Trump and Hillary not the answer, but neither is Johnson

presidential-election-1336480_1280

Since the Democrat and Republican parties have put up some of the worst candidates we have ever seen many people are left searching for an alternative.  Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson hails himself as the best of both parties, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  Johnson is telling the truth in that regard.  He is much more fiscally conservative than any candidate the GOP has had in a long time, and he also is very socially liberal.  Coming from the Libertarian Party one would think that the liberal part would not be an issue for conservative and libertarian Christians because as a libertarian surely he doesn’t want the government to force liberal positions on people.  The problem is that in some areas he does indeed want to use the force of government on those issues just like any other democrat.  I will say upfront that he is a much better candidate than either Trump or Hillary but having said that, he holds to some positions that disqualify him from consideration.

 

The first disqualifying position is that of abortion.  Even though Johnson is pro abortion (I refuse to use the term “pro-choice”, since a person who thinks it should be legal to kill their child in the womb is necessarily pro abortion), I do think a Johnson presidency would do more overall to limit and decrease abortion.  The reason for that is that Johnson opposes Roe v. Wade which means that he would rather the decision should be on a state level.  Since there are many states that would surely make abortion illegal, this would be a big step towards ending abortion.  Johnson also has said he would appoint Judge Napolitano as a Supreme Court Justice and Judge Nap is very much a pro life judge.  That said, Johnson’s position on abortion is still that it should be a personal choice.  As I previously stated this is essentially saying that he refuses to uphold his duty as a governing authority to protect the right to life of children in the womb.  If a candidate cannot get that most basic right correct, I cannot vote for him nor can I suggest anything other to Christians than not voting for him.

The second disqualifying issue is one that is connected to freedom of association and the right to property, along with the freedom for Christians to follow their conscience.  Johnson has taken the position that the government should force a business to provide services for a gay wedding even against their conscience.  When pressed with the question of whether a Jewish bakery should be forced to bake a wedding cake for a Nazi wedding, he affirmed that the government should indeed force them to do so.  This position is an affront to the Christian religion and extremely dangerous.  Johnson has basically said that the government is lord of your conscience.  The implications of this are frightening.  Taken to its logical conclusion this would also mean that a church could not refuse employment to a gay person even for the position of pastor.  This is a dangerous attack on the church.  The other problems with this position are, as I have mentioned, that they are very un-libertarian as they deny freedom of association and the right to property.  Freedom of association says that no one has a right to force you to associate with another person whether in business or social life.  This means that a black person should not be forced to associate with or do business with a KKK member or a Jew should not be forced to associate with a Nazi sympathizing white supremacist.  No one has a right to another person’s time or property.  The right to property is also at play here in that a business is the owner’s property and he has a right to do with it as he pleases so long as he doesn’t use it to initiate violence on another person

The final issue is less a problem with Johnson himself and more with his choice for his Vice Presidential running mate.  William Weld is the former governor of Massachusetts. In his time there he enacted some gun control.  This again is an affront to the right to property and the freedom for a person to defend themselves.  Along with that, Weld has supported eminent domain.  Eminent domain is essentially the government helping itself to private property “for the public good” whether the private owner wants to sell it or not. Once again I cannot support voting for those who promote government taking that which does not rightfully belong to it.

Honestly I very much hoped and wished that the Libertarian Party had put forth a candidate that I could vote for.  Here in Oklahoma the Libertarian Party finally made the ballot (previously in Oklahoma you could only vote Republican or Democrat with no option for a write in).  There are some more minor issues that I would have been willing compromise on when it comes to my vote but these are major nonstarters.  As I previously mentioned Johnson is much better than Hillary or Trump when it comes to fiscal issues.  For the most part he is for a limited government but his positions against the lives of the unborn and his positions against biblical Christianity mean I will once again be leaving the check box blank when it comes to the President.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Trump and Hillary not the answer, but neither is Johnson

  1. I would oppose a Johnson presidency too, but not necessarily for all of the same reasons listed above. Leaving the abortion issue up to the states is to deny the absolute definition of human life that includes the unborn. That is a point against Johnson but in a subject that is not addressable at this time. And it isn’t addressable because we religiuosly conservative Christians have no credibility in the abortion argument with those who must join us in a coalition to oppose abortion. We must work with noncnservatives to stop abortion. But we can’t recruit them in such a coalition because we don’t have credibility because too many of us, for the most part, have reduced the pro-life position to the status and fate of the unborn. For example, a former colleague who is is pro-choice told me that he didn’t mind discussing the abortion issue with me because of my other views such as on war and safety nets.

    Second, framing the gov’t’s right to force Christian business owners to do business with same-sex weddings reduces the issue to the internal conflict felt by the Christian business owner. It neglects a wider context such as the role of business in a Capitalist economy as well past uses of conscience in cases of discrimination. And that reductionistic approach shows how insular we sometimes are in society.

    To allow one business to refuse to provide goods and services in a business transaction to a group because of conscience is to potentially allow all businesses to follow suit. It matters not that these businesses might do business with the LGBT community in other settings, the reason why they refuse to provide goods and services to a same-sex wedding is because of the sexual orientation of the participants in the wedding. In addition, marriage is an essential part of society and the pursuit of happiness.

    Would we describe the Gov’t’s efforts to eliminate Jim Crow where part of their battle was to force businesses into providing goods and services to nonWhites an instance of where government was lord of the conscience? Or would we describe the refusal to provide goods and services people because of one religious views of race an example of using one’s religion to practice discrimination? Are we assuming that the conscience reigns supreme and is accountable to no one?

    Finally, my concern regarding American Libertarian candidates is their domestic policies. Their approach to domestic policies is based primarily on Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Such allows for the consolidation of wealth and the consolidation of wealth allows for the consolidation of power. In addition, by neglecting the vulnerable we have exercised injustice against them.

    Btw, one might be able to tell that I am not a political conservative. Does that mean that I support Hillary? Not at all. I could never support a candidate who promotes Neol-liberal Capitalism and Neo-Conserative foreign policies.

    Like

    1. Good thoughts there and you are correct that the libertarian position I described would allow for all sorts of discrimination in business transactions no matter how despicable some of those discriminations may be. Because I believe the freedom of association to be a basic right it is a necessary negative that goes along with that right. I absolutely believe though that those who discriminate in an immoral manner should not get our business as Christians.

      More thoughts later when I get some free time.

      Like

  2. I agree with you that Gary is not the answer, but I encourage you to vote anyway, not to leave the check box blank. If you cannot bring yourself to vote for Trump, Hillary, or Gary, consider voting for the Constitution Party Candidate, Darrell Castle (http://castle2016.com/). He seems like a good conservative choice. I am not necessarily endorsing him, just saying that he is someone you can possibly vote for.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s