Last week, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson announced his candidacy for president of the United States.
This was a historic event, because 1) Gary Johnson wants to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and 2) Gary Johnson is a Republican. He also wants to slash the military budget.
Gary Johnson is also opposed to the "war on drugs," which he has called "an expensive bust." Indeed, as The Hill noted:
"Last year, he teamed up with singer Melissa Etheridge and actor Danny Glover for a Hollywood rally in favor of Proposition 19 -- an initiative that would have legalized marijuana in California."
This suggests that Gary Johnson can play well with others around issues of common concern.
It is tremendously important that there be at least one Republican candidate for president who is against the war in Afghanistan.
Polls show that Republican voters have turned against the war. But the majority of Republican voters who want U.S. troops out of Afghanistan are so far almost totally unrepresented by Republican officials in Washington. Gary Johnson's campaign could break through the national Republican wall, because as a candidate for president, Gary Johnson will be able to get into the media, and the national Republican party leadership -- "the party's ruling class," as The Hill put it -- won't be able to silence him. Even if he doesn't get a dime from Lockheed or Raytheon, they won't be able to keep him off the stage in the early Republican debates, and that will change the discussion.
A Washington Post/ABC News poll in March found that 56% of Republicans think the United States should "withdraw a substantial number of U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan this summer." That is, the majority of Republican voters are ahead of the Obama administration, which hasn't yet committed to a substantial withdrawal this summer.
But the high-water mark in the House so far for Republican support on any initiative against the indefinite continuation of the Afghanistan War is nine votes. That's about 5% of the Republicans in the House. 5% versus 56% -- that's a pretty big gap. The enforcement of the will of the Republican Party's "ruling class" against the will of the majority of Republican voters is a key pillar in sustaining the war.
This pillar of the war must be attacked. The candidacy of Gary Johnson is a weapon for doing so.
Of course, Gary Johnson's candidacy faces obstacles. He is not a billionaire. He is not backed by the party establishment -- no candidate against the war will be. He will not be backed by the establishment media.
On the other hand, Gary Johnson's candidacy has a potential X weapon: Americans who typically don't vote in Republican primaries and caucuses who want to end the war.
After all, we all want to support democracy in Cairo and Madison. Why not support democracy in the Republican Party on the question of the war?
Now, some may be thinking, what does this have to do with me? I am not a "Republican."
But whether you are a "Republican" or not, you have to live with the consequences of the fact that the national Republican Party is not representing the majority of Republican voters who want to see U.S. troops come out of Afghanistan, because this is a key buttress of the continuation of the war.
Corporations back Republicans and Democrats, as it suits their perceived interests. So do labor unions, environmentalists, women's groups, and gay rights groups. Why should peace advocates be any different? What one does in November is one thing; what one does in the primary season is another. If there is no Democratic primary for president, if there is no anti-war primary for Congress where you live, why waste your anti-war vote in an uncontested primary?
Many states have open primaries: any voter can vote in any primary. In other states, you have to register with a given party in order to participate in that party's primary. New Hampshire -- a critical, early state, where the Eugene McCarthy campaign showed the Lyndon Johnson administration the depth of anti-war sentiment -- is in-between: If you register as an "undeclared" voter, you can vote in any primary.
But even if you live in a state with a "closed primary" -- check with local authorities for rules and deadlines -- political parties in America are squishy things. Who's to say you're not a "Republican"? You are if you say you are. In the future, you can say something else.
Of course, many people will consider the temporary assumption of a "Republican" identity, even for a day, as a bridge too far.
But consider: if you could stop the killing in Afghanistan by temporarily assuming a "Republican" identity, would that not be morally justified?
In Jewish law, the protection of human life takes precedence over all. Therefore, voting in a Republican primary to end the war is a mitzvah.
And what would Jesus do in this situation? Wouldn't Jesus vote in a Republican primary to end the war? As the Bible says, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
James Peron: The Rodney Dangerfield of Politics: Gary Johnson, His Message and Evolving
to end public education. End it. He is an Ayn Rand libertarian. He wants to get rid of all regulation of businesses. He probably thinks rich people shouldn't have to pay any taxes, only us hoi polloi. http://www.dailykos.com/comments/969981/41302497#c61
“It takes too long, and only get us a quarter of where we should be many years down the road,” he said.
That puts Johnson to the economic right of his other 2012 rivals, but he’s to their left on social issues, which could give him trouble in the Iowa and South Carolina primaries, where there is a heavy evangelical voter base.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/156893-known-for-stance-on-pot-johnson-readies-2012-bid-
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/156893-known-for-stance-on-pot-johnson-readies-2012-bid- >...Johnson’s strain of libertarianism often looks much like Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas). Even though Paul has a devoted following, he rarely hits double digits in polling and isn’t considered a serious threat for the nomination.
Johnson, though, thinks he can mount a more credible effort.
“Ron Paul, last go-around, got 9 percent of the Republican vote, and I was one of those 9 percent. But it’s gotta grow way beyond that [to win the nomination].”
But what Johnson won’t answer is how his message is any more palatable to the party than Paul’s.
“I’ll leave that completely to your analysis,” he says.
He claims the biggest threat to U.S. security is the nation’s debt, and to show how serious he is about fighting it, he says Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposed budget actually isn’t serious enough.
“It takes too long, and only get us a quarter of where we should be many years down the road,” he said.
I liked him as governor of NM, where he was anti-war, and anti-drug war.
I believe he's far more representative of where most "conservatives" are than the standard GOP crowd.
Neither did the DLC when it handpicked Obama.
if you polled democrats , that is one of the main reasons they voted for him - it was an anti Bush vote.....sadly neither party gives a damn what the people want.
between getting us out of the war, legalizing pot and cutting the military budget Gary Johnson is looking pretty good. Who cares what he calls himself ? Personally I think he's do a lot better running as an independent. Disgust with both parties is at an alltime high.
The truth is both parties should just call themselves the TOP ONE PERCENTERS
Of course this is exactly how Nixon won. By saying he was against the war and then dragging it out three more years.
But I will vote to end the wars no matter if the candidate is serious about it or not. Pres. Obama has already lost my vote and at this point I see no path to my voting for him.
He's right on the issues, more charismatic, and doesn't have the baggage and old-man slip-ups Paul does.
He's also truly for downsizing the size and scope of government.
We ( as in those represented by elected officials ) are making trillions off the war