With the two most disliked and distrusted politicians in American history snatching the two major party presidential nominations, lots of voters — free-market conservatives, libertarians, liberals concerned about civil liberties and war, moderates, decency advocates — are looking for an alternative.
The Libertarian Party, our age’s perennial “third party” on state ballots, has a golden opportunity.
Perhaps that’s why delegates to 2016’s Libertarian Party nominating convention chose two two-termed former Republican governors to take up the freedom banner: New Mexico’s Gary Johnson and Massachusetts’s Bill Weld.
Both are nice men. They are the most accomplished and credentialed politicians in the race — more than Hillary Clinton; far more than Donald Trump. They don’t seem radical or threatening.
But that might be a problem. They are too nice. They are not threatening enough.
I’m not suggesting they threaten anyone, but in ideological terms they often appear more as moderates than as libertarians, as Ilya Shapiro noticed last week when he asked the pointed question, “Is Johnson-Weld a Libertarian Ticket?”
The Johnson-Weld take, economist Mark Thornton noted, is more libertarianish than libertarian: the pair are “fiscally conservative and socially liberal for Republicans which is great, but they fall short of Libertarian.”
This isn’t exactly a shock. Anyone who watched the bizarre CNN town hall with Johnson and Weld will remember that odd moment when Johnson called Democrat Hillary Clinton “a wonderful public servant” and Weld dubbed her a “lifelong friend.”
No need to attack Mrs. Clinton personally, of course, but when a Libertarian cannot find one discouraging word about what a President Hillary would mean, it seems they want to appear Democratish.
And not libertarian.
Well, it’s a strategy. But it won’t appeal to #NeverHillary voters, or impress many #NeverTrumpers, either.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
4 replies on “Libertarianish, Democratish?”
Johnson has no chance whatever, his credentials notwithstanding. Either narcissistic blowhard Trump or evil power-hungry Hilldog will become President next January. Your actual choice is which of them you find to be the less poisonous.
As usual a fine, astute analysis, Paul. I still believe that the LP ticket can win. A lot depends on how they perform tonight, apparently on another Town Hall – I cancelled my cable TV so basically don’t keep up on TV or mainstream propaganda, er, news – on CNN. Because that will certainly determine whether Johnson reaches 15% in the polls to get them in the debates. If they get in the debates and IF they (esp. Johnson) shine as they should compared to the Disastrous Duo, then IF the ticket starts polling at 20 – 25%, then I DO BELIEVE that that percentage will be the threshold to initiate a cascade toward the only sane, rational choice, i.e. the LP ticket, whatever their demonstrable lack of principled support for liberty.
I would love to see the LP qualify for presidential debates, but I question how much support they will get when it’s time to vote. Too many people will choose between the two major parties rather than ‘waste’ their vote. Also, I can’t imagine the LP ticket winning outright in the Electoral College vote. The best they could do is split the vote three ways. What is the chance that the establishmentarians in the House of Representatives will actually pick LP?
One more question: the LP may be fiscally conservative but are they for smaller government? I’ve heard otherwise. In that case doesn’t ‘fiscally conservative and socially liberal’ translate to ever higher taxes and bigger government rather than to decreased spending and budget surpluses?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016 – 08-03/goldman-fined-01-revenue-criminal-theft-confidential-fed-information