Tuesday, April 26, 2011

No, Ron Paul is NOT Snubbing Gary Johnson

Once Ayn Rand wrote that "The worst wars are religious wars between sects of the same religion or civil wars between brothers of the same race." Observe this about history and you will understand why the 2008 Democratic Primary between Clinton and Obama was so vicious and emotional. Now I'm already seeing signs of what might lie in store for the fledgling libertarian wing of the Republican Party-- and I'm horrified at the possibility.

Already, an acquaintance of mine whom I respect very much from what I know of him, especially for his work with an organization that I respect very much-- The Republican Liberty Caucus-- left a link on his Facebook wall today, which he says outlines some of his concerns about Ron Paul's 2012 bid for U.S. President. My friend has decided to throw his support behind Gary Johnson instead.

Now I wouldn't mind at all if I had clicked the link and read an article explaining that Ron Paul is getting too old, doesn't have executive experience like Gary Johnson, and has already created some negative associations with his name and brand among some Republican voters. Those are all valid reasons for a libertarian to support Gary Johnson over Ron Paul... and frankly I'm doing a little soul searching right now myself because I love both candidates so much.

But instead, I clicked the link and was treated to such an appalling spectacle of bad faith and ugly insinuations about Ron Paul's motives, that I had to leave a comment on my colleague's link and re-post a paraphrased version of it below, here at The Humble Libertarian. First, an excerpt from the offending article:

'In 2008, one of the few GOP endorsements Rep. Ron Paul received for his quixotic presidential run came from New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

Four years later, how did Paul repay Johnson’s loyalty? A few days after Johnson announces for president, Ron Paul also threw his hat in the ring.

Could it be that Paul feels this is his “turf” and that Johnson was invading it? Could it be that Sen. Rand Paul is the only worthy successor — and that until he’s ready to inherit the libertarian dynasty — Ron will defend the family business?

That is what some are speculating.'

And here is a paraphrased version (simply excluding some asides that would only make sense in the context of the entire Facebook discussion thread) of my response:

This article can't be serious. It implies that because Johnson endorsed Paul, now Paul can't ever run for president again if Johnson does. That's absurd.

The author of the piece asks: "Could it be that Paul feels this is his 'turf' and that Johnson was invading it?" Maybe. Could it be that Ron Paul is running for all the same reasons he ran last time and in 1988, which don't involve some petty ulterior motive?? Uh yeah-- most likely.

What has Ron Paul EVER done to indicate that he was anything but completely and selflessly devoted to the liberty message and political agenda? It is a token of bad faith for anyone to imply that the kindly Ron Paul has ever been in this for anything other than liberty itself.

If you think he's in it for his ego, I'd recommend spending two decades in relative obscurity and frequently ending up on the losing side of 434-1 votes, and see what that does for your ego.

Wanna support Johnson? Be my guest. I adore the man. But please, can we agree that this article is ridiculously unfair to the Texas Congressman?


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page