It seems like the internet just can’t stop crying embarrassing crocodile tears about how 2016 was allegedly just the worst year ever. In most cases, of course, this is a thinly-veiled whinge about how St. Hillary Clinton became a martyr for the cause of universal perfect justice when the Soviet Union forcibly installed some sort of orange space Hitler as the new dictator of the United States, which bone-brained rubbish you must forgive me for not treating with the gravity it deserves. On the other hand, we also have classic libertarianishes like Reason’s Nick Gillespie, who, amidst all the me-too hand wringing, can point to one thing about 2016 that was just super.
If there was anything good that happened in 2016 — a year filled so much awfulness [sic] that even the Chicago Cubs could win the World Series after a thousand-year drought — it was [Gary Johnson’s] ramshackle campaign to bring a very different way of thinking and talking about national politics to America.
In a just world, we could just assume that Gillespie is congratulating the Cubs for being the best thing in 2016 — in which he would be correct — and then all go have pie. In this fallen world in which we live, however… suffice it to say things are about to become maudlin.
I read all the crocodile-tear complaints about from conservatives and liberals who said that GovGary [sic] wasn’t libertarian enough for them and from the "thin libertarians" who said they bailed on him the minute he refused to start every answer to every question with a recitation of the non-aggression principle.
Since this is Gillespie’s entire list, I can but assume that he did not read any of the actual, substantive complaints those dreadful "thin libertarians" had about Johnson. I am personally acquainted with many of the major thinkers in the "thin libertarian" ambit, and I can say with a great degree of confidence that not even one of them would have had an issue with Johnson if he actually had principled libertarian positions, but just articulated them badly. Actually, never mind that; let’s assume that he’s not just misspeaking. Assume that he’s actually packaging his principles for sale to his audience, and is intelligent enough to realize that the majority of Americans cannot be approached with hard philosophy right off the bat. Assume, for example, that he focuses not on (to take a random example) the inherent immorality of socialized medicine, but on the fact that it’s too expensive. No libertarian would complain about that! The only problem is that what he actually says is garbage like "there are people in need, and I’m of the belief that government is the only entity able to provide in some cases." The mind boggles at the idea of libertarians who don’t have a problem with that statement.
Then there’s Bill Weld, the governor’s running mate who infuriated almost everyone (except me, tbh) with his charming and idiosyncratic riffs on all sorts of non-libertarian ideas before semi-endorsing Hillary Clinton just before Election Day….
Paging Dr. Gillespie: three dots in an ellipsis, doctor.
Bill Weld also infuriated libertarians with his "charming and idiosyncratic" positions in favor of comprehensive gun control, Hillary Clinton’s policies as Secretary of State, Eminent Domain (in the Atlantic Yards case, no less!), and government-mandated electric cars. Then, yes, he endorsed Hillary Clinton. You tell me how "semi" it was:
When Rachel Maddow asked Weld if he would encourage voters to stop Donald Trump, instead of voting for the Libertarian ticket, he responded, "Well, I’m here vouching for Mrs. Clinton, and I think it’s high time someone did." He called Clinton "a person of high moral character" and insisted that "there’s nothing there" regarding the new revelations from FBI Director James Comey last month.
Why would any libertarian not love that guy?
To all of it, I say, politely: Go [copulate] yourselves, all of you.
Stay classy, Nick. Also don’t capitalize after a colon. Also don’t write like a colon.
First, he was the first politician in forever who had the temerity to say what we all know to be true: That most Americans are socially liberal (or tolerant) and fiscally conservative (i.e. responsible). Libertarian purists will denounce such a formulation as lazy or incorrect or insufficiently Misesian or Hayekian or Randian, but the way that Gary put it is exactly right in political terms.
(Aside: notice any names missing from Nick’s list? Charles Koch does.)
Maybe everybody at Reason knows that to be true, but I have to suspect a bit of selection bias at work. Speaking as somebody who lives in the real world, no it is not the case that "most Americans" squeeze into that goofy box. Most Americans are in favor of the government "keeping us safe," whether from domestic or international bogeymen. Most Americans are in favor of the entire panoply of "safety net" programs — which, of course, Reason constantly editorializes in favor of, apparently utterly blind to the complete incompatibility between those and any semblance of "fiscal conservatism." You see, Nick, it’s not enough just to say "gosh, it would be nice to get the same things but cheaper!" That doesn’t really count as "fiscal conservatism."
No, "libertarians" in the Reason magazine mold are pretty much just run-of-the-mill leftists. They believe in activist government, they believe in big spending, and they believe in things like this:
Most Americans have no problem with immigrants (except that we seem to be attracting fewer and fewer of them), legal or illegal. FFS, a majority of Republicans favor some sort of legal status for illegals. The same is true about marriage equality, pot legalization, and abortion rights. Alt-right jackasses be damned!
They apparently also believe that you can write your op-ed as though you’re texting your buddies at 3 a.m.
Anyhow, yes, those are all ordinary leftist positions of the sort that "most Americans" have drilled into their heads through twelve years of left-wing government school. With the exception of pot legalization, though, they have nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarians believe in only consensual immigration — which is to say: private property. Libertarians don’t believe in any type of government-enforced "equality," which is always and everywhere a scam to increase government power and an impossibility, on top of being a revolt against nature. As for abortion, well, we won’t get into that here except to say that it’s a far more difficult and contentious issue than Gillespie’s blithe dismissal would make it seem. Libertarian theory is split many ways on the subject, as is popular sentiment. Apparently the staff at Reason is all for it, though.
Indeed, according to Gallup, 54 percent of us agree that "government is doing too much" while just 41 percent say the government should be doing more. What’s more, for the first time, Gallup data shows that libertarian is the single-largest ideological bloc at 27 percent, bigger than conservative (26 percent), liberal (23 percent) or populist (15 percent).
Sure. With "official" libertarian outfits like the LP and Reason doing everything in their power to obfuscate what libertarianism actually is, why would this be a surprise? Gary Johnson’s message was that libertarians have no real principles, and just do whatever feels right. We’re shocked that lots of people will sign up for that message? That’s not a win for liberty, Nick. That’s just proof that the farther you dilute your message, the more people you can get to agree with it.
Johnson presented himself as experienced and competent — he had a great run as a two-term governor of New Mexico and had built two successful businesses — but also relentlessly human.
I’m sorry, but, no. "Competent" is the very last thing Johnson presented himself as. He came off as a bumbling boob who knew nothing, had no principles, and could barely string two sentences together. One could argue that Weld presented himself as competent, but Johnson? He of Aleppo, Vicente Fox, and sticking his tongue out?
No, Johnson was a terrible candidate, and a terrible messenger for liberty. He had potential back in 2012, but he squandered it; he showed up for the 2016 campaign having read nothing, having learned nothing, and ready to take absolutely no positions on any issues. Gary Johnson, in other words, was the candidate the libertarian movement deserved: a candidate who didn’t know what he stood for or what he was trying to accomplish, but who quixotically declared that, any day now, he would hit the big time.
Besides, if you really want to thank Gary Johnson for his wonderful work in the service of liberty, why don’t you force somebody to bake a cake for him?