Stephen Green: The Libertarian Case for Mitt Romney

Here  is the PJ Media article referred to in the post below.

I have a Libertarian friend who’s likely to vote for Gary Johnson, but is open to supporting the GOP — if someone can convince her why Romney should get her vote. With just five weeks left, I suppose it’s time for somebody to make the libertarian case for Mitt Romney.

Before we begin, a few words about the actual Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson. Johnson is almost everything you’d want. He’s a solid libertarian without being weird about it — and you know exactly what I mean. He doesn’t come with the baggage of Ron Paul’s cult of personality. Best of all, Johnson has real executive experience as the governor of New Mexico. And he won’t be elected president of these United States in a millionty-billion years.

In fact, he’ll be lucky to break one-half of one percent of the popular vote…

Read more…


62 thoughts on “Stephen Green: The Libertarian Case for Mitt Romney

  1. RedPhillips Post author

    “He’s a solid libertarian without being weird about it — and you know exactly what I mean.”

    If I was a Libertarian, this would bother me. The fact that Gary Johnson doesn’t scare people like Stephen Green is the reason I wouldn’t want him as my candidate.

  2. Zapper

    Hello Stephen Green.

    The fact is that Romney can NOT win. His odds are now essentially zero. Romney’s chances of winning are now lower than Gary Johnson’s chances of winning.

    Yes, it seems counterintuitive. But Romney has negatives that prevent him from increasing his voting percentages beyond where is is today in the polls. Sure, the Republicans have the option of using massive electoral fraud – but, hey, they don’t need our votes for that.

    On the other hand, Gary Johnson has no such negatives. He has no upper limit on his percenage of the vote. This means that given enough exposure, Johnson has a chance – small, but greater than Romney’s chances – of winning.

    At this point its time for everyone considering voting for Romney to realize that he cannot win and that voting for Romney amounts to casting a protest vote against all the other candidates.

    So, unless you absolutely support Romney in every way and prefer him over all the other candidates, you should NOT vote for Romney – that truly would be a wasted vote.

    Instead you should vote for the candidate who best represents what you believe in and register your true feelings with in the public arena when the votes are tallied 5 weeks from now.

  3. paulie

    That would still be the case even in a very close election, your vote would still be extremely unlikely to swing a state much less the national election.

    Voting only makes sense as a means of public self-expression of preferences.

  4. Steven Wilson

    If someone can bridge Mitt Romney into Gary Johnson then that person doesn’t understand liberty.

    I have never fully understood the transfer from GOP into the LP. A person must know nothing about natural law, individual sovereignty, macro and micro economics, and social contract in order to support the GOP.

    And to “wake Up” and search out the LP seems odd to me.

    If your friend is on the fence, tell them to stay there and paint it yellow.

  5. Oranje Mike

    Trying to build a libertarian case for Romney is like trying to build a libertarian case for Obama. Counterproductive and insulting to libertarians.

  6. Stewart Flood

    Did I fall asleep and wake up on April Fools Day? A Libertarian case for voting Romney?

    This story belongs on The Onion.

    It is easier to build an artificial wormhole and travel through it than it is to make a Libertarian case for either Romney or Lbama.

  7. paulie

    How about a llama?

    The llama (Lama glama) is a domesticated South American camelid, widely used as a meat and pack animal by Andean cultures since pre-Hispanic times.

  8. Richard Winger

    Everyone interested in this subject ought to be a rabid, energetic supporter of Instant-Runoff Voting (ranked-choice voting) and ought to join or support Fairvote.

  9. Steve M


    Yep, Instant run offs and eliminate legislative districts at least at the state level.

  10. Jared King

    Nice try, Stephen Fry. But isn’t this song and dance a little old? Granted he plays a better tune than other “libertarians” (Boortz/Dondero/Root) because he doesn’t have a hard on for the military or act as if Reagan actually reduced spending…so he’s a better salesman than even the Vegas huckster, but he’s selling a product that we the people already bought. His pitch? Obama really sucks. Big whoop, we all know that. The case for Romney? He hasn’t sucked as much. Not yet.

  11. Jared King

    Ah, who am I kidding with that “Not yet” nonsense. Not ever, Romney cannot win.

  12. Steve M

    Andy, what you can’t make a case for voting for a candidate that wants to allow indefinite detention by the military without access to the courts? that wants the government to make the younger generation pay for the healthcare of the older generation? that wants to let companies like Monsanto force farmers to only allow crops that have their genetically modified genes feed you?

    No case for Romney Economics (about the same as Obama economics)?

    Very self centered of you not to give up your rights and the rights off all generations to the corporate politicians.

  13. paulie

    Everyone interested in this subject ought to be a rabid, energetic supporter of Instant-Runoff Voting (ranked-choice voting) and ought to join or support Fairvote.

    Some people prefer approval voting.

  14. paulie

    There is no libertarian case for voting for Mitt Romney.

    The case seems to boil down to Romney being a lesser evil. Except that he is not.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    The case that this L would make for Romney is that he’s not Obama and 2nd terms are generally more destructive than first terms.

    There is no case to VOTE for Romney that I can think of, since voting is a symbolic gesture by an individual. A prez race has never been decided by a single vote.

    I think I’m rooting that Obama loses mostly because second terms are generally pain-filled events, and it now appears the Rs won’t win the Senate.

    Of course, I will be voting GJ and feeling very good about it, better than Clark ’80 or Paul ’88.

  16. DSZ

    A vote for Romney is a wasted vote at this point. He was nearly unelectable when he won the nomination and now he is almost certainly unelectable at this point. Objectively, if you vote for Romney, and he does not win, what tangible benefits does that bring? None. However, if you vote for Johnson, and he does not win, what tangible benefits can that bring? Namely,

    -Ballot access in several or all states
    -$100 million in FEC matching funds
    -Possibly changes to major parties’ platforms so they’ll stop losing votes to the LP (see the balanced budgets of the 90’s as a possible response to Perot…yeah it didnt last long but it was something)

  17. paulie

    It’s not a matching fund, and it doesn’t reach 100mm until you get to vote parity with the major parties (starts at about a tenth of that when you reach 5%), but otherwise you are correct. There are also less tangible party building benefits, such as more people joining, donating, becoming local candidates, becoming active in various ways, etc.

    We won’t get ballot access in all states – PA doesn’t recognize a major party until they have 15% of the registered voters, and major party primary candidates have to petition as well – but we could certainly improve our position.

    Getting the majors to change their policies to head us off at the pass is the real prize. If you vote for either of the major parties you are just asking for more of the same, basically in the same position, just at a slightly different angle.

  18. Ryan C

    Building a libertarian case for Mitt Romney? That’s like asking someone “What kind of condiments would you like on your turd sandwich?” It’s still a turd sandwich.

  19. paulie

    Why do Republicans assume that a vote for Libertarians is a “vote for Democrats”? Wouldn’t Democrats just as accurately presume it’s a “vote for Republicans”? Both are equally correct, that is, not at all.

    They are both quite persuasive in explaining how bad the other one is. Excellent reason to go on the record voting against both of them, preferably in a way that is counted and reported on election day, best of all one that expresses one’s actual policy preferences.

  20. Clay Shentrup

    I don’t understand Richard Winger’s support for IRV and FairVote.

    I’ve shown him proof that IRV doesn’t actually solve the spoiler problem or make it safe for you to support your favorite candidate:

    And FairVote is known to commonly make misleading and even blatantly false claims. For instance:

    Clay Shentrup
    Co-founder, The Center for Election Science

  21. DSZ

    22 – my bad! I really did butcher the FEC funding thing didn’t I? I don’t even know why I called it “matching” – obviously GJ won’t get that kind of warchest this cycle barring a miracle. But I seem to recall $100 m being mentioned, I suppose that’s the upper limit though. Oh well, at least at 5% the LP would get a little somethin somethin, along with ballot access in most states (saving a pile of $$).

  22. Kevin Knedler

    Let’s me think on this one–LOL
    The GOP and Romney insiders try to kill first amendment freedoms of voting for Gary Johnson and attack the LP in many states, including MINE! That be OHIO. And after we spend time, talent, hours off of real jobs, and MONEY, the GOP wants us to vote for them. Are you fricken kidding me. I want to vomit.

  23. paulie

    Given the state of the economy that the last Republican president left us, and the current Democrat has done nothing to solve (with Republican and Democratic congresses alike), dry heaving may be a better option than vomiting.

  24. Ian Smith Lives

    For those of you planning on not voting for Romney this year, ask a Rhodesian or a Boer what awaits you in a second Obama term. You may wish to reconsider.

  25. Gene Berkman

    President Obama has had nearly 4 years in which he could have bombed Iran, and didn’t.

    It looks like too much of a possibility that Mitt Romney would bomb Iran just to prove he is not a “Massachusetts Moderate” and that is a chance not worth taking.

    If people are afraid of Obama’s penchant for interventionism leading to destruction of the free market economy, that is a reasonable worry. But I doubt that America’s market economy can survive a war, or even just the military spending that Romney & Ryan are advocating.

  26. Zapper


    How’s that Racists for Obama thang workin’ out for ya?

    We should get back to the birth certificate issue – we need to see both candidates’ certificates. Their policies are nearly the same and equally bad … ya know, these two are really twins, planted by a super secret conspiracy.

    Add that little chestnut to the Planter’s can you call a skull.

  27. Zapper

    … wait … you’re supporting Romney?

    That crap is so offensive that it will increase Obama’s vote totals, not Romney’s, so you must actually be working for Obama.

    No matter. Both suck.

    … but you suck more …

  28. Thomas L. Knapp


    Given that the only really noticeable difference between the two candidates is their skin color, I’m surprised that the appeals to that “issue” aren’t even more overt.

  29. Kevin Knedler

    Ian, you just don’t get it. The GOP is as bad as the DEM’s. Two wolves in the kitchen deciding what is for dinner and we (the Middle of America) are sitting in the next room. You OBVIOUSLY do not understand OR CARE about the first amendment. The GOP does not.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    KK, I think it’s a mistake to say that the Rs are “as bad” as the Ds. This is condemnatory language, effectively an attack on R and D voters.

    I suggest that we focus on the fact that R politicians are “as bad” as D pols in terms of their policies and track records. We should APPEAL TO R and D voters who substantially agree with the L approach. We should point out to those who DON’T agree with the L approach that the track record of Rs and Ds has lead the nation in a calamitous direction, and suggest that they take another look at their assumptions and values.

  31. Tom Blanton

    I’m not voting for Obama because he is too white. Same goes for Romney, but double. It’s time for a Native American to be Chief – but only if she promises to dismantle the white man’s government.

    Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are white men. It’s just that they tend to be tyrants. They also lie, or speak with forked tongue, a lot.

  32. paulie

    2nd terms are generally more destructive than first terms.

    Are they?

    Shrub’s second term was when the current economic problems started, but not as a result of anything that he was not already doing in his first term.

    I can’t think of ways that Clinton’s, Reagan’s or Eisenhower’s second terms were substantially worse than their first.

    Nixon’s second term was cut short, but the US finally got out of Vietnam, and the collapse of his presidency was probably good thing by way of undermining “faith in government.”

    FDR did much of his damage in his first term.

    Wilson did manage to get the US into the European war in his second term, but he already had the institutions of the Federal Reserve and income tax under his belt by then.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    44 p, I agree that seeds are often planted in the first term that sprout in the second. True certainly for W. Clinton’s second term was marked by his being impeached. Reagan had IranContra, IIRC. WaterGate dominated Nixon’s second, truncated term. LBJ’s was disastrous with Vietnam’s escalation, to the point he decided not to run for a third, which he could have done.

    Second-term Administrations seem to get more and more arrogant, controversial, and lost, is my impression, optically speaking, at least.

  34. paulie

    I think the Nixon, Reagan and Clinton second term scandals are a good thing. They undermine faith in the system, which doesn’t deserve anyone’s faith. If Obama likewise gets mired in a second term scandal, why is that bad? It would most likely mean that no new major legislation will get passed – and with Democrats and Republicans still in charge, major new legislation is pretty much always a bad thing.

    You have a point about LBJ, but can we really count it as his second term? He did serve out the last year and change of Kennedy’s term. However, the term you refer to was the first one he won on his own and the first and only one he served in full.

  35. Robert Capozzi

    P, I hear you. I’m not sure how much 2nd term scandals have diminished the (alleged) “cult of the omnipotent state.” There may well be less starry-eyed perspectives on politics than there was, say, 50 years ago. And yet the government gets nothing but bigger. There may be a greater skepticism about POLITICS than ever, but faith in big government seems as strong as ever to me, based on results.

    My sense is a change in Administration from R to D or D to R tends to reverse/slow down some of the dysfunction of the previous Administration. Carter, for ex., brought in some fairly significant deregulations. His excesses were somewhat reversed by Reagan, although Reagan amped up other destructive policies.

    The other BIG swing factor is whether there’s divided government or not. Until the day comes (if ever) that liberty is adopted as the governing True North, I’d just as soon see a series of one-term prez’s from alternating parties, with both houses being from the OTHER party.

  36. paulie

    I think divided government is the bigger factor.

    Looks like Congress is most likely to stay Republican, but maybe not if Romney’s tailspin reaches epic enough proportions.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    P, agreed that divided government is the bigger factor. A change in Administration seems significant in context as well, and I personally like to see karmic justice play out. Incumbents generally point away from liberty, therefore they should not be re-hired, from my perspective.

    I am hearing the House stays R, but the Senate stays D. Rs likely to retain more than 40 senators, though.

    With that, I will vote GJ, root Romney most tepidly, but anticipate BHO 2.0 and more dysfunction of the flavor we’ve had for the past 2 years. And pray for cyclical (actual) recovery and/or a new technology boost.

  38. Douglas Donaldson

    Will you learned fools still be having these arguments even while you watch packs of African and Mexican savages gang raping your wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, granddaughters, grandmothers?

    What about when they rip chunks out of your living flesh and eat them in front of you, after they have broken every bone in your body and skinned you alive?

  39. Robert Capozzi

    DD, no, that seems unlikely in your HIGHLY unlikely dystopian vision?

    Has it occurred to you that your hating ways only hurt yourself? It must be hard for you to sleep with such paranoid fantasies rolling through your head.

  40. Nigel Burnley

    It will be harder for you to sleep after you have been tied to chair and forced to watch your children raped and burned to death. None too uncommon for Rhodesians and Boers to have experienced after their nations were “liberated” by the same communist savages that will complete their takeover of the USA if there is a second Obama term.

  41. Robert Capozzi

    NB, yes, that does sound unpleasant. Interesting how you associate the Rhodesian experience with contemporary US, and the numerous logic leaps you employed to do so. Impressive on one level.

    Do you worry more about the Greys or the Greens?

  42. Kevin Knedler

    I hear you Robert. But join me in the front row of a Federal Courtroom sometime as I watch the GOP hacks trying to take away our voting freedoms.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    SM, wow, I’d not realized that there are still paranoid fringers worried about the “Reds.” Isn’t that, like, so 1958? I thought you all had moved on to “jihadists” and “rag heads” and so forth.

    My race is human and my nation is earth, though I am pretty keen on the US piece of it. I just don’t see the boogeyman in every shadow.

  44. paulie

    Something I’ve never understood about the Obama Doomsayers…why would he need to wait for a second term to do all these horrible things they envision?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *