Gary Johnson vs Ron Paul

In the grand drama of an American presidential campaign, wondering whether Gary Johnson or Ron Paul will win the vestigial libertarian-minded vote in the Republican primary is but a tiny scene of little consequence whatsoever. At best it’s an Off-Off-Broadway production and even that might be a generous verdict. Nevertheless, it’s not without interest since it will shine some light on the heroic patriots who make up the “Tea Party”.

I considered this last November and now Ilya Somin asks the same question: Johnson or Paul? Like me, he’s a Johnson man. Will Wilkinson explains why, whatever Johnson’s merits, he’ll struggle to make an impression:

I think Mr Johnson’s gentle pragmatism, far from giving him a clear shot at independent voters, leaves him without a natural core of highly-motivated supporters.

As governor, Mr Johnson showed that a non-ideological, pragmatic libertarianism can work as a governing philosophy. But neither full-blooded libertarians nor allegedly liberty-loving tea-party enthusiasts really care much about governing. Libertarians, accustomed to dwelling on the margins of American politics, participate in elections without hope of electoral success, if they participate at all. For them, presidential campaigns offer at best an occasion to preach the libertarian gospel to the wary public, and the more table-pounding the better. As for the tea partiers, they seem less interested in practical policy solutions to America’s problems and rather more interested in fighting a culture over what it means to be authentically American. Unless ostensibly liberty-loving conservative voters become convinced that the sensible liberalisation of drug and immigration policy is implied by the inspired language of the Constitution of Independence, the eagle will not soar for Mr Johnson.  

The elements of Mr Paul’s past and creed that Mr Somin, Ms Dalmia, and I find objectionable are not really liabilities. They are an important part what makes “Dr No” a candidate capable of generating surprising amounts of enthusiasm and campaign cash, if not votes. Mr Paul and the tea-party movement are each in their separate ways creatures of Cold War-era conservative-libertarian “fusionism”, which remains a powerful ideological and institutional force on the right. In contrast, Mr Johnson comes off as a post-fusionist, libertarian-leaning fiscal conservative. The very existence of such a creature heartens me, but it remains that there exists in our culture no popular, pre-packaged political identity that celebrates and defines itself in terms of these laudable tendencies. “Liberaltarian” pragmatism has no electoral future in the absence of support from social movements and institutions dedicated to promoting it. Mr Johnson’s main contribution during the race for the Republican nomination may be simply to show voters that the lonely ground on which he stands is there to stand on.

This is depressingly accurate and well-put to boot. Johnson’s style – relaxed, calm, patient – is ill-suited to the times. His principles and beliefs challenge conservatives and liberals alike while offering nothing to the nationalist ressentiment that pervades the Republican party these days. Ron Paul’s movement is, fundamentally, based on emotion; Johnson makes the mistake of trying to appeal to reason. That won’t work this year. Paul wants to stand athwart pretty much everything shouting “No”; Johnson makes a case for libertarian-minded government that might do something to make some things a little better. He says “Yes”. That won’t work either. Nor does his essentially live-and-let-live approach have much chance of persuading an overwhelmingly authoritarian conservative electorate.

In the end, Gary Johnson appeals to Reason subscribers*, the people who attend events hosted by the Cato Institute and other middle-class enlightened types distressed by the parade of grotesques offered by the “mainstream” parties. That’s a lovely constituency and one that contains many fine people but it’s not enough to make much of an impression on anything. Nor does it help that Johnson is from a tiny state and been out of office for eight years while Paul has form over course and distance with all the name-recognition advantages that confers.

Nevertheless, if he does nothing other than bring attention to the miseries and injustices of the War on Drugs, Gary Johnson will have done his country some service during the course of his noble, doomed campaign.

*After you have subscribed to the Spectator you should subscribe to Reason too.

UPDATE: As you might expect Matt Welch has lots on this. I like Jesse Walker’s line too: “for now, let [Johnson and Paul] double-team all the authoritarians on the stage.”