Does it make sense to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president? Sure, as long as you believe two things. First, you have to believe that it makes no difference at all whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump moves into the White House – because one of them will.
Second, you have to believe that America will be better off in the long run if we eliminate environmental regulation, abolish the income tax, do away with public schools, and dismantle Social Security and Medicare – which is what the Libertarian platform calls for.
But do 29 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 believe these things? I doubt it. Yet that, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, is the share of millennial voters who say that they would vote for Johnson if the election took place now.
And the preponderance of young Americans who say they’ll back Johnson or Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, appear to be citizens who would support Clinton in a two-way race; including the minor-party candidates cuts her margin among young voters from 21 points to just 5.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
So I’d like to make a plea to young Americans: Your vote matters, so please take it seriously.
Why are minor candidates seemingly drawing so much support this year? Very little of it, I suspect, reflects support for their policy positions. How many people have actually read the Libertarian platform? But if you’re thinking of voting Johnson, you really should. It’s a remarkable document.
As I said, it calls for abolition of the income tax and the privatization of almost everything the government does, including education. “We would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.” And if parents don’t want their children educated, or want them indoctrinated in a cult, or put them to work in a sweatshop instead of learning to read? Not our problem.
What really struck me, however, was what the platform says about the environment. It opposes any kind of regulation; instead, it argues that we can rely on the courts. Is a giant corporation poisoning the air you breathe or the water you drink?
Just sue: “Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.” Ordinary citizens against teams of high-priced corporate lawyers – what could go wrong?
It’s really hard to believe that young voters who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary think any of this is a good idea. But Johnson and Stein have received essentially no media scrutiny, so that voters have no idea what they stand for. And their parties’ names sound nice: Who among us is against liberty?
The truth, that the Libertarian Party essentially stands for a return to all the worst abuses of the Gilded Age, is not out there.
Meanwhile, of course, it does make a huge difference which of the two realistic prospects for the presidency wins, and not just because of the difference in their temperaments and the degree to which they respect or have contempt for democratic norms. Their policy positions are drastically different, too.
True, much of what Trump says is incoherent: in his policy proposals, trillion-dollar tax breaks are here today, gone tomorrow, back the day after. But anyone who calls him a “populist” isn’t looking at the general thrust of his ideas, or at whom he has chosen as economic advisers.
Trump’s brain trust, such as it is, is composed of hard-line, right-wing supply-siders – whom even Republican economists have called “charlatans and cranks” – for whom low taxes on the rich are the overwhelming priority.
Meanwhile, Clinton has staked out the most progressive policy positions ever advocated by a presidential candidate. There’s no reason to believe that these positions are insincere, that she would revert to 1990s policies in office: What some are now calling the “new liberal economics” has sunk deep roots in the Democratic Party and dominates the ranks of Clinton’s advisers.
Now, maybe you don’t care. Maybe you consider center-left policies just as bad as hard-right policies. And maybe you have somehow managed to reconcile that disdain with tolerance for libertarian free-market mania. If so, by all means vote for Johnson.
But don’t vote for a minor-party candidate to make a statement. Nobody cares.
Remember, George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but somehow ended up in the White House anyway in part thanks to the Ralph Nader vote – and nonetheless proceeded to govern as if he had won a landslide. Can you really imagine a triumphant Trump showing restraint out of respect for all those libertarian votes?
Your vote matters, and you should act accordingly – which means thinking seriously about what you want to see happen to America.