A. You’re right that it’s rigged. You’re right that people aren’t satisfied with that the two parties offer (and that’s awesome). But I think that you’re wrong that just getting a third party candidate into the debates is enough to make real change. Don’t get me wrong—that definitely needs to happen. But, we need much, much more structural change than that. See my answers to similar past questions here and here for more details.

Q. A friend of mine were recently talking politics and he pointed out something to me, that I realize should’ve been more obvious—the Republicans *don’t* want to win this year. They’re putting up two people whose views, etc. will never be accepted. They want four more years of Obama so whatever problems we may have we can blame on the Dems and they can have more power when they *do* get elected. I’m not Repub or Dem personally, but I felt like throwing this around. I’m also becoming a quick fan of your blog! – Jasmine, from the internet.

A. It’s possible, I suppose. However, the big money which has been donated by corporate interests and the general hunger for power of most politicians—Romney and Ryan very much included—convinces me otherwise. Now, the Romney campaign’s graphic design, on the other hand…

That said, personally I think it’s strategically better for libertarian types for Obama to win against Romney. Yes, Obama is no good and he will probably only get worse. I’m not saying I want him to win. But if he wins again, we’ve got an open playing field in 2016 to maybe get an actually good candidate nominated. However, if Romney wins, then in 2016 he has incumbent’s advantage. If he’s defeated, it will be by a Democrat who will then have four to eight years in office, getting us to 2020 at the earliest for an open field. If Romney wins reelection in 2016, then 2020 will likely see either Ryan or a Democrat winning and our good candidate gets pushed back to 2028. That’s a long time from now.

Q. No question here, just encouragement. I’m just happy to find a sweet woman of God cheering on the cause of Liberty! What you’re doing here is bound to mold our culture! So…thanks. Thank you sincerely. – Michael, from the internet.

A. No answer here—this was just really nice and I wanted to publish it.

Q. Do you believe in abolishing the minimum wage? And what happens when the minimum wage is abolished? (I know, that’s a really vague question. I’m just skeptical as to how much it would actually benefit the employee, as opposed to the employer). – Aaron, from the internet.

A. The short answer is yes. The slightly less short answer is yes, because it’s bad for employees at least as much as it’s bad for employers—and in particular it’s bad for the least skilled, most disadvantaged, and, basically, poorest potential employees. Teenagers and those with little education are hit the hardest. You’re no doubt aware of the idea that minimum wages result in fewer job opportunities for low wage workers. To give a crude example, if an employer can afford to pay someone $6/hour and the minimum wage is $8/hour, he may simply get rid of the position, which means that anyone who would have taken the job at $6/hour may well remain unemployed.

Other hidden costs of the minimum wage include less job training, skilled workers being hired for unskilled jobs while unskilled workers are pushed out of the job market altogether, and even the creation of black markets for sub-minimum wage workers where employees do not feel they can go to the justice system for help if they are in abusive or even criminal situations. It has even been argued that the minimum wage and similar workplace regulations allow racist and otherwise discriminatory employers to practice their intolerance without the social and financial penalties which would otherwise kick in.

A. 1. The presidential election is not the only election in the country. I have voted multiple times for state and local elections.

2. It’s already not a democracy; and it never has been. It’s a federal republic with a number of both democratic elements and features intended to prevent the tyranny of simple majority rule.

3. Already only a minority of people participate — usually just over 50% of eligible voters (which does not include all citizens) during presidential elections, and around 1/3 of eligible voters in off years.

4. It is ok not to vote, and it has nothing to do with the difficulty with which the right was won. Many of the rights and liberties we now enjoy have historically been hard-won at some point or another; that doesn’t mean we should use them in terrible ways. If anything, it means we should exercise our right to vote more wisely and thoughtfully — which may sometimes mean choosing not to vote. I 100% support universal suffrage; what I don’t support is universal obligation to cast a vote in a corrupt system which offers no real choice. Because, you see…

5. …not voting is, ultimately, also casting a vote. It’s a vote which says, “These options suck, and I’m not going to give you my support until you can come up with an option which deserves it.” Some countries (and even places in the U.S.) have a “None of the Above” option on the ballot. We don’t get that choice when voting for president. If we did, I’d go to the ballot box and check it off. Absent that opportunity, not voting is as close as I can get. Indeed, “Since we aren’t being offered any really meaningful choice, let’s not lend credence to the pretense that we are.”

6. I’m not advocating not voting because, man, this couch is comfortable and my polling place is too far away. There’s a difference between informed, deliberate non-participation and plain laziness. It’s important not to confuse the two.

7. Of course, my jury rigged “none of the above” vote is not ideal. That’s why I write about and work in politics, attempting to help produce a political culture in which there are votes I can cast in good conscience.

Unfortunately, in the meantime (when it comes to this presidential election, at least):

A. Well, that’s a question for you to weigh thoughtfully, but ultimately not to lose sleep over.

Sleep is really important.

Here are some questions I suggest asking yourself:

• Do you think your vote matters?
• If so, does it matter to you, or does it matter to the election?
• If not, why?
• Are some issues more important to you than others?
• Do you trust Barack Obama to do what the campaign rhetoric you like says he will do?
• How much evil are you willing to accept because it’s less evil than the alternative?
• Regardless of your answer to that first question, are you committed to voting?
• Does a write-in vote “count”?
• Does a third party vote “count”?
• Which is more important:  Voting, or voting on principle?
• Which is more important:  Voting, or not voting on principle?
• More bluntly, which is more important:  Voting or principle, plain and simple? If they conflict — and from what you’re saying, they will for you — do you want the “I voted” sticker, or do you want to stick to your guns?

Personally, I will do what I did in 2008:  Voted for Ron Paul in the primaries; researched the candidates for lower offices in the general; voted for the local, state, and congressional candidates worth supporting based on that research; and in the cases (like the presidential race) where there is no one I could vote for in good conscience, left it blank.

So that’s me.  What you do will probably depend on how you answer a bunch of those questions above.

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.

I know you said you worked with the Ron Paul campaign but have you ever thought about getting back into the politics? And also do you have any current up and coming political figures that you really admire?

Anyway, that is it. Keep up the good work, good luck and God bless. — Daniel, from the internet.

A. First of all, thank you!  Encouragement is always very welcome, especially when it occasionally seems like I’m just broadcasting to an empty internet (except, of course, for people who have REAL LOIS VUITTON PURSEZ to sell me via my blog comments).

I did work on the 08 Ron Paul Campaign as the headquarters’ one and only intern — don’t mistake me for a high-level staffer or anything.  To an extent, I still consider myself employed in politics through my work as Communications Director at Young Americans for Liberty.  It’s more along the lines of grassroots organizing, to be sure, but it’s this sort of thing which must be done between election years for any hope of victory at the polls.

As far as actual campaign politics go, I’m not sure at this point.  If Ron Paul runs again in 2012 (a possibility about which I have very mixed feelings), I’d certainly be tempted to jump back into the campaign saddle.  But I’m not fond of the hectic schedule and frequent travel which campaigning requires, so me campaigning is far from a foregone conclusion.  The same goes for any other campaigns which I found philosophically satisfying and politically viable.

The other option for more political work would presumably be working on the Hill or something along those lines.  I’m even more hesitant there, for even if Ron Paul were my boss, I’d have real trouble working for the government.  That’s not to say that we don’t need principled people there; I just doubt it will ever be me.

In terms of up and coming figures, off the top of my head I’d first say B.J. Lawson, running for Congress in North Carolina’s 4th district.  Though, as with Ron Paul, I disagree with him on immigration, he’s great on pretty much every other issue.  Lawson’s also young and running, from what I’ve heard, a pretty savvy campaign.  Unfortunately, his district is heavily Democratic — but if he’s going to win any year, 2010 is probably his best shot.  If that fails, I’m hoping he’ll move.

There’s also Rand Paul, about whom I have some reservations at this point, and Gary Johnson.  Johnson seems to be feeling out a 2012 presidential run, which I could possibly support.  I’ve also heard excellent things about the Ron Paul-endorsed GOP challenger to Nancy Pelosi, John Dennis, though I honestly haven’t researched him extensively to date.

In all four cases, I’m not entirely sure I’d say they’re people I admire, but they’re definitely worth watching in 2010 and beyond.

A.  Don’t sell yourself short — that’s definitely three questions.  And three questions which it’s going to be difficult to fit into my goal of 500 words for these Q&A posts.  But here goes:

Based on the options presented in the straw poll at CPAC 2010 (with the exception of Ron Paul, of course), it doesn’t look like we can expect any surprises — pleasant or otherwise — from the GOP in 2012.  Romney, Palin, Pawlenty, Pence…this is nothing new.  All these candidates but Dr. Paul are identical:  They claim to be small government conservatives who will cut taxes and keep us safe, but they’re really spendthrift warhawks whose foreign adventurism endangers us while their domestic agenda steals our liberty.  Their idea of reigning in government is slowing its growth, not making that growth negative, and they’re unaware that war is just another big government program.

So who will the GOP nominate in 2012?  It’s hard to say.  Despite Ron Paul’s recent win at CPAC and my optimism about that win, it’s almost certain he will not be the nominee (Not that I’d ever object to it if somehow, wonderfully, he were).  But if it’s anyone else on the CPAC list (or anyone comparable), I’m not sure it matters.  Their destructive policies are nearly interchangeable, so it will probably come down to nice smiles, marital history, and logo design more than anything else.  In short, I think it’s still too early to tell, but the choice is unimportant regardless.  These candidates offer nothing new and are unlikely to beat Obama with his incumbent advantage.

It’s because of that advantage, however, that I’m not (at this point, at least) too interested in 2012.  Yes, there have been some one-term presidents.  But incumbent advantage is a real factor, and despite dropping poll numbers Obama is not without support.  Do I want to see him reelected?  No, absolutely not.  His statist policies will only lead to further destruction of our economy, liberty, and reputation abroad.  But GOP victory in 2012 seems unlikely, and I wouldn’t want to waste a strong liberty candidate on a no-win race.

At this point — and time may prove this a foolish opinion — I’d rather the Republicans squander 2012 on another fraudulent “conservative” who will further demonstrate to the public the need for real change.

A Ron Paul run could be valuable, of course, for its incredible, inspiring ability to spread the liberty message.  But for a shot at the nomination, I’d rather see candidates the GOP should nominate wait until 2016.

As for who those candidates should be, Johnson is definitely in the running in my book, as is Rand Paul (maybe/hopefully).  I honestly don’t know as much about Johnson as I would need to if I were, for instance, to donate to a presidential campaign, but so far I mostly like what I see.  Based on articles like this one in Politico, he’s very good on fiscal, social, and foreign policy issue.  My only hesitancy to date would come where monetary policy is concerned:  The Politico piece notes that he shares Ron Paul’s views “but without the penchant for gold standard wonkiness.”

On the other hand, he’s told the American Conservative that he’s “antiwar, anti-Fed, pro-personal liberties, slash-government-spending candidate—in other words, a Ron Paul libertarian.”  [emphasis mine]

Sounds good to me.