Gary Johnson – “Libertarian” Candidate – is Out of His Element

John Glaser, April 12, 2012

In an interview with the Daily Caller, presumptive Libertarian Party nominee for president Gary Johnson tries heartily to describe his foreign policy…or at least a foreign policy. Plainly put, the man is confused.

He says he supports U.S. military intervention in Uganda to root out the Lords Resistance Army and kill its leader, Joseph Kony. He thinks the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen creates more enemies than it eliminates, but doesn’t want to take drone strikes off the proverbial “table.” He wants to “completely withdraw our military presence” from Afghanistan, but wants to keep our military bases there. In fact, U.S. military bases should be maintained throughout the Middle East, he says, even though America faces “no military threats.” He supports “humanitarian intervention.” He wants to cut military and defense budgets by 43 percent, but only reduce national security spending to 2003 levels, “and just wring out the excess.”

Johnson is putting forth an image of himself of a former New Mexico governor who is outside the political establishment and serious about cutting spending. But evidently, the man hasn’t a clue what he is talking about with regards to foreign policy. His musings about war and intervention are little more than guesswork, wading his way through what he supposes is the libertarian position, while making clear he is no non-interventionist.

There is a strange habit the public and the reporting politicos perform when it comes to presidential candidates. They seem to assume that, since candidate X is running for president, surely he has studied the issues carefully. They don’t question candidates on their knowledge, only their “positions” (assuming they have been formed more than a millisecond before the question was asked). This was evident with Herman Cain’s blank-slate talk of “trusting the generals” and his embarrassing reveries about how to pronounce Uzbekistan. Mitt Romney has similarly shown himself cutely untaught on foreign policy issues by claiming Russia is America’s greatest foe, apparently never before hearing of the MeK, and doing a bit of guesswork of his own on Iran. But it seems Johnson has spent too much time on his 43-percent-spending-reduction talking points and far too little gaining any knowledge or developing any principled position whatsoever on foreign policy.

Responding to the Daily Caller interview, Brian Doherty at Reason’s Hit & Run wrote “he seems to lack either the systematic thinking or moral fervor that makes me trust him to reliably come to truly libertarian conclusions on many issues.” Ah, “systematic thinking” …such a lost art.




  • chalosvertune

    Everyone is entitled to have the same thing for a candidate from this field. But you should be able to choose someone who really understands this field with the.Roomba 780 Review

  • RobertSuki

    Being one of the librarians are preferred by many people is a matter of great pride. You can find the right candidate if only this person can not work it.turn offs for men

  • AnthurMoon

    Elements that can not be met by the candidate will be a minus the value of the person. Other candidates may have had the greater value that can be chosen by the people.vantasticautodetailing

  • http://www.kerudungbandung.com kerudung bandung

    I wish he would do a little homework on the Kony thing but I don't think he is necessarily believes what he is saying. I feel that he may just be acting like a politician right now. Republicans have Mitt Romney, and they don't like him, so he's saying i wouldn't be as non-interventionist as other libertarians to appeal to the conservative vote. All he has to do is have enough votes in the polls to make him seem like a viable winner of the general election. Who knows maybe this strategy will work, I'd much rather have Johnson than Romney or Obama.