
Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson, now Libertarian Party candidate for President
Gary Johnson, the popular former Republican governor of New Mexico, is running for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. He is possibly the most popular third party candidate this cycle, though support is quite small at a national level.
In over a century since the modern two party system in America became firmly established, no independent or third party candidate has ever won the presidency. There is a powerful, built in two-party bias that the major parties have helped set in place. This doesn’t mean, though, that third party candidates can’t have an important impact. In the past such candidates have both affected policy and likely swung elections. While Johnson currently seems to have effectively no chance of winning, he could still be a factor.
Third parties have been able to inject issues and positions into the political discourse that would otherwise be ignored by the major parties. On rare occasions, they can change the whole focus of the national debate. The best recent example is probably Ross Perot putting the focus on the deficit and free trade deals.
Johnson wants to fill a void in our political discourse. His campaign is focused on a few popular issue that are completely ignored by Mitt Romney and President Obama, including the wasteful nation building approach to foreign policy and, most importantly for its potential impact on the election, marijuana legalization.
Despite majority popular support for legalization both major parties are ignoring it. Obama has been very bad on marijuana reform, and Romney has taken his incredible opposition to marijuana to the level of a cartoon villain. Johnson knows this is his opening. It is the issue that garners him the most support and attention. With legalization on the ballot in Colorado, Washington and Oregon there is a real chance Johnson’s campaign can help elevate the issue of drug policy reform and get our nation political discourse to take it seriously instead of dismissing it out of hand.
On a rare political level third parties candidates can also swing elections even with rather small vote shares. Because we use an idiotic first-past-the-post voting system, it is possible for a third party candidate to act as a “spoiler.” They can split the vote and allow other candidates to win with a mere plurality. When Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912, it split the Republican vote, which arguably put Woodrow Wilson in office. And since we also use the idiotic electoral college, third party candidates with only a regional appeal can have an outsize impact. In 1948 Strom Thurmond running as a Dixiecrat only got 2.4 percent of the overall vote, but since it all came from a few Southern states, he won more than 7 percent of the electoral votes.
Unlike many recent third party candidates, Gary Johnson is a proven politician who has won statewide office and remains relatively well known and popular in his state. Even if Johnson polls poorly nationally, he could have a regional impact by doing relatively well in his own state of New Mexico and in the neighboring state of Colorado, where a marijuana legalization initiative being on the ballot gives him a natural in. Both are swing states. PPP found Johnson polling at 13 percent in New Mexico. With Romney and Obama so close it is easy to see how Johnson could get enough votes in these two states to swing the result and possibly the entire election. Johnson taking just a few percent from either candidate could be enough in a close elections to make the difference.
Barring the greatest upset in American political history, Gary Johnson is not going to be the next President of the United States, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he won’t end up being a real factor in this election.



20 Comments
Bless you, Jon Walker!
“Winning” ain’t just about “taking” office … it is about changing the conversation.
Carry on, Jon.
There are several other potential conversation “changers”, out “there”.
DW
What else has Gary Johnson in his quiver, besides marijuana reform?
Might as well shoot the “works”, Jon, just so we know.
To take the conversation “up” a notch or two … or even, three.
DW
Thank you for this coverage. Although I’m not a supporter of Johnson or the Libertarians, I welcome the possibility that the Libertarians, and, I hope, the Greens, will get some national attention at least on specific issues. At the Obama medical marijuana protest event in Oakland recently Johnson’s running mate spoke briefly. Good on them for bringing their campaign to the streets. “Recommended” if there were a button!
From the “Political Positions of Gary Johnson” wiki:
He calls the notion “that we can control spending and balance the budget without reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security” “lunacy.”[10]
He believes that abolishing the federal corporate income tax, which he says is the second highest in the world, would create tens of millions of jobs immediately.[7] Due to his stance on taxes, David Weigel described him as “the original Tea Party candidate”.[13]
… [H]e feels that, at present, the best way to strengthen the U.S. dollar is to balance the federal budget immediately.[7]
Johnson believes the main remedy for unemployment is ending “uncertainty” for private business.[7]
He believes free market trade corrects inequities between trading partners, such as foreign countries’ subsidies for certain industries.[7]
…{H}e believes that a “market-based approach should be the foundation of any solution. A health care insurance system that is privately owned and managed is the best approach to solving our health care problems.”[17] He favors tort reform and control of frivolous lawsuits as means of cutting costs of health care.[17]
He believes businesses should be allowed to reward good workers and fire bad workers, without collective intervention.[7] He views public-sector unions that contribute to political campaigns as “dangerous.”[7]
He wants Congress to investigate privatizing part or all of Social Security with the goal being that the investment of contributions could be self-directed.[7]
Johnson supports cutting federal Medicare and Medicaid expenditures by 43% by ending the federal, top-down bureaucracy that controls these programs, including all strings and mandates to states.[7]
Johnson favors building new coal-fired and nuclear power plants.[7] He supports private sector research and development of renewable energy, but does not believe doing so is the government’s job.[7]
Johnson believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned because it “expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution.”[32] He believes that laws regarding abortion should “be decided by the individual states.”[32]
On the state level, Johnson believes in “school choice.”[7] As governor of New Mexico, he sought to implement a school voucher system, which he believes would transform public education into a more “effective” system.[7]
Johnson believes the Department of Education should be abolished because federal control of state education funding negatively impacts the states.
He believes the government should not be “in the student loan business.”[7] Instead, he supports a free market in education as a remedy to the bubble.[7]
Johnson opposes gun control initiatives.[7] He does not believe in limiting the types or sizes of guns that private citizens can own.[7]
He opposes Internet neutrality, because he believes it impedes business competition.[7]
Johnson opposes public funding of stem cell research, and instead “should only be completed by private laboratories that operate without federal funding.”[31]
[7] Gary Johnson (September 25, 2011). “Gov. Gary Johnson’s First Google+ Hangout – 9/17/11″. Youtube. Gary Johnson 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGEDUb8W7SI
Thank you, tomallen, “that” puts Gary Johnson’s views into an understandable perspective.
Perhaps, there are candidates whose views might be even more compatible, for the most part, with the majority sensibility at FDL?
What do you think, Jon …?
Any chance that you might “showcase” other potential conversation changers?
DW
I suggest you take a closer look at where you are getting your facts – some are correct and some are not. He is on record for support a woman’s right to choose – is just one fact that you have incorrect. He is also more of an isolationist regarding trade – just saying
As a support of Rocky Anderson (who, I might note, is also a successful politician), I’m wondering if there is any polling data available showing the various slivers claimed by third-party candidates.
That John Anderson back in….whenever, pulled 8% of the popular vote and might coul have, uinders other circumstances, made an impact.
George Wallace in ’68 swang….swinged, whatever, the election to Nixon many people think.
Dude, we’re thinking alike again……spooky.
Wallace won ARK, LA, MS, AL, and GA.
Breaking down where our processes are breaking down – our electoral system isn’t really what’s idiotic. There are arguable improvements on “first-past-the-post” to be sure, but that doesn’t excuse we who are making conscious individual choices.
The idiocy really comes down to individuals playing silly head games with themselves and convincing themselves to vote for people who are terrible based on “spoiler” theories and least-worst-style thought processes. That is the true perversion of democracy being used to undermine the policy objectives held by the majority of America’s citizenry.
If you vote for someone you *know* is going to do bad things … when there are clearly people on the ballot who are much better aligned with your desires … you have betrayed democracy. Don’t go trying to blame that on the system – the decision to support corruption is an individual choice.
To me, the system of apportioned Electoral Votes serves an important purpose. We are a nation of states. It is absurd to think that because New York and California have a boat-ton of people that this factor alone should allow them to dictate to the rest of the nation regarding presidential elections. Choosing the president is a function of the states in America deciding what is interests of the resident citizens and thereby forming a national consensus.
I don’t see how turning the presidential election into a pure national popularity contest would fix a damn thing other than shift the entire electoral process into only densely populated states and essentially tell people in less-populated ones to go fuck themselves because democracy doesn’t really care what their state has to say.
IMO, any improvement on the current electoral system *must* take into account the nature of our nation as a union of states or it really isn’t an improvement to American democracy.
The platforms of both Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson are both preferable to that of Gary Johnson.
While Ross Perot did an admirable job of conveying the disaster that is the hallmark of FTAs like NAFTA, that didn’t stop the govt. from approving a law that devastated our manufacturing base and has been repeated by the corporate puppets whenever possible. TPP anyone!
Yeah. Johnson is running as a Libertarian. That’s always a mixed bag. It’s nice to see ‘em get someone who’s actually somewhat on the same page … last time they ran neocon Bob Barr; talk about a terrible match.
The thing about libertarians is that they really do believe in separation of powers and *hate* the idea of an executive monarch. Unlike a partisan such as Obama or Bush, you can expect them to follow laws they disagree with rather than issue secret executive orders declaring themselves above the law. The ability to generally count on dedication to the *spirit* of constitutional dictates goes a long way to mitigating the policy concerns raised by some of their less-well-thought-out objectives.
I totally agree that it would be cool to see Anderson and Stein get a few highlights. Hell, it might even be nice to see respectful consistent coverage of their campaigns – as if they were presidential candidates or something (but, let’s not go crazy … can’t expect media outlets to actually do reporting on just *anyone* who gets on the presidential ballot, now can we?).
Democracy in the US is an illusion. Elections are no more or less than the political version of American Idol and have no real bearing on the policies instituted by the corporate puppets for their benefit.
Ultimately, if we are a “union”, not merely of states but also of people, that is a society, kgb, then allowing the “smaller” states undue “representation” rather than the participation of actual human beings ALWAYS favors the least populated states to the direct and oftentimes dire cost of actual flesh and blood human beings … in larger states.
There are far too many “built-in” systemic hindrances to actual, participatory democracy, be it in the workplace, in the schools, or in the actual “processes” of not merely “allowing” the people real and genuine choices in the life and death decisions which affect each and every one of us, but in the day to day “workings” of government itself.
Undue reverence for the Constitution or for our “exceptional” notion that ours is truly a democratic process lie at the heart of resistance to understanding and a concerted willingness to examine the failures and short-comings of a very perverted, compromised and hijacked “system”.
While I think I understand your concerns, philosophically how, in practical and real terms, do you you consider that states with fewer people per square whatever, or even fewer square what-evers, are disadvantaged by a federal vote that reflects the actual interests of individual human beings? I am very serious in the seeking of further elucidation of your concerns.
DW
Yes …
Yes.
And you’re gonna bust my gut, kgb … Indeed!!! The VERY idea?
Just … any … one …
Gosh golly … Gee whiz.
;~DW
It appears that Dr. Jill Stein may have some comfortable shoes.
Jill Stein@jillstein2012
RT @gpus: #GreenParty Pres Candidate @jillstein2012 being detained after leading protest @ Fannie Mae office in Philly http://www.njherald.com/story/19170363/green-party-nominee-detained-amid-philly-protest …
photo
That … is what being “with” the people … really means.
Thank you, marym, for the news … which is, truly … good.
DW
I wish Jill and Rocky had merged into a 3rd party.. I like both.. not sure which I’ll vote for yet, but at least it will be a vote For someone, not just a vote Against the more evil choice.
we..are..so..screwed..
Gary Johnson is not only an ultra-Fundie for unrestrained Corporatism, but he’s not even a Libertarian. Stewart Alexander, Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson all score as more Libertarian on PoliticalCompass.org’s Authoritarian-vs-Libertarian scale. Where as Gary is a perfect 0, neither plus nor minus, smack dab in the middle.
Granted, compared to Barack Obama (+6 Authoritarian) and Mitt Romney (+6.5 Authoritarian) a score of 0 might look pretty good…but a zero is a zero is a zero. Here are PoliticalCompass’s scores for six candidates, in alphabetical order:
Stewart Alexander: + 5 Planned Economy, +2 Liberatarianism
Rocky Anderson: + 4.5 Unrestrained Capitalism, +2 Libertarianism
Gary Johnson: + 9.5 Unrestrained Capitalism, +/-0 Authoritarianism/Libertarianism
Barack Obama: + 6 Unrestrained Capitalism, + 6 Authoritarianism
Mitt Romney: +7 Unrestrained Capitalism, +6.5 Authoritarianism
Jill Stein: + 3 Planned Economy, +3 Libertarianism
The chart, in its original graphic form, is here. Please note that the chart only refers to the economic axis as “Left/Right”; the “Planned Economy/Unrestrained Capitalism” dichotomy is my attempt at clarifying what is being measured here.
Also, as one who’s been very skeptical of Rocky Anderson from the get-go, I again note that of the 9 increments of distance between Barack Obama and Jill Stein on economics, Rocky is a mere 1.5 to the left of Obama. In other words, he’s five times as close to Obama on economics as he is to Jill. He’s barely more to the left of Obama than Mitt is to Obama’s right.
Any real change would come from the (not going to happen, but still worth advocating for) election of Alexander or Stein. IMO, those are the only candidates even deserving consideration. (For my personal choice, consult my username. Stewart Alexander 2012!)
And, if you’re wondering, here’s how I score: +9.4 Planned Economy, +7.8 Libertarianism (according to the site’s self-test).