I am not new to the Libertarian Party. I first voted for a Libertarian in 2012 when Gary Johnson made his initial run for President of the United States. I followed that up by voting for Robert Sarvis for Governor of Virginia in 2013 and for him again as United States Senator in 2014. I have voted Libertarian in a few local elections and once more I will vote for Johnson in the fall. This is noteworthy because I am not supporting Johnson because of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I am an advocate for Johnson because I am a Libertarian to the core.
I watched most of the Libertarian Convention on C-Span Sunday as the party chose its Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. Some of the coverage was like watching paint dry, but I found some of it very interesting, while some of it was just embarrassing. Out of the convention we emerged with the Gary Johnson and William Weld ticket, two former Republican governors creating the most qualified ticket any party will put forth. But in a year where qualifications are scoffed at it has me wondering if my party has made the right choice.
I would put those who supported Johnson into three buckets: 1) the pragmatic wing of the LP who think he is the best candidate of those on the Libertarian ballot, 2) the anti-Trump/Hillary people who think he has the best shot at winning because of his qualifications, and 3) those Libertarians who desperately want to get their message out and believe the media will give Johnson the most opportunity to do that. Johnson needed all three of those different types of supporters to secure the nomination with just 55% of the vote on the second ballot. I understand all three perspectives. A month ago I may have favored Johnson because I had a foot in all three of those buckets myself. But the more I considered the dynamics of the race the less faith I had that buckets 2 and 3 were justifiable reasons to support Johnson as our nominee.
Which Libertarian candidate would have had the best shot at winning? Well, obviously any of them are long shots. Johnson has several polls where he has been around 10%. This has Libertarians excited. However, there has been no proof that Austin Petersen or John McAfee, the other two major contenders for the Libertarian Presidential nomination, would have polled lower. They weren’t included in any poll. It is very possible, and I would say likely, that they would have been at a similar level. If you dug into the data you would find that most people didn’t even know who Gary Johnson was. It was just a 10% protest vote. This becomes more obvious when Jill Stein (Green Party nominee) is included in the polling. Johnson is usually only above her by a point or two and his numbers are effectively cut in half. To poll well Johnson needs to be the only other person not named Trump or Clinton listed. I realized the idea that Johnson had a head start over Petersen and McAfee in a general election was false. All of them would be starting as a relatively unknown commodity that a decent slice of the population would be open to considering. The question should have been which candidate could court voters better. Johnson has the pedigree, but that has almost been a disqualifier this election cycle. That the anti-establishment Libertarian Party nominated a two-term Governor in an anti-establishment year has its share of irony and is a bit perplexing. And then there is the enthusiasm gap. Johnson fails to excite and inspire people. You could hear it at the convention. There’s just not much passion for his candidacy. Petersen had much more passionate followers and it seems to me would have had the better chance at energizing voters. Furthermore, some in the conservative media, such as Glenn Beck and Mary Matalin, were warming to Petersen because of his pro-life stance. It’s seems more likely that Petersen could have garnered some powerful allies than Johnson.
This last point dovetails with the argument against the third bucket. The conservative media was open to covering Petersen in a favorable light. That’s not the case with Johnson. Petersen would likely have pulled more from Republicans than Democrats, but since Johnson is squarely in the middle of the two major parties he seems to be without powerful allies. He has few passionate converts. He will not be covered by the news outlets because they want to cover him, only if he is relevant enough that they have to cover him.
We Libertarians welcome dismayed Democrats and Republicans into our party. I would guess that many are here just because of the terrible candidates each party will have on the ballot. Unfortunately, I fear that after this election many will fall back to the party they fled. I am not one of those. I will be Libertarian years from now. My hope is for our Presidential nominee to help win the hearts and minds of voters based on our principles, that we would have true converts. It is in this respect that I think Petersen would have been the far better choice. He is a Libertarian. Johnson is a former Republican who ran into a ceiling within his party so decided to go elsewhere. Petersen has a genuine love for the Libertarian Party and will do everything he can to advance it. Johnson is going to do what he can to advance his campaign for Presidency. Sometimes that will overlap with benefiting the Libertarian Party, but sometimes it will not. It did not overlap when he pleaded for the convention to nominate William Weld for Vice President. We Libertarians don’t believe that Weld is really a Libertarian. But Johnson believes Weld can raise money for him. Weld seems to have no desire to convert people to libertarianism and that is a shame. It’s also a shame that as Libertarians get a good look from voters who don’t know what we are about that we look more like the Grand Old Party (two old white guys who were former Republican Governors) than an anti-establishment semi-radical, semi-pragmatic group of people passionate for individual liberty committed to principles.
Perhaps Johnson and Weld get into the debates, though I have my doubts. Perhaps they will win over many new converts to the Libertarian Party who will stick with us, though again I have my doubts. Perhaps they will even win the White House, though that is a very tall task indeed. I hope they accomplish all that. But I fear that in an effort to make sure we took advantage of the opportunity presented by Trump and Hillary’s sky high unfavorable ratings to raise the profile of our party and our principles that we have taken the safe route, the pragmatic route, the boring route in a time when people are yearning for passionate radical change. With an electorate that seems ready to embrace what the Libertarian Party has traditionally offered did we just give them the type of candidates they have already dismissed? Were we pragmatic when we should have been idealistic? Were we timid when we should have been bold? I sure hope not.
