MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gary Johnson on Trump, the Presidential Election, and Life as a Pot Company CEO

Johnson says he wants nothing to do with the GOP.

"Is this country of 300 million people only capable of being governed by two families?," asks Gary Johnson, the former two-term Republican governor from New Mexico, who also ran for president in 2012 on the Libertarian Party (LP) line. "The biggest factor in politics is name familiarity," says Johnson, referring to Clinton and Bush, "and that’s the phenomenon that exists right now."

Johnson began the 2012 campaign as a Republican, and then switched to the LP. He ended up pulling 1.2 million votes in the general election, or one percent of the total ballots cast, beating every previous candidate put forward by the party in a raw tally. But Johnson says he's in no rush to jump back into the fray. "I just think there are more downsides than upsides to announcing at this point, and, look, I don’t have any delusions about the process," he says. "In retrospect, 90 percent of the time I spent [trying to become president] ended up to be wasted time."

Johson recently found his "dream job" as CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a publicly traded company that markets weed products. "We want to be the Dom Perignon [of marijuana]," he explains.  Johnson is also the chairman of the nonprofit Our America Initiative, which advocates for balanced budgets, defense cuts, drug policy reform, and improved ballot and debate access for third-party candidates.

Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Johnson at FreedomFest, an annual gathering of libertarians and conservatives that took place between July 8-11 in Las Vegas.

Approximately 18 minutes.

Produced and edited by Meredith Bragg.

Watch the video above, and scroll down for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to get automatic updates when new stories go live.

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.

  • grenvapormnfva||

    You obtain $39/houre that's great going girl good for you! i start working at laptop to work online , be proud I couldn't be pleasure I obtain when I want and where I want. And with a few effort I bring in $53/houre and sometimess even as much as $97/houre.visit this site for more details.....
    www.careersonline10.tk

  • DenverJ||

    Spambot's first!

  • fish||

    This is a huge blot on FOE's record....

  • Libertarian||

    Spambot haiku*

    proud I couldn't be
    pleasure I obtain when I
    want and where I want.

    *good band name

  • Hamster of Doom||

    That's not a good band name. That's a fantastic band name. I'm yoinking it for the next recipe I need a good handle for.

  • Moridin||

    I like Johnson. Don't agree 100% but he's better than most that have ran or will run.

  • Suicidy||

    I voted for him in 2012. It was a token vote as WA state is in the thrall of Marxist traitors who call themselves 'democrats'. But I think he would have been a great president. It's a shame he comes out this strong against Trump. Trump actually makes a lot of good points and isn;t caught up with all the usual PC rhetoric and bullshit disclaimers.

  • Akira||

    "It's a shame he comes out this strong against Trump. Trump actually makes a lot of good points and isn;t caught up with all the usual PC rhetoric and bullshit disclaimers."

    What Trump says may be true (I don't necessarily agree, but that's beside the point here). The point is that he says it in the most inflammatory way possible. That kind of rhetoric might earn him some support from certain parts of the conservative camp, but it alienates a far larger proportion of people.

    I see what you're saying about the PC crowd and disclaimers, but Gary Johnson is wise to say that. Progressives have a tendency to lump conservatives and libertarians all into one group, and what Johnson says helps dispel that.

    It's pathetic that being honest about your views (like Trump) will do a candidate so much damage. It's pathetic that people will assume the worst about a candidate unless he professes the same righteous indignation as them. BUT, it's the reality of democracy.

    There was a commenter on here whose name I don't remember, but he/she explained the situation very well: "Libertarians need to stop being such purists and exercise pragmatism once in a while if they want to actually win elections and go beyond being a thought experiment that takes place on Internet forums."

  • Zaytsev||

    What Trump says may be true (I don't necessarily agree, but that's beside the point here). The point is that he says it in the most inflammatory way possible. That kind of rhetoric might earn him some support from certain parts of the conservative camp, but it alienates a far larger proportion of people.

    You know what else alienates people - the mealy mouthed political correct bullshit that most politicians engage in to say nothing while speaking.

    It's funny that McCain's inflammatory rhetoric against his own base isn't seen as the kind of inflamatory rhetoric that alienates a large portion of the public. But Trump calling him out for that bullshit is.

  • Jonathon||

    While I'm not a POT user or promoter, I would gladly support you were you to run again for President, but while I too am very disappointed by the Republican 'party', which in my opinion has become little more than wing of the democrat party, I think the only viable solution is for the people to retake the Republican party by forcing it through the election process to have candidates who truly represent the people and NOT the party.

  • Woodchiprow Wilson||

    Yeah. Much like the only viable solution to improve cab services was by Uber getting a spot on the board of YellowCab and changing it from the inside. Oh wait, they didn't do that.

    The enormous number and hierarchy of old statist GOPer's is not a fucking feature for quick lp power, it is a trap you goddamn slavers keep falling into.

  • Suicidy||

    the whole thing needs to be torn down. I predict it will not happen peacefully.

  • Djucational Woodchipper||

    You win the woodchipper username contest.

  • JFree||

    Ain't no way the GOP establishment is gonna go quietly into that good night. Reality was 2012 - Tea Party and Ron Paul folks took over much of the precinct and grassroots stuff of the GOP. At the convention, they were prevented from doing anything with that and the rules were changed.

    If folks can 'take over' the GOP precinct/bottomup org; then it is just as easy to create a precinct/bottomup org for a new party. Without the polluted messaging and perpetual BS from the McCain/Graham/Christie/corrupt establishment crowd that working within the GOP requires.

    'Working within the GOP' has been a BIG mistake of libertarian leaning activists - except as a learning experience. It is not hard to build a grassroots organized pol party. The hard part is getting the money for the wholesale politics of ads/polls/media thats necessary to win elections in oversized districts. Big money in the US is ENTIRELY on the side of two-party cronyism and the perks that come from that. Which is why it is also a mistake for libertarians to avoid populism and yes even 'class warfare' on the economic side. That doesn't mean you have to go down the 'progressive'/socialist solution path. Liberty, opportunity, and a level playing field is still a big positive selling point for most Americans. That can NEVER be sold from within the GOP with its plutocrat defense, incipient bigotry, and kill every foreigner who smells funny foreign policy.

  • ||

    Working within the GOP has yielded Ron and Rand Paul, Justin Amash,and Thomas Massie. Let's compare that to the list of national and statewide Libertarian Party office holders.

    Aaaand we're done. No contest.

  • Zaytsev||

    Gary Johnson could have won a Senate seat from NM and increased the liberty caucus. Instead he went for an ego driven vanity presidential campaign.

  • Not an Economist||

    That is what annoys me about Gary Johnson. He could have worked from the inside to increase the liberty of the US. Instead he decided to sit on the sideline and throw bombs because he didn't get to be president. It is something Trump would (and some people are already speculating he is going to) do.

  • JFree||

    Like it or not - the LP doesn't even try to build a grassroots organization. Preaching/persuading does not equal precinct-level organization. Again it is not difficult to build that stuff from scratch - but yes it is necessary to build it if you want to get more than 2% of the vote

  • Jonathon||

    The democrats are very adept at changing labels, it's time the Republican party changed the meaning of GOP from "Grand Old Party" into "Government Of the People" and make that meaning stand for something.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ha! You naively think the Republican Party can be rehabilitated. It is even more Big Gov, Big Entitlement, Big War/Spy, and Big Gawd than Dems are (not that there is any hope for them either).

    At least Trump wants someone else to pay for a border fence.

  • John||

    Gee the Obama worshiping retard doesn't like Republicans. Let me get my surprised face.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Against my better judgement I will try for once to reason with you, John.

    If the GOP were serious about cutting taxes and entitlements thereby fixing the long term debt problem they would pass Simpson-Bowles and Obama would sign it (it is his commission).

    But the GOP is not serious about cutting taxes and entitlement growth.

  • John||

    Dipshit, you are as tarran says, not capable of reasoning. You are so stupid it never ceases to be appalling. You just can't look away.

    There are more ways to cut spending than Simpson Bowles. All you are saying is "if they were serious they would do what Democrats tell them to do. No shit, you are a Democrat worshiping moron. We knew that.

    You are just profoundly stupid. And seem to have no ability to ever change.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, now that the GOP fully controls Congress they jumped right on debt reduction. Right, Red Tony?

  • juris imprudent||

    It isn't that the GOP isn't serious about debt reduction you moron - it is your insistence that Obama would sign off on it.

  • fish||

    Don't fucking piss me off by finding an area of mutual agreement Weigelbot!

    Like Obama had anything to be concerned about while versus the "Washington Generals" led by that most capable of point guards.....John "Prison Bitch" Boehner.

  • See Double You||

    The only serious fiscal conservatives I've seen are Republicans a la Massie, Rand Paul, and Ron Paul before him. Probably could count that other doctor (his name escapes me at the moment) as one, too.

    Sure, they aren't anywhere near a majority of Republicans, but some spending program reforms have happened in the past with a GOP Congress (e.g., the welfare reforms in the '90s).

    I haven't seen any reason whatsoever to believe the Democrats will ever do anything resembling spending cuts. Simply looking at the kinds of people who vote for Democrats tells me that actually cutting spending as well as rolling back the government's influence over every facet of our lives will never happen under Team Blue.

  • Not an Economist||

    You mean Obama would sign something he has already rejected?

    On what planet do you exist?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bullshit. RTFA.

    The president’s caution reflected his “certainty that Republicans would reject anything he endorsed.” He told Alan Simpson that if he’d “put his arms around” the plan, it “would have been savaged by Republicans, and that would have killed it.” And Simpson himself doesn’t necessarily disagree. He told Calmes that Obama’s “endorsement would never have won over Republicans, and might have been toxic.”

    Obama wanted the GOP to accept it first because of their knee-jerk opposition to sensible proposals.

  • See Double You||

    Oh, I see. We're just supposed to take Obama's word that the Republicans are in "knee-jerk" opposition to him personally. Sure, there are some Republicans who are mindlessly against Obama. But Obama isn't exactly the great moderator that the Beltway makes him out to be.

  • Not an Economist||

    First of all, I did read it, that article -- by a partisan reporter -- puts the spin on Obama's rejection in the best possible light.

    In other words Obama didn't want to fight for the plan, didn't want to take the political hit, wanted other people to lead and most importantly of all wanted the Republicans to take the blame for him rejecting the plan.

    That is the best possible spin for Obama and you blindly accepted it because of your own partisan viewpoint.

    Obama has done nothing to reduce the federal deficit and the only reason the deficit has come down is the economy is in spite of what Obama has done, not because of what Obama has done.

  • Zaytsev||

    Yeah, but he's right on that one.

    Broken clock and all.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    All this.^^ And also, the Democrats are social liberals, but the Republicans are no longer fiscal conservatives and thus have lost any commonality. It boggles the mind that (ostensibly) libertarian individuals would identify with Republicans at all.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    *presses edit button*

    .... would identify with the Republican party at all.

    That's better.

  • See Double You||

    I guess it depends on what you mean by "social liberals." Which group has been "questioning" the First Amendment with regard to "Draw Muhammed" contests? Which one has been encouraging lawsuits against conservative Christian business owners? Who is pushing "yes means yes" legislation?

    Sorry, but merely being for abortion and licensing of same-sex marriage does make someone socially liberal in my book.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Group? Some idiot blogger group?

    Democrats as a party don't advocate such. The 1A failing by Democrats is on Citizen's United/campaign speech limits (which was rightly decided and ACLU supported) and bipartisan back when McCain-Feingold was passed.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    It's a great deal more socially liberal than being against them?

    If your argument is that the Democrat party sucks, we're in agreement. Even on the limited number of issues wherein they take a reasonable position, their ends are power-driven, self-enriching lunacy.

  • John||

    The Democratic party is full on totalitarian. They openly endorse the repeal of the first amendment and admit to no limit to the power of government. Even the few freedoms they do endorse, like abortion and gay marriage, are not endorsed out of any principle of human rights or limited government. They just like those things but would absolutely endorse government going after them they for some reason decided they didn't.

    If the Democrats were to get a majority in 2016 like they had in 2009, they would likely be able to replace one of the majority justices in Heller and Citizens United and then proceed to effectively repeal the first and second amendments.

    I don't see how a party like that could in anyway be described as "socially liberal".

  • See Double You||

    With regard to abortion, no, as there are compelling reasons against it (but I don't intend to turn this thread into an abortion thread).

    As to licensing same-sex marriage, sure. But by itself, it's pretty unreasonable to conclude that Democrats as a whole are socially liberal. By reference to a single example, one could conclude Republicans are socially liberal in their support of religious liberty, but you and I don't really believe that makes them so.

    And there are many other examples of Democrats' social intolerance. They have seriously considered banning certain content from video games. I've never heard of them pushing to legalize prostitution. They want to ban smoking everywhere. They want to control what you can put into your body.

    In short, the Democratic Party of today is wholly statist. As a group, they are the enemy of libertarians, even worse than the GOP for the reasons I've given in my above post.

  • John||

    The Democrats have bought into the "all prostitution is human trafficking" bullshit just as much or more as the Republicans have. For example, it wasn't the Bush administration but Obama that has created the policy that anyone in the military or holding a security clearance who sees a prostitute is guilty of human trafficking and subject to punishment.

    And the Democrats make the Victorians seem reasonable on youth sex, outside of gay sex for some weird reason. "Affirmative Consent" is no different that requiring a marriage contract before sex.

  • ||

    1) There are plenty of hephalumps that are fiscally conservative( Paul, Amash, Massie etc.)

    2) The donkeys are not socially liberal. They're socially totalitarian. It may be the case that they want you to behave in a way that you would anyway(and that's fine) but to say that they're actually tolerant of other lifestyles is an abuse of the Queen's English.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    1) Talking about the party, here. Not individual platforms. Note that you mention Paul, the GOP's persona non grata.

    2) How do you side on the sauce/no sauce debate as applied to beef short ribs?

  • John||

    Note that you mention Paul, the GOP's persona non grata.

    REally? Last I looked he was a very powerful and influential Senator.

  • ||

    Powerful and influential? Really?

  • ||

    I prefer letting the cows gambol freely.

  • John||

    Nothing says socially liberal like demanding nuns be threatened with fines and jail if they don't buy birth control and insisting that any business that refuses to participate in a gay wedding should be run out of business.

    We need to kill the canard that the Democrats are "socially liberal". They are socially reactionary and oppressive.

  • ||

    My point was that Paul and others can actually exist within the GOP. I see no such libertarian leaning pols on team blue( at least at the national level).

  • Zaytsev||

    It boggles the mind that (ostensibly) libertarian individuals would identify with Republicans at all.

    The republicans have made liberty one of their selling points for decades. Now the party establishment sees that as only so much marketing bs and doesn't give a shit about actually reducing government.

    But the marketing bs has attracted the voters that care about that as an issue. And they have ocaissionally elected renegades that buck the establishment - like the Pauls, Massie and others. Including Gary Johnson who was elected governor as a republican. So there is some room in that party for libertarian ideas and candidates to gain success.

    While the democrats' base is going full socialist.

  • sprosser||

    Love Johnson. Love Johnsonville too.

  • Ra's al Gore||

    "Is this country of 300 million people only capable of being governed by two families?," asks Gary Johnson, the former two-term Republican governor from New Mexico, who also ran for president in 2012 on the Libertarian Party (LP) line. "The biggest factor in politics is name familiarity," says Johnson, referring to Clinton and Bush, "and that’s the phenomenon that exists right now."

    And Trump. Don't forget Trump. #AllThreadsMustIncludeTrump

  • Hamster of Doom||

    It's only a phase. Remember two, three weeks ago when we were starting off comments on articles about fashion or science or anything else that had nothing to do with politicians with, "But what does this have to do with Rand Paul?"

    If Gingrich announces, or when Rick Perry says something ungawdly stupid, they'll be driving us nuts with twenty articles a day about them. Jesus, let's hope Tipper Gore doesn't decide to try a career in politics.

  • Libertarian||

    I'll vote for Johnson or, for the first time, not vote at all. This cafehayek blog post is one of the best I've read this year - the light finally went off in my thick head when I read it:

    http://cafehayek.com/2015/04/i.....nteed.html

    "...why do so many adults – including media pundits and academic professors – suppose that the results of a national election in a large country, such as the United States, will produce outcomes that are fundamentally different? Why do so many seemingly intelligent people presume, or at least hope, that a genuinely interesting and intellectually substantive candidate can win at least the tens of millions of votes necessary to become the next resident of the public-housing project at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?"

  • John||

    Okay. Then what is Johnson's solution? Make him King? Whatever the truth about Democracy, loathing the voters is probably not the best idea. Moreover, that statement exhibits a distaste for for people's thinking and ability to act in their own bests interests that is inconsistent with liberty. If Johnson is so convinced that voters can never be trusted to act in their best interests, why is he convinced they can be trusted to act in their best interests in any other aspect of life?

    If Johnson doesn't believe people know what is best for themselves, and since they have the gall not to support him he apparently doesn't, then why does he believe in liberty and not rule by top men? Johnson's only real difference with the Progs is that he disagrees on which top men should rule the proles.

  • Libertarian||

    John: my link was to a post by Don Boudreaux, NOT Johnson. My excerpt of it may be misleading if taken out of context. Need to read the whole thing.

  • John||

    Sorry. I assumed that was Johnson. My mistake.

    And as far as the article, I would say there is virtue in blandness and caution, especially when you are electing people who will govern and effect the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

  • ||

    How could people or businesses even function if the laws were changing dramatically every 2-4 years, almost over night?

  • John||

    They don't as we found out in the 30s and again in the last seven years.

  • Chipper Chipping Rodrigue||

    Johnson is OK, but for my money Sarah Palin is the greatest voice for libertarianism in politics today.

  • John||

    Yeah, I know. No one reads it so it doesn't matter. I just can't help but be bothered by Time being so ignorant they make me defend Ayn Rand.

    As Ayn Rand’s biographer, I came to appreciate certain things about her: her willingness to persevere as an outsider, her hard work, her ferocious drive to formulate and articulate what, like it or not, were ideas, not dictums or even policy papers. Yet reading Ideal today, I can’t help glimpsing Charleston gunman Dylann Roof and his lethal ilk in the undoubting fanaticism of Johnny Dawes and I am appalled.

    - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/n.....VPLos.dpuf

    Anne Heller is profoundly stupid and functionally illiterate or if not prone to delusional thoughts such that she needs to seek psychiatric help. There is no way even the most ardent Rand hater, and I am not that but certainly not an Objectivist, could spend enough time studying Rand to write her biography and make this statement without being functionally illiterate, delusional or both.

  • See Double You||

    Does she explain why she "glimpses" Dylan Roof when she reads Ideal?

  • John||

    It is essentially the very old and very simple minded fallacy to equate all commitment to be equal no matter what the cause. So since Rand writes about characters who make great sacrifices and resort to extreme measures in support of their cause, she is endorsing the actions of all fanatics including ones like Roof.

    It is a pathetic attempt at thought.

  • See Double You||

    A new "guilt by non-association," I guess.

    WE GET IT MSM YOU HATE LIBERTARIANS.

    "Ayn Rand is just like Adam Lanza Dylan Roof!

  • John||

    False equivalency is one of the great tools of evil. This is a good example of how it is used. Progressives like Heller applaud their side for going to extreme measures to force other people to conform. When Rand writes about the victims fighting back, Heller just calls her a fanatic who endorses murder, as if all murder is equally wrong regardless of the cause for which it is committed.

    Another variation of this is how Progs will call anyone who says up to their oppression is just "playing the victim". For example, when someone stands up against feminists for denying men accused of rape on college campuses, they are immediately accused of just playing the victim card because it is so hard being a "white male". Well, yeah it kind of is when totalitarian assholes like Progs convict them of horrible crimes regardless of the evidence and without any meaningful due process.

    The Nazis and communists did the same thing. Whenever their victims said anything about their oppression, the oppressors just turned the tables and claimed the victims were just angry they could no longer get away with their oppression.

  • See Double You||

    Yep. There's a reason the law doesn't call killing someone in self-defense "murder." Those kinds of nuanced distinctions are either lost on the Hellers of the world or they claim they are same knowing they are not.

    Assholes, the lot of them.

  • sarcasmic||

    While we will say that government has the monopoly on the initiation of force, the left will say that government has the monopoly on all force.

    As a result of this, the left sees no difference between self defense and vigilante justice. Because defending yourself is a use of force, and that's bad because only government can use force.

    That's one of the reasons they refuse to accept that more guns leads to less crime, because that less crime comes as a result of people reacting to force with force or a threat of force. That's bad because only government is allowed to do that. So even if the consequence of less guns is more crime, it's preferable to the left because it means less force being used by peasants.

  • Greg Gutfelt's Nutpunch||

    *because it means less force being used by law-abiding peasants.

  • Zaytsev||

    False equivalency is one of the great tools of evil.

    One that libertarians are particularly prone to.

  • Ra's al Gore||

    Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
    -- Ayn Rand

  • See Double You||

    Shhh, don't tell Time's readers. They might just get a more accurate picture of someone they are supposed to hate.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    A man should be judged by the content of his character? What a racist, murderous bitch!

  • sarcasmic||

    Most if not all criticism I've seen of Ayn Rand was not criticism of what she wrote, but of her as a person.

    Which isn't surprising being that the left considers fallacies like ad hominems to be credible arguments.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    By the time the media is done with Rand Paul, half the country will think he's Ayn Rand.

    "Rand Paul? Isn't he that racist libertarian dude who wrote those books about killing poor people so the rich could get richer?"

  • Inigo "Chip" DuBois||

    The GOP has had plenty of chances. It's as outmoded, turgid, and stupid as the dem party. Both parties are bastions of power-mad statists and both are well past their expiration dates. I've seen much fresher choices on the "reduced for quick sale" cart at the grocery store.

    What puzzles me is why the public can't just kick them to the curb. Historically, there were other major political parties that are now just paragraphs in history books: the Whigs, for example.

  • John||

    Maybe the public doesn't for the most part agree with you?

  • Inigo "Chip" DuBois||

    Of course they don't. They are like overgrown children. Either they want mommy and daddy (the state) to give them free stuff or they want big daddy to protect them from the monsters in the closet (the terrorists, drug dealers, criminal immigrants, etc. They are too stupid to think for themselves much less fend for themselves.

  • sarcasmic||

    Republicans want government to be their bad-ass daddy, Democrats want government to be their nurturing mommy, and libertarians want government to treat them like adults.

  • See Double You||

    IIRC, the other day Jessie criticized some of your posts as "unimaginative." I, on the other hand, actually admire your posts. I think they distill complex libertarian arguments into accurate points that are digestible by the general public.

    I've used some of your points when talking to people who are generally unfamiliar with libertarianism, such as when they ask why I despise socialism so much. I say, "because in the end, it's all about asking permission and obeying orders." People understand and can appreciate that phrasing.

  • sarcasmic||

    They're just pissy because I'm an apostate who turned his back on their sacred SSM when it married civil rights. Whatever. I won't let them push me off the site because they turn into emotional proggies over that issue.

  • ||

    That's some quality framing, sarcasmic. Total rubbish, but quality framing.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think they distill complex libertarian arguments into accurate points that are digestible by the general public.

    That is my goal. Thank you for recognizing it.

  • mfckr||

    What puzzles me is why the public can't just kick them to the curb. Historically, there were other major political parties that are now just paragraphs in history books: the Whigs, for example.

    Slavery primarily fractured the Whig Party—those in the North became Republicans, while those in the South melded with the Democrats.

    There were certainly other factors involved (the Whigs weren't that cohesive to begin with—nor is the contemporary GOP). But anyhow, there'd need to be some sort of national crisis issue to fragment one the parties and reconstitute a new one.

  • John||

    A majority is not the same thing as a working majority. You only get one vote. So you necessarily have to prioritize what things are most important to you. You can't can't vote for five different candidates who support your five sacred ponies. You vote for one candidate who will support some but not necessarily all of them.

    Take something like immigration. The majority of the voters want immigration reduced and criminal aliens deported. The entire political class has spent years telling that majority to fuck off. They have been able to do that because while a majority may agree about immigration, that majority disagrees about a lot of other things and don't all vote on just that issue. So being anti-immigration isn't going to command a majority for a national candidate.

    The same is true of any number of other issues. Spending is a great example. A large majority of people agree that the government needs to stop spending so much but they can't agree on just how to do that. Since every candidate who runs on cutting spending is eventually going to have to explain just what he plans to cut to do that, no candidate running on such a platform can ever command a majority.

  • sarcasmic||

    A large majority of people agree that the government needs to stop spending so much but they can't agree on just how to do that.

    Yep. Most people want government to cut spending. Just not spending on the troops, because, well, the troops are sacred. Can't cut entitlements either because grandma needs an operation. Can't cut spending on roads because then we'd be Somalia. Can't cut government jobs because that would increase unemployment. Yeah, everyone wants government to cut spending, just not on anything that may affect them, their families, their friends, or anything they hold sacred. Which basically takes any and all spending cuts off the table. But we've got to cut spending!

  • Warren||

    Woodchippers for everyone!

  • Mike M.||

    Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database.

    A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”

    Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.

    This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.

    Absolutely sickening.

  • sarcasmic||

    Leftist Lady Justice wears no blindfold.

  • Akira||

    "... Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities"

    Forcing financial institutions to make loans by government mandate? That's a great idea! I wonder why they've never tried that before. It's not like it would contribute to a crisis or anything.

  • bolus||

    A man's gotta have a legacy.

  • Hamster of Doom||

  • lap83||

    "O'Malley apologizes for taking so long to rip the mask off"

  • See Double You||

    O'Malley is jealous of Trump's, ahem, limelight.

  • John||

    We haven't. Democrats have. I sure as hell wouldn't have booed him for that.

  • PM||

    There's the faintest whiff of irony in the LP hammering the GOP when they're on their third consecutive election running a GOP has-been as their presidential candidate.

    Also, Gary Johnson opposes freedom of association, so there's that.

  • F. Whiny Comments, Jr.||

    Typical Paulista! (laughing)

  • John||

    ohnson responds that he doesn't believe there should be workplace discrimination against gays, referencing racial segregation and civil rights laws from the 1960s.

    That statement alone makes Johnson have a pure glass house and should not be throwing stones at Republicans. It is nice that Johnson is all for the civil rights of drug users, who by the way buy his company's product. I am as well and shame on anyone who isn't. It is not so nice that he doesn't seem to interested in the civil rights of many other people.

  • PM||

    Yeah, I was very disappointed when that came out. I voted for GayJay last time 'round, but I'll write somebody in this time I guess. If I'm going to cast a protest vote I'm not going to compromise.

  • See Double You||

    It's one of the reasons I favor Rand Paul over GayJay. Paul both appreciates the logical consequences of truly-free association and has the balls to deal with the inevitable onslaught of accusations of racism, sexism, etc.

    I'm exceedingly disappointed with Johnson on this issue.

  • See Double You||

    A woman has no right to murder her unborn child. Why do YOU SUPPORT AGGRESSION? Why do YOU DENY AN UNBORN CHILD'S INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE?

    You're a total moron, Hihn. No one buys your incredibly daft shtick.

  • bolus||

    It will be interesting to see if the LP still considers him for the nomination despite that stance. Not sure if they've undergone a similar fundamental transformation as Reason has, from caring about libertarian principle to caring about which identity group's ox is being gored.

  • See Double You||

    Fuck off, Hihn, you gibbering moron.

  • bolus||

    The GOP wants nothing to do with him, either. The difference being that they're not whining about it in public like a jilted lover.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Of course he wants nothing to do with the GOP. He is a thinking, bright individual. Many here could learn something from him. But alas, most here are not libertarians, like Johnson.

  • Paul.||

    I think voting for Gay Jay was the proudest vote I've ever cast.

  • masculistman||

    I support Rand Paul.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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