I’m not naive about this, and understand how fruitless third party efforts can be given that I voted third party in 2012.
Donald Trump’s victory in the GOP Republican primary has ripped apart the GOP, and most of the anger centers among tea party conservatives aghast that such a ghoulish man could take the mantle of Reagan. We see it from intellectual outlets like National Review as well as young political thinkers like Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who is using his genuine #NeverTrump beliefs to elevate himself within the GOP.
While it’s nice that so many are this upset, sadly our constricting political system forces us to choose between two parties whether we like it or not. It was frankly liberating in 2012 to vote for Gary Johnson, who actually fit my belief system the best rather than Democrat Barack Obama and kind-of Republican Mitt Romney.
Since I voted for Johnson last time, I actually have some insight into him that others might not. In New Mexico, he turned a handy-man store into one of the largest companies in the state, and turned that fortune into a run for Governor in the big Republican Revolution year in 1994. He was reelected easily in 1998 where he became best known for his advocacy for drug decriminalization. Part of this effort stemmed from a nasty back injury he sustained, the pain from which he dealt with through marijuana.
Johnson was always an outsider in New Mexico, even as Governor, and vetoed hundreds of bills. He was a classic tax-cut Governor who didn’t seem to enjoy talking about social issues. Gary Johnson also isn’t really a Libertarian. He’s not Ron Paul running around talking about the gold standard, Bastiat, Hayek and Murray Rothbard. He developed a political message based on limited government and social acceptance.
This will be Johnson’s biggest hurdle to jump if he wants to win #NeverTrump Republicans. Gary Johnson is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and pro-drug decriminalization. Between his two presidential runs he was the CEO of a publicly traded medical marijuana company. This will be a hard pill for a lot of devout social conservatives to swallow, much harder than economic conservatives whose main problems with Trump are that he has no plans of creating a smaller government.
Johnson is also a noninterventionist, like Ron Paul … he tried to make hay of Rand Paul’s presidential failure by reaching out to his supporters (such that he had). He can point to his record as a two-term Republican governor of a blue state in New Mexico and show conservatives that he can govern, but I’m sure many conservatives would worry about what kind of judges he would appoint, for instance.
His second biggest hurdle is the Libertarian Party itself. I watch from afar and it is not the healthiest nor the most rational group. There is a large clique that hates that it keeps nominating former Republican politicians (Bob Barr was the LP presidential nominee in 2008, Ron Paul in 1988). Currently, former software magnate John McAfee and click-bait website editor Austin Peterson are running. Knowing the LP, McAfee and his vast software fortune could easily win this nomination and foil whatever chance the LP might have to grow its brand. But Johnson has stuck with the party since he joined in 2012, and with Trump and Clinton as the major party nominees, it would be foolish not to see the chance at a real opening here.
The other factor at play here is what is going on within the Democratic Party. It’s not wrong to say that Trump and Bernie Sanders are appealing to the same emotions within their respective parties, even if they have different substantive manifestations.  It is beyond amazing that Sanders won Indiana, given the Clinton inevitability narrative adopted by both the media and the general population.
If you look at the breakdown of delegates (without the super-delegates), Sanders is close pretty close. I saw a poll today that said one in four Sanders supporters won’t vote for Hillary, and based on my own anecdotal evidence, I believe that. There is something boiling under the surface in the Democratic Party right now that is being kept quiet because Barack Obama is so popular, but it won’t take long to explode to the surface. Gary Johnson’s “live and let live” social philosophy might be appealing to Sanders supporters as well. In fact, I would argue that Johnson might even be more attractive to younger Democratic voters who supported Sanders because he has the social views that he does, particularly on gay marriage.
Allow me this as well: Gary Johnson will not be President of the United States. I am under no illusions about this. I am not sitting here trying to convince you that we can save the country from Trump by supporting Johnson and installing him in the White House.
What he can do is finally offer the country a third way, a message that you don’t have to be force-fed just two flavors of politics, especially ones that are so old and busted. This could be a way for Americans to finally breathe in their politics, to show the two parties that nominating such low characters is not what our Founders envisioned for leadership in this country. More than likely he would split enough of the vote to elect Hillary Clinton president, something that will probably happen anyway.
Standing up for conservatism doesn’t mean we have to always stand up for the Republican Party. This could be Gary Johnson’s moment to open up our party politics and to break the centuries-long practice of forced political support because the two major parties are glorified federal departments.
The absolute most important thing for Johnson to accomplish in 2016 is to somehow get into the debates. The debates are the mechanism used by both parties to shut out any competition, as so many Americans don’t even begin to tune into presidential races until then. They are vitally important. Currently there is a lawsuit floating around the courts about the debate commission’s rules regarding third parties, so that would be something to keep an eye on. But all this talk about disaffected Trump and Sanders voters means nothing if Johnson cannot somehow get himself before the American people on a stage that puts him on equal footing with Trump and Clinton.
Perhaps this is all just hot air and the Republicans will come home to Trump in October, and the LP gets it’s customary 1%. But we might be looking at a replay of the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election. Robert Sarvis captured 6% of the vote just because people did not like the choices they were given. That frustration could drive Johnson and make this election very unpredictable.
PS – If Johnson were smart he’d offer his VP slot to Ben Sasse. Won’t happen, but that’s just me.
31 comments
I will be seeking the party of individual liberty rather than this statism we have from both parties for the last decade or so. I have yet to see the Libertarian party even remotely organized to make themselves a candidate. Such a shame.
Only a 3rd Party run by a mostly Conservative ticket could keep the election from Clinton or Trump. The 12th Amendment math shows that the GOP clearly owns the voting block should no candidate receive 270 Electoral votes. Only a mostly Conservative ticket could shave states off from Clinton and Trump — keeping them from reaching 270 — and establishment GOP candidate likely wouldn’t win enough states, and a left-wing could win states, but won’t make it through the House. The 3rd party doesn’t have to get many Electoral votes, just enough to spoil it for Clinton and Trump. After that, if the 3rd Party is aligned with House GOP, they win over Trump and Clinton.
Which states that went for Obama in 2012 will go for a third party candidate in 2016 to keep Clinton from 270?
Tough choice here. Drug decriminalization (check Colorado crime stats to see how that is working out), vs. protected borders, tax reform, reduced regulation, rebuilt military, America first foreign policy, conservative judges. Gee, I guess 10 million (and counting) Republican voters must be too dumb to see how Gary Clinton/Hillary Johnson would be a better pick
I will not hold my nose and vote for the gilded toad. DT is manifestly unfit for the white house. Gary Johnson is closer to the GOP platform than DT is. And at least I know he isn’t a corrupt serial liar and narcissist. He would be no different than Clinton, and could even be worse. Who knows since he changes his views 3x / day. I’ve voted for every GOP candidate since I was 18… but not anymore. DT does not represent me or the GOP that I knew. At least with Gary Johnson or (the preferred Austin Peterson) I know he could pass a basic civics test. It makes me sick to see Republicans calling for unity here… They can keep their hollowed out shell of a party, and I’ll stand on principle and the constitution. #nevertrump
Good, that’s why we give folks like you the chance to vote for Bernie, Ralph, Ross, or anyone who floats your boat. Republicans will have unity, you will have your hashtag. Enjoy!
The GOP looks to be destined to join the Whigs in the dustbin of history. A sad fate for the party of Lincoln, Coolidge, and Reagan. They squandered their majorities in congress and have refused to use their constitutional authority to stop the reckless debt, spending, and the Obama agenda as a whole. They have failed to articulate an alternative message to oppose the Dems. You never hear them speak of capitalism the way that Friedman and Sowell did / do. The fact is average people do not know what the GOP message is. DT is the unfortunate result. The difference between the GOP and the dems has been very slight in terms of actual results…. now we have a presumptive nominee who is an overt progressive with clear mental deficiencies and we have to unify? I don’t think so. A large portion of the delegates at the convention are going to be opposed to DT. The delegates need to make it clear from the outset that DT will not be the nominee. The delegates control the convention, and they must stop Trump from becoming the nominee. It’s our party, not Trumps. He is clearly a democrat…. and I dont support democrats. So please don’t insult me by telling me to vote for Sanders.
Philosophically, that’s about right. In the real world, we can win with Trump the Republican or we can lose to, or with, someone else. It’s now Clobberin’ Time!
Sarvis gave us McAuliffe.
I expect nonsense like this from Bearing Drift.
No. Cuccinelli’s lack of appeal & success gave Va McAuliffe. Stop scapegoating.
Yeah, like Cruz and the other GOP nominees. Your side didn’t sufficiently support our gubernatorial nominee, so we’ve learned from that and will compensate with our new Republicans — your participation is always welcome, but we do not expect, and will not rely upon you being good Republicans. Goat meet Scape.
It’s clear you’re not taking what I’m saying seriously, but I’ll add this.
First, there’s no evidence that all the Sarvis voters were Cuccinelli voters. (Until we use a balloting system that includes & weights second choices or candidate ranks, we’ll always have imperfect evidence on this score.)
Second, I have no interest in winning a pat on the head from you as a “good Republican”. I have an interest in supporting groups and candidates that merit support.
Good, I was starting to think I was becoming too subtle. Do what you want, the Republican Party will be improved as you merit elsewhere.
Sarvis took more Republican votes than otherwise. Libertarians always do; they are basically conservative. They should join the Republican party and help us straighten it out. Rand Paul could use some company.
Since when did the Bull Elephant become a mouthpiece for the LP? For that matter, for how much longer does the GOP much less the RPV or RNC really expect the various diverse intra-party factions that are either the remnants of the old Reagan coalition or the rising newer factions willing to even remain together under a single party tent unable to reconcile competing self-interest, egos, and ambitions? If there are to be newer independent 3rd, 4th, 5th or multiple political parties to come so be it. Only I will not be looking to the LP or the Green Party as some will, but perhaps to the Constitution Party or the POG instead, which would and should first be biblically correct and speak more clearly for the “people of God (YWH).”
TBE will let anyone thump the tub and let everyone fuss and frolic. It is part of the magic.
The old GOP has tried the big tent approach and it has given us a carnival sideshow.
The new GOP will be less feudal and more pragmatic.
Any party that nominates Trump is not at all pragmatic. Hope you enjoy losing the presidency and the consequences in congressional elections too.
It is so nice of you to share your concern about our party. One would think your intensity about the GOP nomination mistake might just reflect a partisan self-interest?
You get the most flak when you’re over the target. Sounds like Trump scares the crap out of you.
Trump is the guy who will give Barbara Comstock the win she doesn’t deserve.
See you at the inauguration, it will be Yuge!
But, don’t you see, Donald Trump IS forming a third Party, by shaking up a sclerotic GOP.
Or is the new GOP assimilating Donald Trump?
Either way, it will be nice to trim the fringes and win again.
Trump has managed to bring a large majority of the old George Wallace democrats on board. Which goes to explain why he did so well in the southern states with open primaries.
Let’s see George Wallace’s one and only run in presidential primary politics was in 1972, with the then legal voting age of 21, so these fantasized George Wallace (Trump) Democrats would be in the 65 (the earliest first time voters) to around 105 (and amazingly well preserved) years old today.
Not only does the current poll demographics not support this idiotic premise but the more inevitability and unavoidable fact of mortality make you and your comment a knee slapper of the month at TBE. After all everyone knows that all Trump voters are really closet Harry Truman supporters. Here is some free advice think first, write it down second.
Stupid is as Stupid Does
We need to rally behind the Republican candidate even if he’s NOT 100% our fave, NOT get into a 3rd party thing that will only help Hillary/Billary!!!
Agreed
The logic behind your comment works only if you start out by assuming that Trump is entitled to votes of those who normally vote/act “Republican” (whatever that means these days). In a free society, that’s not true; every voter gets to decide for whom they want to vote, and candidates don’t get to blame the voters when the candidates aren’t appealing enough.
Also, a third party vote does not add to either major party candidate’s total.
Tell that to the dems that bought and paid for a Sarvis to gum up the elections.
Now you’re not only trying to shackle voters, you’re trying to shackle donors too. And unless Sarvis ran a sham candidacy — and there’s no evidence at all of that — then it doesn’t matter what his donors thought.
And I’ll say it again, if Cuccinelli was less appealing than Sarvis to 6% of the Virginia electorate, that’s not something that can be blamed on Sarvis or his donors.
There were about 5 or 6 things that broke against Cuccinelli, some self-inflicted, some not. Sarvis was DEM funded and a splitting maneuver– it and the others worked. T(h)ird parties are what they are.
Sounds like Ralph Nader’s answer to Democrats in 2000.
Yes, this would be the case if it weren’t for that darned uppity outsider that struts into our club with all those unfamiliar things I believe they call votes.