It’s Okay—and Makes Sense—to Support Both Rand Paul & Gary Johnson

Warring Between Libertarian Factions Does No Good

by Josh Guckert

Since the end of Ron Paul‘s Presidential run in 2012, it was highly anticipated that both Rand Paul and Gary Johnson would run for President in 2016. Of course, both did, with varying levels of success. Currently, Johnson continues his pursuit of the White House, while Paul now works to retain his Senate seat in Kentucky. One constant however is that admirers of each seem to always attack the other candidate.

During the Republican primary, the Johnson libertarians attacked Paul for his foreign policy and immigration stances. They often refrained that Paul was not a “true libertarian” and had been a failure as compared to his father. Johnson himself was fairly critical, calling Paul a “social conservative” and not a libertarian.

He begrudgingly admitted he would vote for Paul against Clinton if there were no Libertarian nominee. Johnson made up to Paul when the candidate dropped out of the Republican primary, saying that Paul was a lone voice for liberty in the campaign.

A year later, and Paul libertarians seem to have not forgotten the hassle which Johnson and supporters put their candidate through. The Paul faction now often accuses Johnson of being not a “true libertarian,” and on the conservative front, they attack his stances on immigration and abortion in particular, as well as his opposition to “religious freedom” laws which would allow commercial actors to discriminate.

Needless to say, given their libertarian tendencies, the two candidates share most positions on the issues. Of course, when “filling the gaps” in areas where libertarians can be at odds, Paul tends to take the conservative side, whereas Johnson takes the progressive side. In most cases, either belief can be defended as legitimate and consistent with libertarianism.

Realistically, the most stark difference between Johnson and Paul is in tactics. Rand Paul and Gary Johnson have both decided that they are going to try to change the “beast” from within by participating in the political process. Both got elected as Republicans and faced strong opposition from inside the party for their libertarian views.

Years later, however, Johnson decided to take a different route. While still remaining pragmatic in engaging politics, he now undertakes the difficult task of using the Libertarian Party as his stomping grounds. Third-parties have been historically discriminated against, winning few races across the country and rarely breaking one percent in Presidential races.

Running outside the Republican Party gives Johnson fewer resources to communicate his message, but also less freedom in how he does express his thoughts. He needn’t toe any party line to remain in lockstep with “establishment” donors or national fundraising committees. While he may upset some leadership in the Libertarian Party, their influence is minuscule as compared to the Republicans and Democrats.

Paul, on the other hand, has a much larger platform for his libertarian ideas. In addition, barring unforeseen circumstances, he will likely always have the luxury to get reelected to the Senate, because he has stayed on friendly terms with the GOP. However, he must sometimes compromise. For example, he received much criticism from libertarians in 2012 for endorsing Mitt Romney. Similarly, in 2016, while he has been much more hesitant and roundabout in his support, he has essentially endorsed Donald Trump.

Which of these paths will guide libertarianism and its ideas to more success and garner more eyes and ears? It is impossible to know. However, one thing remains constant: both Paul and Johnson deserve the respect and support of libertarians across the country. They each have varying methods and flaws in ideological purity, but they also have done (and will continue to do) a great service for the movement.

Civil wars between libertarians in an attempt at “one-upmanship” do nothing but hold back the advance of the principles which hold together believers in liberty. Differences in style and delivery are minor as compared to the overall positives which personalities of all walks can bring to libertarianism.