SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Photo: Getty
About a month ago, I was talking on the phone with a long-time friend, a highly-respected judge living in Maine, and the subject turned, as it inevitably does with me, to politics. My friend, a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, suddenly announced that he was voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
“WHAAAAT?” I reflexively screamed into the phone. (I usually don’t scream into a phone, but this statement completely sideswiped me.)
“You’re Ralph Nader-ing this election,” I yelled. My friend was adamant, however, about voting for Johnson “unless it’s close.” My friend shouldn’t have to worry — Nate Silver’s super-reliable fivethirty.com website currently gives Clinton an 74% chance to win Maine — but my friend’s protest vote still bothered me somehow. My guess is that there are very many smart people out there who are disillusioned with Hillary and would never consider Trump, but they’re looking for an alternative choice that would help soothe their conscience.
I’m only speaking for myself, but Libertarian Gary Johnson? No. If his Vice-Presidential candidate, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, was at the top of the ticket, I might consider it. (Though a Republican, Weld was a terrific governor of Massachusetts.) But Johnson? No.
Here’s an example of why. On the September 8 edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Mike Barnacle of the Boston Globe asked Johnson a simple question about Aleppo, the besieged epicenter of the Syrian refugee crisis: “What would you do if you were elected about Aleppo?”
Johnson responded, “What is Aleppo?”
“You’re kidding,” a stunned Barnacle replied.
Now if you asked 100 people on the street what Aleppo is, you’d be lucky to find 1 who would know. But Johnson is running to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States, and if you don’t know what’s going on in Syria, I would be very afraid to have you in the Oval Office.
Johnson currently has his own problems, however. Last week, the Commission on Presidential Debates ruled that Johnson (as well as Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who we’ll get to in a second) failed to be able to participate in Monday’s first Presidential debate because they did not reach an average of 15 percent support in the five national polls that the commission used as a benchmark. Dr. Stein had no chance of making it, but Johnson has been over 15% support in a few states, so he had some hope. If he could make the debate stage, he would be able to make his case that he is a viable alternative. For now, that hope is gone.
What about Dr. Jill Stein, the Presidential nominee of the Green Party? She sounds progressive, right? Green! Well, there’s precious little that’s environmental in Dr. Stein’s platform but lots to question. That doesn’t faze her — in an interview with the Washington Post, Dr. Stein said that governing the United States “is not rocket science.” Oh really? She survived a serious accusation that she was anti-vaccination, but her promise to forgive every college student’s debt, though sounding wonderful, is not backed up with a plan as to how the revenues for it will be raised.
She’s got a dilly of a running mate in Ajamu Baraka, who has called the President who has expanded health care to reach even the poorest of citizens, an “Uncle Tom.” What about his take on foreign affairs? He has made reference to the “gangster states of NATO,” which should make our European allies feel just fine.
Look, I get it. Trump may be totally unacceptable, and you don’t trust Hillary. (As faithful readers of this blog already know, neither do I.) So you’ll stamp your feet and say “I’m going to make a protest and vote third party.” Good for you. But these are the ding-a-lings you have to choose from. You’re free to make your little scene to fluff your conscience and feel good about yourself. But remember, the fate of the world is in your hands.
