While all the attention has been on Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, the Libertarian Party has the most exciting and most credible candidate in a long time in Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson's credibility came from being a 2-term governor of New Mexico. Back then, he was officially a member of the Republican Party, but he was definitely not your average Republican. He already had libertarian ideas, but he decided to join the Republican Party with the hopes of reforming the party from within.
Whereas other Republicans talk a big game on "reducing government" and "reducing deficits", Johnson actually eliminated the state's deficit and vetoed plenty of spending bills. He also defied other Republicans by advocating libertarian ideas like marijuana legalization. Johnson was also pro-choice, pro-immigration and even considered legalizing prostitution.
Johnson was hoping to do the same thing on the national level, and tried to run for President from within the Republican Party. However, he was overshadowed by religious fanatics (Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann), corporate flip-floppers (Mitt Romney), eccentric business conservatives (Herman Cain), Texas governor (Rick Perry), scandalized politicians aiming for redemption (Newt Gingrich), and someone who already represented a version of libertarianism within the US Congress (Ron Paul).
Pretty hard for someone like Gary Johnson to compete those guys within a very conservative national party.
Time to go where Gary Johnson truly fits --- the Libertarian Party! The party maybe small, but it is a much better fit. Plus, he no longer had to compete with national political celebrities for attention here.
1) So why do I think Gary Johnson symbolize the maturity of the libertarian movement?
For one thing, Gary Johnson has actual experience as a government executive.
He has experience running a state government.
He has experience dealing with state emergencies such as wildfires.
He also has experience dealing with a legislative branch filled with those with opposing ideas.
In that environment, you learn to pick your battles wisely!
If you fight all battles that exist around you, you'll become too exhausted for battles that really matter. So you have to pick and chose which battles you will fight, and which ones you just walk away from!
For too long, too many libertarians can't even pick their battles wisely!
For too many libertarians, any type of compromise is wrong.
You can be right in so many different issues, but if you allow at least 1 government program to continue to exist, you get demonized as a "sellout" by many libertarian purists.
But sometimes, you just have to allow some government programs to continue BECAUSE you have other more important battles to fight, battles you have a better chance of winning,, battles that are more critical.
--------------
For example, in 2004, Micheal Badnarik was running as the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
Badnarik was the ULTIMATE EXAMPLE of NOT choosing his battles wisely!
Of all the major issues out there, ranging from foreign policy, drug policy, economics, what did Badnarik get the most publicity about?
Answer: Badnarik doesn't believe in driver's licenses. He believe they "infringe in our freedom".
That is so Picking STUPID Battles! If that's all you're known for, NOBODY WILL EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!
------------
Another example is when Rand Paul said that he thinks anti-discrimination laws violate the freedom of businesses.
Paul did try to reassure people that he wouldn't allow the government to discriminate on race, but thinks businesses should decide the issue on their own.
AGAIN, picking a STUPID battle!
With millions of those in the older generation with memories of being expelled from stores because they were "the wrong color", Rand Paul's comments will NEVER attract a multi-cultural audience for libertarianism!
If that's a person's first contact with a "libertarian message", you'll lose that person FOREVER!
Plus, allow businesses to discriminate IS allowing them to call the police to violently remove anyone from a store/restaurant/etc. just because they're the wrong color.
So much for "reducing government oppression"
---------------
Same thing with libertarian activists who say "Abraham Lincoln actually expanded slavery by forcing an income tax on us"
THAT IS SO STUPID!
Sure, taxes are taken by force. Sure, income tax is an inconvenience with all that paperwork and audits. Plus, many of us had plans with the money taken by taxes.
But taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as being physically beaten and whipped on the plantations. Taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as having your cherished loved ones sold to another slave owner, and you'll never see that cherished love one again. Taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as having to run for your life and worry that you'll be captured and forced back to the same plantation where the owner will violently retaliate against you. Taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as getting raped by the plantation owner, enduring a forced pregnancy and still being forced to work the fields while being pregnant with your rapist's child.
So yeah, I rather pay income taxes, than to put up with all that crap that I just mentioned.
And yeah, Abraham Lincoln was a hero in eventually ending REAL slavery in the South!
--------------
While I don't believe that the US should continue to be the world's policeman, the 2000 presidential candidate Harry Browne picked stupid battles after 9/11 happened!
While most Americans (myself included) wanted the US to send the military to go inside Afghanistan to fight against Osama bin Laden, Harry Browne said that 9/11 was America's fault and that the US should just accept it and not bother fighting back! Screw that!
It's one thing to criticize our foreign policy, but to even advocate that we not put up a real fight against Osama bin Laden and his Al Quaida? Screw that!
I was no longer a Harry Browne fan after that!
-------------
Neal Boortz, a libertarian talk show host, is very angry about high taxation.
Nothing wrong with that!
However, he picks stupid battles by demonizing the poor who would turn to any organization (including the government) for help.!
http://townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/2012/09/05/the_risk_of_being_poor/page/full/
Boortz did list ways people hurt themselves economically, then he really picked a stupid battle by mentioning this
Refusing to move out of a crime-ridden inner city environment and relocating, by whatever means necessary, to an area with better schools, less drugs and crime, and some basic job opportunities … that’s risky. And don’t give me this “can’t afford it” crap. Our ancestors did that walking alongside covered wagons with a few tables and chairs and maybe a bed inside. They had to dig holes in the ground to drop a deuce along the way. You have a car. There’s rest areas on the expressways. Load it and use it.
That statement is WORSE than Mitt Romney complaining about the "47% who don't pay taxes", "considers themselves victims" and "refuse to take responsibility for their lives".
You could do all the right things (ie. work hard, follow the law, etc.) but if you have to take care of a sick relative, and therefore can no longer work a full-time job and you can now only afford to live in the ghetto, you would understand why Boortz's statement is so insulting!
Sure, some former ghetto residents might have entrepreneurial talents (ie. Percy Miller aka Master P, Sean Carter aka Jay-Z), athletic talents (ie. Isiah Thomas, Allen Iverson, Micheal Vick), musical talents (ie. Mary J Blige, Lil Wayne) that can move them up to the " richest 1%"
But you can't realistically expect everyone with a ghetto past to have such lucrative talents.
Despite the stereotypes, many other ghetto residents do work hard and follow the rules. But because many don't have multi-million dollar talents, and because many can't afford to hire a nanny, that will make it harder to move up the economic ladder.
And with the high gas prices (plus car insurance, maintenance costs, etc), Boortz's statement of "you have a car. There’s rest areas on the expressways. Load it and use it" is even more stupid than Mitt Romney telling future college students "just borrow money from your parents".
Like Julian Castro (no relation to the Cuban dictator) once said in a mocking tone "Why didn't I think of that?"
This isn't just "left-wing propaganda", this is real life! Yes, I know the taxes are too high. Yes, I know there is too much bureaucratic red-tape and too much counter-productive regulations hurting our economic potential. Yes, private organizations can be a more viable way to help the less fortunate. You can EASILY say such things without being as insulting and crude as Boortz!
But saying what Boortz said about the poor in high-crime communities is NOT ONLY picking stupid battles, it's basically giving the Radical Left weapons and ammunition!
2) Libertarian's past desperation
Another part of picking your battles wisely is choosing the best allies.
You don't just align yourself with just anybody.
But because the Libertarian Party (and the movement itself) is so small, they're desperate for more people to join in.
The worst are what we call paleo-libertarians.
Paleo-libertarians , while generally libertarian on economics and foreign policy, are extremely NON-libertarian on many other issues.
I consider paleo-libertarians to be very poisonous to the libertarian movement, because many are anti-immigration, anti-abortion, and are just plain stupid in picking their battles wisely.
Rand Paul (who I mentioned earlier) is one example.
Eevn worse is his father Ron Paul.
Ron Paul first got major attention by being the only Republican in the 2008 primary debates to object to an interventionist foreign policy. That got many young people tired of the Iraq war to be like "cool, there's a Republican I can support".
But there is absolutely NOTHING COOL about his racist newsletters. There are many anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant stereotypes in those newsletters published in Ron Paul's name.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/22/ron_paul_and_his_racist_newsletters/
The fact is, Paul has lied like a very old-fashioned sort of politician about these newsletters, and he has been lying for years. He has gone through the motions of public regret about their contents, but has never acknowledged knowing who wrote the offensive material or even being aware that offensive material went out under his name. That’s bullshit. Now he ducks questions on the subject entirely (and his supporters complain that it’s “old news,” because they have no serious defense of the comments or Paul’s responsibility for them).
If someone tried to write a newsletter (or a blog, magazine, whatevers) in my name with racist commentary, I WOULD BE PUBLICLY in FULL RAGE MODE! I'd be ready to file slander/defamation suits and would be demanding more information about who is writing that crap while hiding behind my name.
But that's not how Ron Paul reacted. He was just like "I don't read all my newsletters, someone else in my staff did, and please stop asking questions about it, it's old news".
Notice that he's only angry that's being questioned about those racist newsletters, he showed ZERO ANGER about someone writing such racist crap while hiding behind his name! That's because NOBODY was hiding behind his name, he knew what was in his newsletters, he approved of them, and now he's evading responsibility for them.
Had Ron Paul even attempted a real apology for those insensitive comments, he would've gotten more respect from those who were offended by his newsletter.
--------
As for Ron Paul's ally
Another example of the Libertarians being too eager to embrace a paleo-libertarian occurred in 2008.
In 2008, the Libertarian Party wanted some star power. They found someone who was once a member of Congress, and was a former Republican.
Problem was .......... that person is Bob Barr?
EWWWWWWW!
Barr had spent most of his career in alliance with right-wing religious fanatics, speaking to segregationist groups, and (to severely insult many libertarians) demonize anyone who believed in a more lenient policy on marijuana!
After Barr had conflicts with other Republicans, he joined the Libertarians who were desperate for attention.
There was NO WAY IN HELL i would EVER vote for Bob Barr!
I ended up voting for 1 of the 2 major party candidates in 2008!
3) Screw the paleo-libertarians, support the Cool Libertarians instead!
Now that I already went over the paleo-libertarians, what are the cool libertarians?
There are, broadly, two different versions of American libertarianism: There’s Reason Magazine and Cato Institute libertarianism — “cool” libertarianism — and there’s Mises Institute/Lew Rockwell libertarianism — old crank libertarianism. Ron Paul is a Mises Institute libertarian. (Gary Johnson, more of a cool libertarian.)
Paleo-conservatives are the old cranks described above!
Whereas the paleo-libertarians are just a bunch of disgruntled right-wing nutcases in disguise, the Cool Libertarians are the ones truly about real freedom.
Whereas paleo-libertarians only define freedom as "low taxes, and the right to offend liberals"
Cool Libertarians (while still defending low taxes and free speech) are about embracing the future, embracing pop culture, and embracing the freedoms that many ultra-conservatives fear (ie. banned substances, porn, prostitution, gambling and other so-called "sins")
Whereas paleo-libertarians desire a greater alliance with right-wing activists, Cool Libertarians say HELL NO to such alliances!
In other words, the Cool Libertarians are the REAL LIBERTARIANS!
4) Conclusion on the Maturing Libertarian Movement
so yes, in 2012, the Libertarian Party nominated a Cool Libertarian in Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson has real experience in an executive position that required knowing what battles to fight, and when to just compromise.
If the Libertarians want any real success in reducing government power, they need to know when to go all out and when to just let it go!
This is why Gary Johnson isn't out to eliminate every single government program, even if he does generally believes that privatization would work best.
He just picks the major priorities like .......... reducing foreign military adventures, ending the militarized drug war, lowering corporate taxes, gaining a more lenient immigration policy.
Notice that (unlike Neal Boortz), Johnson doesn't demonize those who are currently reliant on government programs. Johnson does believe in privatizing services, but he also understands that demonizing lower-income people who turn to government for help will only alienate them from the larger message of private charities serving us better than government bureaucracies.
Notice that Gary Johnson (unlike Badnarik) doesn't spend much time complaining about "driver's licenses restricting freedom" nor does he say "income tax is like slavery"
Notice that Gary Johnson (unlike Rand Paul) doesn't consider anti-discrimination laws a "restriction on business". In fact, Gary Johnson not only supports the Civil Rights Act, he wants to expand that protection to sexual orientations.
Gary Johnson knows how to pick his battles.
He might not be able to overcome the severe advantages of Romney or Obama this coming Tuesday, but he is setting an example for future Libertarian leaders.
