Paul vs. Johnson, or, We actually have TWO palatable options?!
Posted on April 27, 2011 at 3.46 pm
Q. As a libertarian with limited time and funds, who should I throw my support behind in the GOP presidential primary: Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, and why? — Wes, the Humble Libertarian.
A. In February of last year you asked me who I’d like to see as the GOP nominee in 2012, as well as my opinion about Gary Johnson. Then I wrote that while I saw good potential in both Johnson and the then-unelected Rand Paul (not to mention Ron Paul, of course), I’d rather save the best for 2016. Since then I’ve written that I’m not too thrilled with the idea of Ron Paul running again.
I still stand by all of those statements. As with Ron Paul, I (and I’m sure you, Wes) concur with Johnson on the vast majority of issues. Sure, there are a few disagreements here and there, but I would be happy to see either man in the White House — and should either by some (miraculous) means gain the Republican nomination, I’d certainly support him.
But all that said,while I have a choice, I’ll stick with Ron Paul, especially if we’re speaking in terms of actual electoral success (which I still find unlikely) as opposed to an educational campaign. Here are my three big reasons why:
1. The Republican Party
Lest we forget, this is not yet a race for the support of the American public at large. This is a race for the Republican nomination, and in this field, I’d contend, Ron Paul is better suited for success than Gary Johnson.
You see, despite the fact that this stance is often the source of incredibly hypocrisy and hilarity (see Gingrich, Newt and Giuliani, Rudy), the GOP considers itself the party of family values. In terms of candidates, this is typically shorthand for a faithful, heterosexual marriage coupled with opposition to the legalization of gay marriage, opposition to or at least strong personal distaste for drugs, and a firm prolife position.
Let’s compare Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on these matters:
Marriage: Ron Paul has been married for over 50 years; Johnson divorced his wife in 2005 only to have her die suddenly about a year later. It’s not a John Edwards-level marriage failure, but it’s not great and it will inevitably come out. In an interesting aside, only five sitting presidents have ever been unmarried, and none were divorced.
On the policy front, Ron Paul’s position on gay marriage is that it should be at minimum left to the states, but ideally made a completely private matter of voluntary association. This idea may be too nuanced for a presidential race, but its federalism and semi-religious overtones will certainly play better with the Republican base than Johnson’s simple statement of support for gay marriage.
Drugs: “Much of the attention that Johnson has received,” the New Mexico Independent notes, “has come from his position on legalizing marijuana in the United States.”
Unfortunately, this is all too accurate. As Johnson himself put it in Playboy, it “wouldn’t bother [him] a bit” if his legacy turns out to be “the governor who wanted to legalize drugs.” Of course, legalization isn’t his only goal — he also wants to tax and regulate marijuana, a rather un-libertarian stance. It’s one of just four issues currently on Johnson’s campaign site. Meanwhile, he’s admitted to smoking pot since being governor. Yes, it was for medicinal purposes, but that’s the sort of detail which tends to get lost in the spin room shuffle.
Ron Paul’s position on drugs is arguably the more libertarian, but he’s stated repeatedly that he’s not only never smoked but also never even seen marijuana. It is an obviously ridiculous charge that Ron Paul’s libertarianism on the Drug War extends to libertinism. Not so with Johnson, for whom I have no doubt the GOP establishment will scrape the very bottom of the barrel for specious attacks as they did with Ron Paul in 2008.
Abortion: Ron Paul, as we all no doubt know, has delivered thousands of babies and is staunchly prolife. Though he opposes government-funded and partial birth abortions, Johnson is prochoice. As evidenced by the flip-flopping by the likes of Mitt Romney, lip service to the prolife position is the minimum necessary for success in the Republican primaries.
2. Name Recognition
It’s rare to meet someone with a modicum of political engagement who hasn’t at least heard of Ron Paul these days. His grassroots base and organization is substantial and growing fast. Gary Johnson remains relatively unknown and unsupported. Heck, the Google results for his name rank his Wikipedia article above his campaign website. He’s roughly in the same place Ron Paul was in 2007 (compare this 2007 picture, for instance, where Ron Paul’s drawing a college crowd of about 30 people to the crowd he got at Miss State this month).
Johnson simply isn’t as famous as Paul, and I can’t help but imagine that he’ll have an even more difficult time getting equal press coverage than Ron Paul did a few years ago: Not only is he an anti-establishment candidate who will likely be treated as an also-ran from the start, but he doesn’t even have the novelty factor Ron Paul had on his side.
3. Focus
In 2008, it wasn’t uncommon for Ron Paul to get questions like “Why are you running?” or “Why are you a Republican?” or “Why are your ideas so weird compared to all the other GOP candidates?” Now it seems like he’s on one media blitz after another, just recently visiting The View, Hannity, and The Colbert Report all in one day. He’s a fixture on the news, where his economic pronouncements are treated like gold (pun intended) since his successful prediction of the financial crises.
In fact, it’s Ron Paul’s incessant focus on economic issues — even cleverly tying in his inexpensive, noninterventionist foreign policy and small-government domestic positions — which makes up my third reason for support of him over Gary Johnson. The thought of Ron Paul brings up the Fed, cutting spending, lowering taxes, and generally limiting government at home and abroad. The thought of Johnson brings up legalizing drugs.
It’s illustrative, I think, to look at the differences between each man’s appearance on Colbert:
Ron Paul covers lots of issues, sticking to his liberty, financial crisis, and limited government points. Gary Johnson jumps right in with the first substantive thing out of his mouth being about legalizing drugs — without Colbert even mentioning the topic.
Do I agree with Johnson that drugs should be legal? Yes, without question. But it’s still bad campaigning to make that your main issue, especially when everyone else in the country is far more interested in the state of the economy.
In short, most of my objections to supporting Gary Johnson are to be blamed on our media, electoral system, and the Republican Party rather than Johnson himself (his record in office was impressive, to be sure!). Though Justin Raimondo’s recent article on Johnson’s foreign policy — which is a huge issue for me personally — gives me pause, I suspect that were Ron Paul not likely running for president, I would research Johnson and find him an acceptable candidate. But with Ron Paul in the game, there is — for my support, at least — no contest.
——————
Post Script: This doesn’t really fit well anywhere above, but it has occurred to me that, if he doesn’t subtract a significant amount of primary votes, Johnson’s presence in the race could actually benefit Ron Paul. His focus on drugs could tend to cast Paul in a favorable light — i.e. “Ron Paul’s a crazy old libertarian, but he’s our crazy old libertarian — and he’s good on the economy, remember? All Johnson talks about is drugs.” If Johnson becomes the “fringe” and other candidates continue to flounder and flip-flop, Ron Paul may begin to look downright attractive to the Republican Party.
Gary Johnson will widen the Overton Window!!!
Gary Johnson will end the drug war we need to get the money laundering back out of the trade.
Ron Paul can do the same I guess.
Ronald Reagan was a divorced man. Nancy was his second wife. With divorce so widespread in the USA, I think this is now a non issue.
Not just palatable, for the first time, we have to make the choice between the greater of two goods.
Good catch on Reagan, Laura! I — and I think a lot of people — tend to forget that. I’m not sure, however, that divorce and other marriage scandals are quite as accepted for the president as you think, though, given the uproar over John Edwards and even, not so long ago, Bill Clinton.
I’m probably missing something here. I am a left of left liberal, yet I often agree with Libertarian positions on many issues. Maybe I’m not viewing the facts correctly, but are you saying that Ron Paul is in FAVOR of repealing Roe v Wade? Isn’t that completely against the whole Libertarian principle? I don’t understand how being “pro-life” fits in with the Libertarian cause at all. Isn’t libertarianism ALL about getting Government out of our lives? I find it hard to believe that a Doctor could not see the value of a woman making her own choices about her future. What could be more intrusive than Government making the decisions about a woman’s uterus?
I understand why Republicans don’t want poor women to have abortions. Who will they enlist, who is so readily expendable, to fight their wars for them?
But Libertarians are a stripe of a different color, and in many respects Ron Paul seems way too smart and thoughtful to be a true adherent to all the Republican principles, however are you saying that he takes a “pro-Life” stance, and it is a part of his platform? I truly don’t get it.
P.S. I hate that term, “pro-Life” – it implies that people who are Pro-Choice are actually “pro-Death”, and that is SO NOT THE CASE. I doubt that any woman looks on getting an abortion lightly, or as a means of contraception, and is any way gleeful. More energy and resources and funding should be spent on educating sexually active individuals, rather than on flooding the airwaves with propaganda.
Hey, Tara!
As I’ve written before, I’m a libertarian — and I’m pro-life (do click that link, though, for some additional information on my own ideas).
This is one of the few issues where I’d argue that one can be consistently libertarian and take either side of this issue, depending solely on one’s view of when life begins (if it’s a baby — a life — it deserves equal protection under the law; if it’s not, the government has no business interfering with the woman’s medical care).
As far as Ron Paul in particular is concerned, it’s worth noting that he is an OB-GYN who’s delivered thousands of babies. Of anyone who takes the pro-life position, he’s undoubtedly among the most informed on the subject and has decided that, based on his medical opinion of when life begins, the unborn deserve equal protection under the law.
Does that make more sense?
Oh and re: the terminology. Yeah, both sides of this debate are guilty of using loaded terms. Personally, I describe each side by their term of choice — pro-life and pro-choice — as opposed to what their opponents call them — anti-choice and pro-abortion.
[...] and — well, I could go on, but you get the picture. As a libertarian in a Republican field, I’ve also argued that he’s better suited for success than former NM governor Gary Johnso…, who has fast become a single-issue [...]
[...] When asked, the only other GOP candidate Ron Paul said he would support at the the first GOP Presidential Debate in South Carolina was Gary Johnson. In 2008, Johnson endorsed Ron Paul’s efforts in his run for POTUS. I’d suggest you read the Republican Liberty Caucus’ Aaron Biterman’s case for Gary Johnson here and Young Americans for Liberty’s Bonnie Kristian case in favor of Ron Paul here. [...]