Most voters are reluctant to support either of the two major party candidates in our upcoming general election on Nov. 8. Understandably, one option people have chosen is to support third party candidates because they hope that doing so will show voters that we have better options than the two major candidates.
Unfortunately, our third-party candidates in this election are not good. The most popular third party candidate, Gary Johnson, is especially unfit to be president.
Johnson is a Libertarian whose party makes little effort to lay groundwork in local and statewide elections, which makes their bids in general elections difficult and laughable.
The party is riddled with conspiracy theorists and anarchists (see: Libertarian Party Convention 2016 — yikes), and it seems devoid of any real function besides as a spoiler. Similarly, Johnson’s only real advantage is that his last name is not Trump or Clinton. Johnson’s most damning quality is his apparent disdain for nuance and compromise.
Disregard his “what is Aleppo”moment or inability to name a foreign leader. His proposals — the issues on which he should be the most confident — are flimsy and unrealistic. Unfortunately, his ideas are simple solutions to complicated problems and they sound desirable, which is why they are popular. For example, a constitutional amendment to prohibit the federal government from running deficits even during recessions, banning federal bailouts and abolishing the federal income tax and Federal Reserve sound like interesting ideas, but are not responsible political decisions.
These ideas run the severe risk of people losing their livelihoods, depreciating the macro economy and limiting the federal government from taking emergency actions in times of widespread distress just to live under the guise of laissez-faire economics.
These are not good ideas — and they are just a few of Johnson’s popular ideas. Gary Johnson was also a poor governor in New Mexico. Johnson’s tenure as New Mexico’s governor was filled with obstructionism.
The Washington Post detailed Johnson’s obstinance in an article titled “Years before ‘Aleppo Moment,’ Gary Johnson Showed Little Interest in Details on Governing.” Essentially, Governor Johnson was a well-documented slouch who did not care to learn about the nuances of partisan compromise or policy.
If Johnson did not want the state budget to grow, he would veto any measure which would do so strictly on personal principle — regardless of the bill’s merit or importance.
In Johnson’s first year as governor, he vetoed 47 percent of the bills that his legislature passed. That is insane and unacceptable. To one peer, Johnson was a “know-it-all dictator” who “just [did not] listen.”
Meetings with Johnson were difficult for all legislators because of Johnson’s willingness to reject any offer and remain ignorant of the proposed legislation. Obstinance is a natural feature of any democracy, but Johnson’s brand of obstinance is exceptional in the worst way.
His “leadership” is not feasible for a person who would like to hold the highest elected office in the United States. Johnson’s most telling quote is one in which he described himself.
He would hold “Open Door After Four” sessions — five-minute office meetings with the public to address their personal and political concerns. Unfortunately, five minutes does not adequately address complex issues for an entire state. Addressing the five-minute limit, Johnson said:
“I can figure things out; I have good instincts…I think I was born with an overdose of common sense.” Unfortunately, common sense is not sufficient for a president. Presidents need nuance. They need experience. They need expertise to a certain degree. And they need to delegate power when necessary.
Gary Johnson’s tendency to obstruct and propose outrageous ideas is not what the United States needs right now. Perhaps our country does not deserve Hillary or Donald, but we certainly do not deserve a president like Gary Johnson, either.
