United Liberty
Mitt Romney Will Have to Work for Libertarian Support
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:25am | posted by Nate Nelson
It’s become pretty clear that Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) isn’t going to win the GOP presidential nomination. Following his fourth place showing in the South Carolina primary on Saturday, Paul’s campaign announced that it would concentrate its efforts on the fourteen remaining caucus states. Even in the unlikely event that Paul sweeps the caucus states, he will receive no more than 500 delegates* — far short of the 1,144 needed to win the nomination. The best Paul can hope to accomplish through this strategy is a brokered convention at which he would unquestionably be rejected as the GOP nominee by the party establishment. Even this outcome is unlikely. Like it or not, it’s time to face reality: Ron Paul will not be the Republican candidate for president.
This leaves libertarians with a choice. We can choose to support either former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), or former Governor Gary Johnson (L-N. Mex.).
Many libertarians might be inclined to cast their ballots for Johnson in order to send a message to the GOP. But anyone who is inclined to believe that Johnson could actually win the general election should disillusion himself immediately. The electoral game is too rigged in favor of the two major parties for a third party to break through and in any case the Libertarian Party’s nomination process occurs too late in the year for Johnson to have time to assemble the kind of grassroots coalition he would need to accomplish such a feat. Casting a vote for Johnson will only have the effect of sending a message to Republicans. Libertarians may want to consider how well that strategy worked with Bob Barr in ‘08. At best, Johnson may play the role of spoiler in New Mexico and elsewhere in the Southwest. The message that could send to Republicans is that libertarians are more an electoral thorn in their side than a valuable part of their base.
Faced with a choice between Romney and Gingrich, it would seem that Romney is the better option for libertarians. As our own Jeremy Kolassa has written, Gingrich — far from being a limited government, Tea Party conservative — is more like the Republican version of Barack Obama. Jason Pye has noted that Gingrich supported a federal individual mandate long before RomneyCare was signed into law in Massachusetts. Romney, meanwhile, is a Washington outsider with experience as a businessman in the private sector. He has offered a more consistent and coherent limited government platform than Gingrich has offered. And as an added bonus, he was elected governor of a state that has been dominated by Democrats for decades.
If Romney wants to woo libertarians and limited government conservatives, though, he’s going to have to work for our votes. His setback in South Carolina occurred at least in part because liberty-minded voters still don’t trust him. But the unrestrained demagoguery on display during last night’s State of the Union address may give Romney an opportunity to restate his case to these voters as they reflect once again on why this election is so important. If he wants to appeal to libertarians, Romney should take Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-S. Car.) advice and immediately adopt some of Congressman Paul’s ideas, including abolishing some executive departments and agencies, reining in or abolishing the Federal Reserve, and — perhaps most importantly — restoring our civil liberties.
But if Romney really wants to reach out to libertarians and limited government, Tea Party conservatives, he should float some potential libertarian and Tea Party running mates. This would assure libertarian and Tea Party voters that Romney is serious about addressing their concerns as president, but more than that it would also guarantee them their rightful and inevitable place at the top in the GOP’s future. Here are a few potential libertarian and Tea Party running mates whom Romney might consider:
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) - It’s widely recognized among Ron Paul’s supporters that his son Rand will carry on his legacy following this presidential race and the elder Paul’s retirement from Congress. Floating Sen. Paul as a potential running mate would signal to Congressman Paul’s supporters that his legacy will have a place of honor in the Republican Party. Sen. Paul could also help deliver libertarian and Tea Party Appalachians and Southerners for Romney. Of course there would also be downsides to a Romney-Paul ticket. Right or wrong, much of the elder Paul’s baggage would be thrusted onto the shoulders of Paul the younger and this could potentially make Sen. Paul a liability as a running mate.
Governor Gary Johnson (L-N. Mex.) - As I’ve noted, Johnson could be a major headache for Republicans in the Land of Enchantment and elsewhere in the Southwest come November. Floating him publicly as a potential running mate and holding private discussions with him could persuade him to drop his Libertarian Party bid for the presidency, which could help Romney a great deal in the general election. Moreover, Johnson could help deliver New Mexico — a state that went for Obama in ‘08 — and other swing states in the Southwest. The downside is that it would probably be rather difficult to convince Johnson to backtrack on his third party run at this point. And besides, GOP voters may not accept a man who has just switched parties as their party’s vice presidential candidate.
Senator Mike Lee (R-Ut.) - Sen. Lee is a rising star in the GOP, elected in 2010 as part of the new Tea Party freshman class. Along with Rand Paul, Lee has been one of the most consistent advocates for liberty and limited government in the Senate. One of Lee’s downsides is that he is still relatively unknown outside of pundit, blogger, and activist circles. Another is that Romney likely won’t need Lee’s help delivering the reliably Republican Beehive State in the general election, although Lee could be helpful elsewhere in the West.
Congressman Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) - Congressman McClintock, who sometimes contributes here at United Liberty, was first elected to Congress in 2008 — a tough year nationwide for the GOP. McClintock has been a consistent advocate for limited government and civil liberties in the House of Representatives. He has been especially outspoken in his opposition to Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the SOPA/PIPA internet censorship legislation. Before being elected to Congress, McClintock had a long career in the California State Assembly. He could help Romney be competitive in California and in the neighboring Southwest. Again, though, he’s relatively unknown outside of pundit, blogger, and activist circles.
Congressman Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) - Congressman Flake has long been a favorite among libertarians and fiscal conservatives. Like Johnson and McClintock, Flake could help Romney considerably in the Southwest. One downside to floating Congressman Flake as a potential running mate is that he’s currently running for the U.S. Senate seat left open by Jon Kyl’s retirement. Taking Flake out of that race would introduce a degree of uncertainty that could hand Arizona’s open Senate seat to Democrats.
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) - Congressman Ryan has earned quite a bit of credibility among libertarians and Tea Party conservatives for the work he has done on entitlement reform as chairman of the House Budget Committee. If Romney floats Ryan as his running mate, he’ll be signaling that he’s very serious about entitlement reform. But that blessing could also be a bit of a curse as many Americans are still wary of entitlement reform. A Romney-Ryan ticket would force Romney to own the Ryan budget proposal on a daily basis during the general election campaign. Before even floating Ryan as a potential running mate, Romney must decide whether or not he wants to take that kind of ownership of a hot potato like entitlement reform.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S. Car.) - You’ll be hard pressed to find a politician more beloved by Tea Party conservatives than Sen. DeMint. There’s no question that choosing DeMint as a running mate would help Romney reignite Tea Party enthusiasm and solidify his position in the South. But DeMint does have his drawbacks. He could prove to be a running mate just as polarizing as former Governor Sarah Palin (R-Ak.). Moreover, while DeMint would help Romney among Tea Party conservatives his social conservatism may prove a liability for him among libertarians who emphasize a hands-off approach to social issues.
Governor Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.) - Gov. Daniels has been an outspoken critic of Washington’s spending extravaganza and has thus earned the respect of both libertarians and fiscal conservatives. But floating Daniels as a potential running mate carries some risks. Daniels is more of an old-style deficit hawk than a fiscal libertarian, having floated the idea of a value-added tax (VAT) and an oil tariff hike. Moreover, while his proposed “truce” on social issues may appeal to libertarian voters it has drawn the ire of social conservatives. That he served as Bush’s director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will no doubt also come up during the general election, as President Obama made clear last night that he intends to run against the memory of George W. Bush again this year.
These are just a few potential running mates that Romney could float to appeal to libertarians and limited government conservatives. There are others. Whether he’ll actually follow this advice to reach out to libertarians and liberty-minded conservatives is an open question. But if he does, we should give him a second look. It may be tempting to go third party in an attempt to send a message to the GOP. But President Obama made clear last night that a second term will, at a minimum, mean more of the same. It could also mean something worse as he will no longer be constrained by reelection concerns. We need to bear that in mind as we progress through this campaign season.
* This delegate count is approximate because it does not include potential delegates from U.S. Territories.
I take it math is not your strong suit. AFTER Florida only 1% of the delegates will have been awarded. Even after all of February 85% of delegates will remain to be awarded, but by then, Ron Paul will be back in the game, clearly, as the contests start to move to his better states.
It isn’t ‘states’ but delegates to National Convention that pick the nominee, and Ron Paul is doing well with delegates, and is strictly targeting his campaign to do even better in the areas coming up after Florida.
Math actually isn’t my strong suit, but I’m pretty decent on the math behind this nomination process. Congressman Paul’s support thus far hasn’t been enough to win him a single caucus or primary and he came in fourth place in South Carolina. I’m not saying he absolutely won’t pick up a win or two in a caucus state here or there, but now that Tea Party support is consolidating behind Gingrich I don’t think Paul has a large enough coalition to win the nomination. This has become a two man race between Romney and Gingrich.
Did you know Perot was as high as 39% and leading both Bush and Clinton in the race before he did he drop out and back in stunt. Perot could have won.
How do Perot and Johnson compare? Pretty dang close. Both are at 9% nationally. Johnson’s hurdle will be to get in the debates since he needs to be at 15% but as soon as the Paul supporters start supporting Johnson this support level will increase.
http://garyjohnsongrassrootsblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/can-johnson-do-wha…
That’s a decent point, but I also know that Perot had enough money to bankroll his own campaign and make himself competitive. Does Johnson? It doesn’t appear so or he probably would have been spending that dough in the GOP primary process. Absent large sums of cash, he’s not going to be anymore competitive than Bob Barr was four years ago or Ralph Nader has been over the years.
Johnson is at lest a libertarain , i couldnt support barr last time.
Ron Paul 12
because america needs more Pauliticians.
I can’t imagine in a million years that Romney, who’s suspected of being secretly pro-choice, would pick a pro-choice running mate.
Which one of the potential running mates I mentioned are pro-choice? To my knowledge, the only one who comes close is Johnson — but his actual position on abortion is that it should be left to the states per the Tenth Amendment, which effectively means that he would overturn Roe v. Wade regardless of whether he’s personally pro-life or pro-choice.
I, for one, am sick of making strategic votes, or choosing the lesser of two evils.
I sincerely like what Gov. Gary Johnson has to say, and am ready to vote for him if he’s on my ballot.
There have been a lot of poll reports lately about high percentages of people willing to vote for a 3rd party candidate.
In my opinion, all like-minded people need to get behind Gov. Johnson, get his polling numbers up to where he will be included in electoral debates (with Obama and probably Romney) and vote for him in November.
Vote for who you want, because if you don’t, you’ll never get them.
I understand, Walt, and until last night I was right there with you. But the State of the Union address reminded us exactly what’s wrong with the Obama administration. I respect those who feel on principle that they should vote for Johnson, vote for another third party candidate, or abstain from voting — but I’m not among them and I believe that making the case for Mitt Romney is the right thing to do at this time. A Romney administration that includes a libertarian vice president like Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, or the other potential running mates I mentioned would do far more for the libertarian movement than Johnson’s third party run is likely to do.
Romney as a libertarian? You’re nuts. I would encourage voters to vote with their conscience, hearts and minds. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the Constitution, peace, and truth. A vote for other leading candidates is a subscription to the corrupt status quo, with marginal variations.
To be clear: I didn’t write that Romney is a libertarian nor do I believe that. Instead, I suggested that libertarians should give Romney a second look if he makes an effort to reach out for their votes.
In an ideal world, I too would prefer Ron Paul or Gary Johnson for president. But we’re not living in an ideal world and frankly I don’t think it’s realistic to expect that Paul will win the GOP nomination or that Johnson will win the general election. Again, I respect those who still choose to vote for them; but I’ll be making the case that supporting Mitt Romney and urging him to adopt libertarian ideas and choose a libertarian running mate would be far more beneficial to the libertarian movement than going third party.
Nate, you are no libertarian. Before you go thinking this is just an irrational post, let me make some things clear to you.
We put up with to much unfairness to down right attacks from the likes such as mark levin, limbaugh, o’rly, hannity, cbs, nbc, abc, fox, and the rest of the media far to long to do what they ask. Them making up now is like al-queda saying sorry and grinning after seeing the twin towers hit.
We have NO political voice in this country. If Ron doesn’t get the nominatin, we have NOTHING to lose and the media and political parties are fair game. Publicly, harrassing, ridiculing, and embarrassing the media and the candidates in both parties will now be fair game.
In regards to romney, he will lose to obama as he has NOTHING on his better looking and speaking and better tanned clone in regards to a real change of policy. Having Rand or other libertiarns tied to romney in anyway will be giving the libertarians a sinking ship once it leaves republican waters. When obama ends his second term, maybe then we can get Rand Paul, Ron, or Gary Johnson as PRESIDENT instead of settling for sloppy seconds.. If you were really “libertarian” you would have realized Romney winning would be a exponentially bad thing.
You are either two things after reading the article: at worse a sellout plain and simple; or just a romney supporter masqarading as a “libertarian” thinking the rest of us give something of a damned to give the republicans or democrats a bone.
You can have our middle finger salutes in either case, but you won’t have me, my family, and my friends vote. Those votes are reserved for the man who will restore our rights, prosperity, and will end America’s march towards default and tyranny.
Adam writes: “Nate, you are no libertarian. Before you go thinking this is just an irrational post, let me make some things clear to you.”
Believe it or not, Adam, I’ve heard that I’m not libertarian before — from some libertarians who support Romney, actually. If I let it bother me every time a fellow libertarian has excommunicated me from the movement I would be in real trouble.
Adam: “We put up with to much unfairness to down right attacks from the likes such as mark levin, limbaugh, o’rly, hannity, cbs, nbc, abc, fox, and the rest of the media far to long to do what they ask. Them making up now is like al-queda saying sorry and grinning after seeing the twin towers hit.”
Uh, wow. I’m not a fan of some of those folks myself or the mainstream media in general, but I don’t think comparing them to al-Qaeda is either accurate or productive. I also don’t think this is about them. For me, this is about the American people and their liberty. Plain and simple. I acknowledge that romney is an imperfect candidate, but I think he’s the best shot we have at a) ousting Barack Obama, who has been a disaster and who will be worse if given a second term; and b) getting a libertarian vice president like Rand Paul, for example, who can run later for president. I’m not interested in casting my vote based on an imaginary feud with talk radio hosts.
Adam: “We have NO political voice in this country. If Ron doesn’t get the nominatin, we have NOTHING to lose and the media and political parties are fair game. Publicly, harrassing, ridiculing, and embarrassing the media and the candidates in both parties will now be fair game.”
You’re free to do whatever you want. But I’ll take exception to two things you said, that we have no political voice in this country and that we have nothing to lose. We do have a growing political voice in this country. The past few years have seen libertarians like Rand Paul and Tom McClintock as well as libertarian-leaning folks like Mike Lee. And we do have something to lose. Every American has lost a great deal of liberty under the Obama administration and we all stand to lose even more of our liberty if Obama is given a second term. Letting Obama get reelected on a platform of social democratic economic populism will set BOTH conservatism and libertarianism back for years, and possibly for decades.
“In regards to romney, he will lose to obama as he has NOTHING on his better looking and speaking and better tanned clone in regards to a real change of policy. Having Rand or other libertiarns tied to romney in anyway will be giving the libertarians a sinking ship once it leaves republican waters. When obama ends his second term, maybe then we can get Rand Paul, Ron, or Gary Johnson as PRESIDENT instead of settling for sloppy seconds.. If you were really “libertarian” you would have realized Romney winning would be a exponentially bad thing.”
You’re dreaming if you think we’ll be able to get Rand Paul or any other libertarian or libertarian-leaning candidate elected after a second Obama term. If Obama is given a second term he will become the Democrats’ new FDR. He will accomplish what no Democrat has been able to do in decades in that he will roll back Reaganism and usher in a new era of progressive, social democratic economic populism. If Obama gets a second term, both conservatives and libertarians will go into the wilderness for quite some time just as they did after FDR’s presidency.
Adam: “You can have our middle finger salutes in either case, but you won’t have me, my family, and my friends vote. Those votes are reserved for the man who will restore our rights, prosperity, and will end America’s march towards default and tyranny.”
I mean this with all due respect to you, Adam, and to others who plan to vote for Johnson in November. Your votes won’t see our rights and prosperity restored or a reversal of our course toward default and tyranny. Your votes will help Gary Johnson achieve — at best — 10% of the national vote. At best. He will never see the inside of the White House unless he takes a public tour. That might sound harsh, but if anyone is going to vote for Johnson I want them to be doing it for the right reasons. If you want to vote for him to send a message to the GOP, go for it. But if you want to vote for him because you actually think he can win the general election, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
My “excommunicating you” comments directly stem from downright disgust in how quickly you turn from a fight before it has truely been decided. I do conceded the rationality of this article being more appropriate if the chips fall far from Paul after super tuesday. To do write this now at this point of time is a spit in the face from people who have been working very hard and contributing just because Ron Paul has finally achieved a fourth place finish just like Gingrich and Santorum in a state we knew would be difficult.
Too be honest you probably SHOULD be bothered by people “excommunicating you” from libertarian as it may not really be the lightness libertarian leanings they have problems with, but a severe lack of character, conviction, or courage in man they criticize.
Yes, we must definitely send a message if the neocons win out and we must do it NOW. It didn’t matter much in 08 when we were downright ridiculed and not vindicated by our economic views. Neoconservativism doesn’t win elections or bring people into the tent. Im a few decades, republicans will be totally awash without libertarian vews.
You make a HUGE assumption, that romney will be better than obama in what you claimed. HA! HOW? Do you REALLY think Romney would not have signed NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, or whatever freedom stealing bill came to his desk?
Look the guy clearly pretends to be strong but truthfully he just tries to project it because is a damned coward. When it push comes to shove, yes, he’ll fly to France to preach mormonism than serve his country when called, but as long as he is in a comfy room surrounded by Secret Service he likely do whatever he wants to project strength.
Give me ONE example of him wanting to proctect our liberties from Congress bills giving the presidency more power.
ONE.
Adam, I didn’t intend to spit in anyone’s faces with this post. Nor do I often run from fights that I think can be won. But I simply don’t think Congressman Paul can win the GOP nomination, and the longer libertarians wait to back Romney the more likely that Gingrich will be the nominee. Gingrich is the candidate that we should be truly worried about in this race. He’s the McCain of 2012. He will unquestionably be defeated if he’s the nominee and probably in a landslide. And frankly there’s nothing about a Gingrich presidency that I want to see.
I agree with you regarding neoconservatism and the future of the GOP if Republicans don’t accept libertarianism. That is, I think, all the more reason for us to work within the party rather than against it. We need to push it toward libertarianism. Some think that can be better achieved by backing third party candidates like Johnson to send a message. But backing third party candidates tends to embitter grassroots Republicans and make them even more hostile to the libertarian message.
I have no delusions about Romney. I think he probably would have signed the NDAA, for example. But I think you’re wrong that he would have signed “whatever freedom stealing bill [that] came to his desk.” Take SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA for example. Although there are some Republicans backing internet censorship like Lamar Alexander, most of the congressional opposition to that legislation has come from Republicans while much of the support has come from Democrats. So I’m not at all sure that Romney would be supportive of internet censorship legislation that is being pushed by Democratic cronies in Hollywood. In fact, if I recall correctly all of the GOP candidates — including Romney — expressed their opposition to SOPA/PIPA during a recent debate.
I’m not going to engage with you on the issue of Romney’s Mormonism or his totally free and respectable choice to do something with his life other than serve in the military. Libertarians are against coerced military service. That should mean not only that we should oppose conscription but that we should also refrain from criticizing those who choose not to serve. That’s their choice and they’re not necessarily lesser men for it.
I just gave you one example of Romney wanting to protect our liberties in his opposition to SOPA/PIPA. But there are plenty of others. Romney wants to cut taxes and regulations to promote job growth, for example. That you refuse to see any good in Romney doesn’t mean that none exists.
Gingrich is the candidate that we should be truly worried about in this race.
Gingrich is now done thanks to florida. No need to worry about that.
But backing third party candidates tends to embitter grassroots Republicans and make them even more hostile to the libertarian message.
Write Ron Paul in or vote Libertiarian party with the rest of us as a bloc vote. Send a message. You can always lie to the thieves and scum and say “I DID vote for the republican nomination. I only recently started paying attention to what Ron Paul has been saying.” They don’t track your vote, and they can’t verify the truth. They can embattle themselves all they want they will in time lose power and influence in the general electorate. The new third rail is the Fed in case you didn’t know. Don’t believe me, check out the recent debate for the Texas senate seat. You won’t believe your ears as much as I couldn’t believe it.
I have no delusions about Romney.
Here is where you are wrong which is why most disagree with your article.
In fact, if I recall correctly all of the GOP candidates — including Romney — expressed their opposition to SOPA/PIPA during a recent debate.
Soft opposition. Its a debate. He wasn’t in office thank heavens for us to gamble see if you were right. I would not bet money he would refuse. The mere fact you would is testiment to how deluded you are about the guy.
I’m not going to engage with you on the issue of Romney’s Mormonism or his totally free and respectable choice to do something with his life other than serve in the military. Libertarians are against coerced military service. That should mean not only that we should oppose conscription but that we should also refrain from criticizing those who choose not to serve. That’s their choice and they’re not necessarily lesser men for it.
It wasn’t his Mormonism I was criticizing. I was criticizing the fact the guy wants to be tough **** publicly and is willing to send OTHER men to war on stupid reasons not dealing with national security. I am criticizing his chickenhawk policies. If the guy dodged the draft and had Ron Paul’s positions, there would be little to criticize. The guy is a war monger. He is a warmonger because clearly he got off and didn’t put his life on the line. That is plain cowardace on the same level as gingrich and santorum and has NOTHING to do with principles of freedom. Recognize the difference. Recognize the persons you are defending. Because what I hear out of them is a whole lot of not “freedom” to serve.
I just gave you one example of Romney wanting to protect our liberties in his opposition to SOPA/PIPA. But there are plenty of others. Romney wants to cut taxes and regulations to promote job growth, for example. That you refuse to see any good in Romney doesn’t mean that none exists.
The guy isn’t principled enough to follow through on ANYTHING you mentioned which is almost nil and speculative. Sure, Dodd Frank. Let’s see him pass that. Again, your fooling yourself. At least Ron Paul will FORCE congress to deal with his bills with the veto power and being the one to introduce the bill.
I was under the impression that the point of voting in a democratic society was to pick the candidate you WANTED to win and actually supported, not to vote for the presumed winner like some sort of rigged, third world tyranny.
I have absolutely no interest in supporting the sort of right-wing, statist regime that Romney is campaigning in favor of. If there is any difference whatsoever between Romney and Obama, it is merely the nuance of Romney wanting to expand government spending on militarism versus Obama’s particular bent in favor of welfare. I would prefer neither.
Gary Johnson represents my views and my positions on the issues and, as such, he has my support. I have absolutely no interest in voting for anyone who does not represent my views.
RT, I respect your choice. But I don’t agree with it. I’m more interested in using the electoral process to advance libertarianism, and I think the best way to do that is to push for a seat at the Romney table with a libertarian running mate. As much as I like Gov. Johnson, I don’t think voting for him will do anything to advance libertarianism.
Nate, within the confines of the electoral college system, supporting Gary Johnson would be the best way to advance the libertarian cause. Aside from the critical swing states, the general election has essentially already been decided in most places. My state, for example, will go Democratic, without fail. The best way to make my vote count, and many others like me, would be to support Gary Johnson.
I can understand your pragmatism in wanting to defeat Gingrich in the Primary, but I think that’s a similar situation. In a state like Florida, Paul supporters would do well to back Romney. But in Maine, for instance, far more would be accomplished by supporting Dr. Paul. The race remains wide open and Ron Paul supporters would do best to deliver as many delegates to him as possible, so as to maximize his impact at a brokered convention.
I think it’s up to people who live in states that are solidly for one party or the other to decide what the best strategic course of action is. But I’ll say what I’ve already said: There have been elections in which solid states have suddenly been not so solid, like Nixon’s and Reagan’s landslide elections for example.
I disagree with you regarding the primaries. Every state matters in defeating Gingrich. A poor performance for Romney in Maine, for example, will feed a media meme that if Romney can’t win a state (and by large margins) in his home region then he must be a very weak candidate. That helps Gingrich. I don’t think the race is wide open anymore; I think it’s solidified into a two man race. I would add that I think a brokered convention is very unlikely and, even if it were to occur, the establishment would unquestionably prevent Paul’s nomination. If he can’t win the primaries outright he won’t win the nomination.
You assume that Newt will continue momentum in such a radical race.
I do assume that for several reasons:
1. Mitt Romney is still unacceptable to many conservatives for a variety of reasons.
2. Newt Gingrich seems to be the alternative that these conservatives who find Romney unacceptable have decided to back.
3. Evidence for point #2 is seen in Rick Santorum’s steady decline.
4. Ron Paul has clearly reached his ceiling. His coalition doesn’t seem to be getting any bigger and this is because a large number of conservatives find him unacceptable on foreign policy, national security, and to some degree social issues.
I deduce from all of this that Gingrich has a legitimate shot at winning the GOP nomination unless the other candidates’ backers get behind Romney. I can virtually guarantee you that Santorum’s supporters will not; when — not if — he drops out, he’ll probably support Gingrich and if he doesn’t his supporters will probably go Gingrich in any case. That could be enough to hand Gingrich the nomination. This leaves libertarians with a choice between continuing to back Paul despite clear evidence that he’s not going to win the nomination or switching our support to Romney to prevent the worst candidate left in this race from winning. I choose the latter.
I’m sick of playing the “vote to be relevant” game. I have tried it in the past and I ended up getting little to nothing of what I thought I was voting for. I’m voting for the Libertarian Party presidential nominee this year. Period. Phooey on being “relevant”.
Ken, that’s your choice and I respect it. I really do. But I’ll continue to argue in favor of relevance because if libertarianism doesn’t stay politically relevant, statism will have a permanent victory — and I think rather soon.
Romney has ZERO convictions; that is the strongest argument libertarians have for choosing him. I actually started to write an article about that, and how Ron Paul can use this at the Convention to create a more libertarian GOP Platform.
However, this is what really bothers me about Romney: Foreign Policy. Gingrich and Santorum may be DEAD WRONG, but they actually BELIEVE in the Christian-Zionist Warvangelical reason for attacking Iran and defending Israel. Romney, on the other hand, has consistently stated that he will make sure than the USA has the strongest military on the planet and will ALWAYS have troops all across the globe, and yes, he’d attack Iran. Fine, that is GOP talking points. My PROBLEM with this, is that Romney simply states this firmly, never arguing WHY he believes this way. Is it just because that is what he is ‘expected’ to say by the GOP, or does he TRULY BELIEVE this? I actually do not know what is scarier!
The ONLY benefit of Romney getting the nomination over Gingrich is that Gingrich will scare independents and Liberals enough to come out and vote AGAINST him, and they will then VOTE DEMOCRAT for HOUSE and SENATE SEATS TOO! Romney nullifies this urge greatly, and keeping the House Republican and hopfully turning the Senate Republican too is actually MORE IMPORTANT than the Presidential race!
In the end, it really matters what STATE YOU LIVE IN! A swing-state or solidly Red or Blue State? I live in NY, so I will DEFINITELY be voting Third-Party (again) to send a message; but my vote will not affect the outcome because Obama will win NY no matter what.
As for Johnson, unless he changes his FAULTY notion that “Gay marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution” I CANNOT VOTE FOR HIM! Sorry, I REFUSE to vote for anyone who does not admit the FACT that MARRIAGE IS NOT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION AT ALL! GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE ALL TOGETHER! Separation of Church and State!
Marriage is now a secular matter that has little to do with religion at all. Marital status defines myriad aspects of private and public life, including immigration status, health benefits, tax treatment, estate matters, among others. Rather than attempt to remove every aspect of marriage from public and private life, which would be nearly impossible, it would be far more logical to allow marriage to be defined as a government function and make all religious aspects of marriage a private matter.
I’m not a fan of Romney’s foreign policy proposals myself, but unfortunately the only candidate who will offer a better foreign policy will be Johnson — and he won’t win the general election. So I would argue that libertarians will have to look at which candidate, Obama or Romney, will be more libertarian friendly. Romney is, to say the least, an imperfect candidate, but he may at least be willing to consider libertarian ideas and give libertarians a seat at the table. He will probably agree with libertarians on many fiscal and economic issues. While Obama may give lip service to agreeing with libertarians on some issues (e.g., war and civil liberties), his track record shows that his words are empty. Libertarians should work very hard to prevent his reelection.
I see what you’re saying about swing states versus solid states, but I would urge libertarians in every state to support Romney. We’ve seen huge electoral victories in the past — Reagan, for example — and such victories usually deliver a message that voters have utterly repudiated the loser’s ideology. I seriously doubt that such a massive victory is possible this year, but we should nevertheless work toward it. The best outcome in this election would be a complete repudiation of the Obama presidency and its ideology.
Regarding marriage, I’ll say briefly that I agree with you that government should have no role in marriage aside from court adjudication of marriage contracts. But as long as government is in the marriage business, Johnson is right that the constitution demands that gays and lesbians be treated equally under the law.
Nate, good piece. Like your choices for Romney’s VP, all except one.
Mitch Daniels is now a no-starter for libertarians. While he’s great on economics, a few weeks ago he came out for a statewide smoking ban, including bars, taverns and gentlemen’s clubs. ‘F’ that!
Libertarians should not support conservatives who go to the nanny-state side for any office. Smoking bans, like seat belt laws, helmet laws, bans on liquor stores, et.al. should be lithmus test issues for us.
Smoking bans are completely different from seat belt laws, liquor sale laws, and helmet laws. Smoking is a public nuisance, much like littering (which it coincidentally begets as well). If people want to inhale noxious fumes, let them do so within the privacy of their own homes, where they may also throw cigarette butts on the ground. But don’t invade my liberty to enjoy fresh, unpolluted air with your poor life choices.
RT, I wrote a post here not all that long ago arguing in favor of public smoking bans. Since then, I’ve received input from other libertarians and I’ve come to believe that there are free market alternatives that would be preferable to public smoking bans. I’m going to be writing a follow-up post on the issue soon. I hope you’ll look for it.
Nate, I agree with the crux of your earlier post, so I’d be interested in hearing about these free market alternatives are. I would consider smoking akin to most other forms of pollution which necessitate regulation.
Thanks Eric. DeMint and Daniels are my least favorite choices for Romney’s VP. I’m not sure which I dislike more. On the one hand, I don’t like that Daniels has argued in favor of a VAT, oil tax hikes, and public smoking bans. That tells me that while I may agree with him on the need for fiscal restraint, we have very different motivations. On the other hand, I can’t stomach DeMint’s social conservatism. He’s unquestionably as bad on social issues as Santorum, but without Santorum’s additional fondness for big spending and economic interventionism. That DeMint is so strong on fiscal and economic issues is really all that he has going for him.
I cannot even imagine that Romney would even consider a Libertarian type as a VP prospect but even if he did I wouldn’t vote for him. I don’t trust that any of Romneys views are sincere and he will be just another puppet promoting the same old tired policies.
If I must write in Ron Paul so be it. If Obama wins again, oh well.
The republicans must be punished if Romney or Gingrich gets the nomination. We must send them a message that they need to change course if they want to hold office and the best way to do that if we don’t get Ron Paul is to vote against them. There is no point in voting for the lessor of two evils, look where that’s gotten us.
Ron Paul, period
I think if Romney wants to win the nomination he’s going to need libertarian support, I think his campaign knows that, and I think he’s going to be making concessions to woo libertarians. We should absolutely push for a libertarian running mate. There’s no reason to believe that Romney won’t choose somebody like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Tom McClintock, or Jim DeMint. Presidential candidates have often in the past chosen running mates with whom they may not agree because they’ve recognized that those running mates could help them win the general election. In Romney’s case, choosing Paul or DeMint could help Romney shore up support in Appalachia and in the South while choosing Paul (again), Lee, or McClintock could help him be competitive in the West.
I really don’t understand how you can say, “If Obama wins again, oh well.” Have you been following the actions of this administration? If Obama wins a second term, it’s not just Republicans who will be punished. Libertarians will also be punished. More importantly, every American will be punished because Obama’s statist vision for America is doomed to fail and fail spectacularly.
Voting for relevance and the lesser of two evils - When primaries start to look like anything less than an easy victory, people without the courage to maintain their convictions abandon their preferred candidate.
There was a coach near where I lived who inspired an unimpressive team to become the national champion based on the ideology - “Refuse to lose!” There are many other ways to focus your energy. Other tactics that may be worked. If you abandon your principles so easily, perhaps they were not really that important to you.
Not only are you abandoning Ron Paul when you should be doubling your efforts to help, you are disowning the libertarian cause. Our numbers would continue to grow and impact the timid to look closer if we didn’t drop and run to ‘relevancy’ every election. If you need an example to inspire you and give you courage in the face of difficulty, think on the strength of Ron Paul for the past 30 years. Then pick up your keyboard and get to work doing something for the causes you say you believe in!
John, you assume a lot about me. Let me put some of those assumptions to rest.
It’s not that the primaries have started “to look like anything less than an easy victory” for Congressman Paul. They always looked like less than an easy victory. Victory now looks impossible. That’s what motivates me here. I supported Paul in Iowa and continued supporting him when he didn’t win there. I supported Paul in New Hampshire and continued supporting him when he didn’t win there. I supported Paul in South Carolina, and when he came in fourth place and announced he would focus only on caucus states — which in no way give him a path to the nomination — I decided to switch my support in light of Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina. My convictions will be cold comfort if Obama gets a second term or Gingrich wins the presidency. I can maintain my convictions while supporting a candidate who doesn’t share all of them; if I couldn’t, I wouldn’t have supported Congressman Paul as even he doesn’t share all of my convictions.
“Refuse to lose!” may be a great pep talk for sports but it’s not realistic in politics. Someone always loses and political losses are far more important than the loss of a sports game.
To conclude, I am doing something for the causes I believe in. I’m trying to get libertarians a seat at the table instead of engaging in scorched earth tactics that won’t do a thing to advance libertarianism. Delusions of brokered conventions and come from behind wins by third party candidates may be exciting and/or comforting, but at the end of the day they’re still unfortunately delusions.
It would be helpful if this comments section were structured to show commenters’ names ATOP their comments, rather than below them.
Comments threads are conversations. Following a conversation is easier when you know which person is talking. Knowing which-person-is-talking is easier when his identity precedes his remarks.
The whole quote-bubble thing is cute and all, but it’s not reader-friendly. It too often forces readers to scroll down to establish a commenter’s identity then scroll back up to commence reading his comment. That gets pretty cumbersome and annoying pretty quickly.
Thanks, and regards,
Sam
@Nate. I guess you didn’t get the memo? “We” Libertarians have our own party and have since 1971. Guess what? Libertarians are now on the ballot in ALL 50 states for the first time, and momentum is growing from the TEA party and Occupy.
The only problem we’re facing is those who want to waste their vote on Republicans. If every LIbertarian minded individual voted strictly for the Libertarian candidate there wouldn’t be a problem, but instead many Libertarians waste their vote on the Republicans. The worst part about all of this is that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the ONLY two candidates who could possible beat Obama, due to their stance on social issues. Libertarians appeal to unaffiliated voters, some Republicans voters and some Democrats voters. I think when Abraham Lincoln won he only won by 30 something percent. I hope you get the picture Nate and get with the program, since what you’re currently doing is more damaging. Do you think for one second that the Republican establishment would wake up one day and say they will vote for a LIbertarian because their candidate will only get 9% of the vote? No the Republican establishment will keep voting Republican. That means that the Libertarian establishment has to keep voting Libertarian. End of story.
Joe, there is no “Libertarian establishment.” Many libertarians aren’t even members of the Libertarian Party. Moreover, while you lump the Tea Party and Occupy movements together, there are both libertarians and non-libertarians in both movements and neither movement particularly likes the other. There are also libertarians who are ambivalent about both movements (myself included) and libertarians who don’t like either one of them.
The Libertarian Party may be on the ballot in all 50 states, but I would point out to you that if the so-called “Libertarian establishment” were as powerful as you suggest, Congressman Paul would already have the Republican nomination locked up and Gary Johnson wouldn’t have been frozen out of the debates. If the “Libertarian establishment” can’t win primary elections, I’m not confident about its ability to win a general election.
I should add that I am neither a member of the Libertarian Party nor the Republican Party. I’m an independent. The day I start doing what any party establishment tells me to do — be it Libertarian, Republican, or otherwise — will be the same day that hell freezes over and pigs fly. I’m supporting Mitt Romney because I recognize the urgent need to defeat Obama, not because the Republican establishment tells me to. I don’t believe a “Libertarian establishment” exists, but even if it did I wouldn’t base my vote for president on its commands. Libertarians are free-thinking individuals. We don’t need an establishment of any kind.
@ Nate. In the words of Mitt Romney “nice try.”
However, instead of complaining about your lack of support for the Libertarian Party. I would have to consider your stance as valid in voting for Romney, ONLY if the Vice President was a hardcore Libertarian, such as those mentioned above. The problem is, that Obama is going to win anyway, so I’ll stick with my initial plan of supporting the Libertarian party candidate.
It was an interesting article, but quite defeatist. I’ve never voted but I would for Ron Paul and I support him 110%. I’ve never been interested in politics until last year when I Googled something like “Is there anyone running for president who has integrity?” and RP’s name came up. I’ve been researching his views ever since and am convinced he is right. In looking at the two parties, I realized that I never cared for politics and I never voted because neither of these encapsulate what I believe in. I only just came to the realization a month ago that I actually am a libertarian! :) I believe I’d actually take a bullet for Ron Paul - that’s how much I like him; but I wouldn’t pee on the rest of them to put them out if they were on fire, (because I know they’d do the same for me) - that’s how VILE I find these people. If Obama gets in again, I believe there will be insurrection in the streets within the next four years, as the economy implodes. Tipping point must be getting close now. Vote for who you have to. I hate the system. I hate politics. I hate politicians who lie to me to get their own way. They lie and I know it and they know I know it. But they still lie to my face. Neither Gingrich, Romney nor Santorum have any business running for president. All they are is power-hungry warmongers who will get us into the third world war. Einstein once said “I do not know with what kinds of weapons the Third World War will be fought, but the Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones.” We’ll find that out the hard way if any of these guys get in. The only one with integrity is Ron Paul. I’d just as soon let Obama run the country into the ground as give it to any of those three clowns that oppose RP. My vote might not get Paul elected, but at least it will show what I believe in. If this country is going down, at least I can believe I tried my best. Thanks for your point of view, but I can’t accept it. If I do, I might as well accept that there is no hope for any of our futures and I can’t be that way! :) All the best.
I think what Nate is failing to realize here is that this time around it’s not about winning, it’s about sending a message and teaching a lesson. There are worse things than Obama getting into the White House again and disenfranchisement is one of those things. I will not vote for ANY candidate that does not represent me…I have done it several times in the past by voting Bush, Bush, McCain…..I will NOT do it again. Principle will reign at the voting booth this time.
I admire what you have done here. I love the part where you say you are doing this give back but I would assume by all the comments that is working for you as well. hip hop music
I love reading sites that are new to me and provide me with such great information. I have found your site to be among one of the many favorites that I will be visiting often to find out about more great information. Your site seems to be very easy to read and will help me learn about so much more than I already know. landscaping forum
That’s a decent point, but I also know that Perot had enough money to bankroll his own campaign and make himself competitive. Does Johnson? It doesn’t appear so or he probably would have been spending that dough in the GOP primary process. Absent large sums of cash, he’s not going to be anymore competitive than Bob Barr was four years ago or Ralph Nader has been over the years.
Post new comment