There Is No Logic in Voting for Gary Johnson

As someone who has been a heavy critic of the Gary Johnson campaign, I’ve run into four main arguments from his supporters who are wary of my criticisms. They say that people should vote for Gary Johnson because

  1. It helps spread the message of libertarianism
  2. He’s better than Clinton and Trump
  3. It will help end the two-party dictatorship
  4. It will help grow the Libertarian Party

A deeper examination will reveal that these four arguments do not hold their weight, and that there is literally no logic in voting Gary Johnson for President this November.

Refuting point #1: It helps spread the message of libertarianism

I can understand why someone would want to vote for a candidate for the sake of promoting libertarian ideas. While libertarians usually don’t gain much ground through the political process, it still remains the best avenue to attract fresh minds to our ideology. No one was more successful in bringing people to libertarianism than Ron Paul. But Gary Johnson is far from Ron Paul.

If you want to vote for a candidate to help spread libertarian ideas, then you shouldn’t be voting for Johnson, because he is spitting in the face of everything we stand for. Over the course of his campaign, Johnson has stated that Jewish bakers should be forced to make Nazi wedding cakes, that he would continue to federally fund Planned Parenthood, scientific research, green energy, and NASA, that he likes the idea of equal pay for equal work, that he likes the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, that he agrees with Bernie Sanders 73% of the time, that the free market bankrupted coal, that North Korea is the greatest threat to our national security, that he supports humanitarian wars, that he supports a carbon tax (which is ironically the type of policy responsible for bankrupting coal), that recessions are caused by consumers getting overheated, that he wants the US to remain in the United Nations, that he supports TPP, that he believes Hillary Clinton is no criminal, and that he supports a basic, government subsidized income.

Okay so he’s not perfect, you’re probably saying. But things only get worse when you take a look at his VP, Bill Weld. As governor of Massachusetts, Bill Weld proposed and supported some of the strictest gun control measures in the nation, supported the Patriot Act, as well as the Iraq War and Trump style eminent domain. In 2008, Bill Weld endorsed Barack Obama for President, and in 2012 endorsed Mitt Romney. Prior to becoming the Vice Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party in 2016, Weld wasn’t even supporting his own running mate, but had instead endorsed John Kasich for President.

While supporting Kasich, Weld made appearances on local television boasting about his lifelong relationship with Hillary Clinton. He also went on local television and extolled that he has “always been in favor of the universal [Obamacare] mandate.” In addition to this, Weld recently stated that he believes a libertarian foreign policy consists of having “superior air power and sea power projected around the world.” To make matters worse, Gary Johnson refers to Bill Weld as “the original libertarian,” as well as his “role model in politics.”

Johnson is a confused moderate at best, but Bill Weld is an establishment hack at worst. For anyone who’s paid attention to the Johnson/Weld campaign, Weld has been getting more airtime than Johnson, which is for obvious reasons, terrible for libertarianism. But even when Gary is given the spotlight, he botches it.

A month ago, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld had the biggest media exposure of their life, appearing on an hour long CNN Town Hall. Gary had the opportunity to open up millions of new minds to the ideas of liberty, but instead failed to articulate any real libertarian principles. When asked about the war on drugs, he neglected to explain its failures and instead said, “We are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana.” When Chris Cuomo pressed him further, saying, “It seems to me that there’s an inconsistency here. Either you think drugs should be legalized or not,” Gary responded with, “Keep the drugs illegal.”

Johnson and Weld spent the rest of the Town Hall pandering to Democrats instead of promoting libertarianism. Gary Johnson called Hillary Clinton a “wonderful public servant,” and Bill Weld called Barack Obama “statesman like,” and complimented his second presidential term. When asked about their views on gun control, Gary Johnson said, “I don’t think our position would be making it easier. We’re not looking to roll back anything.” Johnson and Weld also doubled down on wanting to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Gary Johnson chokes under pressure and was barely even able to debate Austin Petersen and John McAfee throughout the Libertarian primary. If he is able to make it into the general debates against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, he will crumble under the weight of the two biggest bullies in the history of politics. All those who know nothing of libertarianism will look to Gary Johnson as the golden calf of our philosophy, and will think that everything he says is what we believe in. And all of the reasonable Republicans and Democrats watching will be convinced that the statist gibberish coming out of his mouth is what libertarians stand for.

There is no logic in voting for Gary Johnson if you want to help spread libertarianism. If you are voting for Gary Johnson for the sake of promoting libertarian ideas, you’re not helping to spread the philosophy of anything other than statism. The Johnson/Weld campaign has been an utter trainwreck and an utter disgrace to the message of Ron Paul. And if you acknowledge all of their faults but still seek to promote their campaign for the sake of libertarianism, then you are lying to people about what the philosophy is, which is no more honorable.

Refuting point #2: He’s better than Clinton and Trump

Many Johnson supporters will concede that Gary is far from being a perfect libertarian, or really being libertarian at all. But they still plan on voting for him because “at least he’s better than Hillary or Trump.” This then becomes the lesser of the evils argument, instead of one about sound, philosophical principles.

By choosing to vote for a lesser of the evils, you are acknowledging that though each of the candidates are evil, you wish to limit the amount of evil that will be present in the White House. If this is the case, then there is no logic in voting for Gary Johnson, since he has little chance of even making it into the presidential debates, let alone the White House.

If one wants to limit the evil in government, then it becomes paramount to for vote for the lesser of the evils which has a legitimate chance of winning the election. It is therefore illogical to vote for Gary, when this is now one less vote going towards the candidate who has a reasonable opportunity of lessening the evil in office. Anyone voting for Gary because he’s “better than Hillary or Trump” should actually be voting for either Hillary or Trump in order to limit the amount of damage our next president can do. Otherwise it’s a moot point to support Gary because he is a lesser evil.

Refuting point #3: It will help end the two-party dictatorship

Ending the two-party dictatorship would be great, but is this really the end all be all of our philosophy? One can just as easily vote for the Green Party, or the Communist Party, if they seek to end the two-party dictatorship. Yet no reasonable libertarian would ever advocate for that, since these parties are not representative of our views.

Ron Paul ran in the Republican Party. Rand Paul ran in the Republican Party. Justin Amash ran in the Republican Party. Thomas Massie ran in the Republican Party. And they have all made greater strides towards liberty than any Libertarian Party candidate ever has. There is nothing inherently wrong with working within the two major parties in order to promote our ideas. What should matter is the individual running, and not the party they are running under. What good is voting against the two-party dictatorship if you’re just going to vote for a candidate who is no different than the candidates in the two major parties that you spend your time bickering about?

Refuting point #4: It will help grow the Libertarian Party

I am utterly shocked by the number of libertarians that wish to employ the same line of thinking which helped corrupt the Republican and Democratic Parties. Placing party above principle is precisely why the Tea Party and Occupy movements met a screeching end, and were replaced by a blind unity to party loyalists and big government progressives. This is why we continue to get stuck with the Hillary Clintons and Donald Trumps, and look in the mirror asking ourselves what happened to this country.

What good is growing the Libertarian Party if it is going to be represented by people that are not libertarians? What good is growing the Libertarian Party when it is about to become the party of Romney and Bush?

I am often told that libertarians should support Gary Johnson today, that way the party can get federal matching funds, which will help actual liberty minded candidates tomorrow. But this is the exact same lie that was told to the Tea Party movement years ago. Vote for the GOP today, and we’ll shrink government tomorrow. Yet here we are years later still waiting for the GOP to shrink government. Instead, they continue to give President Obama everything he wants (it’s almost like they think he’s a wonderful public servant).

Remember when George W. Bush said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market”? To vote for Johnson is to say “I’ve abandoned libertarian principles to save libertarianism.”

Do you honestly believe that the Libertarian Party will ever want liberty to succeed when it’s the big government progressives who are getting them money and airtime? If another Ron Paul were to come along, do you honestly believe the LP would nominate him over a Gary Johnson or Bob Barr? Do you honestly believe that a party which has failed to gain any ground in its 45 year history is competent enough to become a leading voice for liberty? If the Libertarian Party refuses to nominate liberty minded candidates while it is still small, why would they suddenly nominate liberty minded candidates when they are much larger and backed by special interests?

If you want the Libertarian Party to become the GOP Lite, go ahead and vote for Gary Johnson. But if you want to promote the genuine ideas of liberty, there is no logic in heading out in November and casting a vote for Gary Johnson.

Conclusion

There is no logic in voting for Gary Johnson. He is not helping to spread the ideas of liberty, he is a wasted vote if you are looking to vote for the lesser of the evils, and it makes no sense to vote for him in order to end the two-party dictatorship and grow the Libertarian Party. We are better than this. We are the leading intellectuals of our society and can do better than to promote a candidate that has no understanding of our philosophy, and his Clinton loving running mate who seeks to undermine everything we stand for. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote to undo all of the progress libertarians have made over the last 8 years, and a vote to move us back to square one.

  • Rio Grande

    Vote for Darrell Castle!

  • 100marymich

    I don’t know whether Gary Johnson is having mini-strokes or some other un-diagnosed mental problems that caused him to pick Bill Weld as his VP.

  • JD Seeker

    If you feel so strongly this way maybe you should step aside.

  • Amani Sc

    I agree with all back in 2012, but number 2. As of right now I plan on voting for Castle, but if I think that Johnson can pull enough electoral votes to put it to the House and enough popular vote of a third. I will vote for him. I think the House does not want Clinton and are quite wary of Trump. It is a long shot, but November is a long time away.

    • thebsflag

      Johnson is polling at 26% in Utah, just 3 points behind Trump. All he needs is one state, upset the balance of the coveted 270, no one gets a pure majority and the vote goes to the House, where they might be inclined to choose Johnson since he’s not a nutcase or a criminal. Castle may be a fine candidate, but his party will not be able to get his name on all 50 ballots by November, which gives him zero chance of winning. Even if Castle managed to win a state, the House would not choose him because of the lack of ballot presence. Johnson is already on all of them and it would be an easy decision for them. It is not as long of a shot as you might think. Is that convincing enough?

      • Amani Sc

        No be at this time is on all the ballots. You do not need them all to win. Being on the ballots will not give the House what it need to pick a third party. This will have to do with the popular vote. You will need at least 25% to turn their heads

        • thebsflag

          Gary Johnson is on all the ballots. Has been for some time now. And percentages are irrelevant. If Johnson can win even one state and that one state becomes enough to prevent Hillary or Trump from getting the 270 needed, the House may still decide to pick Johnson on a compromise because the is the least insane or criminal of the three. The House is not required to go by popular vote if the election is kicked back to their territory.

  • SMH2much

    Well said, outstanding article!!
    #Castle2016, #DC4DC,

    • Paul Teague

      I live in Memphis Darrell Castle is an attorney – more of the same and a joke.

      • SMH2much

        He’s not the same. He was right alongside Ron Paul fighting to end the Feds, back in 2008. The only thing that is the same, is Castle’s dedication to God, Family & Country.

        Did you fight beside him in Vietnam?
        Did you help others sue for ballot access while your own was denied?
        Did you take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution with all your might, or dry trying?

        Castle did.

  • InconvenientTruthsYouHate

    “Evil”? Pure hyperbole. Or explain how is “Not Perfect” == “Evil”?
    Anyway, SOMEONE WILL end up elected, whether or not you vote. Would you not rather have “less evil”? Or is it that if you can’t have perfection, you prefer to have maximal misery?

  • Fl_Reva

    i’m not voting for libertarian, republican or a democrat. i am voting for the man i think can do best for our country. period!

  • Gerald Franks

    So why did the Libertarian party nominate him to represent the party if he does it so poorly? This article sounds like sour grapes of someone who supported someone else oh the Libertarian primaries. And he IS better turn Clinton and Trump. Mos def!

    • The first few times I had seen Johnson on T.V., his conversation only involved the legalization of pot. He is a fraud. A true libertarian would be impassioned by many aspects of liberty. I didn’t like him then, and I don’t like him now. If we must vote for a nutcase, I’d rather vote McAfee over Johnson. At least with McAfee I could see that he was sincere. Darrell Castle is a far better candidate for presidency, but the man has just as much of a chance to win the presidency as Johnson.

      • Gerald Franks

        Fraud is a pretty heavy accusation to make and a word I typically only use for the Clinton’s. Do you have something specific that identifies him as a fraud? I don’t think he could be elected to governor and do the things he did while being a fraud. Not arguing, I’m still researching, but I would like to hear something of substance, not just accusations without evidence to back the accusations.

        • You cannot be libertarian and be pro TPP. Signing away our sovereignty sounds good to you? ” I don’t think he could be elected to governor and do the things he did while being a fraud.” – To this statement may I reference Hillary Clinton, William J. Jefferson, Al Gore? They held various political positions. They are not frauds? Are Libertarians pro -UN? I didn’t think we were. You know what. You’re right. I’m in the wrong party if the LP keeps voting for this clown. I’ll state myself as an independent and favor the whisperers of liberty. http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/06/gary-johnson-now-supports-tpp/

          • Nicole Morgan

            I disagree with him on TPP as well. Perhaps he needs more people making the case against it to change his mind. I however, am not a one issue voter. You’ll get nowhere if you make purity the enemy of the good.

          • thebsflag

            He is not “pro TPP”. He stated, according to his understanding of the document that it advances free trade. He also stated that in a perfect world you wouldn’t need documents like this because you’d just have free trade. He also stated that it is full of cronyism. You completely misunderstand his position on this. He said he would sign it based on his current understanding. I think as president he would be privy to the inside secrets of the deal and would be able to review the document, correct some of the issues that are likely embedded in it and maybe even release it to the public (since he is all about open government). If you’re going to criticize someone on something, the least you can do is get the facts straight. Context is important. You see a headline, click bait, and automatically assume the semantics are no longer relevant, like so many sheep. Of course Hillary, Jefferson and Gore are frauds, but they are part of oligarchy, the duopoly that Johnson is running AGAINST…. so that’s to be expected.

          • RobbieSDA

            “He said he would sign it based on his current understanding”, sure sounds like he is pro TPP based on your own (and his) statement. Whether he would change that stance due to any inside information, or try to improve it before signing is only hopefulness, and not necessarily reality. A person who says they would sign TPP at this time is supporting it, i.e., “pro” TPP. No additional context or details change this. Could his position change? Sure, but that doesn’t change what it is NOW.

          • thebsflag

            Wrong again. “Pro-TPP” suggests that he is actively rooting for the bill and supporting it wholeheartedly, as if he is going around putting himself up as a champion for the deal. That is not true and I think you know it. You are mischaracterizing his position. You are trying to paint him as a black and white candidate the way Republicans and Democrats paint each other. This is the reason why political offices are held by mostly corrupt “lesser evils”. Gary Johnson is about compromise and finding a solution that works towards free market goals that helps everyone. So he’s not the ideal Libertarian, he’s certainly a hell of a lot better than our other choices and if president would work to enact libertarian ideologies into law.

          • akitty77

            He said he supported TPP in an interview based on “advice from those around him” and admitted to have never having read it. Boy, he sounds like a typical Congressman who votes on bills without ever having read them. Wreckless!

          • James Witticker

            BuffaloTipper- the expert on libertarianism. Are you seriously suggesting free trade is not a libertarian position?

          • James Witticker

            BuffaloTipper- the expert on libertarianism. Are you seriously suggesting free trade is not a libertarian position?

          • bernlin2000

            You have no evidence that the TPP signs “away our sovereignty”. TPP is structured in the same way as NAFTA…I don’t recall our country being taken over in the 90s by foreigners, do you? That’s a total red herring anyhow…being afraid of people from other parts of the planet. Seriously, you need to grow up, with all due respect. You can most certainly be libertarian and support free trade: free trade brings a more peaceful world, and all libertarians support more peace, because peace feeds back into greater liberties (can’t have liberty in a constant state of war).

            Yes, the TPP is not a pure “free trade” agreement…no government-managed trade agreement can be, I’d argue, because the interests of the government will supersede the interests of the consumer (and they generally aren’t well-aligned), which is what free trade is suppose to address: consumer needs. The TPP is “managed trade”, much like NAFTA…it’s a compromise, and not a particularly fantastic one. It’s still better than our current system, with arbitrary tariffs being an example of an unnecessary roadblock to trade that the TPP will eliminate, slowly, over the next 30 years.

            In the real world, people have economic interests they wish protect from foreign competition: that is a perfectly rational interest to fight for. It also, in the scheme of things, hurts free trade. People always love free trade…until they have to compete. Of course, the “playing field” isn’t fair…we have high wages in the U.S, and they won’t compete on that level with developing countries which have a lower wage floor. That’s what free trade means: having to find new products and new markets to compete in, as economic structures change over time.

      • JD Seeker

        While I do not condone or use drugs he wants the Fed out of it, Let the states deicide.

        • Yes, but you are truly a libertarian you should embrace more than just ONE topic.

          • Nicole Morgan

            Which he does. And ending the war on drugs would be pretty huge in terms of cutting cost of governance and helping impoverished Americans break free of chronic incarceration. It’s not just about our right to do as we please with our bodies as consenting adults, but the effect trying to control us has had on our whole society as well as the high fiscal cost.

      • Rushfan2112

        I bet when you play football, you jump from one end-zone to the next, because touching the field between would be compromising your values.

        • thebsflag

          Perfectly said.

        • James Witticker

          Damn.

        • James Witticker

          Damn.

      • Kseniya Cholock

        I was just mentioning in another post where someone brought up the legalization of marijuana how I believe all these campaign ads of his with him along side pot plants, pot leaves in his sunglasses, patriotic red white and blue marijuana leaves in the sunglasses he’s wearing in these campaign adds, these things are truly hurting him

        • Nicole Morgan

          I haven’t seen those adds. I agree that sounds pretty cheesy, though it’s not wrong to go for the vote to end the war on drugs, as people with this agenda are spread all across the political spectrum. I know liberals who are considering voting for him despite disagreeing with his trade policy and economic model, for example. People are tired of Big Brother watching our every move and telling us how to live.

      • Nicole Morgan

        You party hardliners are the ones destroying democracy. All you care about is your desire to force an ideology on others, not good practical governance, just like the Republicans and Democrats you hardline Libs so hate. Well I’ve got some news for you, the vast majority of Americans are moderates and Independent voters outnumber each party.

        • Marlow Mosier

          And the “moderates and Independent voters” are not going to learn shit about libertarianism from the likes of Johnson/Weld. This comments section is loaded with sellouts, sacrificing principle for hopes of more votes. How did that work out for you when you sold out your (alleged) commitment to liberty and endorsed the statist creep, Bob Barr, over the articulate, authentic libertarian, Mary Ruwart? How did it work out for you last time around with Johnson? His result was pathetic yet you nominated him again. Do you people ever learn? Voters are never going to be motivated to vote for sellout liberal Republicans who have taken over the LP. Why would they when, in their big chance on national TV, they gushed over how great Hillary is.

          • Aaron68

            His result in 2012 was better than any libertarian candidate in the past. I’m not in the Libertarian Party, but I am voting for Gary Johnson. If your party had nominated any of the others at the convention, I would not be voting for any of the 3 candidates. Austin Peterson recites bumper sticker slogans and makes Trump look like a seasoned veteran of politics. McAfee literally ran on the policy of burning everything down and starting over. I’m not interested in that. The Libertarian Party is the worst at spreading the libertarian message.

          • Marlow Mosier

            You’re not a libertarian so no surprise you’d vote for Johnson.

          • Aaron68

            If he doesn’t win the election, you and your party can return to the obscurity it has always enjoyed and not be bothered again by the infidels. As I mentioned, your party is the worst vehicle for spreading its own message.

      • bernlin2000

        Fascinating anecdote…did you watch the Libertarian Debates with John Stossel this year? I did…they all did a good job (although Austin just likes to make talking points that look shiny). I liked McAfee, too, although he would have had an “image problem”, due to his personal history…but then again, Johnson has also used “illegal drugs” (i.e. pot, federally-speaking) so that’s a very minor point. Just because you haven’t done the research to actually learn what Johnson believes (and has done while governor of NM) doesn’t mean “he is a fraud”. No, your lack of knowledge of his positions is fraudulent…stop calling the pot black, BuffaloTipper Kettle.

  • Alphaenemy

    Gary Johnson is terrible.
    Petersen and McAfee are way better

    • Will Tyler

      Except Petersen and McAfee were not nominated. Did you miss that?

      • Paul Teague

        Lol! Feeling the butthurt!

  • “Ron Paul ran in the Republican Party. Rand Paul ran in the Republican Party. Justin Amash ran in the Republican Party. Thomas Massie ran in the Republican Party. And they have all made greater strides towards liberty than any Libertarian Party candidate ever has. ”

    I disagree, I feel their Campaigns have only resulted in Social Conservative infecting the Libertarian movement. I’ll take left leaning libertarians over them any day, because Economic issues are what I care about least.

    • StrayfromthePath

      Gary Johnson is attracting some real crumb-bums.

  • Jim Burkiewicz

    More drivel from the left! Gary Johnson is by far the best candidate for president! How anyone could vote for a criminal like Hitlery or the cartoon character Trump is beyond me!

  • thebsflag

    So what would you suggest? Vote for Jill Stein who doesn’t even come close to representing libertarian ideals or someone in the Constitution Party, who isn’t even on half the ballots? Maybe just not vote at all out of protest and allow ClinTrump to make the oligarchy even more powerful over the next 8 years? Maybe a write in vote for the Amazing Ron Paul, who isn’t even running? or write one’s self in or Vermin Supreme as a joke, which is just as useless as not voting at all. You sound like all the other assholes who pretend to know what the problem is but with no clue as to how to solve it. Gary Johnson is on the ticket. Get over it. Either vote for him and effect real solution-oriented change or allow the ClinTrump duopoly to continue screwing us all over.

    • Rushfan2112

      Agreed. This whole article reeks of sore loser.

      Quit whining, and be effective. We will never elect a purist libertarian to office. Deal with it.

      We need to get people in office first to make a change. This is the same crowd that criticizes me for my platform on marijuana, because in my platform I support “At the very least, the legalization of medical marijuana.”, because when you talk to Republicans about full blown pot legalization, they get nervous and turned off immediately. And I kind of need republican votes to win.

      We need strategy, a plan, and to get all the support we can to follow through with it. Gary has the best chance in my opinion. Oddly enough, the people best at kneecapping the efforts of libertarians tend to be other libertarians.

      • Kseniya Cholock

        Recognizing this to be one of Johnsons areas of “expertise” I think his sole concern of this issue is what is causing him to look less than credible to voters. He concentrates too much on legalization of marijuana, marijuana in general, and gives a bad image of himself, especially in his campaign ads containing photos of him posed in front of marijuana plants/leaves, or with sunglasses and red white and blue patriotic marijuana leaves in the sunglasses., etc. he doesn’t come off as a very serious candidate Some of the photographs with him in peace symbol Tshirts and other’s where you’d swear he was “high” are going to put off alot of voters and are not to his benefit, I’ve read where he said he would quit smoking/using marijuana if he became president

      • yuptrouth

        Amazing how all you yuppies are. S
        top playing the supportive unsupported role of hypocritical magnet. these people all have a chance based on talllent provided by their talent. Only to later blame Americans for holding them back.

      • Jim Davies

        “We will never elect a purist libertarian to office” – perhaps you’re right. In that case, why does the LP bother to continue playing the political game?

        What needs to happen? – that the population be re-educated. And when it has been, voting people into office will not be necessary; the government will evaporate because nobody will work for it. So again, playing a political game is an appalling waste of resources.

        And how could that universal re-education be caused to take place? – take a look.

        That’s the strategic plan.

    • Kseniya Cholock

      You offered many suggestions: Jill Stein, Ron Paul, everyone writting in their own self in protest, Vermin Supreme and answered your own question with two choices: Gary Johnson or ClinTrump. Come November, despite the following Johnson might garner, he will never reach the number of votes it will take to beat Clinton or Trump which in essense would be just a “wasted vote.” Look at back when Ron Paul ran, he had a lot bigger following than Johnson and he did not make it. Many people act as if they are being robbed of their right to vote as so many people this election are not happy with any of the candidates, and in which case we should then be asking ourselves who is better qualified to lead us and this country, not which is the lesser of the evils. Personally I think Johnson is just using the Libertarian ticket as a means to get into the race and hopefully the presidency, and does not follow it’s philosophy at all.

      • thebsflag

        Well, you’d be wrong about Johnson because although he may not be orthodox libertarian (think anarchist) he has followed much of the libertarian ideology for many years, including when he was a Republican governor and veto’d more bills than all the previous governors combined and still got re-elected in a 4 to 1 Democrat state. He ran on small government and social tolerance platform even before he was officially part of the Libertarian party. That said, I’d also suggest that you may not fully understand how our election process works. If ClinTrump split the electorates evenly and Johnson wins one key state (he is polling 26% in Utah, just 3 points from Trump) and no one gets the 270 needed, then the election would go to the House, where there is a real possibility he’d be selected because he represents the moderate among a nut case and a criminal. So, in essence, Johnson might only win one state (for example New Mexico, where he was beloved as Governor) and could still become president.

        You also need to brush up on your history. Ron Paul did not run as a Libertarian. He ran for the Republican nomination. This did not work and could never work because Libertarians are not better served as a minority within either of the two major parties. It’s blasphemy to think we could be… Ron Paul lost because he could not get enough Republicans on board with his socially tolerant anti-war message…. because Republicans are not Libertarians (or vice versa).

        You are making the mistake, like so many others, of assuming that Gary Johnson’s supporters would vote ClinTrump if he were not running for president. “A vote for Johnson is a vote for [Insert Psychopath Here]”. This fails the logic test on every level. The fact is, the only “wasted vote” is a vote for someone you don’t believe in. A vote for “lesser evil” is a vote for more evil. If people would stop spreading this nonsense and just vote their conscience we wouldn’t have to worry about evils at all.

        Also, he’s not JUST about marijuana, nor does he “come off” that way and you’re misrepresenting his positions by alleging that he is. Other people read comments like yours and assume it to be truth, so they don’t even bother looking him up because they get discouraged by it. How incredibly irresponsible of you as a fellow citizen and voter! His positions are not hard to find. He even tells you, “Google me”. I suggest you do it. For anyone else reading this reply, please know that Kseniya doesn’t know what he/she is talking about. Do not write in a vote out of protest. That’s idiotic and that would truly be a wasted vote. A write-in candidate cannot win. Jill Stein is not and will not be on all the ballots so she doesn’t have a chance. Gary Johnson is already on all 50 ballots and is the only choice that represents a vote for more protection of civil liberties AND a more fiscally and socially responsible government.

        • Antodav

          Ron Paul did run for president as a libertarian back in 1988. But I get what you’re saying. Nevertheless, given how incompetent the LP is, the Republican Party remains the best vessel through which to promote libertarianism. It may even be possible for libertarians to take over the party now that Trump has torn it to shreds.

          • thebsflag

            The Republican Party as it stands today is not interested in promoting free market ideas or social tolerance. They are interested in growing government, expanding corporatism and cronyism and controlling people’s lives through social manipulation. The LP is not incompetent, they are silenced by the intentional actions of the Republicans and Democrats who have spent the last 150 years convincing Americans to vote for them out of fear. Try to remember that the LP is relatively new on the political scene. Libertarians do not do themselves any favors by taking a backseat minority position within the Republican or Democratic parties. The idea that we are a lesser version of either of these two Statist groups is laughable.

        • KevDris
          • thebsflag

            Exactly.

      • bernlin2000

        This is his second time running as the Libertarian Candidate: the first was in 2012. Of course he wants to win the presidency…that’s why he’s running for it. You think he wants to amass power, just like every other politician? That could be true, but his record as governor of New Mexico contradicts that theory. You should do some research on his record as governor before you make assumptions on what his intentions are. He’s very much a moderate libertarian, in thought and in deed.

      • bernlin2000

        This is his second time running as the Libertarian Candidate: the first was in 2012. Of course he wants to win the presidency…that’s why he’s running for it. You think he wants to amass power, just like every other politician? That could be true, but his record as governor of New Mexico contradicts that theory. You should do some research on his record as governor before you make assumptions on what his intentions are. He’s very much a moderate libertarian, in thought and in deed.

    • Rawr

      the media this week is focusing on “why you should not vote for libertarian gary johnson”
      All these writers are puppet, their boss tell them to write it, because its their job to listen to the man. Journalism is dead.

  • Denarious

    Asinine. Pure hyperbole and mischaracterization. I honestly hope write g is not your day job.

  • mesmeo

    The reason to vote for Gary Johnson is that i consider him to be the most qualified for the job.

  • erfijn

    I honestly don’t see a lesser of two evils here. They are both equally evil in their own messed up way.

  • putanginangshit

    From the horse’s mouth to your claims: https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/posts/10153109454754364

  • conspiracygirl

    Another disgruntled conspiracy theorist conflating his conspiracies with libertarian ideology and getting butthurt when sane people realize that globalism = global trade, as in free exchange — not Oh My God New World Order Illuminati Reptilian Chemtrails!!! Wake up Sheeple!!! Conspiracy theorists naturally flock to Trump, who is also a conspiracy theorist, so he will feed and nurture their paranoia.

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-globalization-isnt

  • Will Tyler

    The article is not convincing. In fact, I think it strengthens the argument to vote for Johnson, because:

    1. It helps spread the message of libertarianism – whether or not you agree with him 100%.

    2. He’s better than Clinton and Trump – in every way. Proven executive experience for one.

    3. It will help end the two-party dictatorship – the only way is to vote for the 3rd largest party.

    4. It will help grow the Libertarian Party – it already has, substantially.

    • Marlow Mosier

      Maybe you should re-read the article. 1) Johnson isn’t close to advocating libertarian positions. 2) “Proven executive experience” is bullshit. What is important is making decisions in accordance with libertarian principles. Nonetheless, what do you think Trump has been engaged in during the last 30 years – exercising and demonstrating “executive experience”. 3)”It will help end the two-party dictatorship”. Fat chance. Not when the LP nominees take positions nearly indistinguishable from the donkeys and elephants. 4) Who cares if the LP grows when it is no longer libertarian? Oh, that’s right. Non-libertarians like you.

    • akitty77

      1. You can’t share the message of libertarianism by nominating someone who isn’t libertarian.
      2. We aren’t to be comparing candidates to candidates because that is not the standard. The Constitution is and whether the candidate will uphold it or not. Johnson has made too many statements that violate religious liberty, property rights, guns and more. Not to mention his horrible VP choice who is even worse on the Bill of Rights.
      3. The two party system will never end until we change the way votes are counted and get ballot access laws changed.
      4. Stop being a party whore. Voting for parties instead of candidates is exactly what has gotten us in this mess we find ourselves in. This is what D’s and R’s do. Put principle above party.

      • Aaron68

        1. Gary Johnson is a libertarian that has experience in governing, and knows the real world implications of promoting and enacting policy. Believe it or not, there is more to being President than looking smug and reciting talking points a la Austin Peterson. You must build coalitions and work with people you disagree with regularly through compromise.
        2. Johnson will uphold the Constitution as it is legally recognized by the judicial system and 99% of the Congress. The President cannot simply stop social security checks from being mailed just because after 80 years, he decides that the program is unauthorized by the Constitution. The President unilaterally denying laws that are both passed by congress and upheld by the Supreme Court would be more Unconstitutional than any of the laws he has supported themselves.
        3. The two party system doesn’t need to change. If a 3rd Party wins, the other two parties will try and emulate it. We see it already. The DNC adopted the legalization of marijuana in its platform, and the GOP is undergoing a neoconservative purge. Expect Rand Paul to become a more powerful voice in the party if the Libertarians make their voices heard this year. Then the LP can go back to nominating people that nobody’s heard of outside of the Party.
        4. The reason the LP will never replace the D’s or R’s is because of people like you and Marlow up there that put principle above party to the extent that every deviation from your principle is hailed as heresy worthy of excommunication. Look at what the successful parties have. The Ds have Blue-Dog conservatives and Socialists working together on foreign policies. The Rs have Neocon warmongers and libertarian-lite budget hawks working together on tax laws. Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party is attacking its own nominee because of his position on a law that was passed 50 years ago, is generally accepted as a positive cultural watershed, and will never be seriously revisited.
        Give Johnson 4 years. If you aren’t satisfied, nominate your True Scotsman and see what happens.

  • mitchelllangbert

    Ron Paul brought in a lot of people to the LP who have no clue as to what libertarianism is. Johnson hasn’t been as bad as Paul. The element I’m talking about includes holocaust deniers, advocates of building a wall with Mexico, advocates of immigration restrictions, and individuals associated with the Nazi-affiliated Liberty Lobby. Compared to Paul, Johnson is a stellar libertarian. I supported Paul because of his hard money stance despite his miserable taste and ignorance in bringing in a backward Pat Buchanan element into the LP, and I support Johnson because his message is that we need more freedom. Perhaps you should put down the hash pipe and think about the difficulties in dealing with real-world politics.

    • Cincy

      Well put. Thanks.

    • akitty77

      Ron Paul won’t vote for Johnson and Paul’s staff has written some similar stuff about Johnson’s unconstitutional views.

  • Dennis Spears

    “In a nationally-televised debate among three of the Libertarian candidates for President (A debate that should, by the way, have been more inclusive of all the candidates.), a highly unlikely hypothetical question was raised about whether a Jewish baker has the right to refuse to serve a Nazi sympathizer asking for a “Nazi cake”. I responded to that question in the legal context of whether a public business has the right to refuse to serve a member of the public, as distasteful as it might be.

    The simple answer to that question is, whether all like it or not, U.S. law has recognized the principle of public accommodation for more than 100 years: The principle that, when a business opens its doors to the public, that business enters into an implied contract to serve ALL of the public. Further, when that business voluntarily opens its doors, the owners voluntarily agree to adhere to applicable laws and regulations — whether they like those laws or not.

    To be clear, anti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency — not to mention the First Amendment — all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It’s not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.

    Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be.”

  • Paul Teague

    You know, I liked your facebook page at one point – then I figured out you were nothing more than a trash Gary Johnson rag. My mother always taught me to seek out the good points in people and never dwell on the negative. You go out of your way to try to destroy somebody that has never done anything negative to you, and this proves that you are nothing more than a sensationalist – not a journalist. Gary Johnson vetoed 750 bills while in office as Governor, more than all other Governors combined, he left his state with a + budget, he promoted term limits, just to name a few Libertarian ideals. Emotional outbursts about what “we have done over the last 8 years,” makes you sound like a LEFTY that took a page out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals – which is basically the Communist manifesto. Please tell me how you helped get ballot access for 50 states, or how you got leaders in industry to recognize the party as legit. Yet, you still have a following because everybody believes you are about LIBERTY. These articles that are so aggressive against Gary Johnson, and never point out Libertarian things he has done, tell me you may need a NAP.

    • BonghornLeghorn

      “These articles that are so aggressive against Gary Johnson, and never point out Libertarian things he has done, tell me you may need a NAP.”

      Hahaha Nice!

  • deejayaz

    Do you want Clinton as prez. I don’t.

    Do you want Trump as prez? I don’t, really. I won’t cast my vote his way on principle and it won’t matter in the end.

    I’m not GOP, never will be at this rate if it isn’t quickly populated with Constructionists. Trump can’t win with just Cruz’ votes – if he could shut up for one moment and try to court them – because he’s alienated most of the dems. McCain & Romney, when, “Oh we can’t let Obama win!” was the cry fared the same – no dems would go their way. That went well.

    The logic to voting Johnson is that if he wins his state and enough votes to upset the applecart, the House may be forced to decide the election. Won’t look too great to vote Clinton and expose themselves as the footsie playing schmucks they are, will it?

    Vote Johnson, Clinton may lose. Don’t and Trump won’t win, or, have even a chance.

    All the blathering on of this piece makes no difference. Johnson isn’t the point, his votes are.

  • Kyle Myers

    Their is a vast amount of logic behind voting for Gary Johnson. However their is no logic in subscribing to Liberty Hangout.

  • Tracy Thompson

    You are correct about Johnson but he does make the Libertarian party look a bit more sane to the uneducated. Look… for years we have been called kooky, insane, unrealistic, and many other things under the sun. We are finally starting to be looked at in a positive light and I for one like that. To be honest, we need to learn how to take baby steps. We can’t expect the country to all of a sudden be hardcore Libertarian. There is some amount of weaning that needs to be done first. I say let’s get a win underneath our belt… even if it is just Utah.

  • B17G

    “Stuck” with Trump?!? Trump is a clarion call for a chance at shoring up the crumbling dikes. Trump is an opportunity, not something to be “stuck” with.

  • Garrett Gates

    The arguments made in this article do not follow logical thinking. By the same reasoning he uses to conclude it is irrational to vote for Johnson in #2, one could use to argue you should not vote for Clinton or Trump either. The only difference is that Justin doesn’t think Johnson can win. The reality is the only reason he is a long shot has to do with people not voting for him because they think he can’t win. The fact is he can win if he gets in the debates. Johnson at worst is polling at 9% with over 60% of America not even knowing who he is… Its one of those things that if he can get enough critical Mass where people actually believe he has a chance he will get more votes. I maintain that you should vote for THE BEST POSSIBLE CHOICE (Which in this case is Johnson), not the lesser of two evils you think could win which is what Justin would have you believe. For an article claiming that there is “no logic in voting for Johnson” the article lacks any sound logic as its conclusions do not logically follow from its premises.

  • Dustin

    How did you come by these four reasons? None of his supporters that I’ve spoken to (which is a lot given his rising popularity in the military) have cited any of these reasons.

    To me, it seems that you have created four arbitrary points, and then refuted them. This article doesn’t provide anything useful if those aren’t the reasons people want to vote for Gary Johnson.

    • akitty77

      I’m around many Libertarians. Those who have been in the party for decades. All of them site these reasons.

  • Kseniya Cholock

    In all honesty people, it would be a “wasted vote” to vote on Johnson. The majority of people in this country are going to be voting for Clinton or Trump. Voting for Johnson might take some of their votes away, whether it be voters who came from Bernie Sanders camp, 3rd party or what have you, but “the majority” of people will be voting for one these two and the one with the most votes, from this majority of voters, will win the presidency. All the from Sanders camp, third party, those who feel Johnson is “the lesser of two evils,” are not going to amount to enough votes to bring Johnson up to a level playing field with Clinton and Trump, and so any vote for Johnson will be wasted. The question every voter should be asking themselves is not only which is the “lesser of the two evils” but more importantly, which candidate is better “qualified” to be our next Commander in Chief and leader of our country. Where our vote is not wasted but used to ensure our country remains strong and prosperous in the next four years or possibly eight

    • Blank Reg

      That argument always presumes the size of the “vote pie” is fixed. Average eligible voter presidential turnout has been around 54%, cycle over cycle. However in particularly “contentious” cycles, the last one being 1992, we may have significantly greater turnout. The blue and red teams may get roughly the same vote tallies, but thousands to millions of “lapsed” or “new” voters could also turn out for 3rd-party candidates, or even add to the blue or red totals if they’re inclined, simply from fear of the other. So a vote for Johnson or Stein doesn’t mean an equivalent loss of a vote for team red/blue, any more than “every ‘illegal’ download is a lost sale”, as the RIAA/MPAA keep yammering.

  • Nicole Morgan

    He doesn’t support cap and trade or carbon tax… sorry, but I think you’re making shit up. http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Energy_+_Oil.htm

    A lot of your complaints read like you’re projecting big time, or throwing a temper tantrum that he’s not your polarizing ideologue that you hardliners want him to be. You know who he appeals to? Independents. Independents make up the majority of the electorate, where as registered Libertarians are a minority fighting amongst minorities. Wake the fuck up.

  • Scott Hamilton

    Sorry, you didn’t refute anything. You proved them all, one by one. You listed how his stance only partially covers on Libt. ideals, literally listing them and yes, expanding the discussion. On #2 you never showed how he wasn’t better than the other two. On #3 your implied foundation, that he is no better than the other two, is unfounded (by you or the general discussion at large). On 4 you did the best, but you’re sadly coming across as a pro-libertarian who is unhappy that the pro-lib candidate isn’t Libertarian enough for you, while doing everything in the rest of the article to show how much more libertarian he is than the others. More coffee, or less, would probably help. Consult your physician.

  • Brad Thomas

    The author here is not taking into consideration that the average American voter simply does not have enough understanding of libertarian principles for a pure Libertarian to gain traction with them. When you are first trying to educate someone about libertarian principles, you don’t give them a copy of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” or Bastiat’s “The Law”. Unfortunately, most people are so ingrained in statist beliefs that they are need to be weaned of this gradually. McAfee and Petersen would be roundly rejected as extremists at this point by the vast majority of non-libertarians. Baby steps first, once we get people to better understand that we don’t need a government program for every problem, then we can proceed to more advanced libertarian concepts.

    • Marlow Mosier

      “How many decades of baby steps do you want? You say “the average American voter simply does not have enough understanding of
      libertarian principles for a pure Libertarian to gain traction with them”. And they are never going to learn libertarian principle from Johnson/Weld. Paraphrasing William Lloyd Garrison, “Urge immediate dramatic reduction of government power as earnestly as we may, it will, alas, be gradual reduction in the end. We have never said oppressive government will be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend”. Libertarians should be forthright in proclaiming what they believe instead of trying to hide their objectives for fear the ignorant masses will reject them. But in so doing they hide and are embarrassed by their truth. Hardly the position of those who hold the key to humanity’s salvation on earth.

  • John Amatulli

    So here is how I see it. The country is on fire. Republicans have their Red flame thrower. Democrats have there Blue flame thrower. Libertarians are holding a fire hose without much water pressure. Now you can helping out by cranking up the pressure and helping with the hose or at least getting a fire extinguisher. People like this guy are the loser who wanted to be in charge of the hose and didn’t get to. Now he is telling all the onlookers how he should have been in charge of the hose and trying to convince them they shouldn’t help.

  • fattech

    Vacate the vote!

  • Scott MacFarland

    Voting for Johnson is the same for voting for Hillary. That’s it, that’s all there is.

  • Greg Becker

    All Dem and Repub fan boys nervous that the electorate is ready for a big change. We know why this article is written.

  • MetaCynic

    Since John Hospers, its first candidate in 1972, the LP has had a long 44 years to educate the public and build a movement. Yet in national elections it has always polled only in the 1% range. Libertarianism is based entirely on a very easy to understand concept – the nonaggression principle. That’s it! By definition libertarianism is a very large tent. Anyone who eschews the initiation of force is welcome regardless of lifestyle, culture, race, religion, ethnicity, education, etc.

    Since the NAP is so similar to the do unto others… admonition, one would think that scores of millions of Americans would have flocked to the LP banner. Yet the LP has been on life support for 44 years now. Why? Some say because the LP is rigidly doctrinaire, others because its principles have become squishy soft. My theory is that the vast majority of mankind lack the intellectual horsepower to live independent, self-directed lives and will always be looking to others for guidance and support. Freedom, which is what the LP is selling, frightens them. Our age is secular, so the masses will turn for guidance primarily to the violent hand (iron fist?) of the state and institutions under its control and not to religion as in the past.

    The best that libertarians can expect out of this reality is for the present unsustainable system to break down and for enclaves of liberty to emerge from the ruins. A nation of 320 million persons torn between producers and looters and ruled by busybodies from a single city is unviable. This is where Trump comes in.

    We know without a doubt that Clinton, the establishment’s big government candidate, is a financial and war criminal. She is a psychopathic warmonger under the control of Wall Street and the neocon political caste. With bloodthirsty Clinton in the White House, a nuclear war with Russia and China, along with the accompanying obliteration of human civilization, becomes a terrifying, real possibility. On the other hand, Trump the outsider is the peace and government reform candidate. There is a reason he is hysterically hated and feared by the political, academic and media elites who have betrayed and ruined America while roiling the world with war. He is a threat to their vast unearned power, prestige and wealth.

    Trump has repeatedly gone on record as willing to end the hugely expensive and unconstitutional, terrorist-spawning wars in the Middle East. He wants to use diplomacy and trade to get along with other countries as opposed to the neocons’ failed strategy of intimidation, economic sanctions, regime change and wars. Trump has also stated that he would work toward cutting government spending and taxes and shredding economically crippling, jobs destroying regulations. He would also defend the 2nd Amendment and extend the 1st Amendment to churches which are prohibited from engaging in political speech under the threat of losing their tax exempt status. He is also loudly anti PC, in favor of school choice and legalizing marijuana and is generally opposed to crony capitalism, especially as embodied in ObamaCare. What is there in Trump’s position on these major issues which libertarians can find fault with?

    As for ripping up “free trade” pacts and building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants, what’s so unlibertarian about those actions? A free trade agreement can be stated in a single sentence. Anything longer than that, especially hundreds of pages longer, is not free trade. It is a subsidy to special interests at the expense of the rest of us.

    Tens of millions of uneducated, low skilled and unskilled immigrants pouring into this country from all kinds of incompatible cultures will not, as is evident here and in Europe, be able to support themselves and their families and will end up on some form of welfare at the expense of taxpayers. They will also drag down the wages of low skilled and unskilled American workers thus forcing them onto welfare. Permitting an open borders immigration policy which guarantees to further loot productive, taxpaying Americans is not libertarian. Why is it unlibertarian to expect immigrants to be able to support themselves either from their wages or from private charity as had been the policy in pre-welfare state America?

    If we’re lucky, a President Trump would be America’s Gorbachev, a transitional figure, who was installed to save socialism in the Soviet Empire and whose tinkering caused that unstable rickety system to collapse. Our increasingly authoritarian regulatory democracy is just as unstable and rickety. Trump’s efforts to relieve the state boot’s pressure on our chests just may crash the system. Whereas Hillary will surely move that boot to our throats!

    To me, a lifelong libertarian, the choice is clear. The deep state’s candidate, Hillary, is rabidly supported by a leftist suicide cult who believe that the only qualification necessary for her to sit in the oval office is body parts different from those of a man’s! They are otherwise oblivious to her towering crimes and failures and unconcerned that she will have her finger on the nuclear button. Hated by the corrupt establishment, Trump, the bombastic outsider gleefully slapping around insufferably arrogant politicians and pundits, at least offers us the hope that he will steer the country in a somewhat libertarian direction so that each of us can then take it from there.

  • Antodav

    A seriously butthurt McAfee or Petersen supporter. Given that this site has promoted pro-Trump stuff before, they can’t talk.The comments here are great.

  • Charles Byrd
  • George Yesthal

    With all the problems Libertarians have had over the years just getting the message out, it seems like the author is damned thankless and, whether in the fits of some purist blather or whether his purpose actually an effort to sabotage the Johnson campaign, the fact remains that ALL 4 of his questionable points are valid. With the electoral process in such a bipartisan shambles and corruption at the highest peak we’ve seen in our history, I would think that anyone truly in the Libertarian camp would be thankful that the Libertarians even have a horse in the running. I trust NOTHING I read in these pseudo-articles because ANY schmoe (which is plainly what this Justin Moldow is) can put out whatever for whatever reasons. The Libertarian party is plainly behind Johnson’s efforts and though he may not be Ron Paul, he IS the Libertarian nominee. So, Justin…just suck it. Take your reasoning and pound it.

  • Marlow Mosier

    There is nary an actual libertarian among all the posters in this comments section. I think you are all a bunch of sellout, power lusting liberal Republicans. A pox on all political parties, especially the LP, which has betrayed the intellectual achievements that libertarians of the past worked so hard to further. Whatever the LP stands for today it sure isn’t libertarianism.

  • nicholas hansen

    Stupid article, how about refuting some meaningful stuff, like how he pulled new Mexico out of a deficit into a surplus, which I might add bill weld did the same when he was governor. Both of which did so without raising taxes but in fact lowering them. How the heck can you say Gary Johnson is not a viable candidate when you have a third grade bully, and a criminal at the head of the two major parties? You my good sir are a fool, good day.

  • James Ferlong

    If frustration is your main motivation for your political party, you’re already failed.

    The best use of your vote is to reform an established party. You solve two problems at once like this and you get a functional party and government faster. It’s just that simple.

    The responsible voters choice has to be Clinton. Voting for Johnson when you don’t agree with him on the issues is cowardly.

    I have much more respect for the Republicans who outright say they will vote for Hillary if it’s close. That tell me somewhere inside their souls they still have some decency and value left. Those Republicans are worth working with. The others should be figuratively burned in effigy for their chronic dishonestly.

    Still, at the end of the day. Everyone who has supported the GOP has built this racist stupidity machine you see before you. You didn’t put the brakes on moral corruption 30 years ago when you should have, especially for a party that runs on supposed moral high ground.

    With greater perspective I think it’s liberals who are the moral elites and they even often take flak for that. The difference that you all fail to see is that Liberals take a social approach and talk about change, Republicans immediately resort to using government to try to legislate morality.

    The Republican’s quick use of big government to try to make us all more like them is wrong, it has nothing to do with running government well or managing large swaths of dissimilar people. You can’t remove American diversity at this late stage. You can’t cool and separate the melting pot without causing disastrous economic and social fallout. If 25% of the country wants to try to fight a Civil War 2.0, I fear not for the ‘minorities’, but for them. I’m not sure if we could stop a wave of resentful brutality from a growing majority if the 25% were to really continue this avenue. I know they won’t, but more people should point out how nice Dems are really being to Republicans intolerance.

    If the Democrats had nominated a fully liberal non racist super socialist rambling out of touch billionaire with lots of failed businesses and marriages and just insane statements over the last 30+ years. The GOP would be launching 10 times as many attacks and they would show no mercy or moral bounds.

    They would go after every angle of attack they think they can win votes with, even if that attack is entirely dishonest.

    I don’t know exactly when the GOP embraced election wins over honesty, but it’s been awhile now. Even the impeachment attempt on Clinton was just political theater. Considering the GOP stood up for Reagan when he ILLEGALLY sold military weapons to Iran and funneled the money to South America terrorists called the Contras. They then went after Bill Clinton for harmlessly trying to cover up a blow job.

    Clinton’s approval rating was high the whole time. Do you all not remember that? Well, if these people are Representative then why are they not doing what the people want? Why are Representative going so far out of their way to push a more personal agenda on the nation?

    Who told the GOP that government was supposed to be used to legislate their personal morality on people? What makes Republican’s think they are any better when they put up Nixon, Reagan, Bush and now Trump?
    The GOP is not the party of values. It’s the party of BIG MONEY and winning elections at any cost. Attacking liberals on everything is just an very simple and scalable strategy to win elections. It has no basis in governing or helping America be Great Again.

    Cooperation and unify is what will make America great again. That’s where we get the most production, the least crime, the most money and the happiest citizens. It’s not rocket science. We are a big herd of people, if you go around stirring up trouble using fearing and refuse to reason things out like normal adults would in a functional community or society, you will harm your nation.

    Almost everything Republicans passionate hate about liberals is entirely made up by conservative media. You have been educated falsely by your media on liberal positions and it makes you act ridiculous in the eyes of liberals and moderate.. and independants and most young people and minorities now.

    How far do you really want to do with this? As an American giving advice to other Americans. I suggest you pull up and embrace cooperative governing and adapt to the reality of a more moderate and thus more liberal America.

    The GOP did this to themselves by attempting to shift the party to the right every year. This was clearly part of their strategy. The GOP, by the facts, has been moving rapidly to what only a few decades ago or less we’d call extreme right ideas. I’m not talking about Trump, but all the decades before that.

    Reagan banned assault weapons and granted amnesty to 1.5 million hispanics. His ability to represent both sides of the nation well enough was why people liked him. In reality his economic and military skills did not seem very good, especially compared to something like Obama who is a harvard educated constitutional lawyer… basically a guy who groomed himself to be a politician or leader/helper of people in general. Reagan was an actor who did anti communism propaganda, some of it pretty gross really. The fact we used entirely made up BS on our own citizens was wrong. That’s what Nazi’s do, not Americans!

    The GOP shifting the party to the right every year eventually had to fail epically. The GOP would be smart to shift strategies more often at the very least, but ideally just stop lying all the time to win elections. Build a party on truth and honesty and rational decision making and you will at least have done the right thing.. after decades of doing the wrong thing while greedily grasping for more power than democracy says you should have.

    When a minority projects itself so well as the GOP has, it harms the nation. Human behavior is complex, but in the simplest form the purpose of majority rule via Democracy is to keep the majority of people happy so they don’t go insane and kill us all. At the very least crime rates shoot way up when we have major ongoing social injustice problems. It’s not guns or abortions.. that’s ridiculous. It’s the everyday inequality and people have to look around and see it. If you get up and work everyday and do a good job, you should get the respect of society, but if you don’t get paid enough you don’t get the respect of society.

    Society is biting the hand that feeds it when it ignores people who are content with less and rewards those who are always greedy for more. Those who are content workers are the ones making the big gear turn as fast as it does. You piss too many of them off and the big gear slows down and crime goes up.

    It’s always been that simple.

  • Gary Keeling Jr.

    Written like a true member of the cult!

  • Pragmatic Paul

    Hi, I’m Hillary Clinton, and I approve this article.

  • Darkman

    Who is this guy that amist all the problems America has keeps smiling as if he’s off his rocker?

  • This
    can be fixed.. well, improved. Gary and Weld need to commit about 40
    hours to sit down with some of our experienced, well spoken Libertarians
    and have bull sessions, talk about issues, solutions, causes and
    effects and write up simple paragraphs and lists of points for every
    possible question they may get. Gary is flailing in what seems to be
    insecurity and a need to please; Weld is just being Weld, but he is a
    Libertarian now and needs to learn the philosophy. Weld just registered
    2 weeks before the convention; It is possible he just hasn’t finished
    his education. The real problem is HOW TO GET JOHNSON and WELD to LISTEN
    TO ADVICE. Their here-we-go la la la attitude toward campaign
    speaking is going to mangle them in the debate machinery. There will be
    blood.

  • Robert Daniel

    An open response to Justin Moldow / “There
    Is No Logic in Voting for Gary Johnson”

    This article responds to the four common reasons for supporting Johnson, by using four hackneyed
    arguments which have already been refuted by Libertarians. In some cases, they are not even arguments
    against Johnson, but merely fallacious arguments against any third option (see
    point #2). Most of all, the author does
    not distinguish between politics, where popularization is everything, and
    academia, where ideas are everything.

    1 – The author begins by attacking the belief that voting for the Libertarian candidate helps
    spread the message of Libertarianism. His argument against this is that this particular candidate and his
    running mate do not much represent the Libertarian values. A fair criticism, but two things are missing,
    the absence of even one which is a fatal blow to his call for us to choose one
    of the mainstream candidates – a call he makes in his second point. First, he fails to compare Johnson and the
    party platform to Trump and Clinton. In fact, he doesn’t mention the party platform at all, even though we are
    implicitly voting for this when we vote for the party. Without going into details, it’s still fair
    to say that Mr. Johnson, as the representative of the Libertarian Party platform, as the only candidate who opposes wars of aggression and so on, is still a better representative of liberty than the two mainstream candidates. Secondly, as the author later mentions in his second point but should have mentioned in his first point, is the fact that our choices are limited to Trump, Clinton, Johnson, Stein and a few independents. Johnson is the only Libertarian candidate in any way.

    2 – To refute the (very correct) assertion that Johnson is better than Trump or Clinton, the author relies on the most annoyingly over-used and just plain faulty argument of all: “…he has little chance of even making it into the presidential debates, let alone the White House.” First of all, the “can’t win, so vote mainstream” cunard doesn’t even relate to the premise which it’s author purports to criticize, which is the relative quality of the
    candidates. Secondly, the history and present state of elections in other countries proves this idea to be patently false. In every single other nation in the world which has contested elections, new parties spring onto the stage frequently and with dominant shares of the vote their FIRST times. As a Canadian, I have observed this multiple times in my own adult life and can give examples. As a trained political scientist and teacher of the subject, I am aware of what happens in other nations and I can say with certainty that third options succeed, and rapidly so. New parties go through a process of gathering momentum over time and Gary Johnson is succeeding in that process. In fact, far from being unlikely, the extra time available in an American election campaign – American campaigns last far longer than those in most other nations – is working to Johnson’s advantage in the momentum battle. Anyone who uses the “third parties cannot win” rationalization is guilty of saying something is impossible when it in fact already exists worldwide and is already happening for Libertarians this year.

    3 – “It will help end the two party dictatorship” The author’s refutation of this is that the two party dictatorship is not the most important issue. He argues that the political success of Libertarian principles is more important than the political success of a new party: “What should matter is the individual running, and not the party they are running under.” A sound argument up to this point and it is still sound in other countries. But this author
    ignores the current context in America. This argument ignores the present scope of the corruption of our
    democratic institutions, likely because it is hard to recognize just how pervasive and chronic that undermining is: Not just of the two major parties, but of our entire political system and civil society – the universities, the
    news media, the C.R.T.C. – every single source of control of information and personal choice which is necessary to promoting ideas of Liberty. (Here I am deliberately singling out Liberty,
    to the exclusion of all other philosophies, because Liberty is the one which is
    under attack and at polar odds with the usurpation of power by the cowards who
    are doing it.) As someone who pays
    attention to this very issue (undermining of political contest) as the main
    thing in his teaching career and as someone who has also been in academia in
    political science, I can tell you that this scope of undermining is pervasive
    and chronic, and that is being generous.
    America is at the point where we NEED a new party BECAUSE it is a new
    party, to infuse new blood and to derail the co-optation of all of our
    institutions of freedom.

    4 – “It will help grow the Libertarian Party” The author’s argument is basically that a philosophical movement loses it’s identity when it becomes popularized. True, but that is not a useful argument in the context of politics. Political parties in a contested election necessarily rely on moderation to achieve popularization. Getting enough votes to win an election is the manifestation of popularization. It is a contradiction to say that, in an election, a party can stick to extreme principles and simultaneously gather the dominant share of votes from among the entire population. Furthermore, the watering down of principles is just as true of the two mainstream parties. So what the author is saying is that we should vote for the parties which have already been corrupted (which he calls for us to do in point #2 – “Anyone voting for Gary … should actually be voting for either Hillary or Trump in order to limit the amount of damage our next president can do.”), instead of voting for a party which has not yet been corrupted, and his rationalization for this nonsense is the absurd idea that we should choose the corrupted parties over the uncorrupted one because the corruption of a party’s principles is a bad thing.

    So, to map out the author’s reasoning in this section: Popularization corrupts the true intent of a philosophical movement (this much is true) –> The major parties are undesirable because they have been corrupted in this way (also true) –> To avoid the same fate befalling the Libertarian Party, we should choose one of
    the mainstream candidates instead of the Libertarian candidate. (The conclusion is totally illogical.)

    Conclusion

    There is no logic to any of this author’s criticisms of Johnson supporters’ rationale. We need to vote the closest thing to our conscience, not because it is perfect but because doing so incrementally advances our ideas. That is the best we can hope for in politics. If you want purity of ideas with no delay, politics is not and will never be, the place you will find it.

    • 42luv

      Thank you. I do appreciate being able to read such a comprehensive and well written rebuttal.

  • Rawr

    It’s nice you can see who write the article and never read their shit again

  • Joel Munson

    I almost confused this article for satire. You point to the speck in Gary’s eye and ignore the plank in Clintrump’s eyes. Gary is not perfect, but he is far, far and away the best choice for this country.

  • Swartzy

    The libertarian party is dying out They lack leaders who are trust worthy or who have enough to stand on. I would not vote for Gary as I do not agree with many of his stands. There is a lot more to Libertarianism that just letting people do what they want and not having so many laws. Those that push this part are the ones that are bringing it down. It has taken on a bad odor and it won’t shake it with these dingy guys.

  • akitty77

    “There is nothing inherently wrong with working within the two major parties in order to promote our ideas.”

    Yes, there certainly is something wrong with that! You can’t change a corrupt system (and if you don’t believe me, think about Ron Paul and his lack of support for his bills from other Republicans the entire time he was in office). By running in that system or voting for candidates in that system, keeps that corrupt system alive. That corrupt system needs to die a quick death! Trying to reform either major party will be about as effective as putting an air freshener in the toilet.

  • illuminatiworldrich marsha

    Hello every one i want to share my testimony on how i belong to Illuminati member, a friend of mine that always give me money…cos he was very rich, one day he said he is not going to give me fish that he is going to teach me how to fish, so i was very happy, i never new he was a member of Illuminati all my life will spend together! so i was initiated to the Illuminati world and few days i was awarded a contract worth of millions of Dollars, in my business i am doing very well right now,i am now the one that give money out before it was heard, if you want to belong to us email us on { [email protected]/ or whatssap or call +2348066163720,thank you so much.

  • Bill Klein

    Are you serious? Lol… Those aren’t any of the real reasons I’m voting for him. Better than the other two? By far he is but the reasons why matter most. Good attempt to control the people who don’t think for themselves though.

  • 42luv

    Funny- As I have had to listen to both Clinton lovers and Trump lovers because I seem to be related to all of them….. I have begun to realize that there is no logic involved in voting at all.

    If you don’t have enough money to buy a politician, if you can’t afford to take time off work to go “occupy” anything, and if you are struggling to keep your own family safe and fed– even as hopeless as any voting seems because it’s all been rigged from the drawing of district lines clear up to the electoral college— Your vote is still the only voice you have within this system.
    So, while I was sort of expecting this article to give me some insight as to another candidate who would be logical to vote for… Instead what I got was just the same old pressure to just give up and let CLUMP win.

    The thing I don’t understand about the wasted vote is; If I live in a red state that has always given all its electoral votes to republicans, does that mean that if I don’t vote republican it’s a waste of time to vote at all?
    Do you vote on other issues that way?
    Well clearly the proposition against gay marriage is going to pass so it would be a waste for me to vote against it.
    Pepsi is more popular than Coke, so even though I like actually like Hires root beer the best, I’ll just drink Pepsi. (Although my friends have shown me polls that show Coke is more popular)

  • James Witticker

    *Sigh* Is this the best you can do Justin Muldow? For the record, whenever you start an article saying “literally no logic” you just sound ridiculous. The amount of mischaracterization, outright lies, and virtue signaling in this article makes me think some in our party crave irrelevance – or like your Twitter profile suggests – just anarcho-capitalism.

  • yuptrouth

    You Are an awful cuss. You should be in south park where you would fit in bettet with the quacks.until then suck up all this idiotic only bm matters and they should continue to
    Look at u as disengenous quacks you are .

  • bernlin2000

    Your first point suggests that you are an anarcho-capitalist, or close to it (i.e. a “night watchman” minarchist). You want a candidate who will eliminate 80% of the government. With Johnson, you’ll get a 20% reduction in government, at best (that’s his target). He’s a realist…not an idealist: that’s the consequence of actually governing in an executive branch. You’re in contact with reality every day as a governor, not just spinning philosophical yarn.

    Your conclusion is full of hubris and high-minded thought, but has no foundation in reality or practicalities. We need libertarian idea NOW, not in the next election cycle or whenever this theoretical “perfect candidate” you are dreaming of comes around. Ron Paul was not in favor of choice, regarding a woman’s right to choose…no candidate is perfect, we all have disagreements about what’s “perfect”, as well. The point is, you are letting perfection be the enemy of “the good” (or even “not evil”…because nobody who is voting for Johnson he arguing that he’s the “lesser of 3 evils”…no, he’s the only good choice of the 3 options available in all 50 states). It is that kind of thinking that will hold back libertarian ideas. Neither Republicans nor Democrats in DC give those ideas credence…those ideas HAVE to come from the people, and we HAVE to have leaders at least talking about these ideas. They can’t talk about them if we don’t put them into office, and don’t support them with our votes.

  • bernlin2000

    Your first point suggests that you are an anarcho-capitalist, or close to it (i.e. a “night watchman” minarchist). You want a candidate who will eliminate 80% of the government. With Johnson, you’ll get a 20% reduction in government, at best (that’s his target). He’s a realist…not an idealist: that’s the consequence of actually governing in an executive branch. You’re in contact with reality every day as a governor, not just spinning philosophical yarn.

    Your conclusion is full of hubris and high-minded thought, but has no foundation in reality or practicalities. We need libertarian idea NOW, not in the next election cycle or whenever this theoretical “perfect candidate” you are dreaming of comes around. Ron Paul was not in favor of choice, regarding a woman’s right to choose…no candidate is perfect, we all have disagreements about what’s “perfect”, as well. The point is, you are letting perfection be the enemy of “the good” (or even “not evil”…because nobody who is voting for Johnson he arguing that he’s the “lesser of 3 evils”…no, he’s the only good choice of the 3 options available in all 50 states). It is that kind of thinking that will hold back libertarian ideas. Neither Republicans nor Democrats in DC give those ideas credence…those ideas HAVE to come from the people, and we HAVE to have leaders at least talking about these ideas. They can’t talk about them if we don’t put them into office, and don’t support them with our votes.

  • KevDris
  • Aajaxx

    We don’t need a radical, activist libertarian, we just need people who wlll either move in a libertarian direction or not at all.

  • Stephen Abbott

    That he’s not a supporter of the party that, during its convention, seriously asked whether he supported letting 5-year-olds consume heroin, is a HUGE plus for Johnson. The anarchist wing of the party may not be happy, but many Republicans will LOVE to support these two moderate-to-liberal Republicans over the dictator-loving, Harry Reid-funding Trump or the horrifically Leftist, Globalist, and corrupt Hillary.

  • Thomas Fitzpatrick

    I didn’t know who Gary Johnson was until I read this, but I will be voting for him now. Thank you for informing me of his existence.

  • Dlanod P. Murt

    A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary. Vote Johnson for Clinton 2016!!!

  • Eric

    Wow….this article was terrible. A bashing of Johnson without much merit. Johnson does not want to continue the “intervention wars” and he is definitely for smaller government and less gov intrusion. Yes he is not perfect but the only time the voting for the lesser of two evils is between trump and Hillary. Johnson is not Ron Paul but he is definitely not in bed with the Saudis nor is he the most arrogant person on the planet like trump. When. I vote for Gary Johnson it will be because he is the best of the 4 candidates that are on all the state ballots. I refuse to let the media tell me who I can vote for. I’ll vote for Gary Johnson as my protest vote against the two party corruption system and if everyone that feels the Democrats and Republicans have a corrupt monopoly voted for Johnson then we would have a libertarian president.

  • Eric

    Wow….this article was terrible. A bashing of Johnson without much merit. Johnson does not want to continue the “intervention wars” and he is definitely for smaller government and less gov intrusion. Yes he is not perfect but the only time the voting for the lesser of two evils is between trump and Hillary. Johnson is not Ron Paul but he is definitely not in bed with the Saudis nor is he the most arrogant person on the planet like trump. When. I vote for Gary Johnson it will be because he is the best of the 4 candidates that are on all the state ballots. I refuse to let the media tell me who I can vote for. I’ll vote for Gary Johnson as my protest vote against the two party corruption system and if everyone that feels the Democrats and Republicans have a corrupt monopoly voted for Johnson then we would have a libertarian president.

  • This is politics, not political fantasy. If you want a candidate that you agree with 100%, then write in your own name. If Gary Johnson’s candidacy moves the needle a half degree towards more liberty, that’ll count as progress for me. The alternative is watching the other candidates the needle at least another 15 degrees in the other direction — if there’s any room on that meter left.

  • Jim Davies

    Excellent analysis!

  • Jim Davies

    Excellent analysis!

  • Robert Webber

    You got a guy in striking range and you are shooting yourself in the foot. Johnson is leagues better than what the two party farce has put up.