A casual observer might not notice much ideological difference between the gang of 8 that has been showing up for the GOP debates. That’s because there isn’t. Besides Ron Paul, who openly criticizes the wars and the Patriot Act, and John Huntsman, who keeps claiming to be both moderate and electable, it’s the same lines: Obama is destroying the country, conservative values are the ones we should have, and you should vote for me because I am the most conservative person on this stage tonight.
Notably absent from the stage is former two-term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who announced his campaign for President in April. Depending on which poll you read, he is either below the other eight candidates or somewhere around the Gingrich/Santorum/Cain/Huntsman level of support. That is to say, he is not likely to win unless Marcus Bachmann gets caught in a ménage a trois with Rick Perry and Mitt Romney while Ron Paul dies of old age. Whichever it is, Johnson isn’t being invited to the debates, which means not only will he not win, but also that his ideas won’t get traction or attention and his future political prospects are diminished.
So what is unpopular about Johnson’s message?
Like the others, he is a self-described fiscal conservative. Unlike most of the others, his reputation as a bureaucracy-destroying, deficit cutting, tax slashing welfare reformer does not come with the usual campaign and personal favors that have marred the campaigns of Perry (who forced a vaccination in his state that was manufactured by a major campaign contributor, in addition to multiple shady land deals), Bachmann (who with her husband operate a pray-the-gay-away “Christian therapy” camp which receives almost $140,000 of taxpayer-funded Medicaid dollars annually), Santorum (who sits on the board of a private health company, United Health Services, that is under investigation from the DOJ for numerous cases of Medicaid fraud and patient abuse), and Gingrich (let’s not even go there).
Johnson is also an unabashed social libertarian. Not a pseudo-libertarian like Dr. Paul, who doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to an abortion and cold on gay rights. Johnson believes that in a free society, anyone should be entitled to a civil union (and that the Feds have no place in the marriage business) and that a woman ought to have final say on issues pertaining to her body. He supports ending the drug war and decriminalizing marijuana. As an avid sportsman/athlete and certified badass, he used marijuana for pain management after he fell 50 feet from a tree during a paragliding accident. So he is one of the only public officials who not only admits his own past drug use, but sees actual benefits (although he himself doesn’t use drugs, drink, or even consume caffeine) to drug regulation.
In fairness to Dr. Paul, the congressman from Texas has also spoken out against the drug war and the Iraq War. Unlike Dr. Paul, Gov. Johnson does not stop supporting personal freedoms when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Rather, he has staked out positions that are as gutsy as they are sensible, even if it means lost support from the Republican base. On immigration, for example, Johnson’s approach is decidedly colorblind. While firm against undocumented immigration, he supports expanding work visas, grace periods for employed immigrants to come out of the shadows, and making it possible for immigrant workers living and working in the U.S. legally to bring their families to live with them, as long as they can prove financial responsibility.
On Representative Paul’s election website, without giving too many specifics, he has this to say about immigration:
While the federal government neglects its constitutional responsibility to protect our borders, it continues to push mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care to illegal immigrants at a time when the states are drowning in debt. This must not be tolerated any longer.
It gets better. Paul, in a fit of blatant hypocrisy, favors repealing the 14th amendment to the constitution to take away birthright citizenship. Dr. Paul should be advised that it’s tough to protect the Constitution if you’re running on a platform promising to ignore it.
Do Johnson’s views on immigration, drug policy, foreign policy, women’s rights, and gay rights keep his support base so small he can’t earn a place in the debates? In terms of economic policy, which the Republicans claim is what is fueling the fire under their collective rumps this election cycle, Johnson can’t be touched. He was successfully re-elected in a purple state doing all the things Republicans say they want: cutting taxes, cutting spending, shrinking government, and cutting the deficit. He is a self-made multimillionaire; he built his business from a self-employed door-to-door handyman to one of New Mexico’s largest construction firms. Among the millionaires on the debate stage, Perry made much of his wealth buying and selling real estate, sometimes under ethically questionable circumstances, and Romney, while a successful businessman in his own right, had the advantage of being born into the wealthy and powerful Romney family and attending the nation’s top universities.
Instead of rallying behind a social moderate, the tea party “wing” of the GOP (which appears to be the body at this point) can’t stop talking about Bachmann and Perry, while Romney desperately tries to court their favor by telling them all the crap they like to hear.
Why is that? It’s because being conservative on social issues won’t get you into the White House. A candidate can’t win a general election if he loudly trumpets socially conservative views because most of the country isn’t socially conservative. However, it is imperative to GOP primary voters that their candidates ARE social conservatives, whatever they may say about fiscal issues.
The GOP has managed to keep their collective message all about economic issues. Given the state of the economy, that’s not surprising. They also have vehemently and unfairly attacked President Obama on said issues, while attempting to sabotage his efforts in a cold political calculus that a bad economy means more power for them. But if Johnson’s voice of social moderation and fiscal prudence were one that was coming out of the right, Obama would be even more vulnerable to defeat in 2012.
But Republicans aren’t willing to risk a candidate with sensible views on social issues. They just don’t like to talk about them because they know that if abortion, gun control, immigration, and even gay rights become the issues at play in 2012, THEY WILL LOSE.
I have followed Gary Johnson since before he announced his presidential run. He is well spoken, and seems sane. That is a rarity among the kooks they have running now. Most Americans share his fiscal/social views. I have no problems with fiscal responsibility, we all know the government is one big money waste machine. If someone would get in there and actually look at programs that cross over into each other, or do duplicate tasks, cut out the waste and mismanagement, I am all for it. Same goes with his stance on the military. I also love his social views, which in my opinion are a modified Libertarian view. Just read again his stands on a woman’s right to choose, the war on drugs, gay marriage, etc. He is not on the debates because he is not a circus clown like the others, good for sound bites that get on the evening news. He is rational, concise, and well spoken, and unfortunately, as they say, that kind of thing doesn’t sell newspapers.
“That is to say, he [Johnson] is not likely to win unless Marcus Bachmann gets caught in a ménage a trois with Rick Perryz and Mitt Romneyz”…..I LOL’ed, HARD!