Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Why You Should Support Gary Johnson, and not Ron Paul

Ron Paul has done a lot of good for the Republican Party and for Libertarians.  Of the entire population of Libertarians in the country, he is the only person to be elected to Congress and vote (mostly) like a Libertarian.  Dr. No has voted more like a Libertarian than any other member of Congress.  He is a hero of the Libertarian movement.

And now I am asking you to let him go.  His time is past.

Instead, I'm going to ask you to support Gary Johnson.  A two-term governor of New Mexico, he has talked the talk and walked the walk in a heavily Democratic state, without the fatal fiscal flaws of Mitt Romney, and without the ugly social agenda of most of the rest of the field.  Like Ron Paul, he is a true fiscal conservative, having balanced New Mexico's budget within his first two years of office, and maintained a surplus the other six years.  He reduced the size and scope of state government in New Mexico.  Like Ron Paul, he sees the folly of the War on Drugs, considering it a horrible waste of Federal resources and willing to look for other solutions.  Like Ron Paul, he opposes interventionism in the rest of the world, choosing to win hearts and minds through trade and by setting an example for the rest of the world, instead of treading around the world militarily.  And he has an overriding pragmatism that makes it seem as if he could accomplish what he wants to do.  As a border governor, he has a sane, practical position on immigration.

How does he differ from Ron Paul?  For one, he's younger.  Ron Paul, bless his heart, is now 75 years old.  Simply put, if he were ever to make significant inroads towards the nomination, his age will be made a factor.  Gary Johnson is 58 and an accomplished triathlete.  Nobody would doubt his health.


Two, Johnson has been a state governor.  He has been a government executive, and has experience in leading.  Ron Paul has done an admirable job as a Representative in Congress, but as an outsider in his own party, he has not chaired important committees, led coalitions, or had to sit in the big chair where the Buck Stops Here.  I realize that the debate over governor vs. legislator has been inconclusive in recent years.  But it is worth noting that since Eisenhower (the last military figure to be elected), more presidents have been governors (Johnson, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush) than not (Kennedy, Nixon, H. W. Bush, and Obama...not counting Ford, who wasn't elected) and one could argue that they were all more successful presidents (yeah, even Carter, as amazing as it sounds).

Three, Johnson has founded and run a sizable business.  He founded Big J Enterprises, a construction firm, and built it to a major enterprise with over 1000 employees. Sure, Ron Paul has practiced medicine for decades, but that's a far different economic perspective. 

Four, Gary Johnson doesn't (yet) have ugly inconsistencies in his record.  In the 2008 race, it was revealed that some of Ron Paul's newsletters in the 1980s contained some questionable racebaiting.  Yes, Ron Paul addressed that issue multiple times, and most of the people who know him assure us he's not a racist, but it's still sitting out there for him to be beaten over the head with. While Ron Paul usually voted in a non-interventionist fashion concerning social issues, in spite of being personally pro-life, he co-sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act in 2007, seeking to establish at the Federal level that life begins at conception.  He also inserted himself into the same-sex marriage row by co-sponsoring the Marriage Protection Act, also in 2007, which would limit the Federal courts' role in determining the state reciprocity of same-sex unions.  Now, I realize that these issues are divisive even among libertarians, and Paul's stances were the product of a defense of States' Rights, but in my mind, libertarianism is about freedom for all Americans, not delegating loss of freedom to the States.

Finally, there is the ugly business of his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin for president in 2008.  Baldwin was the Constitution Party (formerly U.S. Taxpayers Party) nominee. Initially, he made an "open endorsement of all of the third-party candidates (also including Libertarian Bob Barr, Green Cynthia McKinney, and independent Ralph Nader), but after being pressed by Barr to take a position, chose to endorse Baldwin.  The Constitution Party is an ultra-conservative party that advocates strongly socially conservative positions, including active intervention against civil rights.  Although they profess similarities in fiscal and foreign policy, they are quite plainly interventionist concerning individual rights, especially concerning sexuality issues.  Unlike Paul's professed stances, they support Federal bans on abortion (without exception for rape or incest), same-sex marriage, and assisted suicide.  They support the War on Drugs, a Federal upholding of state laws criminalizing consensual sex practices, and curbs on immigration.  Perhaps Paul meant the endorsement as a "screw you" to Barr (himself not much of a Libertarian), or maybe it was a favor back for the Constitution Party's endorsement of Paul in 2004, but it's still a connection we can do without.

Most of Paul's present support is based on his groundbreaking campaign in 2008, but his time is past and there's a better candidate that many more people can get behind.  Spread the word to all Ron Paul supporters that Gary Johnson is a better Ron Paul than Ron Paul.

8P5BZHR3VZQT

8P5BZHR3VZQT

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Moving here from LiveJournal

Greetings!  I am David V, and this is my political blog, The Moderate Libertarian.  I've moved here from LiveJournal, after they finally aggravated me too much.  I'll be moving all of my articles from there over to here eventually.  I'm not expecting anyone to read this blog, but if you do, be sure to let me know what you think.  Discourse is what drives constructive change in our society.