Romney might vote Libertarian, and that’s a good thing
Mitt Romney is considering voting for the Libertarian ticket in November:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20...
This is good news, because if Romney is taking a closer look at the LP, many others in the “mainstream” wing of the Republican Party are probably looking also. Despite substantial policy differences between the two parties, the LP's political positions and principles may have more appeal to many Republican voters than those of a Trump-led GOP.
As the most viable alternative to both Hillary and Trump, the LP can expect to attract rising interest and support this year from across the political spectrum. Without changing who we are and what we stand for, those of us who are LP members should welcome these new supporters and strive to give them good reasons to vote for us through many elections to come.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20...
This is good news, because if Romney is taking a closer look at the LP, many others in the “mainstream” wing of the Republican Party are probably looking also. Despite substantial policy differences between the two parties, the LP's political positions and principles may have more appeal to many Republican voters than those of a Trump-led GOP.
As the most viable alternative to both Hillary and Trump, the LP can expect to attract rising interest and support this year from across the political spectrum. Without changing who we are and what we stand for, those of us who are LP members should welcome these new supporters and strive to give them good reasons to vote for us through many elections to come.
What Michael said about the quality of draftees as soldiers resonates too. If a.) the purpose of government as identified clearly in the Declaration is "to secure rights" as its sole function, and b.) the armed forces are the #1 first-line defense of rights, then soldiers should be among the highest-paid government employees rather than the lowest, and there should be no shortage of people signing up, for the lucrative pay if nothing else.
I've long believed that America's armed forces are analogous to a fist in the martial arts, with the President - as CinC - analogous to the brain, and the entire chain of command beneath him representing the synapses and nerve array that translate the brain's command into the muscular activation of a punch. A fist in sync with a wise, competent brain is effective; a fist comprised of what amounts to a random bystander compelled to do the job of one's own, is a pale, ineffectual imitation, giving predictable results. See the entire outcome of the Vietnam war for details. A military draft is an open admission that a government's conceptualization of the military as the government's primary rights-protector is hopelessly muddled, and that its leadership - still analogous to its brain - is addled and erratic in its grasp of purpose, not to mention of ethics.
It's not a great analogy, but in any contest between an army of men self-motivated to be part of that army, and an army of men forced into it, guess which one wins? There is a reason for this.
A second issue: The common argument that "you didn't wear a uniform, therefore your views are null" - generally in the role of an ad hominem - is itself null. One does not have to have attended medical school and run a medical practice to possess valid views on medicine vs. government; one does not have to have become a CPA to possess valid views on taxation; one does not have to have worked as an architect or building contractor to possess valid views on the regulatory straitjacketing of housing construction; one does not have to have worked as a climate scientist to possess valid views on the religion of Chicken Little.
Certainly, if one does have such credentials it adds the weight of further expertise to one's views, but the absence of them is not some kind of magical trump card (pun if you want one,) which nullifies an opponent, thereby saving one the work of debate.
Further, given that there was a significant dearth of major wars between the close of the Vietnam War and Desert Shield, it is a simple demographic fact that huge swaths of the American population came of age during extended peacetime (I'm one of these.) Which means the "chickenhawk" epithet is even more blatantly meaningless.
In retrospect, I wish I had joined up after H.S. - particularly given that my CinC would've been Reagan - but I decided not to, and have never worn a uniform in any branch. (Though like Thoritsu, I too have racked up significant time building state-of-the-art equipment for the military - FLIR pods for USN jets, specifically.)
But there are lots and lots of people across America who hit their 20s between Vietnam and Kuwait/Iraq, and as such devoted their time and energy in pursuing careers in the marketplace rather than joining the military. Are all of those people's views forfeit? And different individuals possess radically different talents. Some people have a military aptitude, some a business aptitude, some a technical aptitude, etc. Assuming every individual is equally fit for every job is a distinctly collectivist view.
Complying with a draft order is a guarantee of absolutely nothing vis-à-vis courage, patriotism or toughness. Enlisting certainly is. But neither is choosing a different career a guarantee of these qualities' absence.
/soapbox
What’s going to hurt Hillary big time is that voters have very different reactions to ordinary crime and terrorism. They do not fear ordinary crime nearly as much as terrorism-inspired crime. Ordinary crime is a known danger, typically committed by semi-rational individuals motivated by what they perceive as their personal gain. There are known effective ways to reduce the danger of becoming a victim of ordinary crime. With terrorism the primary motive is to destroy others, not to enrich oneself. There is no effective way to avoid the danger, short of living like a hermit.
People (meaning voters) dislike uncertainty when it comes to protecting themselves and their families. A higher level of uncertainty is associated with terrorism than with ordinary crime – uncertainty as to where and when a terrorist is likely to strike. Voters will gravitate to someone who promises to take concrete steps to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. Hence, the Trump phenomenon. This issue will continue to haunt Hillary and may cost her the election.
Probably 80% of the people I personally know supported Sanders. I was for Hillary, and almost never engaged them in Hillary/Sanders debate. Now that Johnson has a real shot, I'm gentling pointing discouraged Sanders' supports to links about Johnson.
"There is a substantial group of voters who dislike Hillary but dislike Trump even more."
Most people (just over 50%) who I know well enough for them to mention politics to me fall into this description.
"Hillary’s unpopularity will rise under Trump’s withering attacks"
I think attacks on her help her. It's like when Lazio approached her podium 15 years ago. She's able to look at her critics like a misbehaving child. That tends to make them go ape and do something stupid. I think attacks, esp Trump-like attacks, will help her.
"her tepid response to terrorism"
I don't see this at all, but I have possibly an unusual view. I see "hate crimes" and "terrorism" as just crime. "Terrorism" just means the motivations are political. The crime is generally a ploy to goad people into over-reacting. So in my view, the response cannot be tepid enough.
"her continuing email scandal"
This is a tempest in a teapot, unless something new (e.g. she used it to take bribes) comes out. It's fuel for people who don't like her for other reasons and ignored by her supporters and undecideds.
"Libertarian Party’s visibility and respectability will continue rising"
I think so. I really hope so!
"His negative popularity ratings, already higher than Hillary’s, are unlikely to rise much further. "
I don't know. He strikes me as a flash in the pan, like people could get tired of his antics. I may be wrong, though, b/c I never thought he'd get this far.
"Gary Johnson takes more votes from Hillary than from Trump"
I don't have any feel either way. You're likely right. I only know I would have voted for Hillary if Johnson were not viable. I supported her because she was not a socialist and not a Republican, and there was no other viable choice. I'm not sure if I'm a rare case or if millions are thinking the same thing.
It's a website that pairs a disgruntled voter from one major party to match with a similarly disgruntled voter from the opposing major party: http://www.burnmyvote.org.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...
Trump is much less vulnerable to a third-party challenge. On average, Trump’s supporters are much more enthusiastic and committed than Hillary’s. His negative popularity ratings, already higher than Hillary’s, are unlikely to rise much further. For these and other reasons, Gary Johnson will have a more difficult time winning over Trump supporters than winning over Hillary supporters.
The net result: Gary Johnson takes more votes from Hillary than from Trump. According to the polls it’s happening now, and I expect this trend to continue through election day.
Hard to see how Johnson would take votes directly away from Hillary. Sanders should really go third party and continue to build up his "revolution", rather than abaondon it and ask his supporters to vote for Hillary. There is a lot of breakdown of the party heirarchy that needs to be done with both the GOP and Dems and the election in general (get rid of electoral college once and for all) before ANY third party candidate could ever win here.
https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-l...
And Gary Johnson is further undermining Hillary by actively seeking votes from Bernie Sanders’ supporters.
If you live in a “swing” state, voting for Trump to stop Hillary may make sense. If you live in a solid Red or Blue state, where your vote can’t possibly affect the outcome, then voting for Gary Johnson is a costless way to express your real preference and add to his vote totals.
Expressing approval for Johnson to get him on the debate stage I think is good- and it will allow for libertarian ideas to be spread more widely. But in November, not voting for Trump is going to get Hillary the presidency, which I think would be a disaster for the country as Obama was already.
On a positive note, there were several people at the outdoor concert I attended on Saturday evening getting people to sign a petition to get Johnson on the ballot here.
The negative side was they were advertising him as an Independent. I challenged the fellow who got me to sign as to why they weren't calling him a Libertarian. He said they feared that many conservatives hear only "Liberal" when they hear Libertarian. We have a huge hill to climb in educating the masses.
I do wish Johnson came off as less of a goofball. He's not the best messenger, but he is the best choice we have this year.
The LP is responsible to some extent for the positions taken by its candidates, but not those of its voters. People vote for or against a candidate for all sorts of reasons. Many Republicans and conservatives besides Romney are supporting Gary Johnson (or considering doing so) because they can’t stand Trump. It’s one of the main reasons that the Johnson-Weld ticket is approaching the debate threshold of 15% in the polls. Most of these people would not vote for Trump anyway, so the LP is not “taking votes” from him, it is providing the #NeverTrump voters an alternative to staying home on election day. It is also exposing these voters to freedom-oriented principles, giving libertarians an unprecedented opportunity for outreach to voters who have never given us serious consideration in the past.
If we only welcome votes from those who are in near-total agreement with our principles, we will not ever cross the 5% threshold within our lifetimes, let alone 15%. As a serious political party, the LP’s best strategy is to encourage voters to support our candidates now, and persuade them to adopt our principles over time.
Secondly, the basically did the massachusetts equivalent of Obamacare, and then came out against Obamacare when it was politically expedient.
Thirdly, when he came out so vehemently against Trump, and got involved in that whole smear campaign against Trump's wife (probably because of his religious beliefs).
And then he is wildly into the never trump thing. I want to know what the candidate is about, not why "never trump- or anyone else for that matter".
All that leaves me with a pretty negative opinion of Romney (a far less emotional response than just calling him an idiot).
Living in Las Vegas, I have had some additional experiences with Mormons in government here, and I have seen them use their government powers to further religious ends.
I want in government people who are rational and will run the country efficiently and in accordance with the constitutional protections. I didnt like Cruz for his religiosity either. I just find it hard to accept that they wont at least subconsciously use their faith to further some religion agenda on me.
I think Romney would vote Libertarian not so show acceptance of the libertarian principles, but because he wants to keep Trump from winning. I think that is a bad reason, and therefore I was upset at the idea he would vote Libertarian.
Load more comments...