Monday, June 4, 2012

Examiner: Gary Johnson Disappoints

Eric Field at the Examiner, in a column titled, "Gary Johnson disappoints: LP candidate doesn’t understand libertarianism," has a take on my interview with Gary Johnson, here.

(htDannySnachez)

26 comments:

  1. Reposting a great comment from the Examiner Article:

    The problem here is that you're trying to be the "intellectual libertarian". Gary is not that, never was, never pretended to be. He's a regular guy, who happens to be extremely motivated and incredibly successful. How many states have you run? How many mountains have you climbed? How many multi-$million businesses have you created?

    Gary is a gut person. He doesn't have to think all day about libertarianism to know it's the right philosophy. He arrived at it by a simple test of value. You are trying to assert that that there is only one proper way to arrive at libertarianism and that is through the writings of other people. That's absurd. It's like saying that the only way to decide how to buy something is by reading the sales brochure.

    Aside from this, self-identified "libertarians" seem awfully eager to shoot themselves in both feet. - John Ashman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the problem with the sales brochure analogy: If you don't read it and someone asks you to define the product, explain it's benefits versus the other guy's product, or promote it to those unfamiliar, you end up doing what Johnson did - fail to give concrete answers on simple questions and demonstrate a total lack of understanding of how the economy works.

      Delete
    2. I agree. For instance, I'm a Christian and I've never cracked the Bible once. I just go with my gut and listen to what other people say about Christianity.

      Delete
    3. Silly intellectuals with all your thinking hard and demanding principles and scholarship. How dare you require this nice young man to demonstrate knowledge related to his assumed mantle! In America, we are supposed to judge people based on what they say they are, rather than what they are actually able to prove about themselves or do in daily practice. That's just moralizing, and morals are unlibertarian.

      Delete
    4. Not only is Gary Johnson not an expert in Austrian ecnomics, HE ISN'T EVEN A BEGINNER! He has neither basic knowledge of Austrian concepts like ABCT, nor a desire to learn more. As president he would be rudderless; he wouldn't merely make political compromises, but he would in fact compromise indiscriminately, due to being unable to identify what is important or distinguish primary and secondary. He would have no theoretical basis on which to assess alternatives and therefore his actions would be non-strategic and arbitrary.

      Hoppe was right, this needs to be an intellectual movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGhAJThFZRs

      Delete
    5. Johnson's answers were for baby libertarians, ready to be spooked back into submission by the same old excuses... an apologist, rather than a zealot.

      The man who wants to manipulate a situation for his own benefit learns a little about it. The man who wants to truly understand it devours all available data on the subject. Johnson has clearly not devoured all the data, if what he found most significant when he went looking was primarily Cato and Reason.

      Delete
    6. ****The problem here is that you're trying to be the "intellectual libertarian". Gary is not that, never was, never pretended to be. He's a regular guy, who happens to be extremely motivated and incredibly successful.****

      LOL! On top of a false either-or (intellectual vs. regular guy), there's a begging of the question of Johnson being "incredibly successful." Uh, at what?

      Delete
    7. All the commenters on here that are poo-pooing intellectual libertarians are forgetting that it is Ron Paul who is responsible for the resurgence of libertarian ideas. And Ron Paul is quite the intellectual. He can bring new people to the movement, because he understands the principles and his beliefs stand on rock-solid foundations. How is Gary Johnson supposed to bring people over if he does not understand basic economics? If he cannot refute Keneysian fallacies? If he cannot convince others of the moral superiority of the non-agression principles? If he cannot explain how history has led us to our current crisis?

      Delete
    8. O.K. Everybody get ready. Mises economic philosophy is flawed. I could go on about it but that's not the topic. As near as I can tell Gary Johnson did pretty well handling New Mexico's money and I don't think that counts a little. I think it counts a lot.

      Delete
  2. That's a horrible comment.

    Not understanding the fundamentals of what you claim to be your core philosophy is inexcusable if you're trying to lead the most powerful country on earth using that philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And I thought the San Francisco Liberals in my area were an intolerant bunch. What is more important? The ability to spout off quotes from any number of Libertarian authors or the ability to lead like a Libertarian? Johnson was governor of New Mexico and lead like a Libertarian. Has any really true, blue Republican ever vetoed so many bills as Johnson, or would vetoing 750 bills be a sign of a Libertarian at heart? Get over your elitism. Gary now knows which books to read to be accepted by the cool kid clique. Okay, when he's not busy running around this country trying to campaign and raise money and do interviews and keep up on current events, I'm sure he'll try and find time to read these fine authors, otherwise, stop complaining that Gary isn't perfect. If Wenzel can find one bill that Johnson signed as governor he thinks isn't in the Libertarian spirit, fine, go find him and call him to the carpet on it, but don't berate solely based on Johnson's lack of reading choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rothbard is like Step 1. Seriously, he threw Rand out there. Don't call yourself a libertarian if you don't know what you're even talking about. Otherwise how do you expect not to get lied to all the time once you're in office? "Oh yeah, Mr. President, it's totally libertarian to bomb those Iranians, see it's for a humanitarian intervention, just like in Syria and Libya."

      Right now he is like a five year old running around in a plastic helmet with the letter "L" stapled to it. He's like the Al Gore of environmentalism. "See, I'm a Libertarian guys! Pot! No more Iraq!" Bring him back in 15 years when he learns how to read and maybe we'll consider him.

      Delete
    2. I'm with the earlier commenter who pointed out that Johnson, when Governor, had the opportunity to pardon people who were in jail for marijuana-related crimes, and limit law enforcement of same, and he did not. Vetoing bills is laudable, and a great start, but only that.

      I watched Johnson's most recent TV ad, where he talks about how terrible the Federal Reserve is, but in the past couple of years that he's been running for President, the only time he has mentioned the Federal Reserve was after he had been specifically asked about it (usually by a Ron Paul supporter). Now, he is advancing his dislike of the FED as one of his core beliefs, and I can't help remembering that Rick Perry "got religion" about the FED, warning Ben Bernanke not to come to Texas, etc, after never having mentioned the FED ever before. I can't help but think that Perry was pandering to Ron Paul supporters, or that Gary Johnson is doing the same. I don't blame them, but Paul supporters are a lot more discriminating than that.

      Delete
  4. Just a note, Examiner.com is NOT the Washington Examiner. I don't believe that the two are related in any way.

    The commentary was still interesting, however.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous 1:53...

    Google the term strawman.

    It's a shame we can't paste that comment in as a perfect example.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry Reason, you're not going to sell magazines to hardcore libertarians with Gary "Nice Guy" Johnson. We are intellectuals and we take this stuff seriously. I think it's cute that there's an argument over what books he read, as if we aren't in the founding millenia of a way in which people simply see things in the future. If you want to know what's at the end of the yellow brick road to Libertarianism, you will pick up Rothbard and go from there. It's not like he's even obscure, unless you think Libertarianism means Friedman, Rand (cough), and Koch funded institutions that sit in DC and are totally not corrupted by their proximity to all those rich evil oligarchs.
    So for GJ to say he hasn't read any of those guys but wants to tell us he's a libertarian is a giant hole for those of us who take this intellectually and seriously. It's like Step 1.
    Also, quoting Friedman and Rand and stumbling over yourself means you probably haven't really investigated Libertarianism that deeply. If he claims to represent us, he should have at least been able to cite the Non Aggression Principle as something recognizable, but instead he trades the clarity of these simple realizations for a general idea of less government, and so is like a man who fights a prairie fire with a squirt gun. Also, he's clearly muddle headed enough that the DC establishment would absolutely have their way with him.
    Anyway, we gave all our money to Ron Paul. We didn't save any for GJ, because he doesn't make us care about him. It just turns out he's not really serious. About anything.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was inclined to think that RW was eating one of our own but after listening to the first part of his interview with Johnson and hearing the responses, I was struck with a sense of appreciation that RW had vetted him first. I don't want to send up a candidate that the opposition can use to shoot at like fish in a barrel.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've never had time to read those books either and I'm a registered Libertarian.I have a pretty good idea of what's in them from reading articles by Robert Wenzel, Lew Rockwell, and Ron Paul. I also don't think Katie Couric will be asking him if he's read Rothbard as she probably has no idea who Rothbard is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I read Reason, Cato, and Friedman when I was a kid. Mr. Wenzel's interview of Gary showed that he is either just another politician looking for a free ride or woefully ignorant of the philosophy which he tries to represent, both of which are disappointing with a capital D.

    Hope he grows intellectually and does a knockout interview next time, but I doubt it.

    Last time I supported the LP was when Harry Browne was the nominee, it has been downhill ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It'll be a fine day when libertarianism becomes unanimously associated with the Mises Institute, Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul.. NOT Milton Friedman, Cato and Reason. This is an INTELLECTUAL movement, not a desperate grab for votes. If we don't understand what the hell we're fighting for, it's just a pointless excursion.

    I think Robert said it best in the interview, Gary has a good basic sense of liberty and would be a heck of a lot better than Romney or Obama... but he really needs to educate himself on economics to comprehend the scale of problem the country is facing, economically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yogi Berra said "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
      Gary Johnson proved himself. His detractors in this forum have not, particularly the spineless "anonymous" detractors.

      Delete
  11. I think Gary Johnson is the best Libertarian candidate since Ron Paul. I was going to write in Ron Paul as I usually do but since Gary is going to be the Libertarian candidate, I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. You Libertarian intellectuals need to live in the real world. It's no wonder the Libertarian party doesn't draw more people, they're turned off by this sort of thing. The man ran New Mexico from a Libertarian perspective, besides just how much legislation could Gary Johnson OR Ron Paul get through our corrupt congress? I personally think he has a much better chance of being elected president than Ron Paul and I think Ron Paul is the greatest person of my lifetime. The average voter in this country thinks election are beauty contests and you're worried about him reading Rothbard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take it you have never heard of Harry Browne?

      Delete
  12. So is Obama the perfect Democrat? Is Romney the perfect Republican? We shouldnt vote for parties we should vote for human beings. Human Beings with ideas that can lead our country. I support Gary Johnson for who he is and I believe in his message.
    If he doesnt perfectly fit the Libertarian mold, who cares?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt anyone expects Gary Johnson to be perfect.

      This interview merely displayed where Johnson fits on the Libertarian spectrum.

      Where someone fits on that spectrum gives us a good indication on how effective they could be as President. Remember, any libertarian would be attacked hard by the Keynesians. They would have to be able to counter effectively.

      Gary Johnson, as nice as he seems to be, would have no chance whatsoever.

      Delete
  13. A libertarian is NOT merely a social liberal who wants to balance the budget. That said, the LP opted to go the 'prestige' route for the second time in two election cycles, in choosing to go with a candidate who has been a senior elected official (Congressman, Governor). Johnson won't be competing with Mises, but he'll make a presentable alternative in 2012 between Romney and Obama if Paul doesn't win the GOP nod or run third party.

    ReplyDelete