Devil's Dilemma

New at Reason: Brian Doherty would choose to lose the whole Granite State circus.

Comments

[JW]

From the Post article: "Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely."

Except, um, for rude people apparently.

[JW]

Posted to the wrong article, meant it to be in the Al Franken article. Note to self: learn to proofread...

[fyodor]

James Merritt,

If you follow that logic, the inclusion of Muskie could also be questioned, as his weaker than anticipated victory over McGovern set the stage for the former's collapse and the latter's overtaking him. I suppose your example and mine show that the context, margin and resulting psychology of a primary victory are as important as the absolute numbers. OTOH, I think Doherty's more recent examples appear to demonstrate that the value of doing well in NH has greatly diminished in recent years. Perhaps because of the eventual hollowness of dethroning Johnson and Muskie?

[Shadow Hunter]

"Oh why Oh why didn't I take the blue pill."

Just about any Libertarian voter.

[James Merritt]

Fyodor- I agree about what happened to Muskie, but the Johnson exit was a special case, even so. Johnson was embattled. There was already an extreme amount of pressure on him to leave office, partly because of the popular mood against the Vietnam War and the civil unrest thus inspired, and partly because many people saw a possible re-election of Johnson as dodging the intent (if not the letter) of the 22nd Amendment. So, rather than being the jumping off point for a campaign that latter sputtered to a halt, as was even the case for Muskie, New Hampshire was the make-or-break "last straw," and "the end of the road" for Johnson. In that respect, I think Muskie had more in common with the others on Doherty's list than with Johnson.

I have lately been reminded of Johnson's circumstances, by various postings I have read in blogs and on bulletin boards, which claim that war may save George Bush in November, as the US doesn't tend to "switch horses in mid-stream." Johnson's implosion, however, is the spectacular counter-example to that trend. I guess it all depends upon whether we see the horse as taking us in a direction we want to go; should another horse come along -- even mid-stream -- which is actually going our way, maybe we'll jump. I can only hope that the voters decide between now and November that the way of perpetual and pre-emptive war for perpetual peace is a bad road, and that we need a north-pointed horse to keep from going south.

Sadly, I don't see any among the curent major party contenders who know what the right path is. For instance, everyone seems to want to engage a little nanny statism here and there -- some want to wallow in it. But coming right down to it, if I'm going to be stuck with a nanny at home, I'd rather have one who didn't go abroad looking for fights.

Even better, we could fire the current nanny and go find that horse who has a good sense of direction. That might, however, require more people to vote Libertarian than have done so in the past several decades. But you never know...

[Andrew]

Oh great!

Reason runs another stupid anti-political editorial-- what a way to participate in the public policy discussion!

(Brian's upset because the primaries winnowed out a freak.)

The culture critiqe is dense. America in the new century is well on the way to putting an incredibly cheap cell-phone into the hands of every man, woman and child (even some pets). What does this do for our freedom? A lot!

Maybe the FBI could (in the abstract) peek into some of my e-mail...although they wouldn't want to, and I wouldn't care-- and that's supposed to be a big deal.

Yeah our freedom is shrinking all the time-- can't you FEEL it? Where's the tin-foil?

[Confused in Manchester]

Would someone at Reason please tell me why I should be concerned by the validity of this article? I do not have the time to form a coherent response for this post, so if Jean Bart, thoreau, or Steve (in Clearwater, not Colorado) would just tell me what to think, I can get on with my day. Thank you.

[some guy]

Gee, Confused, can I do your thinking for you, too?

[Still confused]

Sure, why not. But I have to say up front that i may change my mind if Kevin Carson says to.

[matt]

Andrew,

By nature, libertarians should be anti-political. After all few activities are more collectivest than party politics. (Maybe that's one reason the libertarian party has such problems).

Anyway, don't confuse technological progress with freedom. The growth of the state means less freedom in the form of higher taxes, more regulation, and increased foreign adventures (don't wanna start any war debates...just making a point). When you praise the fact that there will be "an incredibly cheap cell-phone into the hands of every man, woman and child," in the future its not because of the government but because of the free market. So feel free to hand me some tin foil....I'm running low.

[nobody]

Confused,

You forgot mak nas, Jennifer, Joe and dhex.

[Someone]

If you want some clear choices to be made for you, consult with RC Dean or Tom from Texas, they know their shit!

[dhex]

huh? what did i do?

[nobody]

With all the identity theft and body snatching going on here, you don't know who to trust for your surrogate-thinking needs. I'd say just read the magazine and use your own brain.

[matt]

I gotta say I agree with this. Increasingly, the U.S. is 'free' and 'democratic' (not to mention 'capitalist') the same way the Chinese are 'communist.'

[fyodor]

It's nice and fun and all to blame the politicians, but let us not forget that their platforms for controling people contribute to their getting the votes they need to implement this control. And so it's the attitudes of our fellow citizens we need to be as concerned about as the politicians they vote for.

[matt#2]

Good point fyodor. I bitch about politicians and government frequently, but I probably should reserve equal(if not greater) hostility for the collectivist and statist mentality that now seems to dominate America.

[fyodor]

matt#2,

Thanks for the props, but one more irritating thing to add onto that: it ain't even just America!! 🙁

[James Merritt]

I get Doherty's sarcasm, when he lists the "annointed" winners of the NH Primary from 1968 onward. I am puzzled, however, as to why he chose to include Johnson in the list, unless it was only to pad the statistics, in order to make the NH election appear as irrelevant as possible. For the most part, the others candidates kept campaigning after the NH primary until they could run no more, usually going as far as their respective party conventions, at least.

In Johnson's case, he dropped out in March, right after New Hampshire's primary, which he won, but by such a slim margin (for a sitting President) that it was actually seen as a political loss for him. Nobody who was paying attention to that election at the time would have described Johnson as riding away, "annointed," although the results of their respective New Hampshire primaries did, for a time, indeed boost the candidacies of the other gentlemen on Doherty's list.

In short, I would have left Johnson off the list, as an anomalous case. In the purely technical sense, yes, he was a New Hampshire "winner" who didn't take the prize in the subsequent convention, much less the general election. But all the others stumbled, after early, encouraging showings -- which seemed to be the point Doherty was trying to make. Johnson wisely withdrew after a relative drubbing in that earliest of electoral contests. So, if we were to play a game of "which of these things is not like the others," we would have to paraphrase the actual winner in 1968 and conclude, "Johnson's The One."