some information she exchanged over email because it had been "improperly labeled."
...
"We look at so much material, unless it is specifically pulled out and identified, it is difficult to know sometimes whether a statement or a paragraph is classified or not," he added.Aww, doing your job is hard?
Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526.... if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept ...she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. ... The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment.
-
Intellectual titan Thom Hartmann speaks with Gary Johnson supporter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLnQtvYUS7Q
And in a recent article:
What do the military and libertarians have in common?
Nothing.
In fact, the mentality of dog-eat-dog survival-of-the-richest Libertarianism stands in direct conflict with the fundamental idea of group sacrifice that defines service in the U.S. Military.
In Sebastian Junger's recent book "Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging", Junger draws on his experiences as a war reporter and the intense feeling of belonging that he's noticed that soldiers feel at the platoon level.
What he describes leads to the startling conclusion that PTSD might have less to do with the trauma that soldiers experience in the military and in combat, and more to do with trauma they experience coming back to an increasingly Libertarian (my phrase, not his), individualistic, civilian society. -
When Bowe Bergdahl abandoned his platoon, got captured, and arguably cost several soldiers their lives while they searched for him, commentators and politicians from both sides of the aisle joined together to call for his head.
No one pointed out that Bergdahl had simply fulfilled the Libertarian ideal of abandoning the protections and obligations of his tribe to pursue his own personal goals outside the fence of the platoon's outpost.
Banksters on Wall Street did the same thing in 2008 when they robbed the American people and cost the American economy as much as 14 trillion dollars, about 45,000 dollars per American citizen. -
Banksters on Wall Street did the same thing in 2008 when they robbed the American people and cost the American economy as much as 14 trillion dollars, about 45,000 dollars per American citizen.
Oil companies are doing the same thing right now by lying to the American people and refusing to take any meaningful climate action that might cost the industry a few bucks.
They put their corporate profits, executive pay, and shareholder dividends ahead of the well-being of the American economy and the well-being of future generations on this planet.
It's clear why this mentality is destructive in combat and why it needs to be punished, and it's safe to say that there are no practicing Libertarians in foxholes.
But we also must point out that the Libertarian greed of Wall Street Banksters and fossil fuel executives is guided by the same destructive Ayn Rand sociopathic philosophy of placing the individual above the tribe or community. -
Libertarianism is more widespread in the military than anywhere else. Amazing since the two are supposedly so contradictory.
In the case of Bergdahl, I don't suppose the word 'contract' and individual responsibility even came up in this strawman version of Darwinian libertarianism.
-
Meanwhile, the people who were in charge and in position to punish those "Wall Street Banksters" were good progressives who have held power for the last 8 years. Basically, this is one of those hit pieces that paints libertarianism as egoism and cronyism, and somehow blames it for everything despite the complete lack of libertarians in positions to wield institutional power.
-
Reading this shit is bad for you, you know. Memes self-replicate.
-
Derp is my passion and profession.
-
Do you protect yourself? Like, do you wear a respirator and carry a club?
-
-
Great getting to meet you in San Francisco the other night, BTW. Even with your SCUBA gear on.
-
Same here!
-
Smug alert, I like it! Drugs not smugs, I say! Actually, hugs, drugs, bugs, shrugs, thugs, ANYTHING, PLEASE, but just say NOOOOO to smugs!!!
-
"Banksters"
yeah, this is a mature intellect that people should take seriously.
there's a knee-jerk, anti-intellectual/anti-business theme that seems pervasive on both the left and right. Everyone seems to think that the Kulak-Corporations are secretly robbing everyone of their essence.
I've been used to hearing this kind of bullshit from dorm-room philosophers, and far-left hippies, uneducated bar-room conspiracy mongers, etc. But hearing it from otherwise-normal adults is ... depressing.
-
that is not to say the person quoted is an "otherwise normal adult". I'm just saying, i've heard this same sort of shit from others.
-
See Mark Twain's essay on corn pone opinions. People believe what they hear other people believe. What's depressing is that these sorts of brainstem opinions are common enough to be conventional. It's very Upton Sinclair. Depressing.
-
Hartmann: truly ignorant or sociopathically dishonest?
-
Yes
-
I'd like to note that Thom Hartmann, despite his lecturing, has done nothing to actually improve the wellbeing of 'the tribe' and has actually damaged its long term intellectual quality with his braindead arguments and nonsensical ad hominem. If he truly cares about the tribe he'll consume hemlock in order to improve it.
-
I read one of his books. It was about the end of oil and it was called "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" or some such. Anyway, he wrote a goofy save-the-earth screed about how jet planes are piercing the sky of Mother Earth like so many needles and the oil gushing out of her like blood from a wound herpy derpy derpity doo.
-
And why does every self-interested thing Hartmann has done not count as some horrible libertarian egotistical impulse? Hartmann's spent most of his life either scamming people with homeopathic medicine in a business setting or voicing his vapid opinions. He could have done military service, or worked for the programs he thinks improve the well-being of the poor, but no, he's spent his entire life focused on his own desires.
Putting Hartmann in a human hamster wheel to power a street sign is a better use of him than having him produce navel-gazing books.
-
Oklahoma Has Earthquake - Retards Blame Fracking
Its funny how the left will wave around the "Scientific Consensus" when they think its on their side, but then bury it when its not. (as in this case, or GMOs, or other things)
-
Specifically - i think its sort of ridiculous that Reuters will go to USGS for information on the earthquake itself, but refuse to note USGS own opinion that fracking has absolutely @#(*@()#$* nothing to do with Earthquakes.
The earthquake, which was only 4.1 miles (6.6 km) deep, could fuel concerns about the environmental impact of oil and gas drilling, which has been blamed for a massive spike in minor to moderate quakes in the region.
they just throw "has been blamed" out there, without noting who is doing the blaming, or whether they're absolutely crazy to believe that.
-
Sources say....
Some experts agree.....
-
A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated. This can enable the speaker to then deny the specific meaning if the statement is challenged.
-
They're just giving equal time, reporting what others are saying.
-
Regarding "science/reality/othergoodthing has a liberal bias":
My favorite Stossel moment was when he calculated the relative dangers of different things in terms of how much time it took off a person's life. It turns out that being poor does more to shorten people's lives than anything else. Therefore, the ultimate good is capitalism because it does the most to reduce poverty. His producers at ABC didn't want to hear that and he had to push hard to air the episode.
-
sorry = the original (non broken) link
USGS specially says that any seismic activity over 3 on the Richter scale can't be attributed to any human-activity.
Note the way the scumbags phrased their claim =
oil and gas drilling, which has been blamed for a massive spike in minor to moderate quakes in the region.
this one was a 5.6. which is three hundred and ninety eight times bigger than a 3.
This is just one of those cases where journalists are *willingly and openly* distorting 'science' in order to pump a narrative that is disproved by readily available headline-facts.
It happens so often that scientists complain to politicians about it.
-
Behold as the Iranians thwart a US amphibious landing with the power of flags and yodeling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5f2hRGUbv8 -
They seem to be referencing this, pretending that the main reason the US navy maintains a presence in the Gulf is to shoot down their passenger airliners, and not, you know, because Iran routinely threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz to any traffic, causing a huge disruption to global trade.
-
I suppose it's safe to say that SIV is not on that editorial board, and will be cancelling his subscription.
-
No one pointed out that Bergdahl had simply fulfilled the Libertarian ideal of abandoning the protections and obligations of his tribe to pursue his own personal goals outside the fence of the platoon's outpost.
Where/how the fuck do these people come up with this nonsense?
-
Apparently libertarians don't believe in the validity of contracts. Did you know that!? its true.
-
Banksters on Wall Street did the same thing in 2008 when they robbed the American people and cost the American economy as much as 14 trillion dollars, about 45,000 dollars per American citizen.
I wish somebody would provide a detailed explanation of the mechanics of this "robbery" for me. I'd appreciate it.
-
Among my myriad of vices I find myself absorbed in saffron obsession often and maybe most especially. Roll every tit jiggle, sun-roasted nut, Asian thighscape, blonde highlight, brunette mythical shoulder shrug slung under the eaves of velvet, leather fingers punching through the goddamn chains of motherfucking governments, and a simple field staggering under the glee of rainbows dappling phyto chats and vineyards of visions.
-
... and the voice of the gentle saffron will ensconce the highlights of even your most obtuse yearnings, companions.
