The question is on the minds of several commentators, and it is a good one.
I think the answer is an obvious “YES.”
I don’t think libertarian Republicans should be wringing their hands over this, because not only is it an indication that libertarianism is alive and well in the party, it also means Ron Paul is not the only libertarian game in town.
Whether they are in a clear majority of the GOP or not, I think this it is clear that libertarianish thinkers are no longer circus freaks. I can’t imagine anyone asking, “Is the Republican field big enough for two conservatives?” or even “Is the Republican field big enough for two moderates?”
And Gary Johnson is a reminder that if a libertarian Republican can be elected governor for two terms in a 2-1 Democrat state, it might be time to ask whether such an ideology is really as “fringey” as the political insiders who bitterly cling to the flawed dichotomy of “either liberal conservative” would have the rest of us believe.
To preserve the artificially limited spectrum on which their power depends, they want the playing field kept as small as possible, so I would expect them do anything they can to keep libertarian issues and candidates out of the debates. A likely tactic would be to engender animosity not between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, along with their followers. How well that will work, I don’t know.
I prefer Gary Johnson, but I would never begrudge Ron Paul his due. Despite my disagreements with the man, he broke new ground in the GOP, and I will repeat what I said when I returned from the Michigan Republican Convention in January:
I think all libertarians owe a serious debt to Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty. They stormed the Republican Party before the Tea Party existed, and the once-sidelined libertarians now have a place at the table thanks to them.
It’s nice to see the table growing.
Comments
4 responses to ““Is the Republican field big enough for two libertarians?””
“Is the Republican field big enough for two libertarians?”
Depends. If the beltway GOP (which still has WAY too much power) have their way, the answer is “NO.”
For the rest of us, yes.
Actually three. I count Sarah Palin in the libertarian camp. Cultural Conservative you say? So is Ron Paul.
Two main differences I see:
1. Palin is a very lukewarm drug war supporter.
2. Johnson and Paul are foreign policy utopianists.
I can forgive Palin for the former. I am not so forgiving of Johnson and Paul on the latter.
And of course Palin’s husband Todd.
I don’t like Johnson’s foreign policy either, but there are two other major issues: fiscal restraint, and constitutionally limited government. Johnson has shown himself far more willing to wield the axe than anyone else, and he actually proposes returning the federal government to the limits in the Constitution. When I specifically asked him about the federal assumption of vast powers never mentioned in the Constitution (such as Homeland Security, Department of Education, the FDA, etc.), and he said that he would simply abolish them.
He meant it, and I think his record proves it.
[…] is some sort of distraction from Paul, but with all respect to them, I think they forget that having two libertarian-minded candidates in and of itself sends a much more powerful message than having […]