Candidate Gary Johnson Discusses Lemonade, Wikileaks, and Recording Police

by Garret Ean
Sept 3 2011

Two term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is a candidate for president who’s facing a corporate media blackout. He’s been excluded from all but one nationally televised debate, despite polling better than some candidates who are considered mainstream. The likely reason is because he represents a very different sort of republican candidate.

Gary Johnson is most noted for his willingness to talk about the harms caused by prohibition policy, which to many is still considered a taboo subject. In the GOP presidential race, Ron Paul is the only other candidate willing to talk about prohibition, and even he has been smeared for taking a stance against such policy. Some have equated Johnson’s current media blackout predicament with Paul’s situation four years ago, where he faced hurdles in entering debates. Fortunate for Paul, his absence from media coverage has been addressed in some high profile ways (such as Jon Stewart referring to Ron Paul as a 13th floor).

Of the many presidential candidates I’ve met over the years, both republican and democrat, Johnson is easily one of the most accessible and down to Earth. His openness is complimented by his divergence with many mainstream republicans on a host of issues. Being the governor of a border state, Johnson acknowledges that illegal immigration is a problem — not because people coming to the United States to work is a bad thing, but because of how bureaucratic the immigration process is, which makes it virtually impossible for the impoverished to obtain legal work and creates the black market that lawmakers like to pretend does not exist. Johnson also opposes the military industrial complex, which has in recent decades unfortunately become a staple of the republican party through neoconservative ideology. As the Obama administration has demonstrated that military interventionism is not solely a republican interest, we’re left with a field of mainstream candidates who all openly support status-quo Washington military domination.

Ron Paul vs. Gary Johnson

A simple way of stating the difference between Paul and Johnson is that Paul appeals more to a socially conservative libertarian audience, whereas Johnson has more independent libertarian appeal. This is not to say Paul is too similar to those traditionally given the socially conservative label, such as Michele Bachmann. While Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, his position is not that the federal government should prohibit the practice, but rather that states should be able to make their own decisions on the matter. This federalist approach also applies to his position on prohibition policy. Paul supports allowing states to have any level of prohibition that they so choose, and acknowledges that the federal government is not even constitutionally authorized to make such policy. Since the Wickard v. Filburn case in 1942, the federal government was given de-facto ruling power over the states, with the supreme court at the time alleging that anything the federal government wants to control can be covered under the interstate commerce clause, whether or not the law in question even applies to commerce crossing state lines. This point is even acknowledged in the infamous anti-cannabis propaganda film Reefer Madness, during a scene in which a proponent for cannabis restriction states that it is unfortunate that the federal government has no authority to ban the plant. To get around this, prohibitionist Henry Anslinger drafted the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which banned cannabis by forcing those in possession of cannabis to receive a tax stamp which the federal government simply refused to issue.

Not having lobbied for any state level changes to drug or abortion laws, Paul gets less flack than Johnson, who as the executive of New Mexico, openly supported cannabis legalization. Applying his opposition to the state level, where the rubber meets the road, led to law enforcement groups denouncing Johnson. Johnson also could be considered more socially liberal in that he does not oppose early term abortions.

The Concord Monitor ran a story yesterday covering two of Johnson’s visits in Concord, featuring a photo of myself interviewing him at NHTI on the front page. The Monitor’s story focuses one how Johnson’s opposition to the drug war has given him an outsider status, but also highlights other issues central to his campaign, such as cutting government spending. Spending cuts are a popular issue among all republican candidates, but with many continuing to support the military industrial complex, its unclear where they would apply the cuts that they wish to make. Many supporters of military buildup believe it to be an actual net gain for the economy, which is a great example of the classical liberal French economist Frederic Bastiat’s broken window fallacy.

Here’s my interview with Gary Johnson at Castro’s and NHTI, with the Monitor coverage posted below (click to enlarge). My questions focus on issues which get less attention in the mainstream media, including children’s right to sell lemonade, Wikileaks’ revelations about US war activities, and the right to record police.


About freeconcord

Viva Liberty
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Candidate Gary Johnson Discusses Lemonade, Wikileaks, and Recording Police

  1. CLS says:

    Wrong, you state Ron Paul favors states making abortion decision, not the federal government. He signed the so-called Susan B Anthony List, from the political Right, in which he pledges to support federal legislation to restrict abortion, regardless of what the states may do. You can see Ron’s signature on the pledge which promises to help pass the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is federal legislation that will restrict abortion access. Of course, knowing Ron, he’ll say he didn’t sign it, that someone who worked for him must have done it, that he doesn’t know who it was and isn’t interested in finding out. But his signature is on the pledge and this is federal legislation not state legislation.

    • freeconcord says:


      Perhaps you’ve found him making a contradiction. RP has been a politician on the national level for a long time, and he has compromised in places over the years. The most recent Time magazine article was the first source I found to verify this.,9171,2090364,00.html
      But Time can be filthy. The infallible Wikipedia:
      “…he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is “best handled at the state level.” He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”
      From WorldNetDaily:”The Constitution now does not explicitly interfere with the states obligation to punish people who commit murder, and killing an innocent fetus is to me an act of violence and it should be permitted that states prohibit this. I want to repeal Roe v. Wade. It should have never been heard, and the federal government’s obligation is to make sure that nobody is ever forced to fund abortions, yet we’re doing that all the time.”

      WND published some pretty disgusting articles that could be described as hit pieces on Bradley Manning, and though RP wouldn’t support that sort of thing, it is the media we are stuck with.

  2. Pingback: Local Libertarian Zombie Ad Circulates Web |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s