The Election

I am really sick about this election cycle.

First, of course, the candidates nominated by the two major parties are seriously disappointing. Hillary is a big-government ethical train-wreck, and Trump is, at best, a buffoon, and at worst, an unstable, mean-spirited loose cannon who will hurt people at home and severely damage our reputation abroad.

I’m also disappointed with the tone so many have taken in expressing their political views. So much hostility, so much animosity. Both sides misrepresenting and demonizing the other more than ever before. It has been almost impossible to have a healthy discussion, much less find one to listen to on TV.

It was easy to see all of this coming.

What happens if both major parties nominate unelectable candidates? #USElections

— Fritz Barnes (@FritzBarnes) February 26, 2016

And now, here we are.

I will be doing something this year that I have wanted to do many times before, and just couldn’t pull the trigger on it.

I am voting libertarian.

I hear the groans, and I sense the eye-rolls, but that’s ok.

I am going to “waste” my vote on Johnson/Weld because I honestly can’t figure out if it is more important to stop Trump or to stop Hillary.

And I am going to “waste” my vote because the idealist in me thinks that if Johnson gets enough votes, we might see some momentum and actually have more than two real choices four years from now.

I believe that tens of millions of Americans, if they were to really examine themselves, are more Libertarian than they are Republican or Democrat. The Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They are for small government and personal freedoms.

If the party names were stripped away and no polls were available, and if every American voter did a hard re-set of their political views and took a fresh look at things, I think the Libertarian ticket would very possibly win this year.

Since I had voiced some of these thoughts on Facebook from time to time, I was included when a Christian friend asked these questions a month or two ago:

This is a private thread to three friends who have all shown some support for Gary Johnson. This isn’t a productive discussion publicly. While none of you know each other, you’re all Christians and people I respect. Gary’s positions intrigue me and I’m mostly on board with his fiscal policies, while cool on some of his social policies. However, I do have an issue with some, notably: he’s the CEO of a marijuana company, he’s pro-abortion and (this one’s a real problem) he’s called for an end to all support and aid to Israel. To me, that last one’s a deal breaker. I’m not sure he’s going to get enough traction to make the debates, but I’m curious how you reconcile some of these positions.

This was my response:

The crux of it, I think, is that libertarianism is a very different paradigm for what the role of government should be. Jesus didn’t say, “go into all the world and set up governments to coerce the people from every tribe and tongue and nation to live as I have lived.”

Personally, I don’t like pot and I hope my children will stay away from it, but I think it should be legal. I think the fight against it has caused far more problems than it has prevented.

As for Israel, again, the paradigm shift libertarians are pushing for is less foreign involvement in general, and for similar reasons. We have arguably done more harm than good with much of our international activities, well-intentioned though they may have been (or not.) And I think (as does Trump, if I am not mistaken) that a lot of our foreign aid has become essentially a multigenerational welfare system, creating dependencies on us that we shouldn’t have to be burdened by. Back to Israel, I don’t know specifically what Johnson would propose, other than, I presume, the “least effective dose” of aid. He hasn’t called for us to cease being an ally, as far as I know.

The other issue you mentioned, abortion, is (to me) the toughest one in your list. It is easy to say that government should not be in the role of telling people how to live their lives, except insofar as that infringes on the rights of others. Well, the taking of a life is certainly an infringement. I don’t have a real answer to this, other than to say that I am with you in your concern about this one. I am conflicted and need to put more thought into whether this is an area of “legislating morality” that we might be able to let go of–going back to my first statement about the difference between what Jesus has called us to do and what he has called us to insist that our government do. But again….yes, I am very conflicted on that one.

I suspect that Johnson’s foreign policy positions are still evolving. I think we need to just look at what his principles are, and consider whether we are comfortable with them. For me, Trump is a dangerous loose cannon and, while Hillary is certainly more knowledgable than Trump or Johnson in the foreigh policy arena, I’m not sure her record is stellar. And I’m not comfortable about what loyalties she may have (Clinton Foundation.) On Israel, Weld may give you some comfort. http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/jw-qa/weld-fight-terror-criminal-conspiracy

Things to think about.