« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

An Open Letter to Gary Johnson and Other Libertarians

Change Happens from Within.

By: Josh LeGuern (Diary)  |  November 10th, 2012 at 03:52 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Dear Gov. Johnson,

First of all, thank you. Thank you for meaning what you say, for promoting limited government and true fiscal conservatism. It’s one thing to say these things, it’s another thing altogether to actually govern that way. You have one of the best governing records of all time and I am sorry that you did not resonate in the GOP primaries more. You have some differences with many in the Republican base, but I think they would have appreciated your voice in the debates.

And the base is why I am writing this to you, Gov. Johnson and many other Libertarians who have jumped ship from the Republican Party. We need a base expansion in the GOP. The establishment is calling for us to moderate, but I think this is a big mistake. The fact of the matter is you got 1.1 million votes in this last election, while Romney would still have lost the election, in some of the states that made a real difference. I realize that some in the party have gotten crazy with social issues for you guys. I realize that you are tired of sending these people to Washington only to be disappointed when they don’t say what they’re going to do. But you can’t change anything from the outside, Gov. Johnson. You can only change things from the inside. Things are changing. Younger conservatives think differently than our elders on a lot of issues and while we’d still might have differences about abortion, many of us (more than you would think) would agree with you on marriage equality, while we may disagree on ending the way on drugs, we might be open to keeping on eye on Washington and Colorado to see how marijuana legalization works out there to see if we can work out something here.

Unless there’s a complete and total collapse of the Republican Party (which I wouldn’t rule out), the Libertarian Party isn’t going anywhere. So here’s what I’m proposing. If we can promise to be serious about fiscal issues and at least listen and have a debate with you on social issues, would you consider joining us to make sure that the Democratic Party doesn’t have a huge foothold on things again? We could use your commitment to these most important issues, the stuff government actually can affect, we could use the enthusiasm (and more importantly, the youth) of the libertarian movement. Join with us in coalition, let’s take out the blight that is liberal statism on this country! You can only change something from the inside!

Thank you Governor! And best of luck to you in your future endeavors!

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • riredneck

    Great letter, but it’s hard to have a discussion with a bunch of people who flat out tell us that we’re going to burn in hell because we don’t subscribe to their particular take on reality. We got knifed in the back at the convention, and that scar isn’t going to fade any time soon. I’m exactly who you’re talking about: a pro-life, pro-gun fiscal conservative that doesn’t think the government has any business legislating the bedroom, that the war on drugs has been a tragic, costly failure that has done nothing but expand the powers of the government, and that fighting against science is a losing battle.

    “You’re traitorous scum, but we need your vote” is the usual dialog. Yours is certainly better, but I have no faith that it is shared by much of anyone, especially around here.

    Ok, bring on the downvotes.

    • agooglyminotaur

      You get an upvote from me. To be fair, I have pretty strong anti-abortion views, but I’ve never seen the slightest problem with gay people, especially if they’re fiscally conservative and promote individual liberty. I also don’t have a problem with marijuana legalization, though I didn’t particularly enjoy it myself the few times I tried it in college, but as long as my tax dollars are wasted on pointless enforcement and incarceration I’ll maintain the stance.

      Now it’s my turn to bring on the downvotes, but I’ll say it anyway. I really believe that the dedication, among parts of the Republican base, to enforcing social conservatism is increasingly at odds with a platform of individual freedom. I really worry that fiscal conservatism (which MUST be a government issue) is perpetually and inextricably tied to social conservatism (which, in my view, is NOT a government issue).

      It’s a strange and increasingly strained alliance, on the American right. I hope we can get it sorted out. Thanks, riredneck— I’ll be looking for more posts from you.

      • riredneck

        Frankly, I can’t believe I haven’t been called a Paulbot and zotted yet.

        • agooglyminotaur

          At least you’re not a Cylon.

          But yeah, I’ve dealt with it too. I apparently made enemies with one of the mods because, after my first fifteen posts decrying Obama’s policies, I had the utter audacity to critique and article that equated voting Democrat with supporting humans copulating with horses.

          Diversity of conservative opinion is important. I’m glad to see you doing your part.

          • riredneck

            I didn’t come on here to rant about Libertarianism — as a perusal of my comment history shows, I was here to talk about what went wrong with ORCA, and how it could be fixed. But since J. Leg wrote this nice letter (and, frankly, the most reasonable thing I’ve seen on here about Libertarianism), I felt it deserved a reply explaining why I didn’t think it would work. But I don’t see much point in bouncing from article to article screaming RON PAUL. Nobody is really interested in hearing about it, and we’ll always be villains in their mind, no matter how principled our opposition.

            Of course, the ORCA thing illustrates a related problem. On any given Friday at lunch, I’m at a table with people who could have done the ORCA project right. They’re all Libertarian or Democrat. Almost none are Christian. Most are younger than me (20s, 30s), since I’ve avoided going into management and actually work for a living :) . Very few are white — they’re from all over the world, and they immigrated here for a better life. They’re making high 5/low 6 figures, are not and will never be ‘takers.’ They’re intelligent people who solve complicated problems daily, and they have no interest in the Republican party as it is currently constituted.

    • rbdwiggins

      I see that there were no takers, as no one attempted to answer the question I posited downthread. I’ll let that stand for a while. What caught my eye in this comment was “fighting against science is a losing battle.”

      I assume you mean the multi-trillion dollar climate change fraud. Why do you think so many bureaucrats and politicians have dropped this issue like a hot potato?

      Climategate I & II laid to waste the alarmist’s claim of man-caused catastrophic climate change. It’s never been about saving God’s green earth. To these godless bureaucrats, politicians and pseudo-scientists, it’s always been about power, money and control. Sadly, their mindless supporters on the left and the willing masses they seek to control are victims of our failed government schools.

      According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the planetary mechanism required to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 can never exist.

      By the way, I don’t know if you’ll burn in Hell or not. I’ll leave that judgment between you and God.

      • riredneck

        No, I mean pushing creationism in schools, and being hostile to rationality. The Texas Republicans had to be Internet-shamed before they removed a platform item calling for “not teaching critical thinking in high school, as it might cause children to question what they’d been taught at home.”

        Regarding global warming, let’s just say the proof is in the pudding, and the weather patterns.

        • rbdwiggins

          Ignoring facts doesn’t make them go away. Weather patterns notwithstanding. Thanks to a whistleblower(s) at East Anglia University, the document and email dumps from the Hadley Climatic Research Unit prove that Smith and other “so-called” climate scientists from NASA, NOAA and Penn State have been trying to “hide the decline” in global temperatures since 1998, and that all four of the IPCC Assessment Reports are garbage.

          In fact, global temperatures overall have been declining for more than two thousand years. The alarmists manipulated the temperature data set and rigged the climate modeling algorithms in order to produce the results they wanted. Fortunately, the Russians were able to provide the scientific community with an original data set, free from manipulation.

          Think about this for a minute: Some of our own government agencies are willing accomplices in a global fraud that has cost US consumers, businesses and taxpayers trillions of dollars over the last two decades. Why?

          • riredneck

            So, you’re going to just ignore the whole “pushing creationism” thing? I’m not going to get into a global warming debate. You choose to believe some sources, I choose to believe others. On this, at least, we’re arguing about opposing scientific views, and I think we’ve already passed a tipping point where arguing about it doesn’t really matter anymore.

            But requiring *my* children to be taught *your* religious creation theories is something I can’t countenance. Whether it’s six days of magic, or the Earth riding on the back of a giant turtle, it’s a fairy tale and should be, at a minimum, ignored in a science class.

          • streiff

            I’m sure in some circles it is a statement of faith that conservatives are all creationist, etc. That is simply a calumny and I’m not going to have it here. Go find some other place to spread this nonsense.

          • rbdwiggins

            Let me apologize in advance, streiff.

            Nowhere in my comment did I mention religion. I avoided responding to your statement on “creationism” on purpose. I knew where that was headed. I’m sorry that you apparently view all conservatives as religious bigots. That simply isn’t true. You can chose to believe, or not. But, your response just proves beyond a shadow of doubt that you have a small closed mind.

            That said, Creation Theory also has scientific basis in fact. Many world renown physicists are now seriouly questioning the Big Bang Theory. It appears that our universe was actually created from nothing, and those findings have sent shockwaves throught the entire scientific community. It implies that settled science is not always settled, and that what we think we know about the universe isn’t necessarily factual.

          • streiff

            I don’t know why you’re picking a fight with me over something I don’t care about. I think Creation Theory is fine so long as you ignore geology, etc., and I don’t think it has a place in the classroom. Just because people are reexamining Big Bang doesn’t mean Creation is rational. For the record, I’m Roman Catholic. I don’t believe in creationism. Pope John Paul II addresses the dichotomy between faith and reason in his encyclical of the same name.

          • rbdwiggins

            Not picking a fight with you streiff. I just apologized in advance for responding to riredneck’s personal attack with a personal attack of my own after you had already admonished him/her. I generally refrain from responding to personal attacks, and even more so once a moderator steps in.

            Regarding creationism/creation theory, they’re different, and have religious and scientific implications respectively. I simply attempted to point that out to riredneck in the remainder of my comment. It was not meant as a reflection on your faith. As a Methodist, I happen to believe.

  • Viet71

    You’re whistling into the wind.

    Hard-core Libertarians want no part of the Republican Party. How do I know? I’m part of that swamp.

    The Republican Party is the Establishment Party.

    I want the wind whistling past me on some Midwestern farm. Not some slick operative telling me how to vote.

    I’ll take a gun. Just for protection and for hunting.

  • asap100

    The same thing is said by the Dem’s to the Green Party , the’re tired of giving up their values in the hopes of being apart of a bigger tent as well . Many Dem’s are still made at Nader for 2000.

    The problem with both major parties is they agree on so much , both agree on the need for income taxation ,Libertarians see this as theft . Both parties wont advocate extremely strong environmental protections to stop global warming( if its real or not is irrelevant), the Green Party sees this as a top issue. Nether party would allow the legalization of all drugs, both the green part and the Libertarians want all drugs legalized .

    Gary Johnson attracts Ron Paul republicans , if you recall Ron Paul was offered a chance to speak at the Republican Convention and he declined it . These folks are too far removed from what you guys stand for, there not interested in becoming young republicans .

    Likewise, the Greens are so convinced the Democrats will not bring about real social change they wont comeback into the Democrat party . If you thing Democrats are socialist you have not read anything about the Greens – they would have a 14$ an hour minimum wage , guaranteed housing and a host of other far left programs .

    When you look at it this way, both major parties are basically moderates who disagree on the details .

    ” You can only change things from the inside. “- The Tea Party changed things from the inside ?

    • rbdwiggins

      Why did the Articles of Confederation fail as a governing document and the Constitution of the United States succeed?

      When you are able to answer that question, you will also understand why libertarianism is only an ideology and why conservatism is both an ideology and a governing philosophy.

      Keep in mind that conservatism is the constitutional principles of our Founding. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      The answer is just two words.

    • SirGladiator

      I think you’re looking at things too negatively. The Libertarian philosophy doesnt believe in zero taxation and zero government, they believe in very limited government, with as little taxation as possible to pay for it. Gary Johnson didn’t attract that many Ron Paul Republicans, he only got about 1 percent of the vote nationwide. And Ron didn’t decline a chance to speak at the GOP Convention, he went there to speak, and was denied the chance to speak because Romney wasn’t interested in the Libertarian vote. He literally changed the rules of the Party itself just to deny Paul the speaking slot he was entitled to by the rules, which just might have made his supporters a wee bit unhappy. Shockingly, he didn’t end up with their votes on Election Day, votes he could’ve won if he’d reached out to those supporters at the Convention isntead of alienating them for no reason whatsoever. The key point here is that these Libertarian type Republicans can, and should, be voting with the GOP on Election Day, all we have to do is reach out to them, and nominating better candidates than Romney would probably help too :) .

      • asap100

        Theirs a Gary Johnson ad where he shows the distinction between the constitution in the tax code. I didn’t say taxation , I said income taxation .

        As for Ron Paul the story I heard was that he could only speak if he endorsed Romney and he refused to do so .

        Libertarian are not republicans .

        Greens are not democrats

  • SirGladiator

    Gary Johnson was a successful Governor of a very Democratic state, he used his veto pen extensively, and was so wildly popular he actually won re-election in that very blue state. While I could never support the man personally because of his pro-abortion and anti-marriage views, I respect greatly what he did in New Mexico to promote fiscal conservatism and great improvement for the state. I like libertarianism generally, but the problem is the Libertarian Party is essentially the party of ‘immoral conservatives’, they’re mainly pro-abortion, anti-marriage, athiests. That is anathema to myself and most of America. However Libertarianism is, overall, right far more often than it is wrong, and overlaps heavily with what we as Conservatives believe, which gives us a really HUGE opening to get the votes of Libertarians. Folks like Floyd Flake who just got elected to the Senate in Arizona, folks like Rand Paul of Kentucky, these are people who could bring the Libertarian vote into the Republican fold come election day 2016. These are essentially Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, and Pro-God Libertarians. Thats exactly who we need in this party, it will win us tremendous votes, not just from self-identifying Libertarians, but from folks across the political spectrum, and, as Rand’s father showed in the GOP Primary, from Young voters especially. The Youth of America are essentially Pro-Life Libertarians. They arent with us on marriage, but they’re with us on Life, on Limited Government and more Personal Freedom, and they’ll be with us if we nominate somebody who stands for those things and clearly means it, and reaches out to them with that message. Maybe Gary Johnson can run for the House or Senate next go-round (dont know if NM has a Senate seat up next time like they did this year), he’s clearly got a lot to contribute to this Country if he’s willing to do so.

    • riredneck

      Thanks for helping illustrate my point. Here’s a hint, we’re not immoral, we’re irreligious (mostly), and calling us immoral is not going to suddenly make us smack our foreheads and say “Doh, they’re right!”. It’s also not going to get many votes.

      Killing babies is a moral issue. I can point to the actual harm being done there, and say that it is wrong.

      Two guys in Vermont kissing is not a moral issue. There is no harm done to anyone, and nobody is making you kiss a man. Your hostility toward it is an amazing assault on liberty, justified by an old book (taken from a chapter where you ignore almost all the rules set forward in it but this one).

      As far as most Libertarians are concerned, what the SoCon right wants is Sharia-law-light. And when the two main parties offer me the choice between socialism and a theocracy, I’ll vote my conscience with third party freedom any time.

    • asap100

      I’m actually noticing that once you go 3rd party its since your disillusioned with both of the major party . It becomes worth it to vote 3rd party since at least then you can vote in protest .

      I’m not a Republican, but I think both parties have this 3rd party problem if you will . 3rd parties don’t have to worry about appealing to everyone , since they have a solid set of beliefs that they will stick to . The Republicans can’t really go anymore right to appeal to Libertarians , like the Dems can’t go anymore left to appeal to Greens . Obamacare was criticized by the left for NOT being single payer .

  • mikeymike143

    losertarians are only important in their own minds. thats why of the over 500 seats that were up for grabs in the house, senate and governors mansions, the libertarian party won ZERO. and thats the same amount they won in the 2010 elections. LOL. obviously if they cant win one seat out of 500 they are a bunch of self important nobodies who are constantly being rejected by the american people.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Well, I do know it takes a lot of cheek for “libertarians” who didn’t vote for Romney to be blaming values voters, or vice versa.

    Perhaps we ought to recognize that the Republican Party has always been a coalition of barely mutually-tolerant factions, including moderates, values voters, libertarians, and mainstream Establishment-types in the first place. Nothing wrong with that.

    What we do need are changes in the process, as well as the reconsideration of the platform as a way for whichever majority can be cobbled together to force through its priority wedge issues. It is far broader than it ought to be as a statement of principles which rarely gets passed anyway. Supporting the sanctity of life and traditional marriage is not the same as insisting on voting every year on a Human Life Amendment and Federal Marriage Amendment that have no chance of passing. And not just social issues- national security is very divisive, when it comes to the PATRIOT Act and all.

    • runner12

      I am downright sick of people blaming the social conservatives. News flash! Our guy did not lose. We. Ran. A. Moderate. Just like everyone said we should. Remember? It was the only way to beat Obama we were told.

      I am in agreement with you that we should not be talking about kicking any one group out. We can still be for traditional marriage and be pro-life, as well as be welcoming to other viewpoints. We need to expand, not contract our tent.

      The marijuana laws that were passed are a perfect example of how we can hold opposing viewpoints, but agree on some things as well. Do I support these measures or think it is a good idea? No, nor would I vote for such a measure in my state. BUT, I support the rights of CO and WA to make such a law, because I believe in states’ rights. And I would oppose action by the Feds to go after them, on principle and for tactical reasons.

      All of this talk about kicking a specific group out or compromising our values is coming from either a). The Left, because they know if we fracture the party they will be in power for a long time. b). The Beltway Republican crowd whose advice we followed with McCain and Romney as nominees. How did that work out for us? Those people should have zero credibility in my mind.

  • Melody Warbington

    The sanctimonious, petty libertarians cost us Mia Love and Vernon Parker, two splendid conservative candidates. They probably cost us the Montana senate seat and another congressional seat in Arizona. There may be others. I quit looking after checking the Love & Parker votes. Love, Parker, Rehberg and other R’s would have been votes to repeal Obamacare. The Democrats who won those seats will most certainly not vote for repeal.

    http://www.redstate.com/joshleguern/2012/11/07/the-gop-has-got-to-change/#comment-703216799

    As for the convention, I don’t particularly like the way the Romney campaign handled changing the rules, but I understand why they did it. Ron Paul delegates went to the convention intent upon cause problems. Imagine if we’d had a fight on the floor televised on national TV.

    To whoever said down thread that Libertarians are not Republicans, last time I looked Ron Paul ran as a Republican and was perfectly willing to claim to be a Republican. He took all the benefits and then shirked all responsibility to support the Republican candidate. In 2008, he endorsed not a libertarian candidate, but the radical leftist Cynthia McKinney. He should have been kicked out of the Republican Party then.

    My choice is made. I intend to ask the libertarians who I suspect voted for Gary Johnson at our next local GOP meeting if I’m right, and if that’s the case, I intend to move that they be removed as officers of our GOP. Frankly, I don’t care where they go or what they do. Their willingness to put their hurt feelings above the good of the country indicates a level of maturity for which I have no more patience. I prefer to fight alongside somebody who will protect my back, not stab it.

  • dewitt70

    How about this: let’s send the culture war back to the states.

    From a limited government, enumerated powers view of the Constitution, it’s hard to argue that Congress has authority to define marriage arrangements or rule on abortion. Roe v. Wade can be opposed because it reads powers into the Constitution that don’t exist. If we take this position, then it’s obvious that the only way we can Constitutionally achieve what we want on the federal level via cultural issues is by Constitutional amendments, but there’s also not a snowball’s chance in hell of these amendments passing since I can name enough deep blue states right off the bat that will never pass them that can block the process (CA, NY, IL, WA, OR, HI, ME, VT, CT, RI, NJ, MD, DE). So we can’t win the culture war at the federal level.

    If it becomes our explicit position to let the states decide these issues (as I think Rick Perry leaned toward doing at a certain point in the campaign, when he made a comment that “If the folks in Massachusetts wanna legalize gay marriage that’s their business”) we can moderate our tone at the federal level and attract not just some libertarians but many “fiscally conservative socially moderate” suburbanites (and yes, I know not all of the people who use this phrase are fiscally conservative, but enough of them are).

    • dewitt70

      In particular I’ve never felt DOMA was Constitutional regardless of my position on the gay marriage issue

  • Pingback: Errol Christensen

  • Pingback: Shandra Sago

  • Pingback: Desire Even

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: rzeszow randki

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: distilling rum at home

  • Pingback: randki internetowe

  • Pingback: randki internetowe

  • Pingback: odszukaj milosc swego zycia

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: distilling equipment

  • Pingback: my blog

  • Pingback: Network

  • Pingback: You Could Look Here

  • Pingback: over at this website

  • Pingback: Have A Peek At This Site

  • Pingback: breastactives

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: Lamps for sale

  • Pingback: property in delhi

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: online jobs uk

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Ruben Vossen

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installations

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: cv wzór

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: alcohol

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: kids bikes