#morethanredandblue: Mr. Johnson and Mr. Weld's Platform

As sort of a bonus, I wanted to review the third party campaigns that are trying to gain traction in this unusual election year, starting with the Libertarian Party, presidential candidate former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM), and vice presidential candidate former Governor William Weld (R-MA). Given that it was difficult to locate a reliable transcript of the acceptance speeches from the party convention, I will review their official issues stances from their campaign website (quotes from content accessed on August 5, 2016).

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld want to get the government out of your life. Out of your cell phone. Out of your bedroom. And back into the business of protecting your freedoms, not restricting them. 

This is why Gary Johnson embraced marriage equality before many current Democratic leaders joined the parade. He was also the highest ranking official to call for an end to the drug war and start treating drug abuse like a disease instead of a crime.

His vice presidential running mate, Governor Bill Weld, was not only an early proponent of civil rights for gays and lesbians, he actually appointed the judge who wrote the opinion that established marriage equality as a matter of constitutional right. He is also an outspoken defender of a woman’s right to choose, rather than allow the government to make such an important and personal decision for them.

This is the one moment where an approach contrary to Catholic Social Teaching can really be detected. Because libertarians are so committed to keeping the government out of as many things as possible, they prefer that the government not legislate on many social issues. So to some extent, they abstain on hot-button social issues; however, Mr. Johnson's issues page is sure to point out that these candidates were on the front lines of gay marriage advocacy and support a woman's right to choose, even if largely as a way of keeping those decisions out of government and in the hands of citizens.

To me, this falls somewhere between abstaining on the issue and advocating for it. I don't think these gentlemen would be fervent advocates for abortion, but they likely would obstruct any legal movement toward tightening abortion restrictions or moving to overturn the court decision. In this regard, I find their stances troubling in the context of The Dignity and Value of Human Life, as the unborn are not likely to be protected here.

In terms of gay marriage, I don't think I'll ever be settled with the use of "marriage" to describe any same-sex relationships. However, I do support legal protections and rights for homosexual people, as I believe these are part of our calls to community and rights and responsibilities. I believe disconnecting the word marriage from these relationships is a necessary first step, but on the other hand, protecting the social rights of homosexual people is important as well.

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld don’t want to build an expensive and useless wall. The only thing a big wall will do is increase the size of the ladders, the depth of the tunnels, and the width of the divisions between us. Candidates who say they want to militarize the border, build fences, and impose punitive measures on good people, ground their position in popular rhetoric, not practical solutions. 

Governors Johnson and Weld believe that, instead of appealing to emotions and demonizing immigrants, we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society.
Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it.

Mr. Johnson appears to be in favor of more comprehensive immigration reform, and specifically calls out policies that close off our country or don't dignify immigrants. In a CNN Town Hall, "Johnson, a former border governor, called Trump's calls for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants and the erection of a border wall 'incendiary,' and bordering on 'insanity.'" He seems to desire a fair balance between legal reforms to utilize the people who are here and legal reforms to improve the processes by which future people will enter. This strategy is more human-focused and to me reflects the calls of social teaching better that closures.

And who is most harmed by the War on Drugs? Minorities, the poor, and anyone else without access to high-priced attorneys. More generally, mandatory minimum sentences for a wide range of offenses and other efforts by politicians to be “tough” have removed far too much common-sense discretion from judges and prosecutors. 

These factors, combined with the simple fact that we have too many unnecessary laws, have produced a society with too many people in our prisons and jails, too many undeserving individuals saddled with criminal records, and a seriously frayed relationship between law enforcement and those they serve.

Interestingly here, Mr. Johnson combines drug problems, social discriminations, and police-community relations. There seems to be increasing momentum toward decriminalizing drugs in low amounts to try to depopulate our prisons from having so many non-violent offenders and to redirect police resources from these type of arrests to other more pressing concerns. My gut says this could be a good thing, as we can focus law enforcement efforts on reigning in violence, but I do worry about the negative impact that this might have on the long-term atmosphere of drug traffic. It's tough to balance the calls of social teaching to have a clear sense of what's best, here. It is good to see a wider approach that aims to improve multiple root issues.

Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President. Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market. Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

A solid nod to Care for God's Creation here. Free market principles lead Mr. Johnson to limit government involvement, which can also be good potentially for subsidiarity. It seems like there's a decent balance between seeking intervention where the environment must be protected but also allowing free market competition to guide the energy economy.

Governor Johnson’s approach to governing is based on a belief that individuals should be allowed to make their own choices in their personal lives. Abortion is a deeply personal choice. Gary Johnson has the utmost respect for the deeply-held convictions of those on both sides of the abortion issue. It is an intensely personal question, and one that government is ill-equipped to answer.

On a personal level, Gary Johnson believes in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. As Governor, he supported efforts to ban late term abortions. However, Gov. Johnson recognizes that the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land, and has been for several decades. That right must be respected and despite his personal aversion to abortion, he believes that such a very personal and individual decision is best left to women and families, not the government. He feels that each woman must be allowed to make decisions about her own health and well-being and that the government should not be in the business of second guessing these difficult decisions. 

Gov. Johnson feels strongly that women seeking to exercise their legal right must not be subjected to prosecution or denied access to health services by politicians in Washington, or anywhere else.Appreciate Life. Respect Choice. Stay Out of Personal Decisions.

This is where Mr. Johnson may lose the solid strands of Catholic Social Teaching. The libertarian impulse is strong and consistent, continuing here as his platform continues emphasizing the government's unfitness to decide these types of things. Like Senator Kaine, Vice President Biden, and others, Mr. Johnson personally opposes abortion but does not apply that position to his political positions. This might satisfy some but disappoint others as it veers away from actively reinforcing social teaching.

In the CNN Town Hall, "Johnson and Weld also both affirmed their abortion rights positions. Johnson said Republicans 'alienate a lot of people' when they attack Planned Parenthood, a women's health organization that provides abortion procedures. 'We're not looking to change the law of the land in anyway,' Johnson said."

Again, I think this is a hugely important dialogue that needs to get further fleshed out as this campaign unfolds. As Catholics are constantly faced with candidates who don't entirely match with the consistent ethic of life, we have to consider how we want to evaluate candidates who match our values with their personal positions but don't advocate for them in policy.