Gary Johnson

GOP Pays the Price for Authoritarianism–Will They Respond?

As a number of people–particularly conservatives–started to realize last night, Gary Johnson may have played spoiler for Mitt Romney in FL. Here are the current results from FL:

Mitt: 4,096,439

Obama: 4,143,534

Difference: 47,095

Johnson: 43,673

Johnson’s totals wouldn’t quite have been enough to eliminate the current margin, but (assuming Johnson drew mostly from Mitt voters), it made a big difference.

Assuming once FL gets around to finalizing their count Obama wins this thing, Mitt will have lost, in part, because of Johnson’s success.

The Nader effect, come home to roost for the GOP.

So in addition to being nicer to non-Cuban Latinos and African Americans, to win FL, Mitt presumably would have had to be more attractive to libertarians. While I doubt Mitt Romney was ever going to come out for pot legalization, he also has a bunch of scary authoritarian advisors–the likes of Cofer Black–who might be unappealing to libertarian minded Republicans.

Mind you, I suspect the GOP will respond to such a scenario (if it does come about) in much the same way as the Democrats did after 2000: with a lot of angry recriminations but no thought about being more responsive to the constituency that ditched the party. Not only has the GOP come to love them some big government authoritarianism, but they’re going to have a hard enough time trying to make the party less racist.

Still, Johnson’s success in FL may provide some pressure for both parties to take civil liberties more seriously.

“Crackpots don’t make good messengers”

For the record, I have no intention of voting for Ron Paul in the General election (though depending on how the GOP primary rolls out, I might consider crossing over to vote for Paul in the MI primary, for similar reasons as I voted for John McCain in the 2000 primary: because I knew my vote wouldn’t matter in the Democratic primary and I hoped a McCain win might slow down George Bush’s momentum and focus some attention on campaign finance reform, McCain’s signature issue at the time).

I don’t want Ron Paul to be President and, for all my complaints with Obama, he is a less bad presidential candidate than Paul.

But that’s an entirely different question then the one Kevin Drum purports to address with this post:

Should we lefties be happy he’s in the presidential race, giving non-interventionism a voice, even if he has other beliefs we find less agreeable? Should we be happy that his non-mainstream positions are finally getting a public hearing?

Drum doesn’t actually assess the value of having a non-interventionist in the race, or even having a civil libertarian in the race (which he largely dodges by treating it as opposition to the drug war rather than opposition to unchecked executive power), or having a Fed opponent in the race.

Instead, he spends his post talking about what a “crackpot” Paul is, noting (among other things), that Paul thinks climate change is a hoax, thinks the UN wants to confiscate our guns, and is a racist.

Views, mind you, that Paul shares in significant part with at least some of the other crackpots running for the GOP nomination.

Of course, Paul does have views that none of the other Republicans allowed in Presidential debates share. And that’s what Drum would need to assess if he were genuinely trying to answer his own question: given a field of crackpots, several of whom are explicit racists, several of whom make claims about cherished government programs being unconstitutional, most of whom claim to believe climate change doesn’t exist, is it useful that one of the candidates departs from the otherwise universal support for expanded capitulation to banks, authoritarianism, and imperialism? Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @MonaHol @EricMartin24 ...so be it. But the better the extent that any Clinton future can be brought left, the better. That's politics.
15mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MonaHol @EricMartin24 Sanders may not have "experience" in FoPo, but at least what he has is not horrible. HRC will win, not Sanders...
17mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MonaHol @EricMartin24 Well, I do not hate HRC. In fact, respect her in many ways. BUT, think she is effectively a status quo semi-neocon.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Also, ugh.
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Me too. My wife constantly reminds me of that....
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Maybe! but you have a young child. Mine is quickly headed to graduate school. Being pissed off at election helps me feel pain.
30mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 ...forces back then? Yes. The Obama hatred gestated out of that. And it was heinous. Still, her time then is not forgotten.
38mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Sadly, I am so old as to have been through both eras. Do I understand+remember the forces, including rabid anti-Clinton...
40mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Agreed.
41mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Sure, but the Sanders vote, via legislative history looks quite different now. Not sure Clintons does.
41mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Honestly, I am not sure where the real line is between her and Bill. But that was their strength, also legitimate question now
43mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Do not disagree to a large extent, but she helped move BC's agenda. No 1st lady, even going back to Eleanor ever more central.
44mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2016
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
2829