12/30/09 – Gary Johnson – The Scott Horton Show

For Antiwar.com and Chaos Radio 95.9 in Austin, Texas, I'm Scott Horton and this is Antiwar Radio.
Our next guest on the show today is Gary E. Johnson.
He is the former governor of New Mexico and he's got a new organization called Our America Initiative.
It's OurAmericainitiative.com.
Welcome to the show, Gary.
How are you doing?
I'm doing fine, Scott.
And thanks for the plug.
And yeah, we just went up with OurAmericainitiative.com and I'm very excited to be able to speak out on the issues of the day.
Yeah, right on.
Looks like you have a book here called Seven Principles of Good Government.
Is that new?
Yes.
It's actually not.
We have not finished yet.
I mean, we're still burning the midnight candle to get that done.
All right.
And now, so you're talking about raising money, but what for?
To be able to speak out on the issues of the day.
To see if those issues that I'm talking about resonate with people across the country.
See if they're perhaps just as mad as I am and starting out with the economy.
Secondly, the war, drug policy, civil liberties, health care, immigration policies, kind of a litany of just issues of the day.
And okay, so I mean, cutting to the chase, basically, you're testing the waters about perhaps running for president next time around.
Am I right?
Well, part of Our America Initiative, it is a 501c4, which prohibits me from stating any intention of doing that.
But it is an advocacy committee, and I am the honorary chairman, and I'm getting to yak.
All right.
Fair enough.
Okay, now here's the deal.
Foreign policy first on this show, and I'll go ahead and just do the whole full disclosure thing, and maybe it's not proper form for the way interviews are supposed to go or whatever, but I'm just going to spill my guts to you in hopes of getting you to do the same here, Gary.
The deal is that I can't stand politicians, and really there's only one that I have any regard for, and that's Ron Paul.
And honestly, I don't know all that much about you, but I do know that basically all that I've heard about you over the years has been good stuff.
He seemed like a principled guy, and that really stands in comparison to all the other people who are at least pretenders to the Ron Paul revolution and want to run as libertarian-leaning Republicans for Senate or for House of Representatives.
There's dozens of these guys all over the country, and none of them are any good, and all of them are willing to sell out principle at the drop of a moment's notice.
If Giuliani had called out any of the rest of these guys and said, how dare you say that American intervention in the Middle East led to us being attacked on September 11th, I demand you retract it, each and every one of these guys would have retracted it, Gary.
Ron Paul stood up there and said, no, I'm not going to retract it.
In fact, I'm right, and I'm going to teach you exactly what the hell.
And he was right there with a crowd full of people doing cat calls, a room full of belligerent Republicans taking Giuliani's side against him, and Ron Paul, I think, quite bravely stood up there and said, let me tell you something, and he told them the truth.
And so what I really want to know is, are you the kind of guy that is going to stand up there and say, no, you know what, I don't care what happens, the truth is the truth, and principle is principle, and I'm telling you what's up, and if you don't like it, fine, or are you going to, well, be like Ron Paul's son and say, oh, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, trial and then prison, never heard of that, and Afghanistan, yeah, it's okay to kill them, but you have to declare war on them.
What?
Declare war on the Karzai government, he says, and then we can kill Afghans some more, and it'll be all right because it'll be sanctified by a different sort of vote of the Congress or something.
This is what I'm getting out of my Ron Paulian politicians, and this is what I don't want to hear out of you.
You feel what I'm saying?
I do, and I'll let you be the judge.
I will tell you, Scott, I had a Mr. Smith goes to Washington experience as governor of New Mexico.
I ran with no prior political experience, was elected as a Republican in New Mexico, which is two to one Democrat, on a promise to put the issues that should be on the front burner on the front burner, regardless of the political consequence, and I'll just point out one item for you, and that is the war on drugs.
I advocate the legalization of marijuana.
I studied that.
I studied the issue for several weeks.
That's about all it took as governor to realize that, and I'm going to tell you things that you already recognize.
We're arresting 1.8 million people a year in this country.
Half of what we spend on law enforcement, the courts, and prisons is drug related, and I came to the conclusion that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition related, not use related, and that's not to discount the problems with youth abuse, but advocated the legalization of marijuana, and of course, it's never going to be legal to smoke pot and do harm to somebody else.
It's never going to be legal to smoke pot, become impaired, get behind the wheel of a car.
It's never going to be legal for kids to do drugs, but again, I think if you study the issue, you'll find that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition related, not use related, and again, that's not to discount the problems with youth.
With regard to all the other drugs, I think that we should adopt harm reduction strategies, which look to reduce death, disease, crime, and corruption, really looking at the drug problem first as a health problem rather than a criminal justice problem, and before we went into Iraq, I was asked about Iraq, and my statement on that issue was that, you know, I think we have the military capability of surveillance to see if they're going to roll out any weapons of mass destruction, and that we shouldn't get involved in Iraq, because we would become mired in a civil war that, for me, I see no end, and with regard to Afghanistan, I think, first of all, I believe in a strong national defense, but I do not believe that our national defense is being threatened, either in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Okay, well, first of all, I completely agree with what you say about the drug war, and, you know, obviously that's probably what you're most famous for, is being a Republican governor in a southwestern state, saying, look, we have to give in to logic and reason here.
The drug war doesn't work, and here's why, and this is an issue where I don't think there's a majority population in any state that agrees with you on that, and yet you were able to basically lead on the issue and get people to agree with you.
I don't know how much, how many different laws you were able to actually get repealed while you were a governor there.
Well, and again, this is a response to what you had to say relative to, um, are you willing to stand up?
I wanted to clarify that one minor point before I got to the real point, which was, you learned the lesson there, that it's good to stand on principle, even on something that you don't think the majority agrees with you with, that actually principle is a winning issue for you.
You don't have to compromise and water down your position, right?
I believe principle is good politics.
Right, see, that's, that's really what I'm getting at, and now, uh, well, for example, uh, if it had been you in that debate with all those jackals, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, uh, you know, would you have, uh, what would you have said in Ron Paul's position there about the cause of the war on terrorism and how we got into this mess?
Well, I think I would have had to have echoed what I had prior, what I have been saying on it, so, uh, but I wasn't there, and, uh, Ron Paul was, and, and I, I endorsed Ron Paul, uh, in his, in his bid.
I am a fan of Ron Paul, and I'm not, I am not in any way claiming to be Ron Paul, either.
Right, well, the thing is, though, um, well, most politicians, in the ways that they're different from Ron Paul, they're worse, and not on every single thing.
In fact, there's some, uh, there's some issues where I disagree with the way Ron Paul votes, uh, like on the border or whatever like that, but when I see these politicians who more or less are Libertarian Republicans, Liberty Caucus Republicans, uh, like Paul, most of the differences are, as a matter of quality, uh, you know, the differences are, uh, are worse.
Like, uh, Peter Schiff saying maybe we should start a war with Iran over a nuclear weapons program that anyone with, uh, Google ought to be able to tell you doesn't even exist anywhere in the world, uh, you know, not one atom of evidence that it does, but, uh, you know, I just, uh, you know, I've always, I really, uh, haven't studied enough about you, so I'm sorry, I'm sorry about that, but I always carry, for years, I have thought that from what I did know about you, that you're a decent guy.
Peter Schiff has always been, you know, I always kind of looked at him, you know, sideways glance kind of mistrusting thing, but I do actually think that you are very Libertarian and, and you seem to be an honest guy, but I just, uh, I'm trying to put you under pressure because I want you to be able to, uh, you know, contradict the Giuliani's of the world and not have to feel like you have to back down to them.
I mean, Peter Schiff is not able to say, look, Iran isn't making nukes and even if they were, I'm not scared of them.
He doesn't have that within his head to say that.
So when the question comes up, he concedes everything to the war party.
Oh yeah, Iran's a big threat and maybe we'll have to start a war against them, he said.
I mean, are they going to be able to get that out of you when you're running for president here?
Uh, nope.
All right then.
All right, cool.
So now let's talk about, uh, prison.
Uh, is it your position that, uh, people should only be locked in prison by the government after they got a trial?
That seems to be a controversial thing these days.
Well, uh, again, I, I realized the complexity of these issues, but I am anti, uh, I've been anti-torture.
I, I'm just, I'm in the camp that, uh, believes that, uh, because we have tortured individuals, we have made enemies, uh, with tens of millions of individuals that would now, uh, be willing to sacrifice their life against the United States because of that principle.
Uh, and so with regard to due process, um, I, I think we open ourselves up to that same situation.
One of the, one of the difficulties or problems that I had with Bush is I just, I, I thought he could have done a better job, a much better job of communicating what it was he was doing, uh, whether we agreed or disagreed.
I think so much of what he, what he did, uh, was, was, uh, uh, secrets, uh, you know, behind closed doors.
And, and a lot of that had to do with this notion of due process.
A lot of this had to do with the notion of trial or, um, or military tribunal.
I wish, uh, I wish I could, uh, understand, uh, the thought process better.
Hmm.
Well, what do you think about all this, um, Patriot Act and, uh, you know, I mean, I guess the, uh, the military commissions and all that, uh, is one thing, but, uh, all the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, uh, Authorization Act and the Transportation Security Administration.
And there really has been a pretty big revolution in federal policing since September 11th.
Would you just repeal the 21st century as far as that's concerned, if you could?
Well, I think it's with us.
And so, um, being reality-based, uh, going forward, uh, with regard to the Patriot Act, um, government's made up of human beings and human beings, uh, it isn't perfect.
So we do have a checks and balance system and the Patriot Act, um, really, I think our issues are where it leaves the, where there aren't checks and balances.
So going forward, um, these are really the changes, uh, that have to be made to ensure, uh, that there is due process, that there, um, aren't, uh, egregious things happening.
Uh, with regard to...
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, just to be clear, you're saying that the Patriot Act stands in the way of checks and balances and it needs to be repealed?
Well, it stands in the way of checks and balances.
I don't know if it gets repealed, but going forward, um, I, I realize it comes up for, uh, what, what is it?
It comes up for renewal.
Right.
And within that renewal process, I think those checks and balances, uh, in a nutshell need to be written into, written into renewal, believing that there is going to be a renewal, given that Obama says he's going to sign off on it.
Uh, but, but again, let's put checks and balances into it that don't presently exist.
All right.
Let's, uh, let's talk about foreign policy some more.
I really apologize for beating you over the head about this, but, uh, I'm going to continue as, as long as you don't hang up.
Uh, you know, here's the thing.
I think that, uh, the reason that the Ron Paul revolution was such a gigantic, humongous, big deal is because the subtext of the whole thing was, you can be anti-war and not be thrown in with Michael Moore.
That was the deal.
You don't have to be code pink to oppose empire.
That's where Ron Paul told the American people and a great many people took him up on it.
Oh, thank God.
Finally, I get to pose the war and not be thrown in with, uh, you know, aging hippies, you know, that nobody respects or whatever, because that was the theme, right?
Is you're just a old aging Vietnam, uh, era hippie, and you just want to, you know, hate America and blame America.
And you just don't like Bush and all those themes of the right wing during the, uh, the worst days of the Iraq war.
Anyway, not that it's over yet.
Uh, and, um, and Ron said, no, empire is wrong.
We're not supposed to be an empire.
And he took it on head on.
He said, in fact, I saw him say the other day, he was asked on the MSNBC morning show, uh, how would things be if, uh, it had been you?
And he said, the troops would have been home by now and not just from Afghanistan and Iraq, but they'd have been home from Europe and Korea and Japan too.
How do you like that?
Now that is leadership.
That is a man who is anti-war and he wears it right on his sleeve and he's proud of it.
And he's happy to explain each and every reason why to anyone who will listen when they ask him about social security, he says, we've got to end the empire or else how can we ever pay for social security?
That's what I would like to hear from you, Gary Johnson, lots and lots of that.
Well, uh, again, no, no arguments whatsoever.
Ron Paul said, uh, we can march them in.
We can march them out.
Uh, we have military presence in 155 countries around the world.
Um, I I'd, I'd have to, I'd have to have a sit down and understand where our security interests are, uh, with regard to those 155 countries.
And if I'm hearing you right, uh, Scott, what you're saying is, you know what you, you do believe in a strong national defense, but it, that it's just not being served, uh, currently that the government does have a role to protect us against foreign aggression.
But I gotta tell you, I don't, I don't see it from either, uh, Iraq or Afghanistan.
Yeah.
Well, uh, I mean, that's the whole thing too, or, or even in Europe.
I mean, uh, a strong national defense.
I don't know exactly what it would take.
I'll tell you, this is, he was being facetious, but Ron Paul told the Washington post back in, I think late 2007, uh, give me a break.
We can protect this country with a couple of good submarines.
And that's, that's really the point, right?
We don't need to be able to field an army anywhere in Eastern Europe at a moment's notice.
We need to be able to protect our shores and, and, uh, the people of this country.
And that would cost, you know, I don't know, maybe a couple of $10 billion a year at the most, right?
Not a world empire that costs trillions and dominates every region of every continent on the planet.
Well, and from a, from the standpoint of, uh, I completely agree with the empire statement.
Uh, you know, Ron, Ron Paul said, look, it's what do you, I heard him.
I was with him.
Uh, what are you going to do for our country?
And Ron Paul's response was, Hey, you know what?
It's all the things I'm not going to do.
Uh, which I thought was pretty profound.
Uh, you know, we, we talk about all the problems at home that, uh, again, when you look at the resources that we have, the deficit that we're building up, the amount of money that we're spending, stop the spending, uh, that could be addressed on real issues at home.
Uh, when I, when I think of nation building, what a missed opportunity with Mexico.
Uh, tell us about that.
What do you mean?
Well, uh, I am, I am somebody who believes that immigration is a good thing.
Uh, and of course, illegal immigration is another issue completely.
Uh, you being in Austin, Texas, I think you have a really good understanding of just how complex, uh, immigration issues are as I do here in New Mexico.
Uh, but, uh, bottom line, immigration is a good thing.
Uh, we need to be able to document, uh, legal workers in this country, uh, allow them to pay taxes, uh, for the, for the services, uh, that they will receive.
And, and that, uh, again, immigration, um, when it comes to Mexico, we're getting the absolute cream of the crop when it comes to, when it comes to workers, uh, from Mexico.
And when you look at our security interests, Mexico is reeling right now from, uh, uh, drug cartels.
Um, you know, that, that issue really gets addressed when you start looking at, uh, legalization of marijuana, uh, which, which they have done.
And, uh, again, you, you take, take the money out of, uh, drugs and, uh, out go the cartels.
Isn't it, isn't it just a little bit?
Did you say that they have done, they have legalized pot?
Is that what he said?
You know, I'm, I'm trying to get a handle on it right now, Scott, but that is my understanding is that there has been a decriminalization of drugs that has taken place across Mexico in an effort to deal with, uh, and I know there, I, I just got a call before I got on, uh, relative to a, uh, Wall Street Journal article on exactly what's happening in Mexico today.
So, uh, I, I don't want to misspeak, but, uh, that'll be on my reading agenda this afternoon.
Right on.
Well, I, you know, I know it's been on the agenda of, well, basically anyone possessing logic on that side of the border for, you know, years and years now, it's always, as you said, it's the problem is America, the United States has to, uh, basically adopt the same kind of thing.
Decriminalization is one thing, but real legalization and going ahead and unblacking the market and making it where legitimate companies just go ahead and do the trade.
That's what will shut down the cartels.
And, you know, uh, you're, you're exactly right.
The difference between, uh, decriminalizing and legalizing is legalizing shuts down the cartels.
Decriminalizing, um, you, you still, you still got to deal with the marketplace.
You still have to deal with the fact that people then are selling it, uh, illegally.
Right.
And, you know, I saw this thing and, uh, you know, I know I'm not teaching anything.
This is just the one example.
I'll let you speak to the whole principle at work if you like.
Uh, this was in the New York times of all places.
And it was about in Juarez and how you had this Tony Soprano character who ran all the cocaine and maybe the pot too.
I'm not sure.
And, uh, anyway, what happened was the, um, the, uh, government of Juarez, the local police there, uh, I believe at the behest of the American DEA, they killed this guy.
And all that did was it led to a massive war over which of the two major factions below him was going to rise to the top and be the new dominant faction in the black market cartel.
And it led to like hundreds of people dying in this war every night across Juarez over who's going to be the new king of the black market.
That was all killing the Tony Soprano.
The place did was make matters worse.
Well, uh, the same, same thing with regard to Columbia.
Uh, we, we knocked off, we, the United States, the CIA, um, knocked off the big, uh, the biggest drug cartels.
And when they did that, they literally created a hundred, if not a thousand more, uh, where the violence became so much, so much worse, uh, than what it was when, uh, um, and again, there was just a few heads.
Uh, again, this is, this is prohibition related, not youth related.
Wouldn't it be great to play out drug disputes, uh, in court rather than with guns?
You know, um, there's, I'm not really a scholar on this and, uh, well, hardly I'm a scholar on anything, but I, my information about this is probably pretty sketchy, but I guess, uh, I can say that it's a fact that some people have put forward the argument anyway, that the war on pot in large measure back in the thirties was a form of protectionism in the markets.
It was a form of, and racial discrimination because, uh, you know, if poor white guys are out of work and they're, and are in line trying to get work for the day, uh, then Mexicans will work even cheaper than them.
And so, uh, Hey, let's outlaw weed because they're the ones who smoke it.
So we'll lock them up for that.
And it'll help keep them out of the same job lines and that kind of argument.
And there certainly seems to be racial aspects, certainly to the enforcement of the drug laws.
Uh, and I wonder, you know, um, you know, do you have anything to say about that?
Like the, the, uh, disparity in the ways the laws are enforced, basically poor people do drugs outside, right?
Rich people do drugs inside and don't get in as much trouble for it.
Well, you're, you're four times as likely to go to prison if you are of color, uh, as opposed to being white.
I mean, I think that that's, that that just glares and 73% of the population right now in federal prison, this is a profile of 73% of the people in prison today in federal prison are, uh, individuals that have sold drugs on numerous occasions and been caught.
And, um, and again, to what end are we being served?
Uh, but for our drug laws, um, there are a hundred million Americans that would otherwise be tax paying law abiding citizens.
And I believe now we're reaching tens of millions of, uh, convicted drug felons that, but for our drug laws would otherwise be tax paying law abiding citizens.
And again, there is no excuse and never will be a, for any drug crime that involves a violent, uh, or, or a gun.
Yeah.
You know, it really brings up the question of opportunity costs, doesn't it?
Like if there had never been a Richard Nixon and, uh, the worst, you know, latest modern era of the drug war had never really gotten going, how different might things be?
You know what I mean?
Like the whole, uh, you think of the whole eighties and all the scaremongering about the crack epidemic and, and all the, uh, you know, millions of people who've gone to prison, uh, this has really had a lot of consequences for our society that we won't even ever really be able to measure or, or even imagine.
I think there is an opportunity to measure it.
And that is, is that I believe we are at a tipping point on this issue nationally.
Uh, Massachusetts voted the last general election to decriminalize, uh, marijuana by a vote of 65 to 35.
And, um, again, I think the nation is at a tipping point here and that, uh, our country will be a much better place to live when, uh, when we give people true freedom, uh, and the responsibility that goes along with that, which speaks to all sorts of, um, all, all aspects of our lives.
All right, everybody.
That's Gary Johnson.
He's the former governor of New Mexico, and he's got a new project called our America.
It's, uh, our America initiative.com.
Yeah.
Hey, thanks.
Thank you very much for your time on the show today.
Appreciate it.
Well, and I, I hope to, I hope to be speaking and maybe earn, earn a little bit of, um, I'll try and earn it.
That's all.
That's all I'll try and say here.
Well, I'll tell you, I think he did a pretty good, I think he did a pretty good job today, man.
Thanks again.
Thank you again.