On Facebook, Max Marty asked what Gary Johnson could have done differently. He also asks what one thinks of Randy Barnett’s argument that if the Libertarian Party did so poorly this year, it has no hope.
I always thought that Johnson’s only shot was if Mrs. Clinton became non-viable, so that Democrats staring at the prospect of President Trump would try to join with leading Republicans and endorse Johnson. But the Democrats stuck to Mrs. Clinton like glue, and so the Republicans viewed endorsing Johnson as throwing the election to her. Johnson did not get the sort of endorsements he needed in order to seem viable. But I’m not sure he did anything wrong.
As to the permanent irrelevance of the Libertarian Party, although strange and unpredictable things happen, I just cannot come up with a scenario in which the party gets anywhere.
The best hope I can see for small-l libertarianism in this country is in particular states. Utah? New Hampshire? Texas?
However, what is the future of the Democratic Party? In four years, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders will be four years older, and they are not exactly spring chickens now. Elizabeth Warren will still be polarizing. Tim Kaine will have to defend a dubious record, Barack Obama having left his successor with potential crises in foreign policy, the budget, and health care policy.
And what is the future of the Republican Party? The proportion of the electorate that is white, non-urban, and born before 1960 continues to shrink. The Trump vs. anti-Trump division will not necessarily heal.
Another indication that the future is volatile is that young people are particularly unhappy with both major party candidates.
The future of the Democratic party is the important question, since the country is becoming California. Douthat recently wrote that, from a certain perspective, it was fortunate that low-charisma, old white guy Sanders became the face of pro-socialist millenials, since that ‘contained’ a potential in-party insurgency, and because that wasn’t all that disruptive to the neoliberal elites hold on power in the party. But replace Bernie with a celebrity progressive ‘Trump-equivalent’ that combines anti-market animus with agitation of identity politics resentments, and the present party establishment might lose hold of the reigns.
Johnson hasn’t run a good campaign, but that is beside the point. Libertarians don’t win elections because there aren’t many libertarians. They read to much into surveys showing some people want legalized pot and don’t like paying taxes. Hint: everyone hates taxes but you don’t see them trying to get rid of Medicare.
Moreover, libertarianism is an entirely white male (nerd) endeavor. A country with less of them will be less libertarian. Libertarians can’t even win white nerds. Remember when Paul Ryan went to google and found out they love government.
The future of libertarianism is selling ungodly private/public mixed programs to the public as “dynamic market based initiatives”. So selling crony capitalism and claiming it was the best they could do.
“Moreover, libertarianism is an entirely white male (nerd) endeavor. A country with less of them will be less libertarian.”
Yes and no. There are quite a lot of people in the country who lean toward a combination of social liberalism and economic conservatism. But few of these folks identify as libertarian or vote for the LP. Why not? Because right now that requires a willingness to be weird — to not fit in with either of the ‘normal’ groups in the country. So the Libertarian Party consists people who are comfortable with outsider status and that further puts off people whose ideology is broadly libertarian but who *don’t* want to be outsiders.
Classical liberals were once a dominant political force in the UK and US and at that time, liberal parties did not consist primarily of non-conformists There’s nothing about the classic liberal philosophy that’s inherently weird or unattractive — it’s the outsider status of the party (and the outsider personalities of the current members) that keeps people away and is self-reinforcing.
“Some combination” hides an awful lot of mileage. Hank Hill libertarianism and libertarian philosophy are not the same thing. Even on the grounds of much public policy libertarianism is not popular. How popular is Medicare again? Again, I think libertarians over-interpret some polls on the matter.
Classical liberalism lost power over a couple of centuries. Why did it lose? Does libertarianism know the answer? Does it have a realistic plan to get it back? For someone who likes many aspects of classic liberalism the complete silence on this issue shows the bankruptcy of libertarianism.
I think the weirdness of libertarianism reflects the weirdness of the philosophy. Dressing up in tri-corn hats and going to Ron Paul rallies is just a manifestation of now knowing what century your in.
“Even on the grounds of much public policy libertarianism is not popular. How popular is Medicare again?”
But classical liberalism doesn’t preclude any and all social-safety net programs. Yes, Libertarianism in the form of doctrinaire Miniarchism isn’t popular. But the small-l variety that means, roughly, ‘more personal freedom plus more economic freedom’ has a lot more support.
“Classical liberalism lost power over a couple of centuries. Why did it lose?”
The rise of Fabian socialists in the UK and early Progressives in the US. took their voters and forced long-term political realignments. Neither personal and economic freedoms become broadly unpopular, but they ended up split between left and right, leaving liberals in a very difficult position.
“Does it have a realistic plan to get it back?”
No — nobody really knows how to force (or predict) major political realignments, and that’s what’s needed.
“I think the weirdness of libertarianism reflects the weirdness of the philosophy. ”
What exactly is weird? A belief in personal freedoms? A belief in economic freedoms? Or is a desire for both somehow an inherently strange combination?
Sanders and Trump opened up policy positions that anyone with the courage to defend can come up with their own, not that they will. Anyone that lost against Trump looks unimaginably weak. Democrats would be wide open for anyone with an agenda. Polarizing is probably a benefit when it comes to the right. Republicans will still hold at least one chamber though brinksmanship and stonewalling would favor more populists so they may reconsider this. I don’t see anyone telling them the truth but they will probably downplay the split while offering more of the same claiming to be different. Ideas are a bit tired at this stage, but there is probably some room for practicality and pragmatism, though I expect more lameness like bathrooms because it is cheap signalling.
We live in a two party country. The parties are not however fixed in positions, but change as the positions of voters change. The best chance for libertarians was to be a force within the GOP, just as greens or other groups have become a force within the Democratic party. But that required understanding that you only get some of your positions and to support the GOP as least bad as they believed (somewhat) in markets and a smaller government.
I think Trump represents the fact that for many blue collar voters their traditional home, the Democratic party, has clearly moved away from them and their concerns, and now cares about other things. Things that appeal to the young, minorities and greens. The GOP was not normally the party of the blue collar worker, but instead more the party of his or her boss. But I think many older blue collar workers today feel better about the GOP, and you get someone like Trump who says he will look after their concerns, and you have moved a traditional Democratic block to the GOP.
Look at England, and the recent attack of the PM May on the London elite. I view as an attempt to appeal to the blue collar type of Trump voter in England (who may well be a cabbie from south Asia).
It’s really, really, hard to win an elective seat by telling people that you’re going to stop giving them stuff, that they should be more responsible for themselves, and that they have to live with the consequences of their choices: no bailouts. Why do you think that Republicans have become the Democrat-lite party? Because in this post-Great Society world they’ve realized that pandering to the electorate’s collective gimme-gene is how one must now govern in order to continue governing.
There is a small segment of the population that (i) foresees the inevitable consequences of overspending on social programs that’s enabled by unimaginable debt levels, and (ii) understands that, no matter how well-intentioned, governance by humans is still subject to the foibles and self-interested biases of human nature, and (iii) that feeding the gimme-gene ultimately leads to psychological dependencies that corrupt the ability TO assume personal responsibility.
No matter how many times one repeats the mantra that “government IS the problem,” it’s going to fall on the deaf ears of the population that has been trained to see government as the solution.
With “first past the post” elections and single representative districts, we have a two party country.
Until we go to proportional representation (PR), or some hybrid involving it, I can’t imagine a viable libertarian party. Or any viable three party.
I can imagine the death of one party and the emergence of another (as the Republic Party replaced the Whigs)–but still just two parties.
It is astounding how many people who advocate third party candidates, and put their energy into it, don’t realize that small parties thrive in PR systems, but not in our system.
There are such people. I am talking about grown adults in the USA, ostensibly well educated, who note that European countries with PR have small parties, and will just assume (and argue) we can do it here–and they don’t realize that it follows from PR.
You don’t just need idealism–you need PR. That’s my take on it.
Yes, this is an over-simplication of reality–but it is a useful one.
Corrections welcome.
Lack of proportional representation is not the problem for libertarians. If libertarianism were popular, it would be possible to mount a successful insurgent primary campaign within the Democratic or Republican Party.
The most important reason libertarianism is unpopular is that it has no credible agenda to benefit the middle class. Smart conservative writers have realized this, hence “Reform Conservatism”.
Many intellectuals on the right and the center-left share a perverse way of thinking about policy: they think that the poor are the legitimate recipients of government assistance, the middle class is not, and all the various middle-class-benefitting tax subsidies, entitlements, and other programs are unjustifiable bugs, rather than features, of our policy landscape. They fail to realize that a large, stable, prosperous middle class is not an inevitable or natural product of a market economy.
A turning point in my own political views (away from libertarianism) was when I read John Cochrane’s articles on health-status insurance. I realized that people don’t just want insurance against unpredictable expenses within a given year, with premiums that could go up dramatically at the end of that year if their health deteriorated and their expenditures were high; they want insurance against the possibility that their health-status itself could change, that they may develop chronic conditions with ongoing, long-term expenses. And yet the health insurance market fails to provide this product, so the public demands government regulations and programs to provide it. This isn’t some illegitimate, irresponsible demand for “free stuff” or some socialist idea that “health care is a right” (though that may be how the argument is framed by those making the demand) — this demand is a sensible and intelligible extension of the theory of complete markets.
If free markets can’t provide financial security against large and chronic medical expenses — and here I part ways with Cochrane, who thinks that a robust health-status insurance market would emerge in the absence of government interference — then free markets are the problem, not the voters that reject them.
I think insurance is the largest reason with social being a large secondary one. The way people want to live in housing tracts and communities like themselves and not in third world countries, the value that your neighbors house adds to yours, their kids adds to your school, their income and opportunities add to yours, that they have your back and you theirs, and that you are better off even if you have to help your neighbor. The narrow focus on money and markets can undermine these conservative communal values.
Even before we get to ideology, from a practical standpoint, why would we expect the Libertarian Party to do well?
After all, they don’t run any cities, they don’t have any state governors, they don’t have any congressmen or senators. I don’t see why anyone could seriously expect them to win the presidency.
I think the Libertarian Party would be better off trying prove themselves and their philosophy at the local and state level.
Agreed. You don’t get to start at the top. If the LP wants to be taken seriously, it has to do the work of local politics. But then they’d have to actually want to be politicians, and I think most LP members have no interest in that.
Barack Obama having left his successor with potential crises in foreign policy, the budget, and health care policy.
Don’t all Presidents leave some kind of potential crisis? Reagan blesses Bush Sr. the S&L crisis, Bush left Clinton the jobless recover, Bush got dotcom bust & soon 9/11 and Obama got the Financial Crisis and two wars. No Prez can not leave with open issues.
Yes the Ds significant issues here…But the nation is much better off than 8 years ago, many of the foreign crisis are not core interest, and yes Obamacare is real issues. I mean so what if the Syrian Civil War is a problem, Valezuelan is bankrupt, the Phillipines is run by a loon, Saudia Arabia is boming the shit of Yemen, or Russia is getting more aggressive. That said how does this effect our core interest? Really Russia is failing just as bad as the US did in reality.
Anyway, I think the core problem with Gary Johnson with the Libertarian Party was he was not ready or willing for prime time. The level of governor or CEO was his level competence and he has not appeared very serious to the voters. The arguments of libertarianism and especially non-interference are important but Gary Johnson did not make them strong enough. He has really seemed to lack the knowledge on the foreign affairs and unable make a strong significant argument. I want more then I can’t find them on a map. I want somebody to say the interfence causes more problems and even simply weapon support only lengthens the Civil Wars because the sides get hopes of winning instead of burning itself out.
The Dem Party has been kicking out Christians and, more slowly, Catholics — who want a big, kind, Christian gov’t to help the poor.
The Dems are becoming the top elites with “moral superiority” about “helping the poor”, with crony capitalism that keeps the poor locked in gov’t dependency, poor education, poor prospects, and a never-ending narrative that these Dem gov’t failures are really due to the Reps.
The low-tax, free-trade, family-values Reps are being invaded by Dem rejects, and even being taken over. The top GOPe (establishment) seems quite comfy to be an ineffective opposition claiming powerlessness against Dem crony capitalists and the demonization of Christians, America, and white males.
While 70% of black kids do NOT live with both mothers & fathers, there is an opportunity for Reps to gain black votes from the parents of those 30% kids who do live with their parents. Thru better jobs for the working class.
The racist whites won’t take over the Reps, altho the Dem media will try to present it as if they are.
The Lib Party remains mostly white mail nerds, like I was!, doing their intellectual stimulation with Ayn Rand/ Robert Heinlein (like me!)/ and Robert Nozick. Some smart girls, often cute (often horny! tho looking for not-too-weird alpha males), and even an occasional minority. But they’re like the “anti-organization org”.
I’m really sad that they’re mostly correct on economics & freedom, but the public wants more “free” gov’t benefits.
And, in fact, there’s an economic law that is arguably NOT true: “There’s no free lunch”.
But everybody HAS enjoyed a lunch or a hundred that they didn’t pay for — the lunch WAS free (meaning, somebody else paid for it).
As long as voters vote for such “free” stuff, there will be more popular politicians promising to give away free stuff today, to be paid for later, probably by somebody else.
The best future is for the Libs to propose specific legislation, like pot legalization or tax credits for school choice, that can be stolen/ copied by one of the other parties.
(Similar for the Greens, whom I call watermelons.)
The Libertarians missed a huge opportunity. The Republicans will get to nominate another candidate in four years. The Libertarians had a chance to make their pitch to the American people in a way that they’ve never had before. But when the American people decided they should take a good look at the Libertarians for a change, they saw goofy Gary Johnson with his tongue out.
“But when the American people decided they should take a good look at the Libertarians for a change, they saw goofy Gary Johnson with his tongue out.”
I don’t think the LP had a better candidate running for President.
Indeed, and I don’t think that the Republicans or the Democrats did either. The nature of the two-party system generally means that someone on GJ’s level is the best that the LP can possibly hope for. He’s not bad, has experience, isn’t corrupt and is sane.
What I’ve seen is a bunch of people who decided to hold third party candidates to litmus tests that on average are much, much higher than they would hold a major party candidate to. (As from single issue pro-lifers, who generally would use their litmus test with any candidate, though.) Most people aren’t that libertarian, either. Add that to the typical fading of any third party candidate, and I think that the LP did as well as could be expected.
I don’t think Johnson is being held to any higher standard than any of the candidates in the primaries. He would have been out by South Carolina at the latest is he was running in the mainstream. As for him being sane, please watch the MSNBC video I referenced. He does not come across as sane by most people’s definition.
Also note that GJ lacks a legion of surrogates who appear on every single show and defend and spin his statements. (There’s also a secondary thing going on whereby people, including based on looks, tend to be viewed as innocent but dumb or smart but evil. There’s a gender bias where women are more likely to be viewed as the former, but in this election GJ is innocent but dumb whereas Hillary is smart but evil. Trump is difficult for people to view him as evil as his comments because he comes off as a joker.)
I have to agree with some other commenters that Gary Johnson ultimately just came across as incompetent. He had occasionally come across to me as not serious enough. I never had a moment while watching him where I said to myself: wow, this guy really understands the complexities of this issue. That’s fine. Lots of politicians never give me that moment. Paul Ryan and Barack Obama are the two exceptions I can think of. The Aleppo thing didn’t bother me. Foreign policy is supposed to be his weak point, and its kind of ridiculous to expect someone to have 200 countries, and their capitals memorized. But he really blew it in the MSNBC interview when he couldn’t name a foreign leader. I think that was worse than Sarah Palin’s Bush Doctrine moment. If a candidate can’t take the time to learn the depth of major problems, then it’s unlikely he’s going to make the right decisions when confronted with them. It really bugs me too because philosophically Gary Johnson is closer to my own views than just about any political candidate I’ve seen. But he’s not qualified and never will be.