It's been awhile! Over a month since I last posted here, and my, what things have happened: Donald Trump semi-officially clinched the GOP nomination for President, California entered a very mild spring, my brother completed his freshman year at college, I passed the "one month left until the end of school" mark, and Gary Johnson, the presumptive Libertarian nominee for President, crested 10% in a recent general election poll. It is of this last noteworthy occurrence that I intend to speak today.
After the Indiana primary, I felt a little disjointed. Up until that point, beginning in the fall of 2015, I had been intensely interested in even the smallest goings-on in the Republican primary. To follow something as closely as I did the primary races, and then to have the wind withdrawn from my sails by the reality of a Trump nomination... it was an odd experience, to say the least. I checked out of politics for a bit, just to give myself a rest.
Now, I don't think that surprises are over in this election cycle. For one thing, I think Democratic reports of the demise of emailgate are optimistic to a fault. The general sense I can gather is that the FBI, when it concludes its investigation, will recommend that the former Secretary of State be indicted for her behavior. Whether the Department of Justice, controlled by President Obama, will take the nod from the Bureau remains uncertain. I'd like to think that the DOJ would care enough about propriety and- well, justice- to act on the recommendation, but as I said, the outcome is anyone's guess. Regardless of whether or not Hillary actually gets indicted, the fact that it will have been recommended would speak volumes about her viability as a candidate. The Democratic Party may have to rethink its attachment to her. As such, there are still plenty of reasons not to throw up one's hands and say "Well, it'll either be the madman or the criminal!" The criminal may be on her way to jail by November- and even if she isn't, she may not be the nominee.
In light of all that, there's no sense making predictions about the general election until that last "yuuge" variable is settled. But whether Hillary survives her "security inquiry" or not, whether the Democrats throw Joe Biden into the game to stave off The Bern or not, there is still the specter of The Donald standing athwart the coming General Election. In fact, should Hillary be indicted, the chances of a Trump presidency increase mightily. The Democrats will either nominate Bernie, which I doubt, or they'll opt for some other establishment figure who is inoffensive enough to put up a good ol' Democratic showing in November. But if the Party rebuffs Sanders, for good and all, then bad feelings will so proliferate that I don't see how Democrats can hope to unite in time to stave off electoral defeat. President The Donald would seem assured, God help us all.
So. What is a Conservative to do? I recently heard an argument for Trump that, in all likelihood, many conservatives are making to themselves about now. "The chief enemy of freedom in this country is fast becoming political correctness; in its name, freedoms of speech and assembly are abrogated across the nation, especially in places of 'higher learning.' As such, Trump should be valued, because he fights against political correctness tooth and nail. Because he fights so violently against the PC Police, in defense of freedom of speech, he fits my bill as conservative enough. Plus, did you see that awesome short-list he put together for Supreme Court nominees?? I 'bout cried!"
I sympathize with this argument. Political correctness always serves progressives as a means of controlling the narrative of the country. Insofar as conservatives obey the unwritten laws of PC, they play into the hands of progessives. A straight-talker - someone who slams political correctness and damns the consequences - is, therefore, quite a find in a presidential nominee. However, I don't think this is the case with Donald Trump. He's all for freedom of speech for himself, and calls down the vengeance of heaven on anyone who tries to impugn him for his incorrectness, but he leaps like lightning to condemn, whine about, petulantly accuse, anyone who questions his narrative, who questions his credentials, who questions his authenticity or even his membership in the GOP. Those who use their freedom of speech to tear at The Donald are not allowed, in Trump's self-centric universe. Their freedom of speech is just vitriol, is offensive and hateful, and should never be allowed to happen again. He is not for freedom of speech, nor is he against political correctness per se; he is in favor of his pronouncements being unquestioned as public wisdom, but his belief in freedom of expression goes only so far. No, imaginary conservative whose argument I've recently heard: not even on that one count does The Donald deserve your support.
Not to mention certain other conservative desiderata:
1) Smaller government
2) Tax reform
3) Foreign policy that neither nation-builds nor lies to itself about the reality of its enemies
4) Principle of subsidiarity
5) Entitlement reform and budgetary concerns
Running Donald Trump through this list, we come up with... zero hits. No connection anywhere; he fits no bill and matches no descriptions that we desire. In all reality, The Donald is meant to be the petty tyrant-for-life of a failed government in sub-Saharan Africa or the lower Arabian peninsula, the kind of individual the U. S. Government props up because his needs are simple and usually answerable with cash or credit. Modern America may be many things, but it is not in such a parlous state that this kind of whiny strongman should be viewed as our salvation.
Again I say: what is a conservative to do? Call down "a plague on both their houses?" Sit out the race? Take some kind of opiate and shamble to the polls for The Donald, because the prospect of Hillary in the Oval is simply too repulsive? Sit out the election entirely?
I, in the view of many people who are accustomed to politics in America, am going to "waste my vote" in the fall.
Third-party runs for President in America are jokes to most people, which is a convenient situation for the poohbahs in both the RNC and the DNC- and one which they do their utmost to perpetuate. Both parties continue to drift towards their separate extremes, while membership dwindles and the ranks of the "political nones" swells in proportion. Like mainline Protestantism, the Two Party System is losing its children. The third-parties which currently exist in the U. S. have never before had much of a chance to distinguish themselves; they are generally lumped into one category, labeled "eminently ignorable." This is not very democratic or republican behavior, to be sure, but while the Two Parties both remained somewhat centrist, the situation was hardly dire. These days, however... well, neither Big Tent really covers a majority of the sovereign populace. Most people (I'm prepared to swear that it is 'most' people) either don't vote, or vote for the candidate that represents the "lesser of two evils." This is hardly a recipe to excite turnout. In 2012, I wanted to vote for Ron Paul, because I actually agreed with most things he said and did. Faced with my absentee ballot, I squirmed a bit, then shamefacedly filled in my bubble for Mr. Mitt, because I "didn't want to waste my vote" on a guy who was really a Libertarian.
Well, I was wrong to do that in 2012. In this election, I have even less reason to submit to the Party Line, because it was drawn in the sand by the Gucci loafers of Paul Manafort, abettor of tyrants. This fall, I am going to cast my vote for Gary Johnson, the presumptive nominee of the Libertarian Party.
Mr. Johnson is the erstwhile two-term governor of New Mexico. While in office, he aggressively pursued a fiscally conservative agenda, fighting government encroachment at every turn. He did this to such a degree that he earned the nickname "Governor Veto" for the bloodthirstiness of his executive pen. He cut taxes, turned deep government debt into an almost billion dollar surplus by the time he left office, and held the government in check for eight solid years. He supports the legalization of marijuana, which I've recently come to believe is a good idea; he favors immigration reforms that are friendly to illegal immigrants, including work permits and a straightforward path to citizenship for those immigrants already in this country illegally.
Mr. Johnson and I do not agree on everything. He is pro-choice and strongly favors gay marriage. These positions would usually be deal-breakers for me, and for most conservatives. However, Mr. Johnson's positions are such that I would not only be serene in my support for him: I would be enthusiastic. He thinks, for instance, that the Roe v. Wade decision was egregiously incorrect, and that it represents an unconstitutional incursion of the judiciary into the realm of the legislature. He supports the legal status of abortion, but would rather have it enshrined by the votes of the people, not the tenuous legal logic of Warren Burger. In the same way, he favors the legalization of gay marriage, but I can only assume he would take similar issue with Obergefell v. Hodges: that fundamental of a change to the social fabric of America must be made by the vote of the people. I agree with him wholeheartedly. He supports leaving abortion's legality to the individual states, and favors holding a vote on a Constitutional amendment to legalize gay marriage. I find this admirable. If the States were to hold individual votes on the legality of abortion, chances are that as many as half of them would reject the institution. That would be the net salvation of so many babies that I think it would be worth the danger. Johson, Libertarian that he is, has his opinions, and wishes them to be law, but recognizes that I want the same. We must engage in an electoral battle to decide who wins, not appeal to the Cheater's Court to put one over on the opposition.
I will be voting for Gary Johnson in November, and so should every principled conservative. William Kristol's attempts to get Mitt Romney or some other 'conservative' entity to run third-party notwithstanding, I truly believe that this year, the best place for the conservative vote is the Libertarian Party.
Which brings me to my last lap. After I re-engaged with the state of the Presidential Race sometime early last week, I cast a cold eye over the incredibly high unfavorable ratings for both Clinton and Trump. Both candidates are viewed negatively by more than half of respondents, and neither one is likely to recover much: they are such known quantities that one's good opinion of them, once lost, is lost forever. A whopping two thirds of respondents expressed a desire for a third option- someone not nearly as detested as the two almost-nominees. Two-thirds of people at least somewhat wanted a third face, a fresh face, up for the nomination.
If this is not the Libertarian Moment, then I do not know what is, or what possibly could be.
