My Kind Of Presidential Endorsements
Via Manny Klausner, reason's writers and editors lay out their votes. For example:
Shikha Dalmia
1. Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why?
Gary Johnson. He is a pragmatic libertarian who offers a principled alternative to the statism of the right (that would outlaw same-sex marriage and abortion; criminalize drugs; erect barriers to keep willing foreign workers away from willing Americans, etc.) and the statism of the left (that would enact crade-to-grave entitlements; confiscate wealth rather than curb spending to avoid going off the fiscal cliff etc.). Johnson is one of those rare libertarians who could operationalize his ideological vision into something resembling a governing philosophy. He cut spending in New Mexico, no small feat in a predominantly Democratic state. He won't engage in politically futile fights on idiosyncratic libertarian causes such as moving to a gold standard or abolishing the fed (laudable though those goals might be). He seems to regard liberty not necessarily as a goal or a cause, but a tool to advance sound public policy whether it is to prevent overseas entanglements or economy-busting regulations at home.
Nick Gillespie
1. Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why? Gary Johnson. The two-term former governor of New Mexico is the first presidential candidate for whom I am totally comfortable voting. He won't win, but I hope he has a strong enough showing to make people want to learn more about limited government.2a. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom, including things such as industrial policy, free trade, regulation, and taxes?
Obama, but not by as much as most people might think.2b. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding social freedom issues such as gay marriage, free speech, school choice, and reproductive rights?
Romney, though the president's ability to affect these issues much is relatively minor.
Manny Klausner
1. Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why? I'm enthusiastically voting for Gary Johnson, because I take liberty seriously, and I live in California - a non-battleground state that Obama will likely win by more than 1,000,000 votes. To me, the worst choice would be to vote for Obama based on his disastrous performance to date, and his disrespect for liberty and the rule of law. He is a proponent of unconstrained government in virtually every sphere of life. However, I'm urging people to vote for Romney if they live in a battleground state, if it's a cliffhanger on the eve of the election.4. Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall?
Prop 30 in California - if passed, this massive tax increase would dangerously accelerate the decline of California.5. Reason's libertarian motto is "Free Minds and Free Markets." In contemporary America, is that notion a real possibility or a pipe dream (in 100 words or less)?
It's attainable, but it's a major struggle - and we have to play the long game. However, this is a turning-point election, and a second Obama term would be devastating.
Matt Welch
1. Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why? Gary Johnson, because he reflects my views more than any presidential candidate I've ever had the chance to vote for, because I know and like him personally (weird!), and because I am voting in a state (New York) that will certainly favor Barack Obama. The president richly deserves to be fired, for his economic mismanagement, his lying, and his ass-covering, speech-constricting response to the Benghazi attacks, but my vote cannot impact that. It is important to me that the preference for limited government be expressed by (at minimum!) a third-place showing on election day.2a. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom, including things such as industrial policy, free trade, regulation, and taxes?
The only scenario under which I can imagine Romney being any worse than Obama on economic freedom is if we were in multiple costly new wars on the day that borrowing costs spiked up. Though Romney has campaigned against Medicare cuts and for boosting military spending, he is still rhetorically in a much different place than the Keynesian in Chief, and most importantly so is his political party. I have at least some hope that the limited-government grassroots will apply much more pressure to keep their man in line than the anti-war/pro-civil liberties left has placed on Obama.2b. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding social freedom issues such as gay marriage, free speech, school choice, and reproductive rights?
An edge to the incumbent, with caveats. Obama wins big on legal abortion rights (though it's unclear to me how much practical difference on that issue there would end up being). Romney is better on school choice, but I'm not sure how much difference that will make. Obama has been lousy on free speech and drug enforcement, but is there much to suggest that Romney is better? Dems are better with gays, Repubs are better with guns. Both disrespect individuals once in power. It's a big, messy category.2c. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding foreign policy, military interventions, and the global war on terror (including domestic restrictions on civil liberties)?
Romney has sketched out a more interventionist, more chest-thumping posture than Obama's already significant buttinskyism. He has shown zero interest that I've seen in curtailing any of Obama's civil liberties abuses. Neither party seems capable of rallying around the concept of imperial pruning, let alone pullback, and as long as that's the case, I'm afraid we're creating the conditions for an eventual unplanned, chaotic retreat. While Obama deserves to be punished for his interventionism and civil liberties degradations, Romney has done nothing to earn that particular protest vote.
Okay, I get it: Gary Johnson is amazing, a saint, etc.
But the cold, hard truth is that you might as well vote for Bill Cosby.
It seems that an awful lot of people do not understand that you only have two real choices here. You shouldn't waste your time when you have a candidate who has actually done things outside of politics.
Every mouth fed by a government program is going to vote for Obama.
Think about that.
On a side note: notice gas prices dropping? Somebody's calling the shots, and they're not in office.
Radwaste at October 26, 2012 4:37 AM
All voting for Gary Johnson? Say, there's a surprise!
Per Manny Klausner:
We'll have to see how the long game turns out. This year, the Libertarian Party is running 567 candidates for offices at various levels, broken out as follows (from the Libertarian Party web site):
The states fielding the greatest number of candidates are Texas and Colorado, with 117 and 68, respectively. I don't know how this compares to previous years. We'll see in a couple of weeks how all this turns out.
Old RPM Daddy at October 26, 2012 5:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/10/26/my_kind_of_pres.html#comment-3405504">comment from RadwasteOkay, I get it: Gary Johnson is amazing, a saint, etc. But the cold, hard truth is that you might as well vote for Bill Cosby. It seems that an awful lot of people do not understand that you only have two real choices here.
Like Manny, I live in California, where Obama will be elected. I'm voting for Gary Johnson, for many of the reasons stated above.
Amy Alkon
at October 26, 2012 6:19 AM
Go for it Amy. The 3% that vote for Johnson in California will have absolutely no effect on the swing states.
If you're in a swing state, you are now getting an ad for some product and then 3-4 political ads back to back.
I just want it over with.
Jim P. at October 26, 2012 6:39 AM
Manny Klausner: "I'm enthusiastically voting for Gary Johnson, because... I live in California - a non-battleground state that Obama will likely win by more than 1,000,000 votes... However, I'm urging people to vote for Romney if they live in a battleground state, if it's a cliffhanger on the eve of the election."
That's a very good point. The president is elected by the Electoral College, which is a winner take all system. So in a state that's overwhelmingly pro-Obama, like California, voting for Romney won't help Romney one little bit, because all of the state's electoral votes will go to Obama anyway. So anyone in a pro-Obama state who votes for Romney because he is the lesser of evils is wasting his vote and reinforcing the Republican Party's delusion that Romney is the type of candidate conservative voters want.
So unless you think Romney can actually win in your state, voting for Gary Johnson won't take anything away from Romney. Johnson will not win the election, but if he makes a good showing in this election he will be taken a lot more seriously in the next one.
Ken R at October 26, 2012 6:44 AM
Another reason to vote for Johnson is his VP running mate, retired Judge James Gray. Jim Gray is a former colleague of mine, and I have never met a finer, more principled individual.
Jay R at October 26, 2012 10:51 AM
I live in MA (probably no shot for Romney here) so I'm tempted to vote for Johnson as the candidate I'd like to see win.
However, even though I agree with Ken R above I'm going with Mitt strictly as a repudiation of Obama.
JFP at October 26, 2012 11:48 AM
Voting for a 3rd party candidate is not useless. Sure, he won't win this time but if everyone who chose the candidate that worked for them we could finally ger a break-through option and a 3rd party candidate would become a feasible option later.
NakkiNyan at October 26, 2012 2:28 PM
Presidential endorsements, pro wrestler style:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/man-gets-romney-r-tattooed-on-his-face-for-15000/
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 26, 2012 4:01 PM
It's not about electing a third party candidate (for me). It's about making a point.
As long as the republican or democrat candidate is voting "for the lesser of two evils," there is no incentive for either party to make a change in its platform. However if either party sees they've lost a significant percentage of votes to a third party - especially in a swing state (I live in Florida) they will make changes.
Look at how the republicans have become more outspoken on issues that concern tea-partiers. Democrats are trying to figure out how to fold in dissatisfied OWSers.
Increasingly I think throwing your vote away on a third party is the only way of making it count.
Elle at October 26, 2012 5:31 PM
Post-election I plan to buy a box of pocket constitutions and send them to every winner, repeatedly, and ask them where they find the legislation they are proposing in the document.
Jim P. at October 26, 2012 8:16 PM
"However if either party sees they've lost a significant percentage of votes to a third party - especially in a swing state (I live in Florida) they will make changes."
Because the policies of Ross Perot were too important to ignore?
Radwaste at October 27, 2012 5:31 AM
What Elle and NakkiNyan said.
If you must vote for one of the Big Two, try to guess which party will control Congress and vote the other way for President. History has given us painful lessons about what happens when one party controls both the Executive and Legislative branches, no matter which party it is.
Rex Little at October 27, 2012 10:22 AM
I live in CT - no chance for anybody but Obama. So I am definitely voting for Gary Johnson. He is the best libertarian candidate I have seen since I started paying attention (2000 or so).
DebbieCT at October 29, 2012 9:40 AM
Leave a comment