Daniel Larison points to this profile of former New Mexico governor, Gary Johnson, in The New Republic, writing:
The more significant difficulty Johnson faces is that all of the reasons why I would want to support him (e.g., his views on civil liberties, foreign policy, the drug war, etc.) are the reasons why he would be persona non grata for much of the GOP. Like Ron Paul’s run in 2008, a Johnson campaign would be refreshingly oriented toward ideas and policy, and it would show many of the leading candidates to be hypocrites and frauds when it comes to protecting constitutional liberties, balancing budgets, and reducing spending. More than that, it would offer libertarians and traditional conservatives a decent alternative, and it might force some healthy and much-needed debates on the security/warfare state, foreign policy, and the drug war.
In Larison’s earlier post on Johnson, he mentions two things he found troubling about Johnson during his tenure as governor: he was an enthusiast for privatized prisons, and he brought legalized gambling to the state, and especially to the Native American reservations. I tend to line up with Larison’s view on both these subjects. Privatized prisons create too much moral hazard – much as too-powerful prison guard unions can. And gambling, by its very nature, creates wealth by destroying it, so the moral hazard there is also pretty glaring.
That being said, Johnson’s positions on civil liberties, foreign policy, and the war on drugs dovetail nicely with my own, and are quite a lot better and more coherent than anything we’ve seen out of either traditional Democratic or Republican candidates. I’m not nearly the sort of fiscal hawk that Johnson is, preferring to keep reasonable spending levels on public education, transportation, and health, but at least he’s consistent in his approach to both civil liberties and fiscal affairs. Indeed, if the Tea Party was as coherent as Johnson, I might even join up – though my participation would be more a protest of our egregious drug policies and our failed security policies than anything. Limiting government must mean more than simply limiting taxes and spending if it is ever to become a truly coherent political force.
Of course, Larison is also correct that Johnson probably won’t stand a chance, even in the Tea Party climate and despite his excellent spending record. Nor am I sure I’d vote for him. But I would like to see him shake things up.
