The 4 most important points Gary Johnson didn’t get to make

by Luke Terry

In many ways, last night’s Presidential Debate was great television. Both sides delivered as expected:

Trump acted like a buffoon and Clinton lied through her teeth. Overall Hilary won by staying quiet and letting Trump ramble on like a drunk uncle at a family BBQ, but Trump did manage to land a couple of heavy blows against her by pointing out that she lied about NAFTA and her emails (by the way, what does it say about Hilary that even Trump can land such blows on her?).

But in another way, the debate was a great disappointment. The candidates spent almost all their time on personal attacks, barely touched on policy and, when they did, just argued about different ways to be authoritarian.

If only there had been some range, some variety, an alternative perspective.

Well, there could have been. But the Debate Commission (which is run by the Democratic and Republican parties) decided a third voice would have been too threatening, and ignored the 62% of the country that wanted Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson on the stage last night.

So, in honour of Governor Johnson’s non-appearance, and as a plea to get him into the next debate, here are the four most important, different, sensible and interesting points Gary Johnson didn’t get to make to America last night:

1. The US spends waaaaaaay too much on the military

Neither Clinton nor Trump have ever suggesting cutting America’s rampant military spending (which is the highest in the world and greater than the spending of the next 19 countries combined). Trump actually wants to increase it.

Had Gary been allowed on the stage last night, he might have spoken about his plan to cut military budget by 20%. But he wasn’t. And America missed out.

2. The US should stop putting people to death

Both Trump and Clinton believe in continuing the death penalty. That alone is a great reason not to vote for them.

I could argue here that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent, that it puts to death innocent people and, oh yeah, IT’S WRONG FOR THE STATE TO MURDER PEOPLE WHO ARE JAILED AND NO THREAT TO ANYONE.

Maybe if Johnson had been allowed to address the 100 million viewers last night, he could have said that for me.

3. The US should stop droning Pakistan and Yemen

Numerous experts have insisted that the US’s drone policy is ineffective and turns the people of the Middle East against us. Common sense tells us this too. After all, if you drop bombs that kill innocent people and aren’t around to clean up, are people going to be:

A) Glad you neutralised some perceived threat they didn’t even know existed or
B) Terrified of the robotic sky murderers?

Yet Trump and Clinton insist on supporting this failed policy. If Governor Johnson had been there he could have outlined his firm opposition to dropping bombs on countries America isn’t even at war with.

4. The US should legalise marijuana and decriminalise other drugs

Clinton gets some credit here: she supports the legalisation of medicinal pot. Trump doesn’t get any credit. Ever.

Yet neither candidate would legalise this mostly harmless drug, stopping people going to jail. Gary Johnson would.

Shame he wasn’t allowed onstage huh?

  8 comments for “The 4 most important points Gary Johnson didn’t get to make

  1. Paul Marks
    Sep 29, 2016 at 11:45 pm

    I despise both Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump – but the above article is no good.

    Gary Johnson was not at the debate because he did get 15% in the polls – he is not “threatening” he is actually rather weak as John Stossel proved with the “would you force a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi event” question at the libertarian debate. Gary Johnson, eventually, said yes – he buys the whole “Civil Rights” collectivism, just as he supports the EPA (President Nixon’s vile child) collectivism and the Obama Administration’s war-on-industry with endless regulations.

    Still – your one, two, three, four.

    Number One shows you know nothing about the military situation – the American military has been in DECLINE for 50 years and is heading towards crises. What matters about such powers as the People’s Republic of China is not their “military spending” (fictional figures) but what they are building.

    The United States Army, Navy and Air Force are heading towards crises – you think they are vast and modern, in reality they are smaller than they have been for many decades and their equipment is ageing.

    Number Two.

    Why should murderers be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? I thought that libertarians were against the “prison industrial complex”. If you are going to come to a Presidential debate and oppose the death penalty (and most capital punishment cases are NOT Federal cases anyway) you might as well not turn up – as you are not going to win the election.

    Number Three.

    Killing Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a good thing – and should be done a lot more. Again if you are going to say that killing these sworn enemies of the West (who are part of a war against the West that has been going on for 14 centuries) is bad then do not turn up – because you have nothing worth saying and are not going to win elections.

    Number Four.

    The Federal War on drugs is unconstitutional and the State laws against drugs are counter productive (although drug abusers should not be “protected” from being fired by their employers – and should get no government benefits of any kind). However Gary Johnson has been using too much of his product (and has been using too much of his product for years) – he is, to use the old language, a pothead. Which is why he does not know where (or even what) Aleppo is and can name any non American world leaders.

    If this sort of pro Johnson article (hand over the world to the PRC and other hostile powers, do not execute murderers, and Islamist terrorists are lovely kittens really….) is the best libertarians can do – then our movement is going no where, other than down the drain.

    Small hint – if you want to be President of the United States then learn to support destroying (killing) the enemies of the United States, both overseas and at home. it is in the words – enemies foreign and domestic.

  2. Paul Marks
    Sep 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    To be fair – Gary Johnson was asked “name a foreign leader you admire” it may be the “you admire” bit that was difficult for him – but he did not say that, he just sat there (in the interview) with his mouth open.

    If Governor Johnson is the best we can do – we deserve to lose.

  3. Paul Marks
    Sep 30, 2016 at 9:00 am

    By the way – Donald Trump supporters rather wanted Gary Johnson at the debate.

    Why? Read Luke’s post and you will know why Donald Trump supporters wanted Gary Johnson at the debate. Only the university crowd, the “college kids”, believe that Islamists are nice (unless the evil United States drones the sweet little kittens), and only the “college kids” believe that the savage gangs in American cities (who slaughter people, mostly BLACK people actually, by the thousands) are fluffy and should be treated with kid gloves.

    And the “college kids” (the people who shut their ears when “Black Lives Matter” chants “pigs in a blanket – fry them like bacon” and “what do we want? Dead Cops! when do we want it? Now!”) are not going to vote for Donald Trump – they are going to vote for Hillary Clinton, unless Gary Johnson (or some other idiot who thinks that killing terrorists and street gang members is wrong – but “aborting” babies is fine) can SPLIT THE DEMOCRAT VOTE.

    I repeat that I despise both Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump – and I despise the absurd “nation building” of George Walker Bush as well – I was AGAINST the Iraq War, not because I think the locals are lovely – but because I know they are not, which means that getting rid of Saddam would not create Vermont-by-the-Tigris (the Tigris is a river Gary Johnson).

    However, I know who a post such as the above one by Luke Terry benefits – and that person is Donald Trump. It is the sort of post that drives ordinary people to anger – people who have to live in the real world (where each day means pain and humiliation), people who are not college kids. In their rage and frustration (frustration with being talked down to by kids) such people lash out – and vote for Donald Trump. That was how the Big Government New York Progressive, Donald J. Trump, won the nomination in the first place. And a campaign such as this by Hillary Clinton (if Hillary Clinton were to follow the example of Luke Terry) would ensure that Mr Trump (who I have always opposed), became President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Western World.

  4. Mr Ed
    Oct 1, 2016 at 6:14 am

    2. Are you suggesting that a President Johnson ought to use his power to pardon to commute death sentences imposed by State courts as well as those imposed by Federal courts? Or would you prefer that the autonomy of the States be respected?

    Why do you use the term ‘murder’ for a lawful execution? The term is ‘execute’ in this context, murder has a specific legal meaning.

    And I read unkind reports of Govenor Johnson and his own use of weed, is he a living experiment on the effects of it on memory and ability to concentrate?

    Plus there is a Green candidate, a sort of ‘honest Hillary’ I believe, who is presumably more earnest and sincere in her wish to take policies to their natural ends, and no one would be baking cakes for anyone, if Gaia wanted us to eat cake, she would have made cake trees…

  5. Razi G
    Oct 1, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    This article may as well have been titled “Why Libertarians Are Worse Than Republicans and Democrats”.
    What it actually advocates is that the US weaken itself militarily in the face of ever-growing threats, abandon the pure justice inherent in the death penalty (if you choose to take a human life, you wave your right to yours), and pretend that terrorists aren’t true believers practicing their religion to the letter, but rather innocent victims of western imperialism who are merely defending themselves. Even on the fourth point, it’s clear that the principle of personal responsibility isn’t a fundamental on which no compromise is possible for the author, otherwise he would not be advocating “decriminalization” of drugs other than cannabis, but full legalization of all drugs. In this libertarian utopia, you could still get a fine for doing a line.
    Also, every word in the first comment by Paul Marks.

    • Oct 3, 2016 at 2:32 pm

      There was some ruthless editing in that last paragraph, for flow and not for ideological correctness or accuracy.

  6. David Warwicker
    Oct 15, 2016 at 9:40 am

    The whole enormity of peurile lies, one wonder if we libertarians might simply invent a term for our ideology that includes the word ‘socialism’?

    We would claim to have invented a new idea called ‘Liberty Socialism’. In fact it would be libertarian but as far as the rest of the world is concerned it will appear as a new branch of socialism.

    The term socialism lost 90% of its meaning/integrity years ago and is just an emotional state nowadays.

  7. Julie near Chicago
    Oct 15, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    Way late to this particular party, but still, let me join the consensus.

    Kudos to Paul for rebutting the thing so clearly and concisely, and to the others for cogent, common-sensical comments. :>)

Comments are closed.