Gary Johnson

Path Cleared for Still-Undecided Gary Johnson's Potentially Historic Senate Bid

Aubrey Dunn, the highest-ranking Libertarian elected official in the country, drops out of the New Mexico Senate race to make way for a two-time governor/presidential candidate who five months ago said he was "done with elected political office."


It's happening! ||| Matt Welch
Matt Welch

New Mexico State Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn, the first-ever Libertarian to hold statewide office in a position determined by partisan election, has officially announced his anticipated withdrawal from the U.S. Senate race in New Mexico, clearing the path for two-time former governor and presidential third-place finisher Gary Johnson.

"He seems sincerely grateful that I'm offering him this opportunity. I believe he'll accept it," Dunn tells Reason. "With Gary taking this race over, I think this is the best thing that could happen to the Libertarian Party of New Mexico. I think that it's going to cause an unbelievable shift in the way that people look at the Libertarian Party."

Johnson, who received 9.3 percent and 3.6 percent of the presidential vote in New Mexico in 2016 and 2012, respectively (both results constituting 50-state highs, tripling his nationwide percentages), is still just "strongly considering" a run, even with the general election only three months away.

"He's not going into the race unless he thinks he can win," two-time Johnson campaign manager Ron Nielson has been telling reporters. (A year ago, Nielson's line was that there's "no doubt that Gary would be a fantastic senator. He would do an amazing job and be great at that task.")

Until very recently, Johnson was adamant about never running for office again after the miserable last two months of the 2016 presidential campaign, during which he was battered by negative advertising from Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer, hobbled by his own serial verbal gaffes, and blindsided by Hillary Clinton–burnishing statements from his own running mate.

When I asked the L.P. presidential candidate on Election Day 2016 whether we'd ever see a Johnson-for-Senate campaign, his answer was an emphatic and repeated "No!" When Nick Gillespie asked him just five months ago whether he was considering getting back into the political fray, the conversation went like this:

Johnson: No. No.

Gillespie: Absolutely not?

Johnson: No. I'm done. I'm done with elected political office.

So what changed? Polling. In late June, amid the New Mexico L.P. bungling its way through getting candidates qualified for the November election despite the party's freshly minted ballot access, Dunn, who had switched from Republican to Libertarian in January and announced his Senate bid 10 days later, decided to compare his name with Johnson's in a three-way poll against Democratic incumbent Martin Heinrich and Republican nominee Mick Rich.

"His poll numbers were three to four times better than what mine were," Dunn recalled. "He was in the high twenties, and I was in the sevens….It was pretty evident that if Gary were to take on this opportunity…he has a real chance to win."

Dunn's pollster was none other than Ron Nielson. One thing led to another—including this awkward video interview Nielson conducted with his old pal two weeks later at FreedomFest—and now the L.P. has arguably its most promising senatorial candidate in its 47-year history.

But that doesn't mean it will be easy, even if Johnson were as enthusiastic about campaigning as he is about participating in absurdly strenuous cycling competitions. The Senate race in this solidly blue state had been universally forecast until now as "Safe D." Registered Democrats in New Mexico outnumber Republicans, unaffiliateds and Libertarians by a ratio of 46 to 28 to 24 to 1. Combine that with anti–Donald Trump animus in a midterm year, and the path looks rockier than the Continental Divide.

Unless, that is, the Republican drops out.

Mick Rich, an entrepreneur turned political novice described by Santa Few New Mexican columnist Milan Simonich as a "tomato can" (Simonich argued that the GOP instead "should have sweet-talked former Gov. Gary Johnson into leaving the Siberia of the Libertarian Party to become a Republican again"), was already in pretty miserable shape before the Johnson chatter began. As of mid-May, Rich trailed Heinrich in available campaign funds, $166,000 to $3.993 million, with Dunn limping along at $7,000. A Johnson entry, speculated NM Politico's Dax Contreras Sunday, would make it "practically impossible for Mick Rich to pull off an upset."

The Rich campaign as of Sunday evening had not been quoted on the record about the Libertarian Party intrigue. (I've got a phone call in.) The New Mexican has reported without further detail that "Rich's campaign said the Albuquerque contractor is not dropping out."

Dunn for one is bullish on Johnson's chances even in a three-way race. "I think he has an opportunity to win whether the Republican stays in or out," he said. "He wins either way….One thing with Gary in the race—it's going to dry up any of the Republicans' ability to raise any funds."

There is some softness to the incumbent's obvious advantages. Heinrich, then a congressman, won his first Senate race by just six percentage points in 2012, a year Barack Obama won the state by 10. He has not exactly been cutting a broad swath since—a full 25 percent of New Mexico voters have no opinion of their junior senator, according to Morning Consult's latest data, and among the rest he has a modest 43 percent–32 percent favorable-unfavorable advantage.

Mmmmm…numbers. ||| Smart Politics
Smart Politics

A Johnson win, however far-fetched, would reshape the long-term trajectory of the Libertarian Party, and perhaps some short-term fortunes on Capitol Hill as well. Republicans now essentially control the Senate 51-49 (two of the Senators who caucus with Democrats are independents), and though there have been some indications that 2018 will be a "wave" election for Team Blue, the Senate math is brutal: As Wikipedia succinctly states, "Democrats are defending ten seats in states won by Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, while Republicans are only defending one seat in a state won by Hillary Clinton in 2016."

Though state polling data of even contested Senate races can be shockingly sparse, and polls for the World's Greatest Deliberative Body are more error-prone than presidential surveys, the very preliminary consensus among forecasters is that Democrats have maybe a one in three chance of wresting control back from Republicans. Replace safe-D Heinrich with Libertarian Johnson, and those odds take a serious tumble.

If Democrats were to take a 50-49-1 post-election advantage, they'd still need to woo the Libertarian on party-line votes in order to avoid a tiebreaker from Vice President Mike Pence. Given that Johnson leans closer to Trump than Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) on regulation, domestic taxes, and the more dovish aspects of the administration's foreign policy, that swing vote would no doubt prove to be an irritant, despite Johnson's more copacetic views on immigration, criminal justice, and social issues.

For the L.P., having a first elected federal official would be a watershed event, replacing overnight nearly five decades of conjecture with the concrete. Elected Libertarians such as Nebraska State Sen. Laura Ebke (a party-switcher) and Calimesa Mayor and Riverside County Board of Supervisors candidate Jeff Hewitt (technically a nonpartisan, though his affiliation is nobody's secret) are already demonstrating that Libertarians as legislative swing voters can accomplish real policy victories on the state and local level. A federal Leviathan run by a mercantilist who is bringing back the bad old days of $1 trillion annual deficits is more than ripe for libertarian-flavored reform.

Until now, the best performance among the more than 330 Libertarian Senate candidates since 1976 has been Alaska's Joe Miller, who finished second in a four-way race with 29 percent of the vote in 2016. Miller, a former Tea Party Republican, endorsed Donald Trump instead of Gary Johnson that year; also, Libertarian vice-presidential nominee Bill Weld endorsed Miller's victorious opponent, incumbent Lisa Murkowski.

The next-best L.P. Senate performances, according to a very useful Smart Politics article and chart by Eric Ostermeier, were Michael Cloud's 18.4 percent in Massachusetts (2002), Steve Osborn's 12.6 percent in Indiana (2006), and Carla Howell's 11.9 percent in Massachusetts (2000). No other Libertarian has cracked double digits.

But breaking the previous L.P. record for a Senate race while still finishing second would represent a net loss in the party's number of elected officials. That's because Aubrey Dunn will no longer be state land commissioner of New Mexico in 2019, and the chances of L.P. nominee Michael Lucero beating Republican Patrick Lyons for the office are remote indeed. "We polled [the race] a year ago," says Dunn, who has been engaged in a series of political skirmishes with the GOP, "and I didn't poll well."

NEXT: Legislators Say Sheriff Who Declined to Arrest Michael Drejka for Killing Markeis McGlockton Is Misrepresenting Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' Law

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Junkies gotta fix, politicians gotta run.

  2. I think that it’s going to cause an unbelievable shift in the way that people look at the Libertarian Party.

    I think you might be too optimistic about the nature of that perception shift, Mr Dunn.

  3. Question: Can Bill Weld get any more garbage-y?

    Answer: “Libertarian vice-presidential nominee Bill Weld endorsed….incumbent Lisa Murkowski.”

    1. And she’s one of the WORST GOP senators in office too! She has scuttled several decent things Trump was trying to get done. Weld is so worthless.

    2. Yes, he is a phony. Make him go away.

  4. Why does Reason insist on showing Johnson and Weld pictured together?

    Its like Reason really is anti-Libertarian. Since Weld hates Libertarianism and he is shown to be buddies with GJ, it reflects poorly on GJ’s Libertarian qualities.

    1. Far better to show a picture of Trump, since all the GJ haters revolted and pulled the lever for True(tim) Libertarian DT.

      1. Not every Gay Jay hater voted for Trump. Some people thought his “religious liberty is a black hole” was indistinguishable and just as disqualifying as Trump’s proposed “Muslim ban”. Others just wanted to focus on his milquetoast record of kinda sorta producing balanced budgets in New Mexico.

        1. I will forever argue that Gary and Weld were by far the only logical and ethical option in the 2016 election, and it wasn’t even close.

          1. I would strenuously disagree with that contention. But, to each his own. You got a tough climb ahead of you trying to repackage Bill Weld, though.

            1. I’m not trying to repackage him, and I absolutely wish somebody else won at the convention, but I’m talking about the general election, and they 100% would have been better than the other three options.

              1. To each his own. The 2016 election might have been a good example of why “not voting” is the best choice. But, I don’t fault people for who they voted for or what policies they prioritize over others

              2. Not likely. Johnson would, today, be getting his ass handed to him on a daily basis by the mainstream politicians of both parties in Congress. He doesn’t have Trump’s tenacious, bulldog confrontationalism. It would look like a fight between a bunny and a steamroller.

                1. He doesn’t have Trump’s tenacious, bulldog confrontationalism

                  Translation: Gary’s not an authoritarian, lying psycho.

            2. Still trying to figure out why Weld has taken an interest in the LP. He’s a 1990s moderate/liberal Republican who said he considered himself a “libertarian” because he did not support the Massachusetts mandatory seat belt law at the time. Otherwise, he was very pro-Law and Order/Drug War and signed every huge budget handed to him by the state legislature.

              1. Weld wants to help destroy the LP.

                As a political creature, Weld, can see the winds blowing his Democratic Party house down. He needs to find a new home.

              2. Still trying to figure out why Weld has taken an interest in the LP. He’s a 1990s moderate/liberal Republican

                In the 90s, he was already supporting gay marriage.
                But it is true that the GOP’s libertarian wing has been destroyed by the “Moral Majority,” as predicted by Goldwater and opposed by Reagan.

            3. Comparing GayJay to Trump and Hillary, yes, GayJay is just the better human being.

              Comparing GayJay to what a libertarian is supposed to be, well, he fell a bit short.

              1. How does he fall short?
                Why do you people call him Gay Jay?

                1. When Ron Paul isn’t even close?

          2. I voted for Gay Jay because he was running Libertarian and I had no idea that Trump could have gotten more Libertarian-ish stuff done than GJ.

            Unless an actual Libertarian is running for President in 2020, I am voting for Trump.

          3. I agree completely. I probably wasn’t going to vote republican or democrat anyways once Rand was out of the race, but there was no way I was going to vote for Clump.

    2. Why does Reason insist on showing Johnson and Weld pictured together?

      They were on the same ticket.

      I’ts like Reason really is anti-Libertarian

      How would you know?
      Your ignorance of libertarianism is always astounding.. One of the most blatant examples is also on this page.

      For one thing, we NEVER share your raging tribal bigotry for “the left,” have always opposed both the left and the right. And we don’t share your “entitlement” to suck at the government teat.

      You can try to infiltrate is with your Trump pimping, as so many others have tried.

  5. Johnson/Weld got the highest vote total ever for the Libertarian Party.

    Which is why we CANNOT ever have candidates like this again! Aargh! Imagine how horrible it would be if an LP candidate actually won! It would be a nightmare. Which is why we need to stick to either purist candidates or absolute whackjobs. We’re a debating club dammit, not a political party!

    1. If libertarians were nominated, I bet people would vote for them.

      1. I don’t. This is why ppl vote for Rs and Ds. The want more more more.

        1. As Just Say’n mentioned too, the LP are not always Libertarians.

          Why let a Democrat win, who you can be sure holds positions opposite that of Libertarianism?

          1. While I agree that Democrats are somewhat more evil than the Republicans, no libertarian would ever get the R’s nomination.

            Look at how Rand Paul gets ridiculed by the base.

            As far as the LP goes, unless they re-package themselves I’m not sure if they’ll ever be taken seriously.

            1. Regarding Rand Paul. I don’t listen to NPR much and only read the Washington Post, LA times, etc.. articles that google puts on my phone, but it seems like every left of center outlet refers to Rand Paul as ‘conservative’, ‘ultra-conservative’, or ‘far-right-wing’.

              He isn’t the libertarian candidate I want, but he is also none of those labels. Rand Paul is getting seriously mislabeled, and I believe it hurts him and libertarianism in general. Which is probably why they do it.

              Republicans have been neutralized as a threat to statists. Libertarians are our only hope…

              1. but it seems like every left of center outlet refers to Rand Paul as ‘conservative’, ‘ultra-conservative’, or ‘far-right-wing’.

                They are correct, like his father,

                Rand’s prez campaign made a major blunder, revealing the fraud of “the liberty coalition.” It was … terrifying.

                He got a standing ovation at Berkeley, on non-intervention. Less than a week later, he called for nationwide “tent revivals” to protest the severe threat of .. marriage equality!

                Anyone who tries to build a coalition of extreme social conservatives and Berkeley liberals ….

                Rand MUST now suck up to Trump,. because his coalition is dominated by the alt-right, like Ron’s. Hs dad’s wacko view of the Constitution is straight out of the KKK and southern racists … who originally promoted states rights as (phony) federalism.

                Ron Paul is the intellectual base of the alt-right.
                So is Rand, but a different flavor.

      2. I’m not saying Johnson and Weld were by any means an ideal ticket from any perspective, electoral or otherwise, but that’s a pretty dubious assertion. Even more so when you consider the actual alternatives available to the LP.

    2. Imagine if the Libertarian Party won a major election with a lukewarm libertarianish democrat and a lifelong political operative who endorses the worst of the opposition parties’ policies.

      Why it’d almost make electing them pointless.

  6. As long as no one asks him about Syria he should do fine.

  7. Gary is still undecided about what he would do about Aleppo?

    1. In Gary’s defense, that was the weakest argument against the man. He can’t bomb a place that he doesn’t know about.

      1. GJ only really mistake was the forcing bakers to bake cakes thing.

        A presidential candidate should know stuff about newsworthy places but everyone has a gaffe.

        Forcing bakers to bakes cakes was 100% anti-Libertarian.

        1. that and picking Weld as a running mate.

          Johnson is a frickin anarchocapitalist next to Weld.

  8. Has he found Aleppo yet?

  9. When Libertarians run in dem districts, most voters think of Somalia or the Koch bros. When Libertarians run in republican districts, most voters think of heroin and Mexican butt sex. So there are few truly non-partisan places Ls can run successfully.

  10. He is such a joke. I don’t know if I would vote for him even if it were my state. I supported him as best I could in the presidential election but by the time it came to vote I was just embarrassed to support him.

  11. You can be “done” with elected office and still run, amirite?

  12. Path Cleared for Still-Undecided Gary Johnson’s Potentially Historic Senate Bid


  13. Gary Johnson: Catch the Ambivalence!

  14. I have a lot of respect for Aubrey Dunn here too. According to the Albuquerque Journal, he now has a chance in his remaining term to demonstrate how L’s are different from R’s when it comes to cronyism.

    Better to actually accomplish something IN office than just to stake claims for a ‘bigger’ office.

    The combo of what he can do and what Gary Johnson can do this year could really provide the NM LP with both a future bench and a real message.

  15. He’d be a shoe in for the foreign relations committee!

    In all seriousness, I think I like this. He’s goofy and not a good campaigner, but I think he could be a decent senator, and would probably do better in a senate race than a national election like President.

  16. Matt may have missed one of the biggest factors, In statewide races, solid Libertarians draw heavily from Democrats. Depending on the candidate, more votes from Democrats than Republicans. Especially in blue states. When I ran the LP in Washington State, we routinely drew more from Democratas. WA has an above-average percentage of left-libertarians, which is not Gary. But as a “Nolan” libertarian he should pull well from Dems, which he obviously did as Governor.

    Gary would know all this,

    1. I wonder why that is. Very few Democrats have anything of substance in common with libertarians.

      What exactly is a left-libertarian? The type of joker that thinks that Bernie is a libertarian of sorts? lol

      1. Since you asked, allow me to correct your confusion. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 50 years now, Over 60% of Americans self-describe that way.

        Umm, social issues include things like marriage equality and drug legalization, stuff like that.

        Bernie is not fiscally conservative. lol
        Likewise, no right-libertarian thinks Mike Pence is a libertarian of sorts. roflmao

        Very few libertarians still in the GOP also, as shown by the disappearance of its libertarian wing. Goldwater correctly predicted the Moral Majority was a severe threat to his party, and said that good Christians should give Jerry Falwell a kick in the ass, while defending gays in the military … 40 years ago.

        He and Reagan were defending gays in the 1970s, a quarter century before Clinton shamelessly signed DOMA and DADT, and nearly 40 years before Obama evolved.

        Reagan, in the late 70s, was instrumental in defeating an initiative to ban gay school teachers, It was winning in the polls until he came out for it, strongly. It lost in a landslide. My favorite line was RIDICULE. Gay teachers are no threat to our children because homosexuality is not communicable, like measles. KAPOW

        That was the first loss for the nationwide, anti-gay, Anita Bryant Crusade, which then collapsed, brought down by Reagan, Goldwater and the then-emerging libertarian wing of the GOP.

        Thanks for asking.

  17. No such thing as a Left-Libertarian. Just like there are no right-Libertarians.

    If you are a socialist, then say socialist. There are no left-socialists.

    If you are an anarchist, then say anarchist.

    Being Libertarian means you support very specific things and the biggest room for wiggle room is how little to spend on the small and limited government. Most things Libertarians just leave up to the free market and individual choice.

    1. And the fact that most libertarians would say you aren’t libertarian says what about your views, exactly?

    2. Just for you, LC, because I know it will blow your mind:

      1. Ultimately the adjectives “libertarian” and “authoritarian” have been misused very prominently in recent years, to varying degrees of ridiculousness. As for the “socialist-libertarian” and related oxymorons, I tend to see it more as communities working together voluntarily on their own terms, whatever you call it. There’s a distinction without a difference. It’s the voluntary part that’s important. Whether the government is central, or regional, participation in single-payer services and schemes should still be entirely voluntary for me to consider that system libertarian. People working together is good. Pooling resources and cooperating is often a great idea, as long as it’s not coerced. There’s nothing wrong with a commune deciding to live as a self-contained socialist unit, and individuals choosing to opt in, but this doesn’t seem to occur to many critics of libertarian ideas. Lots of people voluntarily go to live and work in a commune and communes can work very well, because people do it voluntarily. Have I said voluntarily enough? Sorry I have rambled on with this. Chemjeff I can’t remember if you’re one of the posters who is crazy vitriolic and ascerbic in responses but perhaps not and I hope some of that made sense.

        1. Exactly. Libertarianism is volunteerism with small and limited government for things like national defense, courts, and roads.

          Libertarianism is very closely aligned with classical liberalism. In fact, Libertarians would probably still call themselves Liberals or lazee faire capitalists if it werent for socialist progressives hijacking ‘liberal’.

      2. Without even looking at your link, libertarians cannot be socialists. Socialism violates basic fundamentals of Libertarianism. No free market under socialism.

        1. (lol) You should have checked the link, and avoided looking so foolish. What you’ve said is that libertarians would somehow forbid voluntary communes — which is more common on your authoritarian right.

          Socialism need not be state socialism. It can be voluntary. It’s amusing that you never heard of the Israeli kibbutz, the Oneida Community and hundreds of religious communes for several centuries now.

          Hippie communes?
          They were defended by even Ayn Rand, who said their only mistake was to assume they had to become farmers.

          it’s not common, but there are several hundred businesses organized communally. Showtime did a special on one, a business that makes corporate videos. Not much difference between their business being jointly owned, and also their housing, eh?

          It seems your raging hatred and bigotry for “lefties” includes the right-wing hysteria of the authoritarian right.

          You are also clueless on core principles of libertarianism. NOTHING chosen voluntarily can be forbidden … by anyone.

          Your amusing attempts to infiltrate libertarianism is remindful of how the authoritarian left (state communism) infiltrated the Democrat Party in the 1940 and 50s.

          NOW go read chemjeff’s link!

      3. Unnn, chemjeff, fine, but don’y imply that left-libertarians are the same as libertarian socialists. As your own link says, lib-socialists “overlap with left-libertarianism.”

        It also helps to clarify that socialism need not be state socialism. Even Ayn Rand defended voluntary communes.

    3. Yes there is LC.

      One can have core libertarian beliefs, but weigh some things differently than others. For example I’m classified as a right-libertarian because economic freedom and gun rights are much more important to me than gay rights and marijuana.

      1. If you are against people ingesting whatever they want the you are not a Libertarian. Who cares what you weigh more over what. Which is why there are no left or right Libertarians.

        Gun rights are extensions of self defense which is a natural right. There is zero good reason for a government to regulate Arms as arms are products too and govenrment should never be able to ban products or services. Thats free market. Everything is tradable.

        1. Which is why there are no left or right Libertarians.

          Your ignorance of libertarianism is always astounding, You TOTALLY missed what he said, but you HATE anything liberal or “lefty”

          Libertarians COME FROM both the left and the right.. Most retain their passion for economic or social issues, but defend the full spectrum. Passive support is support. That’s what right- and left-libertarians are. Very few, maybe 10-15% are passionate on both fiscal and social issues … which is no different than independents who still “lean” toward the party the came from, so is nearly universal among the electorate,

          It’s like everything else regarding liberty, There’s a price to be paid for living in a free society, part of our social contract.. “Okay, I;ll accept marriage equality, as the price I must pay to live in a free society.”

          It’s called individualism and tolerance. Unlike your tribe, we don’t demand everyone conform to our own personal values, which would be collectivism. Libertarians don’t sneer and insult “the right” or “the left” (as a group), which is bigotry, by definition

          Liberty is a Mutual Benefit. Society. We can disagree on personal values, even strongly, but still defend each other’s right to be themselves. See Voltaire. And it works. Over 60% of Americans now self-identify with libertarian values. Where does that leave your tribe?

          1. Other than the insult, this was very well said. Thank you.

            1. It’s not an insult, Ignorance means lack of knowledge. And the distortions are quite frequent. We do oppose authoritarianism, right or left, correct?

              You’re welcome.

            2. Uh, did the Hihn get erased?

      2. Actually there are left-libertarians even on the economic freedom stuff. Just depends on whether they view the state more as encouraging corporatism or more as restricting free market

        I’m not one – but I do think that those folks are far better – and magnitudes more consistent – at identifying corporatism and cronyism than Randians/Austrians are

        1. Randians and Austrians are not the same, and can be almost exact opposites. Rand was strongly Jeffersonian, on will of the people as the core principle for a free society, Miseans often lean strongly to Rothbard, whose followers believe it’s treason to even seek elective office. They certainly don’t defend government (the concept) like Rand did.

          And that’s not what left-libertarians are. By definition, they are not all that passionate on fiscal issues,, or they wouldn’t be left-libertarians. Left-libertarians are focused more strongly on personal liberty than on economic liberty.

          1. By definition, they are not all that passionate on fiscal issues,, or they wouldn’t be left-libertarians.

            I didn’t say that. I said that on economic issues they are focused on corporatism/cronyism/monopoly. They see a role for the state in eliminating/reducing that because they don’t think it just goes away and they see coercion in both that AND the state.

            Geolibertarians, blue-greens, some syndicalists, ordoliberals. The best examples of left-libertarian would be Henry George, Ludwig Erhard, Amory Lovins, Silvio Gesell, and even some late Hayek (re taxis). There is economic focus there not just ‘social/civil liberties’.

            1. I’d actually argue that selling libertarian ideas to D’s and the left should focus on the examples of the people above (plus Hazen Pingree). Not just the social issues stuff. Because outside the public sector unions, true socialists, and the watermelon-greens – people who vote D really don’t like much of D economics. But they really really really dislike the screw-you economic ‘purity’ and elitism of Randians and Rothbardians – so they ain’t ever gonna buy that.

              The only question is whether right-libertarians can see the libertarianism in the above – or whether they just want to trueScotsman them.

            2. By definition, they are not all that passionate on fiscal issues,, or they wouldn’t be left-libertarians.

              I didn’t say that.

              I did.

              I said that on economic issues they are focused on corporatism/cronyism/monopoly.

              I corrected you.

    4. In my mind I use the “which stuff is more important” rule, which is why I think left/right libertarians do exist. Another is what situations are you okay with maybe not going full bore libertarian on, and what direction do you lean. I’m not a purist libertarian, I’m pragmatic on some stuff. I care more about the right leaning libertarian positions, but support the social stuff as well… However if I’m going to give ground on stuff on pragmatic grounds I am way more willing to let left leaning stuff slide. In the few instances where I outright don’t believe a pure libertarian approach works, I’m almost 100% right leaning on those subjects.

      So I think they exist, and I think right libertarians have a far more realistic ideology that would actually function in the real world. The founding fathers (the good ones anyway) were mostly right libertarians in modern terminology, and that’s good company to be in.

      1. Ayn Rand was “pragmatic” also. Libertarian purists are actually authoritarian. A “libertarian society” is the exact opposite of a free society. It’s like Galt’s Gulch. which Rand knew could never work for society, only as a community of like-minded people.

        Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

        “Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society?the last, not the first, reform to advocate. It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today.

        A process of liberation would be much more rapid than the process of enslavement had been, since the facts of reality would be its ally. But still, a gradual process is required?and any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

        WHY? … Consent of the Governed

        Rand was Jeffersonian — “Consent of the Governed” is the SOLE requirement for a moral POLITICAL philosophy. Which CAN be separate from MORAL philosophy … IF one CHOOSES to live in a SOCIETY

  18. Why is Bill Weld standing with Ellen Degeneres?

    1. Hmm, Google finds nothing on that. On what issue or topic? Libertarians are SOCIALLY liberal. He’s been a supporter of gay rights since the 1990s. Might this be bullshit, like his alleged endorsement of Hillary?

  19. So, is Johnson gonna run on a non-interventionist foreign policy, or is he gonna embrace the Russophobia the anti-Trump contingent slobbers over?

    Funnily enough, he opposed the Iran nuclear deal, which is dumb, because it was one of the few good things Obama did.

    1. Yes, on non-intervention. Far more nuanced on the Iran deal. He always stressed honoring our agreements, so a narrowing of our global footprint.

      Not sure what you mean on Russia, since … who knows WTF Trump is doing (even Trump). He does believe that OUR interests in places like Syria, require some sort of deal with Russia, if possible, which strikes me as realistic,

      This is the best overall “interview” I saw on his foreign affairs positions (2016)
      (RealClearWorld focuses on purely global news and issues.)

  20. I think Gay Jay would make an okay senator. He might completely piss me off on some stuff where he sides with the Dems and they’re in the wrong… But he’d surely be better than most in either party overall.

    The fact that he’s in a race where the R has zero chance of winning makes me feel pretty okay about it all. If he were in a situation where he might be tanking an R I would be more apprehensive… Even a shitty R that will tow the line for some of the good things Trump is trying to do could be very valuable in the coming years.

    In a lot of ways if the Rs were smart they would literally stop running people for some races in blue states, and let the Libertarian Party run instead since they’d have a better chance. It would still be a lost cause in hardcore blue places like California, BUT in a place that is maybe 55-60% Democratic leaning an L might be able to win, whereas an R is a lost cause. If the L won, the Rs would have somebody they could at least work with on some stuff, if they lost they’d still be ahead because they didn’t waste resources running an unwinnable race.

    1. might completely piss me off on some stuff where he sides with the Dems and they’re in the wrong..

      What issues do you fear?

      1. Well, stuff like forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes for one! I don’t even mind gay marriage, but I DO NOT agree with forcing anybody to do stuff like that. Would he want to FORCE private businesses to allow trans people to change in their chosen sexes locker room at gyms etc? I don’t know. Again I don’t have a problem with trannies, but I can understand somebody not wanting a 50 year old chick with a dick to be naked in a locker room with their 7 year old daughter… Leave it up to the business and the problem goes away, but GJ seems to be okay with forcing such things…

        He’s also wrong on open borders. That shit just doesn’t work in the real world, sorry. I could see him tanking stuff like border security, or perhaps even some of the hard ball foreign policy stuff Trump may be trying to accomplish on trade. In short a lot of the same virtue signally proggie stuff that he is all about. He’s just too soft and too much of a nice guy on some stuff… Doing the nicest thing possible in ALL situations is NOT always the BEST thing for you as an individual, OR as a nation.

        All in all I don’t think he’d be horrible. Certainly better than most people in the senate! He’s not as squishy on guns as Weld, so he’d probably be good there. I would mostly trust him with general size/scope of government stuff too.

        1. Well, stuff like forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes for one! I don’t even mind gay marriage, but I DO NOT agree with forcing anybody to do stuff like that.

          You’ve been brainwashed in several areas. I can easily prove this one a lie.

          First: Do you knowingly support a special exemption in public accommodation laws ….to benefit a single class of people … based on religion … under a Constitution that requires Separation ? and equal treatment under the law?

          If so, on what possible basis? And here’s the proof.

          Would he want to FORCE private businesses to allow trans people to change in their chosen sexes locker room at gyms etc?

          I believe that’s a minor issue, exploded by right-wing hysteria? Especially when you say “chosen sex.” People don’t “choose” their sex., which is akin to saying the earth is flat.

          THE issue, IIRC, is using public bathrooms. I laughed hysterically when Ted Cruz said his son shouldn’t see a trans in a public restroom …which is fucking stupid because Ted himself has NO CLUE if HE has EVER he’s ever had one in ANY same room with him!

          Gary would have vetoed the NC law mandating birth genders … in bathrooms, correctly noting that trans have LONG ignored assigned gender for bathrooms.

          1. Part 2

            but GJ seems to be okay with forcing such things…

            You seem quite willing to be manipulated by political elites.

            He’s also wrong on open borders.

            He’s libertarian

            Next, I can see your bias, and/or ignorance.

            In short a lot of the same virtue signally proggie stuff that he is all about.

            “Virtue signaling” is a phrase used by the authoritarian right, when they ? virtue signal.
            “Proggie” is right-wing ignorance of libertarianism. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 50 years. You’ve allowed yourself to be brainwashed on wedding cakes, And here again, unless you can find him NOT a fiscal conservative. Can you name one area where he’s a FISCAL proggie. Because proggies are NOT fiscally conservative.

            I would mostly trust him with general size/scope of government stuff too.

            Except in personal issues, presumably. Here’s another 50-year-old principle.

            Republicans want government out of your wallet but into your bedroom.
            Democrats want government out of your bedroom but into your wallet.
            And they each can “justify” their contempt for individual liberty.
            Libertarians want government out of your LIFE, and not BACK into your … Life, on some self-righteous crusade.

            The Constitution doesn’t allow it anyhow — to the extent EITHER demands.

  21. Poll numbers don’t mean crap, unless Johnson actually runs an effective campaign, brings in a debate coach, a PR guy/public image guy, and actually makes himself more knowledgeable about the world he’ll lose again.

    Moreover, I see no reason why the Republicans should pull their candidate out of the race, looking at Johnson’s last two campaigns they could easily deduce that he’ll run as a social progressive again, and/or not study or pay attention to world events and therefore come off as dunce, all of which would help the Republican candidate. Or he’ll run such a lackluster campaign and fail to bring in any money that those poll numbers in the “20%” range will collapse back into single digits in a month.

    Instead of ever taking on a Senate run Aubrey Dunn should’ve focused completely on his job as land commissioner and found ways for the public to actually see and appreciate his accomplishments in that job. He then should’ve run for re-election, won that election then continued to build his candidate profile through actual accomplishments which he could’ve used for a potential congressional run in the future. That’s how the LP builds a bench of candidates for public office.

    1. he’ll run as a social progressive again

      All libertarians do that,

  22. If there were no other issues on the planet than pot legalization, then would understand the Gary Johnson fetish by Reason.

    1. If you come to understood Gary Johnson — and libertarianism — it will all fall into place.

  23. The graphic from, a group which seems to be defunct, or at least which has lost its domain name, is inaccurate.

    in 2016 Martin Moulton earned 6.3% of the vote in a 3 way race (Libertarian, Democrat, Green) running against Eleanor Holmes Norton for Congress in Washington, D.C.

    In 2012 Bruce Majors (me) one 6% of the vote in the same 3 way race (Libertarian, Democrat, Green) against Eleanor Holmes Norton.….._party.php

    So there are two major errors in this table just from my own back yard.

  24. The Johnson rises again!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.