A Caveat About the Election for Libertarians

I know a lot of libertarians are still gaga over Ron Paul—an affliction which I don't understand considering Ron's regular ultra-conservative pronouncements, his inconsistencies, and his close affiliations with some extremely unsavory groups and individuals. People shouldn't forget that he endorsed the so-called Constitution Party in the last election—and they are nothing but a crazy Right party filled with racists, bigots, anti-Semites and theocrats. They openly proclaim they want to impose "God's law" on America.

But when Ron comes teetering out onto stage the saliva glands of some libertarians go into hyperdrive requiring many to attend his meetings with drool bibs securely attached to their Ron Paul shirts, as they wear their Ron Paul hates and cling to their Ron Paul action figure in the rumbled suit.

I personally consider Ron a paleoconservative, little different in policy matters from the odious Pat Buchanan. And some prominent Ron Paul advocates had previously prostituted themselves on behalf of Pat Buchanan. I don't mind people pimping themselves out, but I do criticize their lack of taste.

A lot of libertarian entertain the following utopian fantasy. In their dream Ron Paul will fight valiantly till the end, lose the Republican race, and then turn around and endorse Gary Johnson as the Libertarian Party candidate.

I'm not so sure. The grapevine told me that Gary Johnson went to let Ron know he was running in the Republican primary. This was long before Ron had even indicated a desire to run and was hinting that he wouldn't. Remember Gary had previously supported Ron and was paying a courtesy call, which was not necessary. I'm told that when Gary finished the sentence about running that Paul glared at him and stood up and walked out on him. Gary himself has never said anything negative about Paul, other than that they have some disagreements. Yes, they do. Gary is a libertarian, Paul is paleoconservative and those are some disagreements. Gary has been nothing but a gentleman and spent time praising Paul during his campaign. Paul has pretended that Johnson didn't exist.

While some libertarians think Paul is the messiah, I consider him a crafty politician who has held together a coalition of contradictory views by cleverly phrasing things so that both right-wing statists and conservative leaning libertarians hear what they want to hear. I fear his votes, for the most part, go to social conservatism and not to libertarianism, at least when those issue are up. And his votes on immigration and free trade also lean in the paleoconservative direction even while he spouts libertarian rhetoric. Libertarians have always got the words while paleoconservative got the votes—but that seems to be enough to buy off the libertarians.

The dream vision says Ron will fight to the end and then endorse Gary and that Gary will win a few percentage points pushing the libertarian idea.

I am not sure that Paul will not sabotage that vision. It is possible but I think it the least likely of four scenarios—though all are possible. Here are the possibilities.

1. Ron runs till the end, drops out, and then announces he is running a Libertarian and wants the LP to dump Johnson in favor of himself.

2. He may do this just prior to the LP nominating convention, thus not running to the end, and sucker punches Johnson at the very last second. I think the fund raising is just too damn good for Ron to want to put an end to the money bombs. And, under federal rules, his excess funds can be donated to any nonprofit of his choice and he happens to have a couple under his control.

3. Ron may have it in mind that he can get the VP nomination with Romney. Even the media has noted Ron's lack of criticism of Romney, even while he was dumping on the other Republican candidates. Romney has to pick someone. He can't pick Huntsman, that would look too much like a Mormon take-over. Santorum is far too repulsive and I doubt he wants Gingrich. I don't think he will go for the Blanche or Jane Hudson of the GOP: Bachmann or Palin. But, in spite of his own theocratic tendencies Ron doesn't appeal to the Christian appeal—though he has tried.

4. Ron could just let his true colors out and once again endorse the Constitution Party.

I think it less likely that Ron will graciously endorse Gary Johnson. I don't get that vibe from Ron. All you have to do is ask him a question he wants to avoid—and there are plenty of them—and you'll see how he glares at you and responds. While, I wouldn't care if he endorses Gary or not, I'm not expecting it. Nor am I confident that we want to attract a large number of the fringe right types that are rallying around Ron. But then, the LP seems riddled with them as is, so I'm not sure it would do any additional harm.

I think the sad thing is that Gary Johnson, while clearly the best candidate in this round, is in the unenviable position of having to run as a Libertarian Party candidate. He would be the best candidate the LP has ever offered, perhaps with the exception of Ed Clark, but he is far too good for the vehicle he will be driving. The LP ceased to be a party of principle long ago. It sadly runs neocons and conservatives (like Wayne Root), racists and bigots and crazed conspiracy mongers. The party simple is so desperate for any help that it exercises poor judgment in who it allows into positions of influence. When Birthers, Truthers, and Birchers are welcomed with open arms, then the party has become a political toilet and needs a good flushing. Gary Johnson would just give them more credibility than they possibly deserve.

Big Government Scares More Americans

Gallup just released a poll asking Americans who they fear most: big government, big business or big labor. Government terrifies more Americans than the other two combined, by a two-to-one margin.

Sorry, Occupy Wall Street but fear of big business has been declining, not increasing. Sorry, conservatives, its not the unions that scare people but government.

Now, I should note that the main threat that unions and big business pose to Americans is that they have access to big government. Each of the other two "threats" gain their powers primarily because of their access to political power. And big labor, these days, is heavily about government. The unions don't represent most workers anymore, except when it comes to government workers. Unions are now cartels for bureaucrats. The New York Times wrote: "For the first time in American history, a majority of union members are government workers rather than private-sector employees." In fact, there were 500,000 more unionized government employees that unionized private employees.

Considering that the unions used to represent the taxpaying workers of the country, it is interesting to see they now primarily represent the tax consuming bureaucrats of the country. Without big government union memberships would be half what they are. Today, union officials are heavily reliant on the people who want to tax working people even more to sustain the programs that most people don't want.

And this just isn't libertarians concerned about big government. More Democrats now say they fear big government than fear big business. Gallup says that the numbers of Democrats concerned about big government was high during the Bush years and dropped after Obama took office but has been increasing. In other words, Democrats who lost their fear of government after Bush was out of office, have regained that fear with Obama in power. After Obama took office only 32% of Democrats said they were more worried about big government. After three years of Obama that number has risen to 48%. This means that the numbers of Democrats concerned about overreaching government has increased by 50% while a Democrat has been in office. And it doesn't have far to go, just 8 points, until it reaches the levels of concern under George Bush.

Among key independent voters more of them are concerning about Obama's big government than were actually afraid of it under Bush. In 2006, 60% of independents said they worried about big government more. It declines slightly by 2009, to 59%, but has since risen to 64%

The reality is, that most Americans are not in tune with Obama's attempts to centralize power in Washington. Yet, he does well in head to head polls against Republican contenders. The reason for that is simple—people don't like the Republicans either.

The Republicans who have staked their future on moralistic platitudes, religion and gay hating (Bachmann, Santorum and Perry) are doing poorly in the polls. The candidates who are doing better have emphasized other issues, even if they share the small-minded prejudices that now run the Republican Party.

What neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats, get is that voters don't like either one of them. The landslide for Obama wasn't the public embracing his elitist views about centralized power, preferably in himself. It was a vote against two terms of Bush. And, when November comes around, and asshole Republicans are swept into office, it won't be voters suddenly embracing the Republican's theocratic tendencies. It will be disgust at the first term of Obama rule.

The number of voters who identify as Republican or Democrat are diminishing. More and more are saying they are independent. And this voting group shows mushy libertarian sentiments that neither party represents. The one candidate who comes closest to that sentiment is Gov. Gary Johnson, but the Republicans and the media have worked together to make sure Johnson is excluded from the debates. Even when he's qualified the rules were changed in order to disqualify him again. Big government Republicans (which is most of them in Washington), and big government Democrats (ditto) are allies not enemies and they will close ranks on the likes of Johnson precisely because his values do resonate with a large percentage of voters, especially the growing body of independents.

What's Their Excuse Now?

Over the years I've run into libertarians (real ones) who justified their support for a conservative like Ron Paul with the excuse: "He's better than anyone else running."

They admitted that Paul wasn't really all that libertarian but they used the dismal records of the other candidates to justify drinking the Rondroid Kool-Aid.

They weren't thrilled with Ron's rabid immigrant bashing, his voting for the wall along the border, or his denying that he once supported abolishing the immigration department. They weren't happy that Ron simply lied about libertarian positions he once took and now pretends he never did.

They were not happy with Ron's record of voting against measures that reduce trade barriers under the pretense that they didn't totally abolish them. They didn't buy that excuse since it would argue that a tax cut is wrong unless it abolishes all taxes.

They were not happy with Ron's bigotry and appeals to racists and the like in his sleazy newsletters, his business venture with fellow conservative bigot, Lew Rockwell.

But, they argued, he was still better than the other choices.

But Gary Johnson got into the race and did so before the befuddled Texan joined the race. So what did the Rondroids do? Did they recognize that Gary was good where Ron was shitty, good where Ron was good, and had NONE of the insane conspiracy theories that Ron entertains? No!

Now they are attacking Gary for ruining Ron Paul's chances.

What are those chances? Zero. Most voters don't know Ron's record. Imagine the first time Ron and Obama square off.

All Obama has to do is read out the hateful, bigoted comments that appeared in Ron's newsletters, under his editorship and under his byline. It matters little whether his business partner, Lew Rockwell, wrote the racist comments or not. Ron approved them. He KNEW they were appearing no matter how often he now denies it. Ron suffers from political induced Alzheimer's, he conveniently forgets things. He forgot he was editor with Rockwell. He forgot he was business partners with Rockwell. He forgot that he signed on to the newsletters and published them over a period of five years. He forgot his wife and daughter were paid staff members of the newsletters—even if they did no work for their salaries. And he claims he forgot who wrote the vile material that appeared under his byline. How convenient!

The senility of the situation should humiliate any decent libertarian. But there are so few decent libertarians left. Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell introduced a poison to the libertarian movement. They promoted the anti-immigrant, anti-gay views of the conservative Right. They pushed the venom of racism and bigotry in a way that the modern libertarian movement has never before experienced. And they attracted a bunch of intolerant, bigoted morons to the movement in the name of a floating abstraction called anarcho-capitalism. This is rather contradictory given Paul's living off of the taxpayers for most his adult life.

Gary Johnson is what libertarianism used to be about, before the sheet-wearing neo-Confederates infiltrated the movement. And he is the only choice for libertarians who remain true to the original definitions of libertarianism.

Come On, Live Free

>

The Gary Johnson Campaign has put out this think piece.

The Blatant Dishonesty of CNN

When it came to CNN's exclusion of Gov. Gary Johnson from their "debate" for all Republican candidates who aren't Gary Johnson, I took it as a stupid policy based on their own ignorance. Now, I have reason to think otherwise. Now I believe they are intentionally dishonest.

Johnson, who as far as this blogger is concerned, is the only libertarian in the race, was excluded because CNN says he doesn't poll high enough in opinion polls. Opinion polls at this point i the race are nothing more than name-recognition polls and I thought CNN ought to know this, or at least one of the kids interning there might be able to tell them.

But look at this poll that CNN has done.

Tell me how Gary Johnson can qualify for one of the CNN bogus debates if they intentionally exclude him from the poll. See, CNN goes around asking Republicans what that they think about Republican candidates. They rattle off a list of names of bigots, morons, warmongers, statists, immigrant-hating, earmark-loving, Republicans. And then the member of the public responds to the name. They include everyone and the kitchen sink, include Gingrich whose campaign has collapsed with the mass defection of his own staff. Well, almost everyone. The one candidate they will not mention is Gary Johnson.

Let us consider how the media looks at this race. They have all these Right-wing conservatives willing to impose some level of theocracy on America, Rick Santorum being the worst of the bad lot. They have the token black guy that got attention by saying silly things in a debate and thus got some name recognition. And they have their token "libertarian," Ron Paul, who they can easily make look absurd by showing the world his wacko views on the NAFTA Superhighway, the "Amero" conspiracy, the banking conspiracy, the CFR conspiracy, and whatever paranoid delusion the Birchers are dishing out this week. And they have Gary Johnson who is far closer to being an actual libertarian. Unlike Paul, Johnson does NOT support things like DOMA, doesn't want to ban to abortion, doesn't hate immigrants, said that Paul's Wall on the Border is a waste, etc. In other words, Gary Johnson is good where Ron Paul is pathetic and Johnson has a proven track record of attracting Democrats and Republicans both in elections.

He was a Republican elected in majority Democratic state and then he got re-elected a second time with an even higher majority. One poll showed that of all the Republicans running, who were polled to that day, he was the only one where with a positive rating in his own state. For all the others, people in their home states had higher negatives views about them, then positive. All, except Gary Johnson.

When CNN sets the rules for debate inclusion, and requires candidates to get a certain percentage in the polls, but then goes out of the way to exclude specific candidates from the very polls they take, that is not oversight. That is dishonesty.

The Baltimore Sun has taken on CNN and the other "sponsors" of this dishonest debate. They note that by the qualifications listed by CNN, Gary Johnson did qualify for inclusion in the debate. CNN immediately changed the rules to exclude him. They said "this last-minute alteration of the criteria is akin to that most-hated sports analogy: Changing the rules in the middle of the game." As the Sun write: "They shouldn't change the rules to justify the exclusion of a candidate whom they had already improperly decided to exclude." My view: FUCK CNN, they are scum.

The one candidate I can support.

I've heard Gary Johnson speak three times and meet with him twice. He's the real thing when it comes to being a libertarian. I reiterate my view that he is the ONLY libertarian running in the Republican race. He is good where Ron Paul is good. He is good where Ron Paul is absolutely shitty. And, unlike Ron Paul, there is no kooky conspiracy theories or associations with racists and fringe scary groups. In addition, unlike Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, as governor, actually has balanced budgets. He has executive experience and doesn't come across like someone's elderly, eccentric uncle.

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Here he is telling conservatives why drug legalization has to be on the table. I've heard him tell people we have to cut the military budget and can cut it substantially. He wants the US out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. He understands the vitality that immigration brings to a country.



Here is Gary having a good time on National Public Radio.



And Gary talking to Reason before he declared his candidacy.

I could go for this.

Gary Johnson, CPAC, conservatives and Ron Paul

Gary Johnson is the only politician who I could support. He's far better than paleoconservative Ron Paul.

Speaking of Ron, I find it hilarious that YAF (which should stand for Youth Against Freedom, but supposedly means Young Americans for Freedom) has said they are throwing Ron Paul off their advisory board. Advisory boards actually never advise, they are for show and usually used by the organization as a fund raising tool to give them legitimacy.

YAF is upset because of one of the issues where Ron Paul is correct, his support for the Old Right position of non-interventionism. YAF tries to paint Paul as some sort of Lefty for this position. In truth however, the bipartisan foreign policy that now has the US stationing troops around the world is Woodrow Wilison's policy and FDR's policy. It is an imperialistic policy that came from the political Left. Though some lefties, like William Jennings Bryan, were clear exceptions.

What is particularly hilarious is that the clowns at YAF claimed to be the oldest "conservative/libertarian" organization around. There is no such creature as a conservative/libertarian. Conservatives are not libertarians and real libertarians are not conservatives. Gary Johnson is no conservative, he is a libertarian. Ron Paul, however, is not a libertarian but a conservative albeit one with some libertarian tendencies, but more paleoconservative than anything else.

I have watched the debate about the CPAC conference for conservatives in DC with some amusement. The presence of a gay conservative group at the CPAC has the theocratic Right foaming at the mouth. Moralistic assholes kept popping up and announcing that they would not attend because, shock, horror, there were "homosexuals" in the crowd.

These people react to gays the same way that Nazis react to Jews, or the Klan does when a black man walks down the street. It is pathetic.

But CPAC has always attracted a younger crowd and they are less concerned about being warriors for Christ, so they aren't quite so willing to host a Holy Inquisition and burn a few heretics on top of the faggots used to light the fire. (Yes, that is the origin of that insulting word, it was the kindling used to burn people at the stake in the name of a loving god.) So, the CPAC attendees aren't so interested in the verbal gay bashing that Christians do so well and so endlessly.

To me the debate that ought to be held is why are libertarians at CPAC, not why are conservatives there. Let's face it people: the modern conservative is not a libertarian. He is even less libertarian than the Old Right conservatives, who still failed at being libertarian. Conservatives are bad on almost everything, when it comes to their political view points.

Libertarians are quite a different species entirely. And the less time libertarians spend with conservatives the better.

This is still a politician I can like.

Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, continues to impress me. Not only does he seem to be a nice guy but, for a politician, he seems to have his head screwed on right. I met him several months back and while I didn't agree 100% with him, I was in basic agreement much of the time—something that doesn't happen often. He seems far more libertarian than Ron Paul, and certainly much more libertarian than the seed of Ron's loins, Randall Paul.

I later heard Johnson speak to a tea party group and lecture them on why, if they are interested in freedom, they have to oppose the war on drugs. It was a pleasure to watch these Right-wing bigots squirming in their seats. A handful of libertarians in the audience applauded enthusiastically but most the tea baggers sat on their hands, looking glum and waiting for the next speaker to bash Mexicans so their hearts would start beating excitedly again. Given the general age of the audience Mexicans may be more effective than a pacemaker at keeping them alive. I do suspect that absent the "brown menace" these people would find the "gay threat," or "the Jew conspiracy," or the "Illuminati" to rile them up. Imaginary threats are so much nicer than real ones.


Now Gov. Johnson has come out on the immigration issue. He's not as hard core on the matter as I am, but for one given to having to deal with political compromises, he supports a fairly decent position, and one that moves in the right direction. He also has some unkind words for the Nativists on the Right who are in frothing at the mouth over Mexicans. (I should note that Right-wing racism alone would be insufficient to whip hysteria about immigrants and that the matter is also pushed by left-wing labor unions who are ignorant about job creation and believe immigrants "steal our jobs.")

In a recent newspaper interview Johnson chided his fellow Republicans who say they want to cut government spending yet are hyped up over the war on terror and the war on Mexican gardeners.

"But when you listen to the rhetoric they all seem to want to stay engaged on the war on terror at an unlimited cost and they're all now talking about securing the borders when they don't seem to have any idea how much that would actually cost," he said. "Although the rhetoric sounds good, the reality of what they're saying really isn't going to reduce spending."

The Santa Fe New Mexican wrote:

In his travels he's learned that immigration is the "hot-button issue d'jour" across the country, he said. "Secure our borders?" Johnson asked rhetorically. "What's the cost? What's the benefit? ... I just don't think it's practical to put the National Guard arm-in-arm across 1,600 miles of border."

As for the idea of deporting illegal immigrants — as advocated by many of his fellow conservatives — Johnson said that in practice mass deportations "is just going to add to the insanity of spending and it's not gong to have any positive impact."

Johnson said there were more illegal immigrants in the U.S. back when he was governor. "When I was governor, I asked for a cost-benefits analysis. Are we paying out more than we're getting in, given the fact that (immigrants) do pay taxes — income tax, Social Security, Medicare. Immigrants who have used false documents to get work don't collect tax refunds, Johnson said. His administration determined that the state got more tax revenue from illegal immigrants than the state was paying out in benefits.

Johnson said he doesn't like the harsh tone he's heard in the immigration debate. "At an event the other night and some guy says, 'What we need are A-10s flying low across the border ... guns blazing.' " Johnson said. "I said, 'Really? You want to kill the immigrants? ... We are on different pages here. We really have a serious disagreement about this.' " But a couple of minutes later, Johnson said, the man apologized and said he didn't mean what he said. He said such emotional reactions to the problem "have to do with the notion that (immigrants) are taking away jobs from U.S. citizens."

Pretty good stuff, though I did find myself shaking my head at the dumbth of the reporter for referring to Johnson as a conservative. When will these morons learn? The paper also noted that Johnson says that if you want to weaken drug cartels operating out of Mexico then you should legalize marijuana—which is a good beginning, but just the beginning.

If the Republican Party ran more candidates like Gov. Johnson it would have long term viability. Right now the GOP relies on a dwindling group of rabid fundamentalists as their base. This means they have given up minorities of all kinds: gays, Hispanics, and the young most prominently. It also means they have to rely on people hating the Democrats more. The largest group of voters are independents and they don't find themselves drawn to the Republicans as much as they are disgusted by the Democrats. Barack Obama is campaigning for the GOP full time. Both parties merely give voters reasons to vote for the other party. So Johnson is a nice change of pace, he is someone who gives you reasons to vote for someone, and not just against them.

I find I can even like a Republican—sometimes.

There are two species that I have not been overly fond of: politicians and Republicans. So it is not highly likely that I would have some positive things to say about a Republican politician who is NOT "officially" running for President, which, in political newspeak, means he is running for President. But I do have some good things to say about one of them. That one is Gary Johnson the former governor of New Mexico.

Recently I was invited to a small get-together of people with Johnson. I listened with interest. And while Johnson isn't exactly where I'm at politically, he seemed to consistently be "almost there" on most issues. I am happy to attribute the "not quite" there views as necessary concessions in the political marketplace. Johnson is almost libertarian across the board. In that sense I think he is far superior to Ron Paul, who was clearly unlibertarian in several ways.

Johnson, for instance, says on immigration: "Fences don't work and won't work." Ron voted for the wall on the border. Johnson wouldn't go as far as I would on immigration but his view isn't bad. He wants to make it easier to "document workers" coming to the US, make it easier to come and doesn't like throwing out people who have lived here and established a life for themselves as productive individuals. I'd go farther but this is a damn good start.

In 1988 Ron Paul was "personally" against abortion but didn't campaign for state control, something he changed views on when he last ran for office (as he changed his positions on immigration as well). Johnson says he is personally opposed but "the decision is best left to the individuals involved." I can live with that as well.

Republicans go bonkers on war. Johnson says he is against the war in Iraq and opposed it as governor. He says that the "should resort to military action only as provided for in the Constitution." Again, I can live with that—and so could billions of other people.

I told Johnson that there are three issues that divide libertarians from conservatives in the current political debate: drugs, immigration and equality of rights for gay people. So I put him on the spot about the one he had not addressed that evening. He immediately said he would support civil unions for gay couples. Again, that is about 80% there. But compared to other candidates, a consistent 80% there on issues is pretty damn good.

I asked him about the Defense of Marriage Act and his first inclination was to oppose repeal. I mentioned the law denies equal rights in ways that libertarians ought to be concerned. The father of our host for the evening asked me to clarify. So I pointed out the obvious case that a heterosexual American can marry a non-citizen and bring their spouse to America to live with them but that gay Americans are denied that right by law. Johnson didn't seem to realize that was the case and that the Defense of Marriage Act prevented a policy of equality. But he was a governor not a federal legislator so I can excuse that lack of awareness. Johnson immediately said he may have spoken too soon and said what I mentioned, "just doesn't seem fair." Hey, that's a better answer than you can get out of Ron Paul or Bob Barr.

But his immediate rethink tells me he is someone who has basic principles down and if new information is provided is open to reconsidering his views.

Interestingly Johnson gets a point I've made in this blog several times. Recently I argued the election of Brown in Massachusetts was not an endorsement of Republican views, anymore than the election of Obama was an endorsement of nationalized health care or Obama's views. Only a few days ago Johnson told the Union Leader in New Hampshire that it would be a "a mistrake for Republicans" to view the Brown victory "as some sort of mandate." He said all voters were doing was showing "a real disgust with those in office. It isn't a shift to Republicans. It's just, 'Get whoever's in there out." That is barely different than what I said.

As governor Johnson vetoed 750 different pieces of legislation that crossed his desk. Compare that to Dubya who never met legislation that he didn't like. As governor of New Mexico Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors combined. That reminds me of the joke about what do you call a 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea: a good beginning. I don't know how many laws Johnson didn't veto but 750 is a good beginning.

While I was unimpressed with the Ron Paul of 2008, and only moderately happy with the Ron Paul of 1988, I feel a bit more comfortable with Johnson. I'm not comfortable enough to give an unqualified endorsement—I doubt I ever would be. But I am comfortable enough to say he deserves some attention by individuals who, like myself, believe in less politicial interference in markets as well as in the social sphere. If you are sick and tired of the Ayatollahs from evangelicalism running, and ruining, the Republican Party then Gary Johnson may be the man for you, especially if you still want someone who understands the need for free markets and low taxes.

I am 90% confident, based on the conversation with Johnson, that he will be running for president. He can't declare his candidacy now because of the way the government regulates his group, Our America. But it appears, like most other issues, that when it comes to official declaring his presidential ambitions he's 80% of the way there. And that's also good enough for me. Give him some thought.

Photo: Yes, that is Johnson. The snow gear was necessary since this is him recently climbing Mt. Everest. When he wants to do something, he does it. And he does want to run for president.