MENU

Is Gary Johnson the Answer?

By Vinay Kolhatkar

October 18, 2016

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

The mainstream media, cheerleaders for the New Left, want to manufacture a win for Hillary Clinton. Two third-party/ independent candidates matter: Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin.

The mainstream media, cheerleaders for the New Left, want to manufacture a win for Hillary Clinton. They will deny third-party candidates any significant exposure, unless, their anointed candidate is at risk of losing, and they think the third-party candidate can deflect more from Trump than from Clinton.

Two third-party/ independent candidates matter: Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin.

According to the Inquisitr, Johnson’s numbers in some Midwest states are over 20%, mostly taking away from Trump, and almost level with Clinton. Meanwhile, according to Fox News, McMullin is tied with Trump in Utah, and has an outside chance to take its 6 Electoral College votes.

If both Clinton and Trump are denied 270 Electoral College votes, the Republican-majority House of Reps can choose any of top three candidates as president. But an independent hasn’t won any Electoral College votes since 1968. It’s still a hell of a long shot.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, is at least trying to speak truth to power.

Is the former Republican two-term Governor who is pro-choice, anti-eminent domain, and pro-marijuana legalization, able to articulate the truth?

The way he sees it, yes. Imperfectly. He is grasping. Without the foundation of a proper philosophical framework, he errs. A lot. Like Ronald Reagan failed to grasp the totalitarian threat posed by Islam, handing over arms to the Afghan Taliban. Like, Reagan again, halted the production of the neutron bomb, a device he himself praised as “the dreamed of death ray weapon of science fiction.”

Is the former Republican two-term Governor who is pro-choice, anti-eminent domain, and pro-marijuana legalization, able to articulate the truth? The way he sees it, yes. Imperfectly. He is grasping. Without the foundation of a proper philosophical framework, he errs. A lot.

Like numerous well-meaning Republican presidents and candidates over the years have recklessly allowed the budget deficits to grow, and failed to grasp what the New Left has done—to amend the course of dialogue in this country, to pull the rug out from industrial civilization by attacking fossil fuels with a fantasy, to perpetuate fiscal irresponsibility that will one day explode into a sovereign bankruptcy, to shamelessly weaken the U.S. defense systems voluntarily by throwing away weapons of great strength, to undercut Capitalism with fraudulent economic theories and ever-increasing red tape.

Johnson is no worse than any of them, albeit the anti-choice (they call it pro-life) Ted Cruz has a far better perception of the New Left.

Gary Johnson’s worst moment was not Aleppo. It was (see this video here) the rambling, goofy bit about the Sun will roast the earth in a few billion years anyway, so why bother?

That gives away intellectual ground to the climate change creed that claims that (a) there is global warming, (b) that warming is dangerous, (c) that it is manmade, (d) that it is near-term catastrophic requiring urgent action, (e) that it can be reversed by replacing a whole lot of fossil fuels with wind and solar (f) that such a replacement is feasible, (g) that, to boot, is an expense that an economy can bear, and, (h) that such replacement is the only avenue left, since geo-engineering is destined to fail, because geo-engineering is manmade as against a nature-worshiping withdrawal from fossil fuels.

Gary Johnson’s worst moment was not Aleppo. It was the rambling, goofy bit about the Sun will roast the earth in a few billion years anyway, so why bother?

You see, when you put it like that, there are eight matters (a) to (g) that the climate change creed must prosecute. All eight, no exceptions—a single weakness in the chain and the climate creed falls flat. And the onus of all eight is on the creed, not on the skeptics.

You see the way it can be challenged, Mr. Johnson?

Johnson just does not perceive the New Left—and this is a ubiquitous libertarian failing. They haven’t read Ayn Rand’s classic—The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, one of the most insightful political books ever written. See also the essay “Political Correctness is part of a neo-Marxist Culture War.”

Johnson also has made the usual libertarian gaffes—that it’s safer for America to exit the world stage, that Islam is just another “religion,” that the West sometimes aggravates them into terrorism.

Even when he talks economic policy—see here in 2012, and here—in July, 2016, he says the Fed should exist at a regional level and that the twin mandates of price stability and employment are at odds with each other. No, they are not, Mr. Johnson—repealing legal tender laws would lead to price stability and increase employment. Bastardizing interest rates destroys the economy and a plunging economy produces less jobs.

At times Johnson has rambled about money printing and hyperinflation—no, Gary, right now, the Fed is crowding out private investment. Reserves at banks have gone up by trillions, see here, and here. And then we have Bill Weld, his choice of VP, saying that “Hillary Clinton is best qualified to be president.” Groan.

On the positive side, Johnson doesn’t believe in anarchy as a form of government. He doesn’t buy the absurd military-industrial complex fantasy. He doesn’t appear to buy the anti-GMO fables either. He is not anti-intellectual property. He is not cast-iron-set as a libertarian. The Libertarian Party is not anarchist or anti-intellectual property, and many libertarian faithful are calling Gary Johnson not libertarian. Those are good reasons to look at him not as a proponent of any ism, but as his own man.

But Johnson must take his own candidacy seriously. This tongue-out bit here (video 1.20 to 2.20) is not at all funny. Please, view and listen for that one minute.

Whose job is Johnson pitching for? Barack Obama’s or Jon Stewart’s? It would be nice if Gary Johnson won the latter. At least he would skewer both sides of the political aisle.

Hillary Clinton represents the New Left. In all its viciousness—cronyism, fascism, the destruction of education, the destruction of the economy.

And to be fair, Donald Trump has his moments of clarity now and then—he has discovered how the Church of Climate Scientology has bended science into service for the State, he talks about reducing regulation and business taxes, and for campus free speech.

Trump is by far the most inarticulate major party presidential candidate ever.

But Trump cannot complete most sentences he starts. If Trump is genuine, and that is a big if, he is like the misunderstood ogre that can’t speak at all.

Trump is by far the most inarticulate major party presidential candidate ever.

He needs a prosecutor to prosecute the political case on his behalf. And he needs a defender to defend him against the media vilification.

Who then, to insert grave and monumental issues into the political dialogue?

Rolling Stone captured Johnson’s philosophical inconsistency well—every stripe of Conservative, liberal, and yes, even libertarian, and, most certainly, objectivist, would have problems with some measures of his platform. The requirement to force bakers to bake a cake for same-sex couples is straight out of Contradictions 101. But what this list includes is precisely the reason to encourage Johnson—he could bring topics like ending runaway deficits, the nature of free enterprise, the importance of pro-choice, civil rights, ending eminent domain, and reducing the drug war by legalizing marijuana, into the national conversation. And he will sign on to Keystone (excluding the eminent domain rights).

Finally, on October 7, Johnson issued a well-articulated foreign policy that spelt out his non-isolationist, but non-interventionist stance. Like most libertarians, he makes the mistake of lumping all intervention in one column called “Interventionism.” Past interventions have been wrong because they were not principled. It can be in the U.S. national interest and in the interest of individualism, to supply arms, intelligence, and even fighter jets to one side, if it represents liberty, against their oppressors. It is very much in the interest of individual rights to have modern weapons that can incinerate ISIS and Al Qaeda in a focused way. But this, nevertheless, is a big advance from the man.

For those of you mulling a vote for Johnson merely to assuage your conscience, you can also consider Evan McMullin. His agenda is Conservative with a capital C. He is reasonably articulate, see here in this Bloomberg interview. McMillian is a former Mormon missionary who became an undercover CIA operative and killed terrorists, and then worked at Goldman Sachs—wow, what a CV.

He has a Johnson-like nod, nod, wink, wink approach to the climate change racket—yeah, a degree here, caused by man, but let’s get onto fracking, shall we? He has a one-in-a-million chance at the presidency in a deadlock scenario via winning Utah.

Whose job is Johnson pitching for? Barack Obama’s or Jon Stewart’s?

But if Johnson is the man who will speak truth to power, he must prepare well for his interviews, and he must articulate from first principles. There’s too little time left.

And he must, he absolutely must, stop playing the clown.

Unless Goofy Gary really only wants Jon Stewart’s old job. And the presidential bid is just a façade. Or being clownish is a way of drawing attention, which he lacks.

I mean, in this election, anything’s possible.

 

 

(Visited 283 times, 1 visits today)