Listen to the Libertarians
Gary Johnson's refreshing perspective should be included in the presidential debates.
The matchup between Hillary Clinton, one of the most uptight politicians ever, and Donald Trump, a loose-lipped lunatic who revels in saying whatever pops into his head, promises some entertaining presidential debates. But Americans who would like to see a clash of ideas as well as a clash of styles should hope the Libertarian nominee, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, gets the poll numbers he needs to appear on the stage with Clinton and Trump.
Johnson, a triathlete and mountain climber who founded a successful construction business before getting into politics and recently left a job as CEO of a cannabis company, is highly disciplined yet easygoing in a way that neither Clinton nor Trump can pull off. More important, as he showed in a CNN town hall last week, he challenges voters to question their assumptions about which political positions go together.
Clinton wants to ban (at least some) guns but defends abortion rights, while Trump wants to ban abortion but defends gun rights. Johnson and his running mate, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, want the government to respect abortion rights and gun rights.
"When it comes to choices in your own life," Johnson says, "you should be able to make those choices as long as you're not doing harm to others." That includes, for example, someone who "takes the edge off" at the end of the day with marijuana rather than alcohol. And when drug use causes problems, Johnson says, those are "health issues…not criminal justice issues."
The Libertarians' aversion to government meddling does not stop at the border. "We don't want to get involved in other countries' affairs," Johnson says. "We think that the interventions that have gone on have resulted in a less safe world."
Weld says he and Johnson would be "a pair of skeptics when people come and say, 'We should intervene here on the ground because these people are being mean to each other, and we can't stand that.'" He says arguments for war that are untethered to national security are "not going to sell as a matter of first impressions."
Clinton, by contrast, seems never to have met a military intervention she did not like. And while Trump says "we can't continue to be the policeman of the world," he nevertheless wants to boost military spending, which Johnson wants to cut.
At the same time, Clinton and Trump both view peaceful international exchanges with a suspicion the Libertarians do not share, seeing trade as something to be managed and massaged in the interest of fairness. Although "much of what goes on under the guise of free trade really is crony capitalism," Johnson says, the genuine article is mutually beneficial by definition. Weld is confident that "free trade is always going to benefit the United States."
The Libertarians' idea of free trade includes labor. While Trump wants to build a wall on the border with Mexico and promises to forcibly eject 11 million unauthorized immigrants, Johnson supports a liberalized work visa system that would facilitate rather than hinder the hiring of people from other countries.
Johnson thinks the same market forces that make international trade a win-win proposition can be used to improve education and health care, two parts of the economy that are dominated by government subsidies and regulations. Recognizing the distorting influence of the monstrous and mystifying Internal Revenue Code, he supports replacing the income tax with a national consumption tax.
Although many of these positions sound familiar, the Libertarian ticket is unique in espousing all of them, based on a consistent commitment to limited government and individual freedom. Johnson describes his message as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal," while Weld says "we want the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom."
I'm not sure that's a winning combination, even in an election where the two major-party candidates are disliked by most voters. But it deserves a hearing.
© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trump is quoting Ron Paul when he says we can't be the "policeman of the world," and as you show, not sincere. Ron Paul, of course, was quoting Martin Luther King. Trump is not the only one who has been coached in mimicking Ron Paul in hopes of getting the same ardent support. It's just that when they try it we don't believe them. Dr. Paul reported that a number of people kept asking him how he inspired support (he said it wasn't him, it was the message), and those people have gone on to coach other politicians. I've even seen advertisors try to borrow the language. As soon as I hear a politician sound like Ron Paul, I question his sincerity. Ronald Reagan wasn't the only one with good speech-writers.
On the other hand, Gary Johnson actually has a record of balancing budgets, and vetoing bills that are too long and complicated, so there is hope.
If a Paul or an Amash or a Massie isn't on my ballot, I'm gonna write in Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson, like I have for the past 3 presidential elections.
GayJay is not up to those standards. Not even close.
With your standards it sounds like you'll never vote for a living person again. Johnson isn't perfect, but he's an order of magnitude better than anyone else who will be on the ballot. And if he has some success that will show other, even better, libertarian candidates that the country really is moving in that direction.
I'll vote for Gary Johnson. He's not nearly as libertarian as Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik, but he's miles ahead of Trump or Clinton, and he could well have a chance to win if people give him a chance. It's the same reason I voted for Ross Perot -- he was no libertarian, but he was by far the best choice that had any kind of a chance.
Johnson will not be included in the debates and that might be a good thing. His CNN performance was a disheveled mess and he seems to lack both charisma and the courage of his convictions. It was so bad it may have actually been counterproductive. He refuses to prep (if he actually did prep the guy who handled it should be fired) and he does a shabby job presenting himself and the libertarian philosophy and values. The two major party psychopaths would chew him up and spit him out like a stick of gum, a stammering and discombobulated stick of gum.
That is a good thing for libertarians. I don't want to be embarrassed by this guy. We don't have much to worry about, he's polling at 8%.
Johnson isn't a great debater, but just being on the stage with Trump and Clinton will legitimize him in the eyes of voters. He may not come across as presidential, but he's well qualified, and not crazy or phony like the Demopublican choices.
Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone... Workk for three to eight hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 5000-12000 dollars a month... Weekly payments...89p
SEE HERE====== http://www.wagemax30.com
Americans who would like to see a clash of ideas as well as a clash of styles
Hen's teeth.
hope the Libertarian nominee, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, gets the poll numbers he needs to appear on the stage with Clinton and Trump
He needs to up his debate game a lot if he wants to avoid being eaten alive by Trump and Clinton. And that may not be a metaphor.
He's never going to debate Clinton or Trump. So it won't happen.
You mean Clinton and Trump will never debate him. Big difference.
Yeah, getting from 10 percent to 15 percent is an insurmountable challenge when your opponents are hated and ridiculous.
He is not my kind of libertarian.
Absolutely. And Jill Stein as well.
I'd love to see a 4-way debate. It would be interesting to see how Trump and Clinton respond to being simultaneously attacked from the progressive left POV and the libertarian POV. Actually, I know exactly how they'll respond. They'll ignore the points that Johnson and Stein make. They'll attack Johnson and Stein as being "unserious" and "fringe". And then they'll repeat their frivolous talking-point rhetoric.
Yeah, but maybe that would help wake up some of the general public.
Oh, who am I kidding, we should all be ready to say "Hail Hydra".
I'm fine with Stein being included. A 1% debate threshold is fine for the primaries, why not the general election?
I fully agree. I don't agree with Everything Jill Stein says (68% according to isidewith; GayJay was 89%; the highest was Darryl Perry at 95%), but she too deserves to be included in the debates.
Screw the Dem/Rep duopoly.
*strolls into thread*
Hey guys, what's-
*scans comments, about-faces, briskly walks away*
Watch out for the screen door. It closes fast.
I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Learn More From This Site..
Go to the web========> http://www.Today70.com
Getting reason to mention the words "Constitution Party" or "Darrell Castle" is going to be as difficult as getting Margaret Dumont to use the word "penis."
Well said. Johnson is a bit of a lackluster libertarian, but he is still miles better than Hillary and Trump, and certainly deserves to be in the debates.
We should be hoping for the CPD to be abolished and for the League of Women Voters, or the networks, to take the debates back, and establish common sense inclusion criteria. If 1% is good enough in the primaries to exclude the whackos, 1% should be good enough in the general election. 11 candidates isn't too many in the primaries, but 3 is too many in the general?
We know that either Trump or Clinton will be the next president. The best we can hope for is to get the libertarian message out to the broadest number of people in a way that shows them that liberty is always the best route. Are Johnson/Weld the best guys for that job. Hell no. But they're what we have and as such I will support them. They are hands down winners on the issues compared to the competition. They're just not the best salesman.
We don't know that. No votes have been cast. Recent history shows that American voters are most likely to stay home on election day, and second most likely to elect a Republican or a Democrat, but Trump has never run against Clinton before. Anything can happen.
"When it comes to choices in your own life," Johnson says, "you should be able to make those choices as long as you're not doing harm to others.""
Abortion doesn't fit this. You are harming someone else. In fact taking their life.
Until the LAW (no you, me, or a physiology professor) decides when life starts . . . the woman carrying the "thing" should be able to make the call.
Johnson's perspective isn't "refreshing" . . . it's terrifying to big government zealots, and like particle physics to an ignorant electorate.
Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone... Work for three to eight hrs a daay and start getting paid in the range of 5000-12000 dollars a month... Weekly payments...56n
Find out more HERE----> http://www.successway70.
As far as I'm concerned, Gary Johnson forfeited his right to call himself a Libertarian when he endorsed keeping drugs other than marijuana illegal.
my co-worker's step-aunt makes $68 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $16869 just working on the internet for a few hours. Learn More Here ....
http://www.Profit80.com
before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here .....
Please click the link below
==========
http://www.selfcash10.com
before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here .....
Please click the link below
==========
http://www.selfcash10.com
before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that...my... brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here ...
Clik This Link inYour Browser??
? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com
If you're looking for someone who can't articulate his own message, whatever that may be, he's your man. And you calling someone an asshole without a sense of irony? That's rich.
For some reason I find that 59 percent you so obsessively quote to be just a tad suspect.
So he's not a big enough asshole for the anti-gummint libertarians
I'm fine with a moderate libertarian approach as a way to expand the message. But he really, really needs to practice his deliver and stage presence, and he needs to have better answers to obvious questions prepared. Debates are more about style than substance, and his style was not good on CNN. And as a result, it hurt the substance of his arguments.
Honestly for me, it's really just his delivery. No candidate is going to be perfect, but he's the most libertarian one by a country mile.
Don't forget that the libertarians brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians
There's no way anyone could possibly forget it when you post it in every stinking thread.
Don't feed the trolls. Block the trolls.
In all fairness, I have big problems with the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" = "libertarian" assumption.
Bloomberg was (at least for a NY city mayor) fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Hardly a libertarian.
Some people think fiscally conservative means that the govt shouldn't spend more than it takes in. But while that is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient. As long as taxes are keeping pace with spending, they are ok with that. Nothing about what whole things should the govt be spending money on.
And socially liberal is a joke. Gun control is a socially liberal position. Funding Head Start programs is socially liberal. Giving minority applicants preferential treatment is a socially liberal position. Abortion on demand at 36 weeks is a socially liberal position. Kelo was decided by SCOTUS "liberals".
Unlike Hihn, most of us here don't care what libertarians thought of themselves ten years ago, let alone post obsessively about it.
he really did stumble horribly on what was probably the most predictable question.
Couldn't agree more. Johnson even stumbled on answering the question about what specific libertarian actions he took as Governor. A question which Bill Weld handled with relative ease despite the fact that he's considered "less libertarian" than Johnson. Johnson should've knocked that question out of the park.
What he should of said: "I issued over 700 vetoes to bills from the legislature that would've either increased state spending, made government more intrusive, or done nothing to benefit the tax payers of New Mexico beyond making a few politicians look good. I fully intend to bring that same defense against fiscal insanity and government intrusion to Washington."
Concise and clear while connecting back to his message of being "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."
As you said being impure is not the issue. Being unable to present a clear and concise strong message is the issue, and the only way he can do that is by actually doing some "preparation" before he makes these sort of appearances.
Also while the chemistry between Johnson and Weld was great, there were several times where Johnson appeared to be using Weld as crutch. The American people want a leader who looks strong and ready. Johnson was definitely not giving off a "strong and ready" image in this town hall.
Is this one of the libertarians we're supposed to listen to?
I'll pass.
The very phrase that put a smile on my face while reading this article. This is exactly how it needs to be framed.
People realize that those with a bad drug habit have problems. Those aren't the kinds of problems that can be solved inside of a jail cell, and indeed the jail cell may exacerbate the issue. What public good does society get by turning an otherwise law-abiding citizen into a felon and forcing them to tick the box on job applications forever, limiting what they're allowed to do? What good is there in taking the guy who was working a job and had little to no disposable income because it all went to his habit, throwing him in jail, and costing him his job and the respect of his community? What good is there in propping up a drug war that fills the pockets of criminal enterprise with cash?
Finally, what good is there in propping up police departments that are much bigger than otherwise needed in order to respond to the drug war? If we want to see a reduction in police brutality cases, end the drug war. Police departments will naturally lose a massive revenue stream and have to cut back. They'll cut problem officers first. People carry cash again without fear of its theft by "civil forfeiture." No more SWAT teams that kick down your door at 5AM, murder the family dog in front of your children, and murder you because they came to the wrong address.
This is insanity. It is a public health problem that the government creates a crime problem from.
Hi. Can you explain why a consumption tax is preferable to an income tax?
Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $95 dollar per hour.
I work through this Website. Go here____________ http://www.earnmore9.com
Yes there was: "CUOMO: Molly Smith, student at NYU, hasn't decided who she's going to vote for yet, has a question.
QUESTION: Hi. Similarly to Donald Trump's recent identification as a Republican, you both have only recently formally identified yourselves as Libertarian. Can you tell us what you have done specifically while you've been in office that has been consistent with Libertarian ideals?
JOHNSON: I'd like to think that it was everything in office. You know, being fiscally conservative, over the top, and always standing up for choice, always coming down on the side of choice.
QUESTION: Can you be more specific?"
From your link.
An irrelevant fact from a decade ago cannot piss me off. That would necessarily suggest that I consider the fact more than irrelevant, which, as I implied in the previous sentence, I do not.
What makes you think there's something I don't understand? That's the kind of question I'd expect from a fuckwit. Or John.
"WELD: In office, in my case, even though I was then a Republican and not a Libertarian, I cut the state budget 14 percent my first two months in office. I was voted the most fiscally conservative governor in the United States by the Wall Street Journal in 1992...."
To be fair, Johnson eventually did bring up his vetoes: "I may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined"
This should've been the very first thing out of his mouth in response to that question instead of, "I like to think it was everything office." His inability to be clear and concise showed his lack of preparation.
The abject failure and horrific consequences of the WOD should be sufficient reasons to end it. I was very disappointed with Johnsons answer to CNN's "anguished mother" in the townhall. It's such an easy argument to make but he was unable to make it. Instead he just did what every politician does and caved. Oh I wasn't talking about the drug YOU'RE against.
"Also while the chemistry between Johnson and Weld was great, there were several times where Johnson appeared to be using Weld as crutch. "
i completely agree. it was odd to see the guy i mostly wanted, being so reliant on the guy i did not.
Thomas Jefferson was our first (and last) libertarian president. He eliminated all internal taxes and balanced the budget. Reagan took the national debt over one trillion dollars with a huge military buildup.
decriminalization isn't sufficient, it has to be legalization. decriminalization still leads the means of production in criminal hands.
I fucked up? Somehow? Good grief, you're even more retarded than everyone else here gives you credit for. But I guess that's what one should expect from a political ideologue, clearly you are the only smart/sane one in a room full of idiots.
It could turn into a nuanced and lengthy argument and there's a lot of other ground to cover too. That kind of thing is best left to long-form articles in the press or a televised debate where the candidate is allowed time to make such a point free from interjections like that of Mrs. "anguished mother", who won't be swayed anyway.
We need to unite behind the idea of moderation of what we can actually accomplish if we get our guy in. Too many have the principle that the good isn't close enough to the perfect. We fall on our swords for that principle and let the duopoly have their way. It's cat herding that needs to be done if we're ever to be taken seriously.
It is not a betrayal of your principles and your convictions to take small, measured steps to achieve them. We need to think like demolitionists. Start with little parts of the edifice that are most demonstrably bad, drill the columns and put in small amounts of explosives. Get people to safety so that they aren't trapped in the rubble of bad government falling around them and have a reconstruction plan for something that works ready. Do that successfully for long enough and we may live to see bigger parts brought down. Get the public to cheer at each press the button. Freedom surely does work, but bureaucracy and strangling red tape is all that anyone alive today has ever known. If we want to work within the system, we need to prove the case for liberty, and it's going to be a tough row to hoe.
Weld would have been a much better general election independent presidential candidate than Johnson. But he would never have won the LP nomination on his own.
"That's two dishonest quotes. Will you go for three?"
Except he started off with: " I'd like to think that it was everything in office. You know, being fiscally conservative, over the top, and always standing up for choice, always coming down on the side of choice."
So I'm not sure how this is dishonest. You're just being sort of a dick here.
she asked him what he specifically did while in office. In the quote your referencing
"Well, I maybe was more outspoken than any governor in the country regarding school choice..."
While he certainly advocated for it he was unable to get it passed: http://reason.com/blog/2016/06.....-johnson-w
"Ultimately, Johnson was unsuccessful. There are still no private school choice programs in New Mexico to this day."
I'm not sure how citing a failed attempt at passing policy is better than citing his successful block of over 700 pieces of bad legislation. One makes him look weak the other makes him look strong. Certainly his "successes" should be the first thing out of his mouth not "everything I did in officer" or policy he didn't get passed the legislature.
I would argue that vetoing bad legislation which would've increased spending or made the government more intrusive has wide appeal beyond just the "2%" you cite.
Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
*facepalm*
You're even more retarded than I gave you credit for.
Jesus, you're moronic.
Free market.
wealthy folks consume a tiny part of their income
Wealth and income are not the same thing.