MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gary Johnson's Foreign Policy: Libertarian or "Strange"?

As Gary Johnson gears up to try to win the Libertarian Party's nod in their Las Vegas national convention in early May, various writers are wondering how thoroughly non-interventionist his foreign policy ideas are (especially in the wake of two Ron Paul campaigns that have raised the bar high for a libertarian-leaning approach to military intervention).

It started with a Daily Caller interview defining Johnson's foreign policy vision as "strange" in a headline. Why strange? Largely because in a macro vision of severe (in D.C. standards) cuts in military and defense spending (of 43 percent), Johnson leaves a lot of room for the sort of interventions the Ron Paul brand of libertarian foreign policy avoids. Johnson

told TheDC that he supports Americas efforts to aid African troops in tracking down Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and that he wouldn’t rule out leaving behind American bases in Afghanistan.

Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.

“I would want leave all options on the table,” Johnson said....

“So now you have the U.S. bases that exist in those areas, do we shut down those military bases? Perhaps not,” he suggested, taking an odd position for a supposed anti-war candidate.

“I would completely withdraw our military presence,” he further expounded. “Does withdrawing our military presence from Afghanistan mean that we would still have a base open in Afghanistan if they allowed us to keep a base open? Perhaps.”....

But despite Johnson saying he thinks that the Middle East is a region of the world the United States should maintain a military presence in, he contended that there are “no military threats” to the U.S. anywhere in the world.

“As I’m sitting here right now, there are no military threats against the United States,” he said, stipulating that America should be “vigilant” against terrorist attacks on the homeland.

Last year, The Weekly Standard reported that Johnson told the publication that he supported the concept of waging wars for humanitarian reasons despite wanting to cut the military budget by nearly half. Asked whether he stood by that, Johnson said he did.

“I don’t want to close the door that if any of us were president of the United States that we would sit idly by and watch something like the Holocaust go down,” he said.....

“When you talk about a 43 percent reduction in military spending, that’s going back to 2003 funding levels, not the end of the world,” he contended, though military planners would likely strongly disagree.

One intervention Johnson said he supports is the U.S. mission to help capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, which Johnson believes is arguably the “worst terrorist” group in the world....

“Based on what I understand about it, that arguably this is the worst terrorist group that’s been on the planet for the last 20 years.”

He also noted that his mission would have differed from the current one in that he would have asked for volunteers from the military to undertake it with a more belligerent plan to “wipe ‘em out.”

“Well Congress passed the legislation to authorize us intervening, Obama signed the legislation and then eight months later we have an advisory force that goes in,” he said. “I think if I would have signed the legislation that I would have had plans to immediately ask for a volunteer force and gone in and wipe ‘em out."

This all matches my own impressions of Johnson the times I've seen him speak, mostly to smaller groups: he's a thoughtful guy with an intelligently pragmatic streak that leads him to recognize that government is out-of-control huge and expensive, and given his political experience I do expect him, if he wins the LP's nod, to do better for them than they've done in a while.

But he seems to lack either the systematic thinking or moral fervor that makes me trust him to reliably come to truly libertarian conclusions on many issues. While his conclusions are frequently, even mostly, libertarian, I'm not quite sure his natural instincts are.

He's more willing to give a statist solution a try if he thinks, well, that might do some good, as evidenced by the above, which seems to lack either a historic or strategic sense of what the U.S. government's proper purpose is, or what bad aftereffects often flow from seemingly easy or quick interventions. There are both constitutional and pragmatic reasons to not be as loose in expending American force overseas as Johnson is here. It's not just that we need to spend less; we also ought to do less when it comes to military force overseas in a country facing no serious military threats to the homeland.

Jim Antle at American Spectator reacted to that Daily Caller story and wonders what Johnson's foreign policy waffling will mean to his ability to shave off Ron Paul voters for the LP:

Now, there is nothing wrong with being selective in the use of military force. Being involved everywhere or nowhere may be consistent, but it isn't necessarily a sound foreign policy. Yet it is difficult to discern an overarching strategy or philosophy here that would influence or dictate when the United States would intervene. Back when Johnson was still running as a Republican, I noted that he was at a disadvantage against Ron Paul because he was less conservative on social issues and less radical on the issues of war and peace that drive Paul's libertarian base.

Daniel Larison at American Conservative also sees a lot to be supportive of in Johnson's statements, even if they lack Paulian coherence:

He endorses the decision to send soldiers to aid in combating the remnants of the LRA in central Africa, but that appears to be the extent of his support for recent decisions justified on humanitarian grounds. For those concerned about his endorsement of humanitarian intervention, I would remind them hat Johnson opposed the war in Libya from the beginning. I have not been able to find any evidence that he has taken a position for or against intervention in Syria. Presumably, his objections to the Libyan war would apply in that case as well, but we simply don’t know his position. It’s possible that Johnson endorses such interventions in principle, but rarely sees a situation where U.S. intervention would be desirable. The very minimal deployment in central Africa qualifies, but larger and riskier military actions do not.

Reason.tv interviews Johnson, featuring super interlocutors Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie:

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.

  • Amakudari||

    I don't mind a bit of statism in a former governor. But if you're going to advocate things that are in serious contradiction with the rest of your philosophy, you should be able to qualify why. I like Johnson's philosophy more than Paul's, but he's shown he's not particularly good at explaining that philosophy.

    "I would want leave all options on the table," for example, is politicianspeak. It's probably true for Obama, who has demonstrated his principles are all up for negotiation, but it shouldn't be true for a libertarian. And since Libertarians are not going to win at this point, you might as well have a go at defending your philosophy clearly.

  • juris imprudent||

    You have to make up your mind, are you expecting a philosopher to run for President, or a politician. If he runs as a philosopher, you will get the purity you crave, but he will not garner more than a handful of votes. If he runs as a politician, you will not be satisfied with his rhetoric, but he might pull enough votes to become significant.

  • Amakudari||

    And Johnson has neither purity nor votes.

    Part of the appeal of Ron Paul was his ideological convictions. If you don't have those, or at least can't explain them, there's no way you can actually make headway as an alternative to establishment pols.

  • Sevo||

    "But he seems to lack either the systematic thinking or moral fervor that makes me trust him to reliably come to truly libertarian conclusions on many issues."

    At a small 'gathering', I had a chance to discuss with him the US defense budget vs free-riding by other nations.
    You could say he's a politician and of course he's going to weather-vane, or you could say he's open to other views. Regardless of the motives, his position on that matter wasn't fixed. Perhaps because he was willing to be engaged and offer other than pat answers, I'll go with the latter.
    And then we've always got the good/perfect dilemma.

  • Flex Nasty B.I.G.||

    Seeing someone take a utilitarian approach to promotion libertarian ideas is a breath of fresh air to me. I think a lot of non-libertarians grok the moral arguments, but discard libertarianism as unworkable in real life. Johnson can make the case that they are. I say we give the guy a shot - he's certainly about 100x more libertarian than Barr & Root.

  • robc||

    Fuck utilitarianism.

    That said, Im still voting for Johnson.

  • ||

    What he said.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    You need some utilitarianism in your politics otherwise what's the point. If communism actually worked I'd be a communist.

  • Joe R.||

    Define "work".

  • hk||

    His foreign policy is incoherent let's be honest.

    And if non-Libertarians don't like us for some reason, it is not our job to acquiesce to them.

  • Jeff Sexton||

    hk:

    And if we DON'T draw them in - not necessarily "acquiesce" - we will continue to be irrelevant.

    We have run "pure" candidates for 40 years - and gotten NOWHERE. Not a SINGLE Electoral Vote, because the most qualified candidate we've ever run was a former Congressman who had been out of office for nearly a decade. Now we've got a 2 term former Governor - the MOST qualified person in the race - who genuinely stands a shot at picking off at least a few EVs. I say we let the man do what he needs to do, and we give him whatever we can to help him do it.

  • Alan||

    I agree. There are two points to be made - the map is not the territory, and it will be hard to get a majority of voters to vote for an ideologue.

    Reality is messy, so I want pragmatic leadership, but I also want leadership that naturally leans toward maximizing freedom.

  • Apogee||

    either the systematic thinking or moral fervor

    IMO, this country seems to have plenty of moral fervor (of whatever type) to go around.

    If his instincts aren't aligned with "corruption", then that alone would propel him past the currently available choices - both of whom, I might point out, fail miserably when it comes to consistency.

    Both Johnson and Paul don't seem 'for sale' - and it's probably why they don't get much coverage.

  • ||

    I don't think most Republicans ever realized (or ever had a chance to realize) that Johnson was never that far from mainstream Republican thought. Just slightly more "libertarian-of-center" than the typical Republican.

    I actually think that's precisely the right formula to both win the Republican primary and the general election, except Johnson's candidacy was killed off by the media by excluding him from the debates. (And not allowing him much time to speak in those he was in).

    And then, of course, Johnson dropped out long before his chance to become flavor of the week might have come around.

  • SIV||

    Johnson killed his own candidacy by not trying hard enough. Perhaps he realized Republican voters would never go for a "pro-choice" candidate (see Rudy Giuliani).

  • tarran||

    Romney is pro-choice...

  • ||

    The Flopster walked that one back too.

  • SIV||

    The Republican base didn't exactly go for him now did they? He is winning a war of attrition.

  • hk||

    They clearly did go for him, he walked back that belief.

  • Proprietist||

    Pro-choice, pro-pot, pro-gay marriage - not sure the GOP base will buy that line anytime within the next 20 years. But that's why I love Johnson's candidacy - he should pull as many or more from Obama as he will from Romney, so can't be considered a "spoiler". Johnson's exactly how a third party candidate should position themselves - with an attachment to the center, but with principles and without the perceived "spoiler effect" the Greens had in 2000.

  • juris imprudent||

    Johnson couldn't compete with Paul. He should've planned to run in '16 with an eye to extending the libertarian insurgency. For all that is worth in the party of Santorum sippers.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He should have run for Senate this year and he likely would have won.

  • Huck||

    He seems like more of a classical liberal than a libertarian. Or perhaps, better yet, a word I coined "libertariansquish." Basically libertarian but with sponges for hands.

  • daveInAustin||

    Gary Johnson also refuses to talk about ending the war on drugs except for Pot and when he was Governor he didn't pardon all nonviolent drug offenders. I'll still take Gary Johnson over Bob Barr or even Ron Paul any day.

  • Proprietist||

    Have to start small. When people see the world doesn't end when pot is legalized, we can try the next step. A majority of people are now pro-pot legalization, pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. Pro-cocaine/heroin legalization is probably a dramatic falloff in the polls, although haven't seen any recently.

  • SKR||

    He sounds like he doesn't want to instantly alienate a huge potential voting base that would never vote for Paul because Paul wouldn't bomb Iran if necessary.

  • ||

    Define "necessary".

  • Amakudari||

    Don't worry. "Necessary" will be defined later.

  • ||

    That's what I was concerned about.

  • Rich||

    I imagine it's already "defined". We just don't have a need to know the definition.

  • mr simple||

    You know, if they get all uppity and need to be put in their place or if there's a scandal that the administration needs to distract the public from or something.

    You know, necessary.

  • ||

    Define "necessary"

    Tuesday

  • Mr Whipple||

    I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger....

  • juris imprudent||

    It's in the Constitution fucker - right next to "proper". It is always necessary and proper to bomb people we don't like and that offend our good Christian sensibilities.

  • SKR||

    Well the standard seems to be far lower than, "if they attack us."

  • ||

    And then, of course, Johnson dropped out long before his chance to become flavor of the week might have come around.

    Can you blame him? You can only take so much teasing before you say, "Fuck this!", and move on.

    He was prescient enough to see he was not going to become flavor of the week. As Amukdari said upthread, if you have to the chance to clearly delineate a philosophy from the others and why it is preferable, then go for it instead of diluting it using political speak for fear of offending potential voters.

  • ||

    I dunno,
    Paul got his turn as flavor of the week and it ended the instant those old newletters hit the airwaves.

    Johnson has no such baggage.

  • ||

    Johnson has no such baggage.

    True, but Johnson hasn't been running for president for at least eight years and built up an army of PaulBots.

    I also think the PaulBots (the really unpleasant, in your face ones) did more damage than those stupid newsletters did. I went to a few Paul rallies, and though they had the best arguments, their delivery left much to be desired. People on the fence don't like being bullied into supporting a candidate.

  • juris imprudent||

    It wasn't the newsletters. It was the unwillingness to slake the bloodlust of the chicken hawks.

  • hk||

    I disagree completely, Fox ravaged Paul with the newsletters.

    And the newsletters sound horrible, let's keep it real.

  • robc||

    Paul was never the flavor of the week.

    The newsletters gave him a bump somehow.

  • hk||

    Paul sounds like an idiot in them, so I'm not quite sure how this is possible.

    The MSM killed Paul with the newsletters, and to be honest Paul never provided a good reason for their content.

  • sloopyinca||

    He's just keeping his utilitarian bona fides by being so squishy on foreign policy.

    It fits right in with his lousy stance in the WoD.*

    *I'm not a GJ hater. Hell, I think he's the second-best person running by a mile. But to call him anything other than a utilitarian when it comes to core issues like the WoD and foreign policy would be doing libertarianism a disservice.

  • Huck||

    "lousy stance in the WoD."
    True, it would be much better to say "legalize them all" but Johnson recognizes that libertarians are the only ones who support that stance (well, maybe a tiny minority of leftists), whereas legalizing just marijuana has much wider appeal: he would lose very few libertarian votes, but could attract a much wider support group. What's the latest poll numbers for legalizing marijuana? Isn't it close to 50 percent?
    To be fair to your argument though, it's a position that makes more sense if he were running in one of the mainstream parties and actually had a chance to win.

  • SIV||

    (well, maybe a tiny minority of leftists)

    lol

    You can find some "legalize all the plants"-types on the crunchy left.

    You'll find many more outright "legalizers" on the "not-quite-libertarian" Right.

  • Huck||

    I've actually met quite a few leftists who ostensibly support total legalization. I'm not convinced they are representative of the majority, but they are there. Otoh, while I do find leftists who agree with me on legalization, I never ever see any of them post about it on facebook. I've got quite a few leftists, mostly leftists, on my facebook friend's list, and while they post a lot about issues they care about, I have never seen one of them posting about the WoD and how they'd like to change it. It's hardly even on their radar.

  • SIV||

    Naturally. Drugs are a property rights/individual rights issue, hence anathema to lefties.

  • Huck||

    Something else is going on there. I think in order for the left to make a big stink about WoD it has to either affect them personally or there needs to be one of their mascot groups raising a ruckus against it. Generally speaking, WoD doesn't affect nice, middle class liberals, and minority groups, who it does disproportionately damage, don't generally favor legalization. At least they're not marching in the streets anywhere against it. But get a million man march of the brothers and sisters going, turning it into a civil rights issue, and the Left will follow, so desperately are they to show their solidarnsk bona fides.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Just keep hammering home that it hurts the poor and minorities most of all.

  • Robert||

    Foreign policy is a field that calls for judgment, not philosophy. Unfortunately coming to the Libertarian Party at this late date, when they've had ample opportunity to show that they're about the worst place for a libertarian activist to be, doesn't speak well to his judgment. The Republicans, by contrast, got him elected governor, albeit of a state small in pop.

    As to why he was excluded from debates, I think it's because the media found him boring. He probably didn't face such competition in N.M. The guy is a poor public speaker, coming off as wimpy compared to, say, Ron Paul.

  • Sevo||

    Robert|4.11.12 @ 9:35PM|#
    "Foreign policy is a field that calls for judgment, not philosophy."

    Sniff, sniff....
    Stinks.

  • Randian||

    Foreign policy is a field that calls for judgment, not philosophy.

    On what grounds do you judge actions without a system of ethics or politics? Uhh...nihilism? I am struggling here. Help me out.

  • ||

    On what grounds do you judge actions without a system of ethics or politics?

    The merits of its intentions, you silly lad. Results are clearly an afterthought.

  • hk||

    Sounds like a neocon.

  • ||

    Or a liberal

  • Robert||

    It's a field in which predictability of your actions is a liability, not an asset. That makes it very different from domestic affairs. It would be nice if your constituents could predict your actions but foreigners could not, but unfortunately that's not possible.

  • Robert||

    Think about it in terms of someone hired as a negotiator. The people you negotiate with are in a very different position from the people you negotiate for. However, in most cases you can communicate secretly with those you negotiate for; a public official is not one of those cases.

  • Alan||

    Claudius was also a poor speaker, and look where it got him.

  • Sevo||

    OT.
    To the right, I'm getting a pitch from UCB to take courses to become a "Health Care Advocate".
    So even before the full implementation of Obamacare, anyone needing healthcare also needs a 'fixer' to deal with the bureaucrats?
    Pathetic.

  • ||

    "Health Care Advocate".

    Sevo, this is wonk-speak for social worker. Just a specialized form of social worker.

    Originally, nurses were supposed to be patient advocates, and they still are, in terms of medical intervention.

    A "health care advocate" is designed to bitch and scream that medical care is a right, without having to provide any care, health or medical. Simply put.

    Remember, medical care =/= health care.

  • Sevo||

    "A "health care advocate" is designed to bitch and scream that medical care is a right, without having to provide any care, health or medical. Simply put."
    Can't find a link, but there was a short story of a Chicago immigrant who was in some sort of trouble and the ward healer told him to see the 'vixen'; the local "fixer". Trade your vote for protection.

    "Remember, medical care =/= health care."
    That is important and the distinction needs to be made.
    You can correct me on the matter any time with no griping

  • ||

    You can correct me on the matter any time with no griping

    I have to correct myself at times as well in order to be consistent. I got sucked into the conflation of the terms myself, even using the term "provider" from time to time. And I really, really hate that term.

  • GILMORE||

    Sevo|4.11.12 @ 9:37PM|#
    OT.
    To the right, I'm getting a pitch from UCB to take courses...

    Improv theatre is a great way to pretend to be something! =

    http://www.ucbtheatre.com/

  • Obese American||

    Most importantly in a GJ Presidency would be the 43% cut. A fiscally constrained military is a far less adventurous military, regardless of the desire to intervene in every do-gooder exercise.

  • juris imprudent||

    Ha, like Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics and Boeing are just going to take a 40+% cut in acquisition laying down?

  • Alan||

    When the alternative is the government collapsing and not paying them, or their bank accounts full of dollars being worthless?

    If they're smart, they'll demand the cuts. A good farmer knows they can only slaughter the cow once, but they can milk her for many years.

  • Huck||

    He seems to fit in the Hayek/Friedman classical liberal mold. Generally libertarian, but with the option to go utilitarian in either extreme cases (genocide) or cases where there's little evidence there's any political will to radically alter the system (SS). So both Hayek and Friedman supported a government sponsored social safety net, albeit recast in such a way as to not attract perverse incentives. They knew that there would be no support for simply eliminating them - and years later Bush found out he couldn't even privatize 2 percent of SS. In any case, I'd take Hayek and Friedman's level of moral fervor over Obamney's any day. Good/Enemy of the perfect thing.

  • ||

    But he seems to lack either the systematic thinking or moral fervor that makes me trust him to reliably come to truly libertarian conclusions on many issues. While his conclusions are frequently, even mostly, libertarian, I'm not quite sure his natural instincts are.

    Talk about yourself much, Brian?

  • ||

    Talk about yourself much, Brian?

    Well, there is book he has been pimping as of late...

  • Huck||

    Doherty seems more consistently libertarian than the other writers at Reason; he appears to be the staunchest support of Ron Paul among the writers. On what grounds do you imply he's not so consistent himself?

  • SIV||

    Johnson

    told TheDC that he supports Americas efforts to aid African troops in tracking down Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and that he wouldn’t rule out leaving behind American bases in Afghanistan.

    This is why we need Smileys.

    http://msnsmileys.net/r/ROFL/

  • Randian||

    How did you manage to break that link?

  • SIV||

    I was laughing too hard at "The Great Libertarian Hope" Gary Johnson.

  • ||

    This is why we need Smileys.

    You'll get your smiley when I get a blink tag.

  • SIV||

    > <blink>

  • SIV||

    MARQUEE

  • ||

    SIV == Jack Ass Genie.

  • Arf?||

    I disagree. In this case your actual wish coincides with the worst possible interpretation of your written wish. Since he didn't give you that, he doesn't meet the definition.

  • ||

    Ah, correct your are Arfington!

    SIV, apologies! I shall throw myself upon coals.

    SIV == Literal Genie

  • SIV||

    Hey, at least Gary Johnson is for the "fair tax" !
    ROFL

  • Randian||

    Yeah, too bad a national candidate can't wax lyrically for ten minutes on a Georgist property tax. That oughta get us real fuckin' far.

  • Proprietist||

    Hey, the Georgist single land tax > FairTax > 9-9-9 > current system. Easier to explain too. Improving the tax system will mean replacing it with a better system, unless somehow we can convince a majority to turn anarchocapitalist tomorrow, which is probably not in the cards.

  • ||

    Cain was very specific when explaining his 999 that it would transition into a Fair Tax scheme. 999 was a very easy concept to grasp for the economically illiterate. Fair Tax takes a bit research and education to to fully grasp. John Linder (along with that shitbag Neal Boortz) wrote a short book detailing the concept.

  • ant1sthenes||

    While I like SLT in theory, I think it would require a constitutional amendment. If we're going that far, I still think eliminating the Congressional tax power and letting each state experiment with the best way to levy taxes (while still being required to raise enough in total to pay for a proportionate share of federal spending) is the right way to go, at least in terms of political palatability.

  • Peter L||

    A land tax is horrible because it relies on the government to make a judgement of the value of the land, thereby they can make you pay arbitrary amounts of taxes just by saying the property you have is now worth whatever.

    A much better tax scheme is a sales tax, where the amount owed is clearly determinable from the amount in the transaction.

  • juris imprudent||

    The only reason Johnson's FP is considered strange is that it isn't being outright laughed at by the bipartisan consensus on shooting people that have done us no harm.

  • affenkopf||

    Hey, he said he'd continue the drone attacks!

  • John Thacker||

    But he seems to lack either the systematic thinking or moral fervor that makes me trust him to reliably come to truly libertarian conclusions on many issues. While his conclusions are frequently, even mostly, libertarian, I'm not quite sure his natural instincts are.

    Perhaps, but the man had a pretty good record as a governor, and being an executive forces you to make decisions and express your convictions, not just duck and vote Present, or go along with the necessary bipartisan bill.

    His problem is more that he's not a very skilled politician, including being a terrible speaker.

  • ||

    including being a terrible speaker.

    Ding! You win a kewpie doll!

    In politics, rightly or wrongly, presentation is everything.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    I like the guy but that half shrug tilt of the head thing that he does bothers me. I'm still voting for him but it doesn't help.

  • robc||

    Winning governor twice proved that he IS a very skilled politician, by definition.

  • John Thacker||

    It proved he was skilled enough to win a state, but the skills required are lower to win a state than to be "very skilled," especially a low population state.

    Or else you'll have to start claiming that Joe Biden is a "very skilled politician, by definition." Or insert any other politician here.

  • Gannicus||

    This strikes me as a more mainstream, "realistic" version of Ron Paul's foreign policy. I think when people hear this they don't reflexively think "that's crazy" or "that's blame America first" or "he'd leave us defenseless." Now I don't think those things about Ron Paul, but I think to the non-doctrinaire libertarian that's what Paul can sound like.

  • Gannicus||

    This strikes me as a more mainstream, "realistic" version of Ron Paul's foreign policy. I think when people hear this they don't reflexively think "that's crazy" or "that's blame America first" or "he'd leave us defenseless." Now I don't think those things about Ron Paul, but I think to the non-doctrinaire libertarian that's what Paul can sound like.

  • Gannicus||

    This strikes me as a more mainstream, "realistic" version of Ron Paul's foreign policy. I think when people hear this they don't reflexively think "that's crazy" or "that's blame America first" or "he'd leave us defenseless." Now I don't think those things about Ron Paul, but I think to the non-doctrinaire libertarian that's what Paul can sound like.

  • Gannicus||

    Registration didn't fix the server squirrels apparently.

  • sloopyinca||

    I wonder if this our Karl Hungus... If so, well played, sir.

  • ||

    I'll bet it is. The attitude is consistent.

  • JeremyR||

    The real problem with Johnson is that politics at a national level is personality driven, and he has absolutely no personality.

    Have you seen him on Red Eye? He's worse than even Kurt Loder (who I think must be asleep much of the time).

  • DrakeLeona||

    my roomate's sister got paid $20566 past month. she is making cash on the internet and got a $480300 home. All she did was get lucky and put into action the information written on this web site (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/o5n4M

  • SIV||

    Comment registration got rid of MNG!

    RIP P Brooks :(

  • Mango Punch||

    he seems to lack either the systematic thinking or moral fervor... While his conclusions are frequently, even mostly, libertarian, I'm not quite sure his natural instincts are.

    I don't quite get this view, if his instincts aren't libertarian, and he doesn't have the systematic thinking to come to libertarian conclusions, then how does he come by them?

  • Brian from Texas||

    I'll still take his foreign policy over the disaster we've had under Obama and Bush.

  • Captain Freedom||

    I have no problem with his foreign policy. He wants to use the military when it can help the most. He'll get us out of Afghanistan way sooner than Obamney, yet not allow genocide to carry on. Yay for pragmatic libertarianism. My problem with the LP has always been being too gung ho on non-interventionism, until conservative infiltrators Barr/Root took over and made me miss the old days. Gary Johnson will be the best thing that ever happened to them.

    And as for his lack of charisma, that just means you can trust him. The boring canidates are always the best.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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