Some libertarian-leaning and independent voters have been taking a look at Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, as an alternative to the vulgar, reckless Trump and the mendacious, hard-Left Clinton. I understand their angst, but Johnson disqualified himself in my view by recently embracing Black Lives Matter.
The conservative journal RedState understands what's wrong with BLM, but, oddly, says it's "not worried" about Johnson's warmth toward it. The magazine correctly describes BLM thusly:
Black Lives Matter is more concerned with retaliation for any wrongdoing, than it is solving the problem. It continuously uses intimidation, lawlessness, violence, and story fabrication to push its brand of racism as the result of being a victim. Like any other social justice group, the solution to the problem isn't as important as maintaining that victimhood. Any elements that are seeking peaceful solutions, or even achieve them, are soon disavowed by BLM.
Why then is RedState unconcerned with Johnson's alliance with BLM?
The author says:
Unlike too many on the left, who have only made the problem worse by throwing welfare and entitlements at minority communities, Johnson's solution won't be "free stuff." Instead, Johnson will likely take the route often taken by politicians like Rand Paul. It's all about criminal justice reform.
The problem is that "criminal justice reform" means undoing the very measures that, over the last generation, have saved so many black lives and have made black communities far, far safer than when they were the battlefields of the crack wars.
In other words, such "reform" will endanger blacks (not to mention everyone else). It would therefore be immoral, even if, with some seriously misguided people, it's popular.
The article goes on to say that Johnson's version of "criminal justice reform" would cut back on the vast excess of criminal laws, and would shrink government spending, which the author thinks has caused some of the problems blacks experience.
Where to start?
It's true that we have too many criminal statutes, but the excess lies mostly in those adopting strict liability and/or enforcing the regulatory state. By-and-large, those are not the laws that inflame interactions between blacks and the police. Instead, it's standard criminal law like prohibitions on robbery, assault and car theft; and drug laws, particularly the prohibition of hard drugs like crack, meth and heroin.
Such laws are not going to be repealed -- there being only tiny public support for doing so -- nor should they be, given the dreadful toll addiction and dependency take. This is nowhere more keenly felt that in the black community.
And it may well be that the explosion in cradle-to-grave welfare spending has undermined black family structure and, with it, the best hope for an improvement in the black crime rate (and the black crime victimization rate).
But a President Johnson will not be able to reverse an 80 year-long trend toward bigger government even if he were to make a serious effort (which I doubt). There is, unfortunately in my view, a societal consensus in favor of the welfare/administrative state. Ronald Reagan did not succeed in reversing it 30 years ago, and it has become just that much more entrenched, and bigger, in the last three decades. Johnson is not going to succeed where Reagan failed..
What we are left with is Johnson's having embraced what his supporters correctly describe as a vicious, toxic, dishonest movement, but without any realistic prospect that the remedies those supporters see will ever happen.
Johnson, in other words, has made a deal with the Devil that the Devil won't keep even if he wanted to. This shows poor judgment in addition, of course, to a willingness to make a deal with the Devil. And a kind of Devil -- anti-white racism and unhinged anti-police venom -- that is particularly dangerous at this moment.
NeverJohnson.
NeverJohnson indeed.
He lost me given his stance on criminal justice issues and his stance on Israel. His running mate, Weld, also stated that he would recommend justices like Douglas to replace Scalia.
Trump is not only vulgarian. He is IMO (and the opinion of psychiatrist Krauthammer) an infantile, narcissistic, sociopath. A very mentally sick man. The fact that he is even being considered to be the POTUS is mind boggling.
Unless he drops out, Trump is going to bring down the entire down ballot GOP ticket.
Nate Silver has HRC's chances of winning at approximately 82%. It's time for the GOP to confirm Garland. Although he might be at the top of HRC's list?
I would only add that one only need consider the Libertarian Party platform, before coming to the inescapable conclusion that they are truly nuts.
JCC
"Libertarian" but not for Christians/Orthodox Jews, Traditionalists, Anti-Nazis
Three times Johnson described Christians not baking wedding cakes for
homosexual 'weddings' as "discriminat[ing] on the basis of religion".
John Stossel: "So the Jewish baker should have to bake the cake for
the Nazi wedding?; Gary Johnson: “That would be my contention, yes.”
Johnson indicated that the government should not allow these Christian
and Jewish bakers "doing harm to a big class of people", by
presumably criminalizing or economically eliminating them. FoxBusiness, 3.31.16
~ Libertarianism? More like national socialism.