Why Gary Johnson and not Ron Paul for me: He's not just "Ron Paul lite"; he's the real deal

I read in multiple places that Governor Gary Johnson is "Ron Paul lite." In chat rooms and through comments on stories I constantly come across people who are upset with Johnson for attempting to run for President in the same year as Dr. Paul, or who are antagonized by the fact that the Governor keeps pointing out that by November he will be the only "freedom" candidate on the ballot.

On various internet forums I've seen about a 50/50 split between those who said they'll vote for Johnson if Paul isn't the nominee and those who will write Paul's name in. I could go on a long rant about how writing Paul's name in will do jack beyond showing that this movement is tied to just one man, this isn't why I'm writing this.

He's my first choice, and he's frankly one of the main reasons that I am getting back involved in politics. I donated to Ron Paul in 2008 during the primaries. I was originally as psyched as many other people, but I never got hugely personally involved. Primarily it was because I had a few policy differences with the good Doctor.

I believe in abortion rights, although that's not necessarily a deal-breaker for me.

When there were multiple Republicans running for the nomination in 2011-2012, at first I did not pay a lot of attention. I noticed right away they were--as usual--marginalizing Ron Paul, and I noticed that the MSM had a field day elevating each candidate du jour--from Santorum to Cain to Newt (even flirting, for just the shortest moment, with taking Paul seriously)--only to fall back into the narrative that the nomination was Mitt Romney's to lose.

I heard about the Gary Johnson rule that kept him out of the debates, but to be honest I did not pay attention to him until he thwasked Rick Santorum over the head on gay rights. I got interested, I started reading about this guy, following him (which, even with the internet was not easy). By the time he dropped out of the GOP race and went Libertarian I was beginning to think I'd found my guy.

Why?
For one thing, he actually had a record of governing a state successfully as a libertarian (Republican). I'm sure there are blemishes on his record somewhere, but you can't find too many. He ran when the local GOP said, "Wait your turn," and won anywhere. He inherited a $300 million deficit and turned it into a $1 billion surplus in eight years while cutting taxes 14 times. He vetoed stuff--a lot of stuff. He improved public education, cleaned up bad environmental spills, announced that he was in favor of legalizing pot . . . and then he said, "You know, I'd like to climb Mount Everest now," and did it.

He's thoughtful and honest. I had noticed, watching his interviews, that he doesn't do sound bites very well. He must drive his staff crazy, because you can tell he's struggling to remember that he's supposed to do that. Instead, he gets a question, and there is a pause, and he takes the time to damn-well think about the question. Then he tells you what he thinks, and doesn't appear too worried about whether you like it or not. He's not telling you what you want to hear, he's telling you what he thinks. He told The Daily Caller that, no, he doesn't really depend on God to help him figure out what to do, because he's not really a religious man. (So at least he's not a Mormon, right? wink wink)

Gary's utilitarian libertarianism (yeah, that's a mouthful)
Gary is a utilitarian rather than ideological libertarian. He thinks in terms of what works, and what are the potential costs and benefits of any decision. I imagine he read John Stuart Mill at some point in his life, and had an epiphany: "That's it! The bastard nailed it! That's what I think, too!"

Being a utilitarian libertarian, Gary is not going to hold himself to what Ralph Waldo Emerson called "a foolish consistency" that is the "hobgoblin of litle minds."

He won't tell me he'd abolish the Fed because he knows that's likely to be a promise he can't keep, but he tells me what steps he would take to open up the Fed to accountability and to limit its authority.

He won't tell me he'll just eliminate taxes because taxes are theft--he'll tell me that he will use a consumption tax (Fair Tax--Less Unfair Tax his handlers want him to say) and work to repeal the 16th Amendment plus abolish all corporate taxes.

In other words, I am voting for, and working for, Gary Johnson as MY GUY because (1) he has the governing experience, (2) he's a thoughtful/honest man, and (3) his libertarianism is expressed within the practical confines of government.

No, he has yet to show the ability to get 20,000 people to faint at the sound of his name, or to become convinced that he really won all the primaries if only somebody would report accurate vote counts.

I respect Ron Paul, and I admire the people who have sacrificed so much to follow him toward the ideals of liberty.
But I believe that once in office Gary Johnson is the man who can deliver, whether it's this year or 2016.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I met Gary Johnson at the Florida Straw Poll. He is the real deal, he is wonderfully intelligent, and he is a true conservative/libertarian like Paul.

The only problems with him are a total lack of charisma, and a small and unassuming stature. He is so humble, and so down to earth that he doesn't command any respect. If you saw him in a grocery store, you would think he was a low-level accountant somewhere, LOL!

Still, I would definitely support him in a bid for Presidency, but he doesn't have the support, popularity, and fundraising capacity that Paul has.

I really wanted to see him join forces with Paul or Huntsman.

I have heard alot about him recently and thats a good thing. Why separate the two?? Why not support both?? I guess if your the RAW RAW kind and have to root for someone to win and someone to loose than fine, Support Johnson and hate on Ron Paul.

I think Ron Paul isnt who you think he is. This whole run for President wasnt to actually Win (his odds and support increased along the way so I think he went for it anyway) but to change the Republican Party from within.

I would say, lets support as many Lib (like how you changed that to Republican, did Johnson run as a Republican but really a Lib) as we can and move forward. Really, forget about Ron Paul for a second and see the bigger picture. Even though the movement would make a major step forward if he won the election.


S&F

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I like him, Ron Paul is my guy this year, but I hope that Johnson can take the torch as the liberty candidate next election.

So what ever happened to Bob Barr anyhow? He was the true libertarian that made Ron Paul look like a pro-establishment guy.

I wonder where the line is drawn between a hardcore libertarian and someone whom wants controlled anarchy.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I wasn't a fan of Barr's nomination and quit the LP for a good while because of it. The 2012 LNC elections were a further referendum on Barr's nomination considering 90% of the incumbents were thrown out. I came back into the fold because of the excellent debates between Johnson and Lee Wrights.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I identify myself more as a social Libertarian. Meaning I think that social programs should be decided amongst local and state governments, not by the Federal government. If people on the local and state levels agree there should be programs for social welfare then that is a right of people to experiment with different systems that may benefit all people. I guess you could say I am all for individuals having the choice to form their local governments in a manner that addresses their specific circumstances, and collectively elevates their quality of life. I am also fine with a group of rich people all migrating to some town and declaring through their elected representatives that everything in the community is privately run with absolutely no public services.

You mention that Gary Johnson is a Utilitarian Libertarian. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I get the gist of what you are saying. I personally liked the guy. I am usually a fan of the underdog that is bashing by smooth talking rich guys in shiny suits anyhow. Does Gary Johnson agree with social programs and freedom on the local level to shape our governments in ways that best reflect our local collective ideals?

abortion rights

I stopped reading there. There's no reasoning with the likes of you.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I wasn't a fan of Barr's nomination and quit the LP for a good while because of it. The 2012 LNC elections were a further referendum on Barr's nomination considering 90% of the incumbents were thrown out. I came back into the fold because of the excellent debates between Johnson and Lee Wrights.

Why didn'tcha like Barr?
I watched his lectures and by proxy debates and he seemed quite intelligent...
I mean, don't get me wrong, he seemed to market the "jerk" persona and looked like the kind of guy you just want to punch...probably also smelled like whiskey and cheap cigars, but the actual things he was saying, once you got past the urge to repeatedly punch him just for his presence, did make sense.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Barr had a terrible voting record as a member of Congress. He voted for the Patriot Act, invading Iraq, Real ID, and was the chief author of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
So what ever happened to Bob Barr anyhow? He was the true libertarian that made Ron Paul look like a pro-establishment guy.

Bob Barr was not a true liberatarian my friend
check his sucky voting record

reply to post by ExPostFacto


I am close to social libertarian myself and I agree with much you said. I'm for social programs but certainly not what we have now, a system that requires you not have a net worth over 5,000 (last concrete figure I knew of) dollars...what we have now is enslaving, enough to barely survive but not to live. People come on or are born into hard times and we should encourage a welfare system that is an actual leg up, something that sustains current living standards on the short term...you don't utilize that time to fix your situation that's on you and too bad. I like some of Gary Johnson's ideas and stances on issues but I don't think I can support his stance on social programs. It sounds like, so far at least, he's not intending to reform these programs or the concept behind them so it would be more of the same. However, I might vote for him just to add another voice to getting away from the two party system.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Barr had a terrible voting record as a member of Congress. He voted for the Patriot Act, invading Iraq, Real ID, and was the chief author of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Defense of Marriage Act isn't "anti-libertarian" at all. It allows the states to decide which marriages they do or do not recognize. All though the true libertarian stance would be to get government out of marriage all together.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Paul is my guy through Tampa. If the Paul delegates perform the impossible, then Paul will be my 2012 man-in-the-ring against Obama. But if he doesn't, Johnson is getting my vote.

reply to post by Jabronie


Even if you want to play the State's Rights card, I will call BS. No government, whether that is federal, state, or local should be able to tell how two consenting adults should live their lives.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


As a Libertarian I agree with this. I also am on Ron Paul with this one. Why is the government even involved in this. This is a personal matter and a religious matter. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say the government should impose limitations on a persons ability to chose any path in life. In fact, our Constitution was designed to facilitate multiple paths in life, with a collective protection of government to ensure no group could control our direction in life.

However, I recognize the right of people to alter their government. I am not quite sure that marriage amendments to State constitutions are actually constitutional. The US Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, and all State constitutions must provide the same protections, but may offer more protections in addition to the US Constitution. These marriage amendments are actually an amendment to reduce a persons status and ability to live their life freely. It is a group imposing their will on another group. This to me is not what the Constitution is for. It is not meant to bind one group, nor elevate another. I believe these marriage constitutional amendments are not providing the same protections as the US Constitution under the equal protection clause. Since the US Constitution has not been altered, and States must provide the same level of protections and rights, an argument could be advanced that these States passing marriage amendments have violated the equal protection clause of the US constitution.