ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Why you should vote Libertarian this election

Updated on June 29, 2016

The crook and the con

Hillary Clinton is being investigated by the FBI for violating national security laws, information request laws, and has a host of scandals in her wake, both of her doing and her husband's.

Donald Trump is facing fraud charges related to Trump U, and has turned off all but his most rabid fan base. He is a publicity stunt waiting to happen, a reality star who can't seem to avoid the spotlight. He also has a track record for drawing the wrong kind of attention from the Department of Justice and the State Department regarding his actual successful businesses.

One of these two has to win right?

Fortunately, there are other options. One of which is former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. I will go over the party's views on what Americans see as the most important issues, and how this party views each issue.

Gary Johnson and his VP Bill Weld


About Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson was a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003. His record from that time could be summed up as follows:

In an interview in Reason magazine in January 2001, Johnson's accomplishments in office were described as follows: "no tax increases in six years, a major road building program, shifting Medicaid to managed care, constructing two new private prisons, canning 1,200 state employees, and vetoing a record number of bills". According to one New Mexico paper, "Johnson left the state fiscally solid", and was "arguably the most popular governor of the decade… leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus." The Washington Times reported that when Johnson left office, "the size of state government had been substantially reduced and New Mexico was enjoying a large budget surplus."

In 2008, he endorsed Ron Paul, and in 2012, ran as a Republican for President, but received little attention and was excluded from many of the debates. He did, however, have the best line of the September 22 debate, according to many outlets such as the Los Angeles Times and Time, stating:

"My next-door neighbor's two dogs have created shovel ready jobs than this administration."

Entertainment Weekly actually named him the winner.

He then joined the Libertarian Party, and won their nomination. He won more votes, though only 0.99%, than all the other candidates not named Romney or Obama combined.

former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld

About Bill Weld

William Weld was the Massachusetts governor from 1991-`1997. In 1994, he won re-election by the largest margin in storied Massachusetts' history. He ran in 1996 for the US Senate in 1996 but lost to incumbent John Kerry. He resigned in 1997 to focus on nomination by President Bill Clinton to be the Mexican ambassador. However, he wasn't a popular choice of Jesse Helms, then heading the Foreign Relations Committee, and removed his name from consideration.

He was also a US Attorney and in the Justice Department under President Reagan.

In eventually conceding the ambassadorship, he had this to say, "I asked President Clinton to withdraw my name from the Senate so I can go back to New England, where no one has to approach the government on bended knee to ask it to do its duty."

According to, "Ending the budgetary free fall bequeathed by Dukakis has been Weld’s signal achievement as governor. He has balanced each of his budgets without short-term borrowing and without raising taxes—in fact, the state has finished each year with a slight surplus, and some business taxes have been cut. In September 1995, Financial World ranked Massachusetts the 11th-best-managed state in the nation; four years earlier it had ranked the Bay State dead last."

Of course, being Governor in a die-hard blue state like Massachusetts did create issues with further government shrinking.

This sums up the general attitude of Libertarians on ISIS and terrorism

Libertarians on the economy & budget

"By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable. Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush--and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.

It doesn't have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending. No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget." (source: 2016 presidential campaign website , Jan 11, 2016)

"I suspect I am not the only American asking, if a trillion dollars' worth of stimulus didn't work, why will another $450 billion do the trick? Whether it be jobs created with borrowed and newly-printed dollars, temporary extensions of tax cuts, or sending money to the states to postpone layoffs, none of the President's proposals will remove the real obstacles to job creation. Government cannot create jobs. Businesses, entrepreneurs and investors can create jobs, and right now, they are simply afraid to do so. And they should be. They are looking at a national debt that is consuming the private economy, more deficit spending with no end in sight, and a regulatory environment that promises only new and costly surprises every day.

Government is absolutely a big part of the jobs problem, but it is not the solution--other than by getting out of the way. Congress and the Administration have almost helped us to death."

Source: Response to 2011 Jobs Speech, on , Sep 8, 2011

In short, we can balance the budget by cutting defense spending and bailouts. He also has proposed, as seen above, getting out of nation-building, and getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries. The belief is by strengthening the US dollar once more, consumer spending will increase, therefore increasing jobs, and the economy.

Johnson on healthcare

Immigration, taxes, trade deals, education, crime, abortion, and gay rights views

On immigration, open the border. 1 strike on violating visa and an illegal is gone, and let some, but not all, illegal immigrants stay.

As for taxes, Gary Johnson is on the record with abolishing the IRS and the corporate tax. The party on the whole supports the end of the income tax, and a 23% non-essential consumer (read luxury) tax.

As for trade deals, Johnson wants to end tariffs and corporatism.

As for education, Johnson supports school vouchers, end Department of Education as it wastes money, allow competition between schools.

When it comes to crime, Johnson supports an end to the War on Drugs, the death penalty, and states too many laws lead to too many prisoners.

On abortion, right to choose up until fetus is viable. The general party belief amounts to pro choice, no government funding.

On marriage, Johnson is on record with getting the government out of the marriage business all together.

He also supports an end to foreign aid and opposes gun control.


Another Johnson quote



I voted for him last election, and will vote for him again this time around.

Unlike Republican candidates, his record as the New Mexico governor shows that his rhetoric is matched by his actions.

Unlike Democrat candidates, he doesn't pander to any one group, and unlike Clinton herself, doesn't need an election cycle whose only goal was to hand her the nomination in order to get it. He fought a tough campaign to get the nomination.

He was quoted about describing his party as "We're fiscally conservative and socially, we don't give a damn." The quote actually belongs to one of his opponents, Austin Peterson. But what it amounts to is that what you do in your home and life, with your body, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, is your business.

I can get behind that. Feel free to comment below. I do ask the comments be kept civil and not be hijacked by name-calling.

The next political hub I plan on doing will be on the Green Party and Dr. Jill Stein. Until then....


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Randy Childers 21 months ago from Michigan

      Sorry for the slow response. Working more lately, and apparently talking about ClinTrump is making me physically ill. And I've been hunting for a second job. Not sure how much more help from the government I can afford.

      Ah yes, poor Hillary. So harassed and hated, and so undeserving of such a fate. I'm sure if we just gave her a chance, we'd learn to love her.

      Sorry, the Hillary apologists get tiresome. I'm not sure I get your point. On a HubPage dedicated to the benefits of voting Libertarian, you say people should vote for Hillary because Republicans are repugnant and practice partisan politics, all while pointing out flaws in Democrats while ignoring their own flaws?

      You do realize one of the mantras of Libertarians is that there is almost no difference between the two parties?

      Don't answer that. Instead, answer a few questions for me.

      1.) If the roles were reversed, and this was former SoS Rice running for President, would you be showing this much outrage at her treatment by Democrats? I assure you her treatment would be just as bad. Hell, W's drinking record from high school was brought up. Much of the material Republicans used against Bill during the 1990 election came from the Democrat primaries. (Whitewater and Bill's track record with women, for instance) You run for President, you'd better be prepared for increased scrutiny. Especially when you have a habit of doing things that would get a regular Joe fired at best, thrown in jail at worst.

      2.) So are you now outraged at the treatment of former CIA director General David Petreaus? He gave classified information to his biographer. He didn't leave it on a private server whose security, in Comey's own words, was woefully inadequate.

      3.) Will you be backing the pardon of Edward Snowden? I mean he showed Americans just how deep the government is monitoring them. Now he's an exile.

      If I copied and forwarded sensitive email from my company to someone outside my company, using my desktop, and was caught, at best I'd be fired, and almost certainly prosecuted. I certainly would not be in position to be CEO of said company.

      That's the problem with this election. We've allowed these politicians to believe they are above us, and above the laws they write that we must abide by.

      Neither Hillary nor Donald deserve the White House.

      If you insist we need a woman President, vote for Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party. I outlined them in another topic. Heck, if you're a Democrat you should anyways. They actually represent the base the Democrats claim to.

      Personally, I'd say vote Johnson, but at least Stein is honest, consistent in her positions, and doesn't appear to be willing to sell her moral standing in order to get elected. (like Bernie did)_

    • lovemychris profile image

      Cape Wind Girl 21 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      they weren't investigated because no one called for it. they only called for it because it was Hillary Clinton. if you recall, it took over a year and only due to pressure from jersey girls to investigate 9/11. and then what? a bogus commission where they admit information was withheld, witnesses ignored, etc.

      so, who pushed for harrassment of Clinton? Republicans. who stalled investigating Bushco? republicans. it's called partisan punkery. punks and partisans. not an honorable one among them.


    • profile image

      Randy Childers 21 months ago from Michigan

      Not sure what a sos would be doing during a hurricane....

      Neither handled classified info during their term on a private server.

      Neither had a system the fbi director stated was dangerous and insecure. And neither was being investigated by the fbi for viilating foia and national security laws for using a private server whose sole purpose was to get around transparency laws, all while demanding a more transparent government.

      Very hypocritical and against obama's declaration of the most transparent administration in history

    • lovemychris profile image

      Cape Wind Girl 21 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      no, but a lot of conservatives wanted him to. and you can bet they would have touted his time as sos as a huge reason to vote for him. Funny, they wanted Rice, too. and she was in London buying shoes during hurricane katrina! but she was sos....a prestigious title until a Clinton got it.

      and my goodness, Powell and Rice used private servers, too!!

      my, how things change when power shifts.....sore losers, or just plain ignorance?

    • profile image

      Randy Childers 21 months ago from Michigan

      Jgshorebird, thank you for the clarification. I actually had no real issue with the concept of a luxury tax btw. My lone issue would've been how a luxury would be defined but your clarification sounds better

    • profile image

      Randy Childers 21 months ago from Michigan

      Didn't say her stint was insignificant, just nothing to brag about.

      As SoS, she was responsible for the further destabilizing in the middle east in the aftermath of arab spring.

      As for powell, he's not running for president. In fact, not many former SoSs have become President. (feel free to coreect me but I believe Jefferson was the only one)

    • lovemychris profile image

      Cape Wind Girl 21 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      she's not running from anything. she gives detailed explanations for those who care to know. others hear Clinton and their emotions set in.

      and it's funny that I never heard being sos was so insignificant before. nor senator.

      I guess a man can pee standing up and that's a great accomplishment!

      hey Powell, your stint as sos was nothing. someone should tell the cons, tho.

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 21 months ago from Southeastern U.S.

      Interesting hub. I was watching the polls lately and checked him out again. Other that him not being very popular, I see little wrong with his positions.

      I think your brief description of his Fair 23% Tax is misleading however. I've read Neal Boortz's books about that. The tax ends up being far smaller on everyone, but you need to follow the logic of it.

      It's certainly not perfect, but compared to the current tax code, it's a Godsend. The primary thing you need to grasp is that the Fair Tax only taxes the end product, as a consumption tax, not all the stages in between. This reduces the costs of all products by enormous amounts, thereby increases (in theory) the standard of living.

      It's not a luxury tax.

    • profile image

      Randy Childers 22 months ago from Michigan

      Well, in that defense, her time in one was, hmmm, nothing special and she now runs from everything she actually did vote for, and her time as SoS wasn't worth bragging about either, from arab spring to libya to benghazi, just not a good tenure.

      Course if a first term senator two years into that term, with nothing to show for his time no less, is qualified, and wins....the list of people qualified to be President just got a lot bigger.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Cape Wind Girl 22 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes, and fiscally conservative, socially liberal is a good thing in my book.

      But watch out, people here said being senator, and sec of state is nothing. No big deal at all. So how can guvnah' be much different? ;-)

      Only a 4 time bankrupt businessman is qualified.

    • profile image

      Randy Childers 22 months ago from Michigan

      See your point. The big dig sounds like your version of our zilwaukee bridge here in michigan.

      Though the blame for that seems to include dukakis and weld's successor, as well as weld of course.

      Couldn't find much on his tenure and prior to his VP nomination, I'd never heard of him. I know the LP members were lukewarm on him, at best.

      With that said, the ticket has more experience in leadership than both candidates combined.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Cape Wind Girl 22 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yeah, we should know about the weapons, we gave them to him! Just like we give Israel white phosphorous to use on children.

      I'm just saying the big dig was an issue here in Boston, and Ted Kennedy took plenty of heat for it.

      Google Bechtel. Same old same old.

    • profile image

      Randy Childers 22 months ago from Michigan

      Iraq wasn't illegal. It had tge approval of congress, which is more than can be said about any other us led attack since ww2.

      And even ww2 was iffy considering our navy had been fighting both germany and japan for 2 full years prior to pearl harbor

      This is in no way saying invading iraq was right, but hussein was known for having, and using, chemical weapons prior to the invasion, and several intelligence agencies aside from ours believed he was working on nukes.

      And it's only fair to mention that some of hillary's buddies benefited from removing gadhafi from power in Libya.

      Point being, neither side has been innocent in warmongering. Look at the aftermath of obama's arab spring.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Cape Wind Girl 22 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      I like Weld personally, but the problem he had was Bechtel. The Big Dig in Boston. I guess he was pals with the owner of Bechtel....they ended up in Iraq after the illegal invasion, too. Like a Haliburton jr. As a Republican though, he was a pretty cool guy.

      At least these two believe in personal freedom for women, unlike the GOP.