The Gary Johnson thread

One other (concluding, hopefully) comment about a parliamentary system is that a parliamentary government is designed to be hyper-responsive, because any prime minister can lose his job on a no confidence vote any day. in 2005, my British boss looked at BBC reports from New Orleans in Katrina asked if Bush Jr. was going to survive. I told him Bush was going to be president until January 2009, unless impeached, and while the Bush administration's response may have been ineffective, he was not subject to a "no confidence" vote. Our system give current officeholders a bit of room for maneuver.
A parliamentary system gives current executives precious little top cover. Every prime minister in the world could lose his or her job today. This makes them extremely risk-averse and reluctant to make decisions.
Something to consider when comparing the two systems.
 
One other (concluding, hopefully) comment about a parliamentary system is that a parliamentary government is designed to be hyper-responsive, because any prime minister can lose his job on a no confidence vote any day. in 2005, my British boss looked at BBC reports from New Orleans in Katrina asked if Bush Jr. was going to survive. I told him Bush was going to be president until January 2009, unless impeached, and while the Bush administration's response may have been ineffective, he was not subject to a "no confidence" vote. Our system give current officeholders a bit of room for maneuver.
A parliamentary system gives current executives precious little top cover. Every prime minister in the world could lose his or her job today. This makes them extremely risk-averse and reluctant to make decisions.
Something to consider when comparing the two systems.
It obviously does me little good to ponder how another form of government might work more effectively in the US. I had reflected on the fact that the aspiring Republic in the US would reject off hand the changes made in England as it progressed toward a representative democracy. The fact that the King continued to hold so much power precluded any practical consideration of that long history.

It occurs to me today that the English could rightfully say that, of all her children, we appear to be the one that has run off the tracks. This particularly considering the geographic and natural resources we were gifted and now refer arrogantly and wrongly as "American exceptionalism"

To me the obvious and overriding benefits of the Parliamentary form is the ability and requirement to form a governing coalition. This provides the stability and functionality that is absence here.
 
I'll take our system every day of the week over a parliamentary system, as imperfect as it is. People just haven't learned that restricting their vote to two parties (and often only one!) is going to keep getting us what we've got. Until people reject the nonsense that is modern politics and act to make it different it will not change.
 
I was intrigued by the Libertarians prior to the last election, but then I saw Jonhson on TV several times. He was singularly uninformed and unimpressive. No way I could have voted for him.
 
I was intrigued by the Libertarians prior to the last election, but then I saw Jonhson on TV several times. He was singularly uninformed and unimpressive. No way I could have voted for him.

I felt the same about Trump and simply did not like Clinton or many of her positions. In CA I had the luxury of casting a protest vote. It was the first time I had voted for someone not a D or R. And it felt great. I knew the L's would not win but I wanted them to have easier ballot access next time and to send a message. GJ didn't do his homework and it cost him and the L's a shot at making a bigger mark. Before the Aleppo fiasco it was possible for him to pull enough votes to swing the election, however unlikely. He was polling in the 15% range IIRC at the time and had momentum. Bill Weld is much more polished.
 
It obviously does me little good to ponder how another form of government might work more effectively in the US. I had reflected on the fact that the aspiring Republic in the US would reject off hand the changes made in England as it progressed toward a representative democracy. The fact that the King continued to hold so much power precluded any practical consideration of that long history.
The last time the king vetoed a bill passed by Parliament was the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708. After that, the king had to massage acts of Parliament by wooing, cajoling and bribing MPs before the bill got passed.
It occurs to me today that the English could rightfully say that, of all her children, we appear to be the one that has run off the tracks. This particularly considering the geographic and natural resources we were gifted and now refer arrogantly and wrongly as "American exceptionalism"
I would say that the running off the rails has mostly been since the qualifications for voting was a pulse. The American experiment worked rather well until then. Go back and listen to the debates between JFK and Nixon. They were substantive, dealt with policy and policy implications and, for a while, there was talk of the two men campaigning together. Absolutely unthinkable now. It is simply trading slogans and bumperstickers in the U.S. "You're a poopy-head!" No, I'm not, you're a poopy-head!" Hard to see how this leads to a substantive approach to the issues facing the U.S.
To me the obvious and overriding benefits of the Parliamentary form is the ability and requirement to form a governing coalition. This provides the stability and functionality that is absence here.
The UK would be a case in point. Generally democratic. Also generally stable. The Italians would be the obvious counterargument. Since WWII, Italy has averaged more than one government per year, a new one this month, in fact.
 
I felt the same about Trump and simply did not like Clinton or many of her positions. In CA I had the luxury of casting a protest vote. It was the first time I had voted for someone not a D or R. And it felt great. I knew the L's would not win but I wanted them to have easier ballot access next time and to send a message. GJ didn't do his homework and it cost him and the L's a shot at making a bigger mark. Before the Aleppo fiasco it was possible for him to pull enough votes to swing the election, however unlikely. He was polling in the 15% range IIRC at the time and had momentum. Bill Weld is much more polished.
There has not been a day since November 2016 that I have regretted not voting for Trump. I feel really good about voting for Johnson, but I agree, Weld is much more polished and is set for a better run in 2020, should he run.
 
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.

I know the parties have realigned over the years. I just meant the same two parties have controlled the government since then. My point was I think they are too powerful and too entrenched to be usurped by a third party.

I agree Weld would be a better candidate, but I doubt he’d do much better. Johnson was probably a decent small state governor but wasn’t ready for the big stage. But the 15% who claimed to support were mostly just unhappy with the main two but wound up voting for one (or against one) of them anyway.

I do wish Biden had run, but I understand his heart not being in it after his son died. But I doubt he could have overcome the Clinton machine.

Had he gotten the nomination, he at least does better than she did. He is from Pennsylvania, so he probably knows how to talk to them better than she does.

I would have age concerns if he runs in 2020. He will be 78 on Inauguration Day. That is older than Reagan was when he left office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I know the parties have realigned over the years. I just meant the same two parties have controlled the government since then. My point was I think they are too powerful and too entrenched to be usurped by a third party.
You bring up an interesting point. Looking at the last realignment of the twoparty system (the transition from Whigs-Democrats to Republicans-Democrats), it took a significant issue (slavery) coupled with a catastrophic defeat (1852 presidential) to kill the Whig party (Democrat Franklin Pierce crushed Whig Winfield Scott 254-42). The national Whig party just sort of fell apart. Many southern Whigs migrated to the Democracy and northern Whigs migrated to the anti-immigrant American party (aka the "Know Nothing" Party; never let your opponents name your party) and the Free Soil Party (not an abolitionist party, but opposed to the extension of slavery into the territories). The creation of the Republican allowed high tariff/corporate welfare Whigs and anti-slavery Free Soilers to migrate to the same location: the brand-new and therefor ironically-named GOP.
I'll predict another re-alignment once the impending collapse of the credit of the United States comes. That will be a big enough event to kill whichever party is left holding the bag, maybe both parties. Indeed, that event will be so disruptive and deadly that Americans may enthusiastically embrace a Vladimir Lenin or an Adolf Hitler.
I agree Weld would be a better candidate, but I doubt he’d do much better. Johnson was probably a decent small state governor but wasn’t ready for the big stage. But the 15% who claimed to support were mostly just unhappy with the main two but wound up voting for one (or against one) of them anyway.

I do wish Biden had run, but I understand his heart not being in it after his son died. But I doubt he could have overcome the Clinton machine.

Had he gotten the nomination, he at least does better than she did. He is from Pennsylvania, so he probably knows how to talk to them better than she does.

I would have age concerns if he runs in 2020. He will be 78 on Inauguration Day. That is older than Reagan was when he left office.

Biden appears to be a guy you can sit down and have a beer with. He is comprehensible. Unfortunately, his day has passed.
 
Last edited:
You bring up an interesting point. Looking at the last realignment of the twoparty system (the transition from Whigs-Democrats to Republicans-Democrats), it took a significant issue (slavery) coupled with a catastrophic defeat (1852 presidential) to kill the Whig party (Democrat Franklin Pierce crushed Whig Winfield Scott 254-42). The national Whig party just sort of fell apart. Many southern Whigs migrated to the Democracy and northern Whigs migrated to the anti-immigrant American party (aka the "Know Nothing" Party; never let your opponents name your party) and the Free Soil Party (not an abolitionist party, but opposed to the extension of slavery into the territories). The creation of the Republican allowed high tariff/corporate welfare Whigs and anti-slavery Free Soilers to migrate to the same location: the brand-new and therefor ironically-named GOP.
I'll predict another re-alignment once the impending collapse of the credit of the United States comes. That will be a big enough event to kill whichever party is left holding the bag, maybe both parties. Indeed, that event will be so disruptive and deadly that Americans may enthusiastically embrace a Vladimir Lenin or an Adolf Hitler.

Biden appears to be a guy you can sit down and have a beer with. He is comprehensible. Unfortunately, his day has passed.

To avoid letting your comment on the US's diminishing credit worthiness go without discussion, It would be beneficial to envision our receding presence in the world which may well be underway now. Is is possible that Trump is symptomatic of a deeper public weariness of constant conflict abroad?

Will we succeed in following the UK's example in withdrawing from the global stage and only see the value of our currency decline and our economy experience a multi-decade malaise as the UK did in the 60's and 70's. Will our decline be far more spectacular?

As the federal government loses the economic ax it wields over the states will the forces that hold states together become less strong than those that repel them from each other.

We surely have left our next generations with quite a conundrum!
 
Will we succeed in following the UK's example in withdrawing from the global stage and only see the value of our currency decline and our economy experience a multi-decade malaise as the UK did in the 60's and 70's. Will our decline be far more spectacular?

at least it gave us a lot of good music and comedy
 
:cool: I believe we would take going as gracefully as they did given the alternatives!
 
To avoid letting your comment on the US's diminishing credit worthiness go without discussion, It would be beneficial to envision our receding presence in the world which may well be underway now. Is is possible that Trump is symptomatic of a deeper public weariness of constant conflict abroad?

Will we succeed in following the UK's example in withdrawing from the global stage and only see the value of our currency decline and our economy experience a multi-decade malaise as the UK did in the 60's and 70's. Will our decline be far more spectacular?
The U.S. decline will bear more resemblance to a bubble bursting, for a number of reasons.
1. The UK represented 5.8% of the world GNP in 1945. (Mark Harrison, ed., The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1-42. The U.S. today represents 21.42% in 2011.
2. The dollars is the world's reserve currency. The people of the U.S. are about to find out how valuable that is, once they lose it.
3. After trying to hold onto their empire for a while, the Brits knew that empires are expensive and willingly walked away from their imperial holdings. I do not see the ruling elites in Washington even being able to be aware of those dynamics.
The collapse of the U.S. credit will come like a clap of thunder when one of the big lenders (China, Japan, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK), decides that the debt the U.S. are carrying is so large that not only is getting back the lender's interest unlikely, getting back the principal is in doubt. Once that happens, the U.S. will have to increase taxes/reduce spending by around $500 billion a year, almost immediately. Over the medium term, the U.S. will have to increase those spending reductions/tax increases by a further $500 billion a year as financing already incurred debt becomes unsustainably expensive. Given the caterwauling over the tiny reductions in spending we experienced in 2013-4, imagine how much fun reducing federal expenditures/increasing federal taxes by $1 trillion/year is going to be.
The collapse of U.S. credit will be catastrophic. I would not be surprised to see deaths in the millions (one, as generous social safety net instantly becomes unaffordable. My father says he will be dead within a month if he did not get federal assistance for his 22 prescription meds he takes each day. I think it will be months before he runs through his life's savings. And internationally, once the U.S. withdraws from the Pax Americana, due to the lack of funds to maintain it, the world will experience a wave of revanchist violence it has not seen since the Mongol invasions or the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west in A.D. 476. Imagine Russia deciding it liked owning eastern Europe, India wanting to even scores with Pakistan, China wanting to re-occupy Vietnam all at the same time and the world looking to the U.S. and American saying, "sorry. We're out of the globocop business. You're all on your own."
And it is absolutely foreseeable.
And the U.S. have no control over when it comes. It will just happen when the market says it will happen.
And the U.S. have no defense against it, because our desire to help the helpless actually works against taking the hard steps now to prevent the collapse. Our kindheartedness sweeps away the only defense we might have: drastically reducing federal expenditures now while we still can.
As the federal government loses the economic ax it wields over the states will the forces that hold states together become less strong than those that repel them from each other.

We surely have left our next generations with quite a conundrum!
Indeed.
 
Last edited:
It appears, once again, I'm to have the final word.
I wish someone could convince me this is overly pessimistic.
I have thought about your post as I was out today. How about we take it up beginning tomorrow morning?
 
https://www.al.com/news/2019/02/lib...WZNfc4w6U0a5Niosresf6ruzFg7W73VG36XhFpC_6KXbQ

[h=1]Libertarian Party sues John Merrill over $34,000 charge for voter list[/h]
[FONT=&quot]The Libertarian Party of Alabama has sued Secretary of State John Merrill because Merrill’s office is charging the party about $34,000 for a voter list provided to the Democratic and Republican parties for free....

[/FONT]
...[FONT=&quot]In a phone interview, Merrill said he does not think the law allows for providing the list for free.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“It’s not that we’re favoring the Democrats and Republicans,” Merrill said. “It’s that we’re following the law and the laws says the Democrat party and the Republican party can each receive a full list of voters for their party and any other major party can receive that.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The effort to achieve major party status and gain ballot access is a key reason the Libertarian Party says it needs the list.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To be listed on the statewide ballot in Alabama, a party must submit to the secretary of state a list of signatures of at least 3 percent of the voters who participated in the last election for governor. That threshold is set by state law.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That means the Libertarian Party needs 51,588 signatures to get statewide placement on the 2020 ballot.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The party’s lawsuit says the voter list provides vital information to parties trying to gain ballot access. The list shows where voters are concentrated and allows parties to reach out directly to voters at their homes and by name.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“A political party which does not have copy of the voter registration list is placed at a distinct disadvantage in its efforts to gain ballot access and to solicit and win votes,” the lawsuit says.[/FONT]

What a crock.

The game has been rigger for a long time.
 
On the other hand, if I register the Charmin Party (sounds either delightful or dirty) and demand a voter list, should I have free access to that information? Not necessarily defending this, but I do understand why hurdles exist.

If the Alabama Democratic Party were smart, they would support the Libertarians here.
 
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads