Matthew Rozsa is a Bernie Sanders supporter who is willing to consider Gary Johnson.
—
I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter, but in the likely event that the Democrats don’t nominate him, I will most likely cast my vote for Hillary Clinton.
That said, I have my reservations.
Foremost among them is Clinton’s long trail of scandals, which lead me to worry that she might not make it through her first term without being impeached. Aside from that, though, I’d prefer a president who would radically transform our nation – curb the unseemly influence of lobbyists, end the war on drugs, protect the rights of women and the LGBTQ community, and roll back America’s military adventurism overseas.
Do you know who would do these things, though? The Libertarian candidate for president, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Normally a vote for Johnson would be a vote thrown away, but considering that Johnson polls at ten percent right now (an astonishingly high number for a third-party candidate right out of the gate) and both Clinton and Donald Trump are more unpopular than any major party nominees in recorded history, it is quite possible that Johnson will emerge a viable candidate in his own right.
Johnson must listen to the inner-city minority who is being targeted by the police and feels stigmatized in the job market. He must listen to the single mother who works at a breakneck pace in order to support herself and her children. He must listen to the college student with high hopes who is willing to work hard but is saddled with debt. He must listen to what ails these individuals, and countless others who find themselves on the wrong side of America’s economic dream, and come up with policy solutions that they find convincing.
|
That said, like most liberals, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Johnson for one reason – namely, his stances on economic issues. Like most libertarians, Johnson believes that the government shouldn’t get involved in economic matters – even though, by remaining neutral, it gives advantage to the strong (big business, the wealthy in general) and disadvantages the weak (working class Americans everywhere). From a libertarian point-of-view, unnecessary taxes of any kind inherently limit human freedom. From a left-wing perspective, however, taxes that provide social welfare to the poor, create jobs, protect labor unions, and build infrastructure are necessary.
♦◊♦
After all, freedom isn’t only political in nature, as Franklin D. Roosevelt famously pointed out in his Economic Bill of Rights:
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
♦◊♦
This isn’t to say that Johnson could never win my support, mind you. He has made it clear that he hopes to win over disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters like myself, and once he that demonstrates a vote for him won’t help elect Trump, I am open to considering that option. That said, he cannot win my support without acknowledging Roosevelt’s economic bill of rights because, until those rights are assured, all the talk of political freedom means nothing to Sanders supporters like myself.
How can Johnson do this? First, he needs to do something that neither Clinton nor Trump have excelled at – he needs to listen. Johnson must listen to the inner-city minority who is being targeted by the police and feels stigmatized in the job market. He must listen to the single mother who works at a breakneck pace in order to support herself and her children. He must listen to the college student with high hopes who is willing to work hard but is saddled with debt. He must listen to what ails these individuals, and countless others who find themselves on the wrong side of America’s economic dream, and come up with policy solutions that they find convincing.
[Johnson] cannot win my support without acknowledging Roosevelt’s economic bill of rights because, until those rights are assured, all the talk of political freedom means nothing to Sanders supporters like myself.
|
This brings me to the second part of what Johnson must do, and that is find a creative approach to governing. He cannot answer the questions posed by those who have been denied their economic bill of rights by prattling on about the free market and claiming that unfettered capitalism will solve their woes. If you’ll notice, the first thing that FDR pointed to after listing our economic rights was the importance of “security.” For Johnson to convince us that he cares about our economic interests, we must feel secure in the knowledge that his policies will provide jobs to those who are willing to work, and an income capable of supporting individuals or families at a decent standard of living. We need facts, not theories, and if Johnson can’t provide the former, he will come across as no more hopeful than Trump on economic matters – and my vote, along with those of many (though by no means all) Sanders supporters, will go to Clinton.
There isn’t much else to say right now. Johnson’s candidacy is young, and this election has barely started. As I’ve explained before, I don’t think Clinton is far enough removed from Sanders to justify electing Trump as an alternative, so Johnson will need to at least start placing a strong second for me to feel comfortable risking my vote on him. Should he do that, however, I will keep an open mind… assuming, of course, that he does likewise.
Source: 30dB.com – Gary Johnson
“Gary Johnson gets the highest positives from social of the four Presidential candidates, however, his volumes are such a small fraction of the others that he’s likely pulling primarily from his supporters. Still, his numbers remind me of another candidate who started out of the gate with similar positives and volumes, Bernie Sanders.” — Howard K. 360db
Photo: Flickr – Gage Skidmore/”Gary Johnson”
OP thanks for the article…what Libertarians say is full legalization of private programs and that coercive government programs can be abolished and replaced by rights-respecting common ones funded by e.g. endowments. This means present programs are on the whole left alone IF they allow people not to participate, and don’t delegalize private programs.
How? It’s a world community making things happen FYI see http://www.libertarianinternational.org the mother Libertarian AND Liberal progressive group.
Johnson agrees with Bernie 73% of the time. The difference is not in what needs to be done, the difference is in how to do it. Big government is less optimal than free markets. You will find that as you provide more power to the government to try and control the markets, you will also see the abuse made by the government to pick winners and losers. This is nothing new. Look at any communist country to see the affects of the government trying to control the markets. It creates massive imbalances and almost always favors the rich over the… Read more »
No, because in present-day American reality, “Libertarian” is nothing less or more than an alternative spelling of “Republican”. It is used primarily by those too cоwаrdly or dеluѕіonаl to admit their Republicanism.
Respectfully Daniel, what you’re claiming is patently untrue and flatly contradicts the research of social scientists like Jonathan Haidt, who demonstrated that libertarians actually hold fundamentally different values from “mainstream” Republicans.
I can also attest that I personally identify as libertarian but I have repeatedly voted for fiscally responsible democrats whenever they were an option on the ballot. Unfortunately their number appears to have dramatically declined over time as more and more calls for fiscally irresponsible “progressive” candidates have grown.
Right on cue: “I’m no Republican, honest! I’m a Libertarian, it’s totally different! I’m just forced—FORCED, I tell you!—to vote Republican because that’s the only way I can promote my core value of sweet, sweet fiscal responsibility.”
»[NO SALE]«
I see how it is: you need the world to be neatly divided in two or else it’s too complicated for you to understand. You’ll readily deny documented phenomenon (did you even look up Haidt’s work?) if it means you might have to spend a few moments thinking critically about your own world view.
It’s interesting that you assume I’m voting Republican when I’m not voting Democrat. Almost like it would never occur to you that I might be voting Libertarian when I have that option…
Maybe you need to reevaluate some of the assumptions you make about others.
Daniel, your assertion that Libertarian = Republican is patently false. I am a libertarian-leaning independent and I detest the Republican party. I don’t like the Democrats much either, but nowhere near the same degree of loathing I feel for Republicans. Why? Because all the economic freedom in the world doesn’t mean shit to me if our lawmakers want to restrict people’s ability to marry, regulate what people can do with their own bodies, deny human involvement in climate change, deny evolution, allow unlimited money to influence political campaigns. And here’s a newsflash: there are lots of libertarian-minded individuals just like… Read more »
Which of those “freedoms” did FDR use to justify hIs campaign of systematic dehumanization and organized violence against Japanese Americans?
Or is it maybe possible that FDR isn’t someone we should be taking lessons on “freedom” from?
Please don’t overgeneralize the Libertarian position on important issues such as wages. The ideology is that a free market allows a person to make a living wage. It is against capital cronyism and believes that companies that don’t care about their employees will lose to their competition. When government gets involved, it tends to mess things up and capital cronyism takes root allowing companies to work towards mediocre pay as the law allows. A free market economy helps alleviate the issues of social injustice by its very nature, it gets weeded out. The approach to social justice is just different… Read more »