The Gary Johnson thread

Did the libertarian party blow it in 2016? (Nice pun by the way.)

Good Reason column that explores the question:

http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/07/did-the-libertarian-party-blow

All told, the party has come a long way since its founding in 1971, when a small gang of dreamers hoped it would become a vehicle to get press attention for libertarian ideas.

Click to expand...

Still, measured against expectations—let alone the basic standard that successful political parties must win elections—the Libertarian Party had its most disappointing year ever.

"We wanted to win, and we didn't achieve that goal," Johnson's campaign manager, Ron Nielson, acknowledged shortly after the election. "We were hoping to get into the presidential debate, and no matter how hard we tried we could not achieve that goal. After that our goal was to get 5 percent, and for the last 45 days we pushed toward that effort, which was entirely achievable but for the fact that the election came down to such a tight margin between Clinton and Trump. That put pressure on third-party support, and a lot of Johnson support moved in the end toward Trump, or possibly chose not to participate."

While 3.28 percent marked an all-time high for the party, it was also just a third of the campaign's highest polling average, which came in late July. All summer long Johnson had avoided the typical third-party fade, with such forecasters as FiveThirtyEight projecting a finish higher than 7 percent for months on end. But the plates came crashing down over the final eight weeks, prompting much anguish and fingerpointing among activists and supporters.

Click to expand...

I guess this is as good a place as any:

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced that they will not appeal the District Court’s decision that the FEC must uphold the law on their regulation of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).The Libertarian Party was a co-plaintiff in this case.
Libertarian National Committee Chair, Nicholas Sarwark, says, “With the recent court ruling in our lawsuit against the FEC and the FEC’s decision not to appeal that ruling, we’re optimistic that the CPD will have to change their rules to not be rigged in favor of the two old parties.”
“This kind of work to break the CPD’s stranglehold on the debate process is just one of many ways that we are working to create a strong foundation for all of the new Libertarian candidates who will be running in 2018 and 2020. Striking down legal and ballot access barriers is not as exciting or sexy as an election campaign, but it’s that kind of work over the last 45 years that has put us in the position to take advantage of current and future political opportunities.”
We now wait for the FEC to do the right thing and follow the court’s directives with regards to the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Click to expand...

We need more choices. We need more voices. The CPD has been nothing but a shill for the 2 major parties holding onto power, much like 2 companies colluding to share the market and keep other players out. The sooner it is relegated to the dustbin of history the better.

NationalTitles16 said:

I guess this is as good a place as any:



We need more choices. We need more voices. The CPD has been nothing but a shill for the 2 major parties holding onto power, much like 2 companies colluding to share the market and keep other players out. The sooner it is relegated to the dustbin of history the better.

Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with your premise BUT.....we had NINETEEN people running for the Presidency......I don't see where another two is really going to make that much a difference. I agree with George Carlin the older I get.....

selmaborntidefan said:

Not that I disagree with your premise BUT.....we had NINETEEN people running for the Presidency......I don't see where another two is really going to make that much a difference. I agree with George Carlin the older I get.....

Click to expand...

STILL better than allowing the corruption to continue unabated.

selmaborntidefan said:

Not that I disagree with your premise BUT.....we had NINETEEN people running for the Presidency......I don't see where another two is really going to make that much a difference. I agree with George Carlin the older I get.....

Click to expand...

Its not more candidates that we need, its more (viable) parties.

Tide1986 said:

Did the libertarian party blow it in 2016? (Nice pun by the way.)

Good Reason column that explores the question:

http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/07/did-the-libertarian-party-blow

Click to expand...

I remain unconvinced Gary Johnson ever wanted to win. This was the first election cycle in which I gave the Libertarian Party strong consideration, and I was utterly underwhelmed by Johnson (no pun intended).

Gary Johnson: Weird

Hillary: crooked as a dog's hind leg

Trump: dangerously divorced from reality and even more ignorant than Johnson but on many more issues

Gimme weird any day of the week. Heck, I'd take crooked over scumbag.

Bottom line about the CPD - they broke the law and the FEC mishandled it. That is being corrected and that is a good thing however we feel about the parties.

George Will thinks libertarians have an opportunity in 2020 to carry conservatism. I lean toward the two philosophies being irreconcilable on multiple levels. We'll see what happens, but I would like to see more choices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f7e77b623e00

NationalTitles17 said:

George Will thinks libertarians have an opportunity in 2020 to carry conservatism. I lean toward the two philosophies being irreconcilable on multiple levels. We'll see what happens, but I would like to see more choices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f7e77b623e00

Click to expand...

I thought last election that Bill Weld was obviously the more accomplished politician. I hope he runs. The liberalized Republican Party is no more appealing to me than the Socialist Democrats. At some point in time the Libertarians need to gain enough traction to pose a threat.

I don't profess to be a political intellectual, but I do believe our country has reached the stage that another party is needed. The party I envision would welcome moderates from both the Democrat and Republican parties. Moderates who would reject the likes of Ryan, McConnell, Pelosi and Warren. It would be inclusive, but reject extemist from either the right or the left. Hopefully this new party would never offer a candidate like Trump, Clinton, or Sanders. Ideally, it would be fiscally conservative and socially progressive. Its platform would support free trade, a global economy and repudiate isolationism. Above all it would condemn white supremacy and overt racism. I know we are talking about a Utopian political system and it would probably never catch on, but the "working middle class, politically moderates" have lost their voices and been excluded in American politics.

GrayTide said:

I don't profess to be a political intellectual, but I do believe our country has reached the stage that another party is needed. The party I envision would welcome moderates from both the Democrat and Republican parties. Moderates who would reject the likes of Ryan, McConnell, Pelosi and Warren. It would be inclusive, but reject extemist from either the right or the left. Hopefully this new party would never offer a candidate like Trump, Clinton, or Sanders. Ideally, it would be fiscally conservative and socially progressive. It's platform would support free trade, a global economy and repudiate isolationism. Above all it would condemn white supremacy and overt racism. I know we are talking about a Utopian political system and it would probably never catch on, but the "working middle class, politically moderates" have lost their voices and been excluded in American politics.

Click to expand...

Most of that describes the Libertarian Party. It is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The platform supports free trade. It condemns racism.

However, it is not utopian and does have some major drawbacks in that the better supported and more reasonable ideas (and people) seems to fall prey to the more extremist purist views. Compromise in the interest of advancing ideals to the extent possible again falls prey to the purists.

There are disagreements within the party and philosophy on a number of issues from hot button issues to universal income. If the party would embrace this diversity more and be more willing to compromise its popularity could explode. Until it is willing to do those two things it will not be ready for prime time.

If it is willing to do those things then it could skim off very sizable portions from both the Dem's and Rep's.

Some good points I had not considered.

The current two party system has existed since 1856. There have been a few third party challenges, but they were mostly built around a protest vote and the personality of one candidate. Once that person stepped down or returned to the fold, that party died out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Crimson1967 said:

The current two party system has existed since 1856. There have been a few third party challenges, but they were mostly built around a protest vote and the personality of one candidate. Once that person stepped down or returned to the fold, that party died out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Winner take all unfortunately works against a 3rd party

Crimson1967 said:

The current two party system has existed since 1856. There have been a few third party challenges, but they were mostly built around a protest vote and the personality of one candidate. Once that person stepped down or returned to the fold, that party died out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

All true, but early in American history several parties died out and gave way to another party. The Republicans seem intent on alienating more and more people. Granted, they obviously still have a sizable base but the demographics show a party in decline. They are doubling down for short term victories at the expense of the future. Without a change in direction it seems they are poised to fade.

In the meantime, younger voters that would have gone Republican are embracing libertarian ideas (as many of them were once Republican ideas). These younger voters and those behind them more often reject the social policies of Rep's. They also seem more likely to be willing to "waste" a vote on a third party.

And that's before we mention the declining % of white voters.

I am not predicting the demise of the Republican party, but to survive long term it will need a transformation away from the party of Trump.

Crimson1967 said:

The current two party system has existed since 1856. There have been a few third party challenges, but they were mostly built around a protest vote and the personality of one candidate. Once that person stepped down or returned to the fold, that party died out.

Click to expand...

Interesting observation.
The "party system" of Democrats vs. Republicans" did indeed start with the founding of the Republican party in 1854, the two party-system was firmly in place by 1800 when Jefferson thumped Adams. The system has remained, but the parties have changed. What were the Republicans about in 1860? High tariffs, corporate welfare (latitudinarian positions in regards to Federal powers), restriction of slavery to the states where it then existed (a partisan political position sold as a moral one). Democrats were in favor of small government, low taxes (both strict construction positions) and protection for slaveowners in the territories (a partisan political position masquerading as a constitutional one).
By the 1870s, the Republicans split into Liberal Republicans and National Republicans. Democrats retained their small government/low taxes position until Woodrow Wilson, while Republicans retained their high tariffs/corporate welfare position until the 1920s. FDR completed the swap of positions by urging "taking care of the little guy" by grossly expanding Federal powers. Republicans, almost by default became the party opposed to expanding federal powers, the small(er) government, low(er) taxes party. That was a pretty substantial change in regards to the positions of the two major parties.

Throughout the period between 1800 and 2018, the parties names have changed, but the essential dynamic, as Bamaro said above, was "first past the post" system which awards the election to the candidate with the most votes by voting district. Under such a system, if a party dedicated to furthering a single issue (abortion rights, environmentalism, gun rights, fiscal responsibility, etc.), it divides voters to whom that issue is important and has the counterintuitive result of giving the election to the candidate opposing that position. e.g., if the 97,488 Green Party voters in Florida in 2000 had voted for Gore, he would have been president, instead, Bush was elected.

Tidewater said:

Interesting observation.
The "party system" of Democrats vs. Republicans" did indeed start with the founding of the Republican party in 1854, the two party-system was firmly in place by 1800 when Jefferson thumped Adams. The system has remained, but the parties have changed. What were the Republicans about in 1860? High tariffs, corporate welfare (latitudinarian positions in regards to Federal powers), restriction of slavery to the states where it then existed (a partisan political position sold as a moral one). Democrats were in favor of small government, low taxes (both strict construction positions) and protection for slaveowners in the territories (a partisan political position masquerading as a constitutional one).
By the 1870s, the Republicans split into Liberal Republicans and National Republicans. Democrats retained their small government/low taxes position until Woodrow Wilson, while Republicans retained their high tariffs/corporate welfare position until the 1920s. FDR completed the swap of positions by urging "taking care of the little guy" by grossly expanding Federal powers. Republicans, almost by default became the party opposed to expanding federal powers, the small(er) government, low(er) taxes party. That was a pretty substantial change in regards to the positions of the two major parties.

Throughout the period between 1800 and 2018, the parties names have changed, but the essential dynamic, as Bamaro said above, was "first past the post" system which awards the election to the candidate with the most votes by voting district. Under such a system, if a party dedicated to furthering a single issue (abortion rights, environmentalism, gun rights, fiscal responsibility, etc.) divides voters to whom that issue is important and has the counterintuitive result of giving the election to the candidate opposing that position. e.g., if the 97,488 Green Party voters in Florida in 2000 had voted for Gore, he would have been president, instead, Bush was elected.

Click to expand...

Since my college days I have operated with the conclusion that our Federal government would ultimately fail principally because of the complexity that came about as we progressed from 13 states with 3 million population to fifty states with 350 million. Today I tend to believe that the advent of special interest who effectively own Congress makes the federal government even more incapable of governing.

I assume that the failure of the founders to adopt a Parliamentary form of government is one of the major factors that have us in this box of effectively having no functional government.

Do you recall the factors that led the framers of the constitution to that decision. I am not a student of comparative governments but as I look around the world at "Democratic" governments it appears superficially as if the struggling ones are modeled after our own.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

UAH said:

Since my college days I have operated with the conclusion that our Federal government would ultimately fail principally because of the complexity that came about as we progressed from 13 states with 3 million population to fifty states with 350 million. Today I tend to believe that the advent of special interest who effectively own Congress makes the federal government even more incapable of governing.

I assume that the failure of the founders to adopt a Parliamentary form of government is one of the major factors that have us in this box of effectively having no functional government.

Click to expand...

I would distinguish between a parliamentary system and a first-past-the-post system for selecting officeholders. The United Kingdom, for example, is both parliamentary and first past the post. By contrast, Weimar Germany had a proportional representation system that established representation in the Reichstag by what proportion of the overall vote each party got. As a side note, proportional representation system empowers the extremes of the political spectrum (the Reichstag elections of 1933 resulted in the NSDAP winning 288 seats, Social Democratic Party 120, Communist Party 81; yikes).

Do you recall the factors that led the framers of the constitution to that decision. I am not a student of comparative governments but as I look around the world at "Democratic" governments it appears superficially as if the struggling ones are modeled after our own.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

Click to expand...

Assuming you mean the Philadelphia convention of 1787 (the only venue at which something that radical might have been discussed), the Founders did not adopt a parliamentary form of government because one was not on the table and anyone who had suggested one would have been ejected from the proceedings or everyone else would have scampered out of the convention.
The over-riding consideration the Founders used to craft the constitutional system they was federalism, a "republic of republics." The most influential text the Founders had read was undoubtedly Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws. Montesquieu was famous for advancing the idea of the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial. The Philadelphia convention only offered up a suggestion. The real Founders of the American republic, the members of the state conventions that ratified the Constitution, were more concerned with the separation of powers between the state and federal levels. Indeed they insisted on it. The ratification debates were not between one side that wanted a more centralized federal government and those who did not. It was a debate between those, like Patrick Henry, who opposed ratification because they believed the federal government under the proposed constitution would exercise undelegated powers, and those like James Madison who advocated ratification because they were convinced the federal government would only exercise those powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 and would never attempt to exercise undelegated powers. The latter won and the Constitution was ratified on that understanding.
I'll be lecturing on this very subject at Patrick Henry's home, Red Hill on Tuesday.

I would add that if this is true, and I believe it is, then subsequent American history takes on a different hue. The most important and least read book in American history is Jonathan Elliot's The Debates in the Several State Conventions of the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 5 vols. [1827]

Samuel Huntingdon, political scientist, wrote that the American political system was feudal, not modern. It was designed not to work smoothly. I think that is an astute observation.