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

Response to Anti-war blog's post "Gary Johnson – 'Libertarian' Candidate – is Out of His Element":
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/04/12/gary-johnson-libertarian-candidate-is-out-of-his-element/


Great points, especially since it's early days in the Libertarian presidential primaries. There's still time for one of the other Libertarian candidates to gain traction on this issue, which would either force Governor Johnson to arrive at clarity on the issue, or lose ground. I agree, Governor Johnson's foreign policy is muddy at best, and is certainly suspect. Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above Governor Johnson on this issue.

However, as context is everything, I think that it would be helpful if you compared Governor Johnson's positions with those of Governor Romney, and the actual record of President Obama. Governor Romney would almost surely continue the status quo Republican hawkishness. President Obama's foreign policy record has been a disaster (countless zero-due-process assassinations including those of AMERICAN CITIZENS, none of which the administration has not bothered to justify -- not that there can be a justification of assassination; flipping his position repeatedly on Guantanamo Bay, occupation of Iraq, and occupation of Afghanistan). When you contrast Governor Johnson with the leading Republican and Democratic candidates, he starts to look really good, even in his muddled, incomprehensible state. The problem is, if you merely attack Governor Johnson, most readers will assume that you're encouraging them to support either President Obama, or Governor Romney, either of which would be a mistake.

And, since it's always preferable to suggest alternatives when pointing out short-comings, whose positions would you support? Who's got it right?

You could probably tack on three or four sentences and cover all of this, and would provide a more complete picture for readers, and hopefully not lead them to think that Governor Johnson is less preferable than President Obama or Governor Romney on this issue, because he's certainly not. As a FAR greater lover and advocate of liberty and freedom than either of the establishment candidates, he'd be superior to either of them. His foreign policy positions have slowly been evolving, and as best as I can tell they've always changed for the better (as opposed to either Governor Romney or President Obama). He'd eventually come around to the position that you and I share, but, I agree, let's get his thinking clear now rather than after a costly failed foray or two.