Why Ron Paul over Gary Johnson?

[Cobbler]

Something I can't really understand is why libertarians I know tend to prefer Ron Paul over Gary Johnson. It seems to me that Gary Johnson is more of an actual libertarian while Ron Paul is more of a paleoconservative. He believes in individual liberties at all levels, while Paul just believes in them on a federal level (he more or less thinks states should be able to reduce our liberties however). Johnson also has executive experience running a state and won reelection twice, while Ron Paul has just been a Representative.

The reason that I could think that people would be supporting Paul over Johnson may be because of name recognition, but I think it could be argued that had Paul not gotten into the race, then the libertarian vote would have gone to Johnson and he'd have done better. Plus, Johnson was in to actually win, whereareas I get the impression that Paul is either in it to help his son's future career or because he has liked being the leader of a movement.

So why is it that libertarians prefer Paul to Johnson?

[oakvale]

Johnson's just kind of goofy, Paul is much more suited to the role of apocalyptic cult leader.

Obviously Johnson's somewhat less of a joke than Paul, and has the advantage of not (as far as I know) being associated with white supremacists and other undesirables, but it's a perception thing.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

1 - Johnson has poor national name recognition & even weaker electoral prospects than Paul.
2 - What Oakvale said. Johnson lacks charisma, while Paul inspires devotion.
3 - Many Ron Paul supporters find paleoconservative-style libertarianism more appealing than Johnson's brand (what you call "actual libertarianism").

[Big Wiggly Style]

For me, I probably match Gary Johnson more issue-wise, but Ron Paul just has that charisma. When he speaks, I stop to listen. It's inspiring almost. I mean, not in the way that Obama is inspiring, but it makes sense. When Gary Johnson speaks it's just kinda dull.

[ChairmanSanchez]

For me, I probably match Gary Johnson more issue-wise, but Ron Paul just has that charisma. When he speaks, I stop to listen. It's inspiring almost. I mean, not in the way that Obama is inspiring, but it makes sense. When Gary Johnson speaks it's just kinda dull.

Paul has an odd charisma. I do not know what it is, but I love it. I feel like I am fixing a problem by supporting Paul. Gary Johnson does not have the leadership qualities, in my opinion. When I hear him, I think "makes sense but will never happen". Then Paul will say the exact same thing, and I interpret it differently. He knows how to use the Constitution and Congress to get it done.

Arlo Guthrie (who I might go and see Friday night) said it right: Paul is the only candidate who would of signed the Constitution if he were there. I don't even think Johnson would.

[Cathcon]

Paul has had over thirty years to build a reputation as "Dr. No", a defender of civil liberties, an opponent of foreign intervention, etc. he's used his platform as a Congressman much more than Johnson has as a Governor to push his political agenda, has actually run on a Libertarian ticket, and also has a Presidential campaign from four years ago that has built him organization and once more, name recognition. Paul is the leader of the movement, Johnson's a goofy follower. (I personally think Johnson could've been a good candidate had he run in the right year, 2000 or 2008. He was a popular governor from a swing state with a good fiscal record. However, he's waited til ten years after leaving office to try something and no wonder he's failed, especially when originally it was thought he'd support Paul or vice-versa)

[Dr. Cynic]

For me, I probably match Gary Johnson more issue-wise, but Ron Paul just has that charisma. When he speaks, I stop to listen. It's inspiring almost. I mean, not in the way that Obama is inspiring, but it makes sense. When Gary Johnson speaks it's just kinda dull.

Paul has an odd charisma. I do not know what it is, but I love it. I feel like I am fixing a problem by supporting Paul. Gary Johnson does not have the leadership qualities, in my opinion. When I hear him, I think "makes sense but will never happen". Then Paul will say the exact same thing, and I interpret it differently. He knows how to use the Constitution and Congress to get it done.

Arlo Guthrie (who I might go and see Friday night) said it right: Paul is the only candidate who would of signed the Constitution if he were there. I don't even think Johnson would.

I suppose you and I define charisma differently. We probably do. Every time I look at Paul or listen to him talk, all I see and hear are a weak-voiced old man who looks like a stiff breeze would blow him over.

I'm also not quite sure I understand your last point. What does Guthrie mean by saying Paul is the only candidate who would have signed the Constitution if he were there? There's no way to prove that statement true or false, especially considering that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which were proven failed. In doing so, one has to put themselves in the position of a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, only then can they determine if they would have signed it. Guthrie's statement is pure conjecture as I interpret it.

[Communists For McCain]

For me, I probably match Gary Johnson more issue-wise, but Ron Paul just has that charisma. When he speaks, I stop to listen. It's inspiring almost. I mean, not in the way that Obama is inspiring, but it makes sense. When Gary Johnson speaks it's just kinda dull.

Paul has an odd charisma. I do not know what it is, but I love it. I feel like I am fixing a problem by supporting Paul. Gary Johnson does not have the leadership qualities, in my opinion. When I hear him, I think "makes sense but will never happen". Then Paul will say the exact same thing, and I interpret it differently. He knows how to use the Constitution and Congress to get it done.

Arlo Guthrie (who I might go and see Friday night) said it right: Paul is the only candidate who would of signed the Constitution if he were there. I don't even think Johnson would.

I suppose you and I define charisma differently. We probably do. Every time I look at Paul or listen to him talk, all I see and hear are a weak-voiced old man who looks like a stiff breeze would blow him over.

I'm also not quite sure I understand your last point. What does Guthrie mean by saying Paul is the only candidate who would have signed the Constitution if he were there? There's no way to prove that statement true or false, especially considering that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which were proven failed. In doing so, one has to put themselves in the position of a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, only then can they determine if they would have signed it. Guthrie's statement is pure conjecture as I interpret it.

Considering what the Articles of Confederation entailed and that the Constitution was viewed by (diehard) defenders of the Articles as pretty much a concession to centralized government, Ron Paul might actually be the only candidate to not sign the Constitution.

Now if the guy was talking about the Declaration of Independence....yeah I could see that.

[Big Wiggly Style]

Mechaman's right. In the days of the Constitution, the major focal point was to create an effective central Government. But now, the Government has gotten so out of control that Ron Paul is advocating a Constitutional view of Government. Basically, in the days of the Constitution, Ron Paul would have argued entirely for State Government control.

[Hashemite]

Ron Paul charismatic? What next, Stephen Harper a liberal environmentalist?

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Gary Johnson is a libertarian. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. Really, for America's current needs and seeing how our freedom's are being degraded, I would prefer either one of them. Paul's just got the namesake to back him up.

[Lief]

Most of Ron Paul's supporters are not actually libertarians, not in the way the word is traditionally used. They're mostly working-class anti-government conspiracy types, so Paul's bizarre conspiracy-fueled paleoconservatism is right up their alley.

[oakvale]

Ron Paul charismatic? What next, Stephen Harper a liberal environmentalist?

We don't see it, obviously, but then we don't have the bug in our brains that makes people see Ron Paul as the next Thomas Jefferson. Paul appeals to some weird part of the reptile brain, especially in the young (given his vote totals thus far, mostly those too young to vote . To take Chairman Sanchez's - who's like fifteen years old - quote...

Paul has an odd charisma. I do not know what it is, but I love it. I feel like I am fixing a problem by supporting Paul.

You see?

And, yes, this -

Most of Ron Paul's supporters are not actually libertarians, not in the way the word is traditionally used. They're mostly working-class anti-government conspiracy types, so Paul's bizarre conspiracy-fueled paleoconservatism is right up their alley.

[Gustaf]

Why Mitt Romney over Jon Huntsman?

[ChairmanSanchez]

For me, I probably match Gary Johnson more issue-wise, but Ron Paul just has that charisma. When he speaks, I stop to listen. It's inspiring almost. I mean, not in the way that Obama is inspiring, but it makes sense. When Gary Johnson speaks it's just kinda dull.

Paul has an odd charisma. I do not know what it is, but I love it. I feel like I am fixing a problem by supporting Paul. Gary Johnson does not have the leadership qualities, in my opinion. When I hear him, I think "makes sense but will never happen". Then Paul will say the exact same thing, and I interpret it differently. He knows how to use the Constitution and Congress to get it done.

Arlo Guthrie (who I might go and see Friday night) said it right: Paul is the only candidate who would of signed the Constitution if he were there. I don't even think Johnson would.

I suppose you and I define charisma differently. We probably do. Every time I look at Paul or listen to him talk, all I see and hear are a weak-voiced old man who looks like a stiff breeze would blow him over.

I'm also not quite sure I understand your last point. What does Guthrie mean by saying Paul is the only candidate who would have signed the Constitution if he were there? There's no way to prove that statement true or false, especially considering that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which were proven failed. In doing so, one has to put themselves in the position of a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, only then can they determine if they would have signed it. Guthrie's statement is pure conjecture as I interpret it.

Considering what the Articles of Confederation entailed and that the Constitution was viewed by (diehard) defenders of the Articles as pretty much a concession to centralized government, Ron Paul might actually be the only candidate to not sign the Constitution.

Now if the guy was talking about the Declaration of Independence....yeah I could see that.

I made a misstatement. Paul would not sign the Constitution in 1787, and as usual, I got caught up in my own stupidity. You all are indeed correct that Paul would of lead the charge AGAINST it in 1787. But, alas, as 20RP12 pointed out, we are now only trying to reduce government back to where it was when the Constitution was adopted.

[Communists For McCain]

Ron Paul charismatic? What next, Stephen Harper a liberal environmentalist?

We don't see it, obviously, but then we don't have the bug in our brains that makes people see Ron Paul as the next Thomas Jefferson. Paul appeals to some weird part of the reptile brain, especially in the young (given his vote totals thus far, mostly those too young to vote . To take Chairman Sanchez's - who's like fifteen years old - quote...

Paul has an odd charisma. I do not know what it is, but I love it. I feel like I am fixing a problem by supporting Paul.

You see?

And, yes, this -

Most of Ron Paul's supporters are not actually libertarians, not in the way the word is traditionally used. They're mostly working-class anti-government conspiracy types, so Paul's bizarre conspiracy-fueled paleoconservatism is right up their alley.

To be fair I don't really consider Paul to be the most charismatic politician ever.  But so definitely the hell isn't Gary Johnson.

I mean no offense but Gary Johnson almost makes Tim Pawlenty sound excitable.  I'm not talking about positions here, I'm talking about personality.  Gary Johnson strikes me at best as a long time psychologist specializing in dealing with patients with a history of drug and alcohol abuse.  One-on-one the man could convince you he's your best friend forever over a cup at the local fair trade coffeehouse.  However, when standing on a stage before television audiences of millions of people the effect becomes very dissonant.
That's where the difference between "likability" and "charisma" comes in.  Gary Johnson is probably the most likable candidate on a personal level, but he doesn't have any charisma.

Ron Paul may not have the right kind of charisma, but at least it's there.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Johnson strikes me as a somewhat sane libertarian in that he actually focuses on real issues and not End the Fed/Gold Standard type nonsense, but I'm not surprised he can't generate the fanfare Paul does. Paul has been a vocal proponent of libertarian causes for several decades and made a real name for himself in Congress, Johnson is just some former Governor who has called for legalizing marijuana.