Will the Libertarian Gains Last?

By any measure, 2016 has already been a banner year for the Libertarian Party—and that’s even before the presidential election. Fundraising is up dramatically, for both the national party and presidential nominee. Registration has also spiked dramatically across the country. The defection of several Republican state legislators angered by Trump’s rise and nomination has lead to the highest number of affiliated representatives in party history, tied only with 1992. And national polls are currently predicting that record numbers of voters will vote for the Libertarian presidential nominee, with a chance that he could qualify for the general debate stage for the first time in party history.

The question Libertarians are now asking is, Will this last? Is this a one-off election solely because of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, with 2020 symbolizing a return to normal, or is this a new beginning for third parties?

I think that depends to a large degree on what happens in November. No one reasonably expects Gary Johnson to actually win the Presidency. If Clinton wins, then Trump and his campaign will have been discredited, he and his supporters will no longer have any great sway within the Republican Party, and the GOP will settle back into being the main opposition party—with many of the most serious rifts from the Trump campaign, from rhetoric to policy, being debated internally.

But if Trump somehow wins, Trump supporters will feel vindicated, and their strangehold on the GOP will only tighten even further. Even if a Trump Presidency was a complete disaster, the party would be split between those who would support him no matter what, whether because of blind loyalty to the man himself or out of a hunger for power, and those who would continue to oppose him on principle. The Republican Party would no longer be big enough for both groups.

Such a split wouldn’t happen overnight of course, but when it did it would be chaos to behold. As far as the Libertarians are concerned, it would in large part be up to them to shape an outcome best for their own party. There would be a movement among many conservatives to start a new party, a new home for the conservative movement in exile. Many others would likely prefer to join an existing one, with a fully developed campaign apparatus. The question would become, then, how many of the latter there would be versus the former, and how much the Libertarian Party would be willing to change for the sake of increasing its electoral influence.

Many of these newly homeless former Republicans, while appreciating the Libertarian commitment to limited government and free markets, would also have problems with many other planks of the current platform, specifically on issues such as abortion, drug legalization, immigration, and a non-interventionalist foreign policy. The party as a whole could either adapt some of those planks to lure in more conservative voters, or refuse to change and ensure that the majority of disaffected Republicans look elsewhere for a new home. If they choose the former option, over time those conservative voters would further pressure the party to introduce additional changes, making it even more pro-life for example.

It honestly doesn’t matter to me which long-term path the Libertarians choose. If they want to make the party more appealing to conservatives, great. If they want to stand for their own principles and stick to strictly libertarian, rather than conservative, values in their platform, I can understand that too. But ultimately, the decision of whether to retain the gains made in 2016 will be up to them.

Clinton Isn't Entitled to the Black Vote, And Trump Isn't Entitled to the Republican Vote

It really is as simple as that.

Trump is right, although despite what his followers would like to believe, he is far from the first person to raise this point—Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat, is not automatically entitled to the African-American vote. For too long Democrats have taken the nearly unanimous support of the black community for granted, and while it has paid dividends for Democratic politicians, the overall standard of living in the black community has suffered. It’s time for that community to try something new.

Unfortunately Donald Trump is not the one to offer anything new, or to represent a clear contrast with failed Democratic policies. Meanwhile, while the Trump campaign makes noises about minority outreach, it demonizes and scapegoats those Republicans who continue to oppose Trump’s candidacy, calling their opposition a betrayal.

Until Election Day (or, with early voting, Election Month) both Trump and Clinton have exactly the same number of votes: zero. Neither candidate is entitled to the black vote, the Republican vote, the Democratic vote, or really the vote of any person at all. Not a single person in this country has taken a legally binding pledge to support one candidate or the other, or one party or the other. If Ivanka Trump suddenly decided to throw her support behind Hillary Clinton, she would have every right to do so. If Chelsea Clinton decided to vote for Donald Trump, her good friend’s father, she would be equally able to do so. Until the moment a vote is actually cast, it is truly committed to no one.

Trump, specifically, has been making the case that minority voters are not bound to any single candidate, but the same message applies equally to both campaigns, and both parties: You are not entitled to a single person’s vote. Every person is an individual, and they can do with their vote as they see fit—vote for one of the two major party candidates; or a third party, independent, or write-in candidate; or decide to simply not vote at all—regardless of skin color or party affiliation. If one group is not bound to a candidate, then no group is.

Comparing the Character of the Presidential Candidates

Character matters in a president, or in any public official for that matter. At least as much as matters of basic policy—a person can be wrong on the issues, but if they are of sound character they can be trusted to do the right thing and put the country and its citizens before themselves.

Republicans during Bill Clinton’s Presidency noted—correctly—that his numerous scandals and appalling personal conduct demeaned the office of the Presidency, and moreover tarnished the nation’s trust in him to place the interests of the United States above and beyond all other interests. That trust is essential for the president, or any other holder of high office, to govern effectively.

Many Republicans today seem to have forgotten their own charges of two decades ago, and have turned a blind eye—and in some cases actively defending—the numerous moral failings and character flaws of their own nominee. They were correct in 1998, and the same holds true today.

Many, including the Republican nominee, level similar attacks on the character of the Democratic opponent—and many of these, too, are justified. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have scammed, lied, and cheated their way through decades in the public eye, with scandals so numerous and well-documented it would be both redundant and futile to list them again here.

Character matters, which is why both nominees are so eager to avoid concrete policy debates in favor of more personal attacks. And both are largely correct. Such charges are far from unprecedented in American political tradition, stretching back to the time of the Founding, and Americans have a right to trust their Commander in Chief to place country ahead of personal ambition.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have both consistently demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to do this simple task—whether through defrauding thousands with Trump University, denying security requests for U.S. consulates in order to perpetuate an electoral narrative, or any of the other dozens of possible examples. We need to remember that we have the freedom to not vote for either of the two ethically-challenged candidates in the race, and instead choose someone we can actually trust to do the right thing.

What Will It Take for Top Republicans to Disavow Trump?

In just the past few weeks, Donald Trump has attacked the parents of a fallen American soldier; said that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the literal founders of ISIS; initially refused to endorse Paul Ryan and John McCain for reelection; seemed to encourage violence against the Democratic presidential nominee; and revived his accusations from May that Ted Cruz’s father was somehow involved in the JFK assassination. I know this is not an exhaustive list, but the number of asinine statements Trump is able to spit out on a daily basis make such a list nearly impossible.

Republicans have dutifully denounced each of these statements. But while an increasing number of party members, including members of Congress, disavow Trump entirely, party leadership (Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, et al) continue to support the man himself.

What more could Trump possibly do to change that? He’s acting like a child testing his parents’ limits, trying to see how much he can get away with before he gets punished. And he has yet to find any such boundary, which only encourages him further.

He’s insulted military families, Mexicans, POWs, women, and a disabled reporter, and made statements that can only objectively described as racist. While party leadership has studiously distanced themselves from each of these in turn, at what point do they look beyond the words to the person who has actually said all this? They, along with every other person in the country, know that if a Democratic nominee was saying exactly the same things as Trump, they would be denouncing that person on a daily basis.

If Chairman Priebus, Speaker Ryan, and the rest of the Republican leadership still want themselves and the other members of the party to be respected as people of integrity, they need to figure out at what point they will say, “Enough is enough.”

Trump Embraces Amnesty

The big political story this morning—and really this week—has been Donald Trump’s turnaround on immigration. By now there are so many pieces out there on this specific topic that there really isn’t much to add (one of the better articles can be found here). But I do want to note that this whole incident perfectly sums up what I said yesterday, which I wrote before this latest Trump immigration story reached the mainstream outlets.

Sure, Trump is still taking pains to say the new proposal really isn’t a flip-flop at all, and that it’s nothing like amnesty. But comparing what he was saying during the primary and what he says now, the shift in both tone and substance is notable. What a change from “they’re murderers, they’re rapists”, to “take a person that has been here for 15 or 20 years and throw them and the family out, it's so tough.”

Not even Trump’s staunchest critics would have guessed that the man who made deportation his signature issue would be saying things like this: “No citizenship… [but] they pay back taxes…there’s no amnesty, but we work with them.” Critics said all along that his plan was merely touchback amnesty; now, he’s eliminated the touchback part altogether and gone full Gang of Eight. Regardless of how much he says “no amnesty”, what he is now proposing is exactly that. Pay back taxes, learn English, and then illegal immigrants are given legal status—it’s what we’ve heard for years, from the very politicians Trump claims to despise, and what his followers have accurately labeled as amnesty from the beginning. He might be able to shoot someone and not lose votes, but can he talk about immigration like Jeb Bush and not lose his base?

The only question now is whether those same followers will “define down” amnesty in response, i.e., “If Trump says it, it can’t be amnesty!” At this point, after everything else Trump supporters have done to make fools of themselves, I can’t say I would be surprised, although for the moment, a few—like Ann Coulter—still seem to have a shred of intellectual honesty left.

Name Three Issues Where Both Clinton and Trump Are Consistent

So much has been made of Donald Trump’s inconsistencies on basic policy that it is hardly even worth mentioning anymore. He went from being pro-choice and supporting partial-birth abortion in 1999 to being adamantly pro-life in 2011—before taking roughly three separate positions on the issue in March alone. He went from supporting the Iraq War in 2002 to opposing it today. He supported gun control in 2000 but became a (fair-weather) defender of the Second Amendment in 2011. And before saying in 2015 that many Mexican immigrants were “rapists” and “murderers”, he said in 2012 that harsh rhetoric against immigrants was a major reason for Mitt Romney’s loss to Barack Obama.

That just scratches the surface, and doesn’t even include past effusive praise of Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Less noted is Clinton’s own relentless flip-flopping, with a frequency that makes John Kerry seem principled and rock-solid on the issues. She has gone from adopting her husband’s belief that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” to embracing the call for nearly unrestricted abortion in the current Democratic platform; shifting from supporting to opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Keystone Pipeline; and abandoned positions on school choice and immigration that would not have been entirely out of place on a Republican debate stage.

It would be easier to list the issues on which they haven’t flipped. Trump has remained fairly consistent (for him) on trade and health care; Clinton, on health care and entitlements.

Considering the habitual lies told by both Trump and Clinton throughout their careers, on nearly every conceivable subject, this shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. But it does highlight a little of the similarity of the two major party candidates. Moreover, neither of them seem to have any shame regarding their numerous evolutions—again not a surprise considering their self-consciousness in other areas.

Supporters of both would probably argue that this is politics, and the candidates are only following in the footsteps of all the other politicians. But besides the fact that both are unique in this respect even among politicians—and that Trump claims to be different, and so by his own logic should be held to a higher standard—those excuses no longer work. If voters really want to stop “politics as usual” as much as they say, they need to quit voting for candidates who are, like Trump and Clinton, the very embodiment of “politics as usual”.

A Trump Reboot? We've Seen This Movie Before.

The Trumpkins are abuzz that the past week was a great one for The Donald. He shook up his campaign, brought in new blood, and acted more presidential.

That roughly describes last week, when Trump brought in a new campaign manager and CEO, Paul Manafort resigned as campaign chairman, and the candidate himself visited the site of the Louisiana flooding and offered a vague, general apology for some of his past statements. But it could also describe the end of June—when campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was fired, Trump finally began to back off from his racist attacks on Judge Curiel, and promised a more presidential attitude, including additional major policy speeches with TelePrompters. Or it could describe late March, when Trump first hired Manafort, gave the first of his major, TelePrompter speeches, and again promised a more presidential version of himself going forward.

The point is that at this late stage in the campaign, only Trump’s most dedicated followers are still gullible enough to believe a real pivot to a winning, presidential Trump is in the offing. The day after the Republican National Convention, Trump supporters were again loudly proclaiming a campaign reboot, ready to take on Hillary Clinton in the fall. Not even a week later Trump began attacking Gold Star parents, then continued his assaults on fellow Republicans, all while largely ignoring Clinton. And the story for the Trump campaign only went downhill from there.

Sure, the campaign brought aboard new people, although “new” is not the same as “different” or “better”. Sure, Trump offered some kind of apology for past statements, although it had more of an air of “I’m sorry you’re offended.” And sure, Trump visited Louisiana, which was—I’ll admit—much more presidential than vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, like Obama.

But we’ve long past the point where Trump can be trusted to truly reboot, or pivot, or reset for long. He even flip-flops about flip-flopping, going between “I’ll be so presidential, you’ll be bored”, and “I am who I am, and that’s not going to change.” Nothing Trump does or says is permanent, whether his pivots, positions on the issues, or multiple marriages.

I give this latest reset one week. Two at most.

Defending Ryan Lochte

Let me start off by saying that yes, vandalism of a public bathroom, or any vandalism, is wrong. And Lochte needed to apologize for that—which he now has.

Actually, despite the opinion of self-important media commentators, and many people who apparently spend much of their time cheering for various celebrities to be brought down by scandal, Lochte’s apology got it exactly right. He apologized for his personal conduct that night, as well as for not initially telling the entire story of what happened, making it seem as if he had done absolutely nothing wrong. But he stood his ground on the other essential facts of that story, which he has stuck to since the beginning—and which police reports and surveillance cameras have now corroborated.

Lochte said the four swimmers were approached by men dressed as police or security guards, and prevented them from leaving. Check. Both video evidence and the police report agree with this.

He said the security guards demanded money. Check. Also true, judging from the video and the police report.

He said the guards demanded they sit on the ground, and would not allow them to leave until they had paid. The other three swimmers did so, and Lochte refused. Check.

Lochte said one of the men drew a gun and again demanded money. Check.

He said the men were eventually paid, and only then allowed Lochte and the other three to leave. Check.

In fact, the only part of Lochte’s story that has changed at all since news first broke last weekend was the location. Lochte first said the swimmers’ cab was pulled over by robbers posing as police, and later said that the cab was already stopped at a gas station when the security guards approached. A change, sure, but hardly a major difference. He also omitted the vandalism—which as I said above was a mistake. But again, it doesn’t change the fact that the four Americans were held at gunpoint until they handed over cash. No one is disputing this portion of Lochte’s account, which is really the central part of the story.

Now I’ve never been to Brazil, so I don’t know if police and security guards make a habit of extorting cash at gunpoint or if this is an unusual case. But, regardless of what might have transpired before, if several men had approached me brandishing weapons and demanding money, I would consider that a robbery. That’s not how a just law enforcement system operates—and yes, some norms of justice are common across cultures, or should be.

Good for Ryan Lochte for finally coming clean and apologizing for the vandalism. And good for him for also standing his ground and calling the incident what it was—a robbery. In that sense, Lochte and the others remain the victims.

The One Candidate Who Could Make Hillary Clinton Likeable

Hillary Clinton has long been seen as generally unlikeable by nature, even before voters begin to factor in scandal and corruption. Whereas her husband was the Charmer, Hillary was always the feared Enforcer—from her time pushing health care reform in the 90’s, to Obama’s sarcastic “likeable enough” comment in 2008, to the current campaign. Bill has always been just one of the gang, someone you could have a beer with. Hillary was always the strict principal who always gave detention. No one wants to hang out with the principal.

Hillary hasn’t changed. But her competition has.

Polls measuring the “likeability” of the two candidates aren’t easy to find, but both Clinton and Trump score about equally bad on measures of honesty and the all-important question of “cares about people like me.” More broadly, both candidates’ favorability ratings are historically terrible for presidential nominees. Roughly 53% of voters view Clinton unfavorable; around 61% view Trump the same way.

And even aside from the polling data, both candidates seem to exude an arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude. Clinton speaks like a scolding principal; Trump speaks like the bully at recess. Neither has the type of personality most people would want to spend time with if they had any choice in the matter, but more and more voters seem to be deciding that they’d rather be scolded than bullied.

Way to go, GOP. You managed to nominate the one person who makes Hillary Clinton look almost likeable by comparison.

The Importance of Jill Stein

On Monday, when I listed some of the steps Gary Johnson would need to take if he hoped to be truly competitive, I neglected to mention one important additional factor. Not so much something that Johnson himself could control, but an outside factor that could nevertheless influence the election and therefore his, or Clinton’s or Trump’s, chances of winning—the candidacy of Jill Stein.

Stein, the Green Party nominee, is polling somewhere between two and six percent in national surveys, and as things now stand has no chance of making it onto the debate stage, let alone winning the Presidency. If the chances of Johnson winning are equivalent to me being struck by lightning at the same time a comet crashes into the Earth, Stein’s chances are roughly equivalent to me being struck by lightning while being eaten by a shark—at the same time the Earth is hit by a comet being ridden by little green men.

Nevertheless, Stein’s current 3.1% RealClearPolitics polling average is respectable for a third-party (fourth-party?) candidate, and is marginally better than the 2.7% Ralph Nader ender up pulling nationally in 2000. The lessons of that election show how meaningful minor-party candidacies can be in elections, even when they come nowhere close to actually winning.

Just as the Johnson-Weld ticket serves as an attractive rallying point for disaffected Republicans and conservative independents who reject both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Stein and the Green Party serve as an attractive, principled place to go for disaffected Democrats and liberal independents who reject Trump out of hand, but see Clinton as not sufficiently liberal, and just as dishonest and unfit for the Presidency as Trump. Even though Johnson is actively reaching out to these same voters, many will feel more ideologically at home with the liberal activists of the Green Party. The challenge for Stein becomes the need to spread the word about her candidacy and increase name recognition among these voters, particularly if Johnson makes the debate stage and she does not.

Still, with Johnson’s Republican credentials and past conservative record as governor, it’s hard to predict just how many Sanders voters will end up voting Libertarian and how many will support Stein. And if she manages to take a significant number of votes away from Clinton, the overall margin necessary to win both individual states and the national popular vote is decreased even further. A candidate winning only 30% of the vote could conceivably win several states and come close to winning the popular vote outright, adding even more unpredictability to an already crazy year.

The Likelihood of the End of the Republican Party

Predictions of the imminent demise of one of the major political parties come along every few years, especially for some reason for the GOP. The most recent predictions—which are the first in a long time to actually come before the given catastrophic election—say that Donald Trump’s nomination and subsequent collapse will exacerbate the problem that the party already has with black, Latino, and other minority voters, as well as women and to a lesser extent college-educated men. Chuck Schumer is now only the latest to raise this, talking openly about a coming “Golden Age” for the Democratic Party.

Anything is possible. But it’s worth remembering just how often similar predictions have been made and taken as fact, and how shortsighted those predictions seem today.

In 1860, the Democrats split in two over the issue of slavery, with Northern and Southern Democrats nominating competing candidates for President. This enabled Abraham Lincoln to be elected the first Republican President. Democrats were widely blamed, justly or not, for the Civil War that followed. They went on to lose the next three presidential elections (not even nominating a candidate of their own in 1872), only to win the popular vote in 1876, lose by two one-hundredths of a point in 1880, and win outright in 1884. The party also regained a great deal of strength in Congress and at the state and local level.

In 1932, with Republicans widely blamed for the turmoil and poverty of the Great Depression, incumbent President Herbert Hoover lost to Franklin Roosevelt in a landslide, and Republicans were swept out of power in Congress. By 1936, the GOP held only 103 seats in the House, and 25 in the Senate, and would go on to lose the next four presidential elections. But by 1953, the party had regained control of both Congress and the Presidency.

In 1976, political scientist Everett Carll Ladd said, “The Republican party cannot find, outside of the performance of its presidential nominee, a single encouraging indicator of a general sort from its 1976 electoral performance…what we see manifested here is a secular deterioration of the GOP position. The Democrats have emerged almost everywhere outside the presidential arena as the ‘everyone party’.” The next three presidential elections would see landslide GOP victories, along with a retaking of the Senate, dramatic growth at the state and local levels, and, eventual, a historic capture of the House in 1994.

In 2004, with the reelection of George W. Bush and Republicans majorities in both chambers of Congress, some began confidently predicting a permanent Republican majority. Just two years later, Democrats retook Congress in a wave election, and in 2008 gained supermajorities in both chambers, while Barack Obama won the Presidency by seven points.

In 2008, following Obama’s election, it was the Democrats’ turn to predict that the Republican Party was finished, and pushed an aggressive liberal agenda accordingly, culminating in Obamacare. But in 2010 they lost the House in convincing fashion, and narrowly avoided losing the Senate as well. After an essentially status quo election in 2012, Republicans in 2014 retook the Senate, won governorships in thirty-one states, and gained the largest House majority for the party since the 1920’s.

Of course, this also doesn’t discount the possibility that the Republican Party will be fundamentally changed by Trump’s nomination, only the likelihood of the party itself ceasing to exist. The Democratic Party of today bears little resemblance to the ancestral party founded by Thomas Jefferson. But it does illustrate the likelihood that both major parties will likely be around in one form or another for decades to come.

Policy Spotlight: Free Trade

Free trade used to be one of those rare subjects on which most Republicans and Democrats could find agreement. That is, until the present Age of Trump, in which free trade has become something like a combination of Obamacare, cap-and-trade, and Common Core, with any who still support it being branded a RINO. It’s also notable as probably the only issue on which Trump has remained consistent for the past thirty years.

Consistently wrong anyway, unlike many other policies in which he manages to hold a principled, conservative stance for at least a few minutes before changing his mind again. Free trade as a general policy is good for the country, and is a natural outgrowth of conservative principles.

The entire goal of free trade is to lessen artificial barriers to trade, such as tariffs and excessive government regulation, and allow the free market to flourish. Protectionist policies such as increased tariffs, meanwhile, stifle that free market—choking healthy competition and ultimately hurting consumers. Free trade is good for the same reason that a domestic economy of low taxes and deregulation is good—it promotes a capitalist economic system in which businesses are allowed to compete on an equal playing field, and consumers have more freedom to make their own individual decisions.

In addition, competition encourages innovation, which ultimately helps businesses and individuals, as well as the economy; whereas a lack of competition encourages only stagnation. There are winners and losers from free trade agreements, to be sure, just as there are in any economic system, but overall these agreements help the country and individual citizens far more, particularly in the long run, than more protectionist trade policies.

This is not to say that every free trade agreement is a good deal. Not every agreement is created equal, and some can easily be used to encode, by way of an international treaty, certain policies binding on America that may be only loosely related to trade at all. Climate change and stricter environmental protections is one such example of this. But each trade deal should be examined on its own merits—and the fact remains that free trade, like capitalism, illustrates the point that when government allows market forces to play out, far more individuals will benefit than any protectionist policy of increased tariffs and regulations.

How Gary Johnson Could Win

I should preface this by saying that I think it unlikely, to say the least, that the Johnson-Weld ticket will actually win. Despite Johnson’s current polling strength, he still has a long way to go before he’s even close to being a serious contender for the Presidency. The two major parties, though weakened, still retain a near monopoly over the electoral process, and there’s a reason why no independent or third-party candidate has come anywhere close to winning the White House since 1992, or indeed even won a state since 1968.

That being said, Johnson does have a chance of winning, however remote. Here’s his most likely path to victory:

1.      Manage to get up to 15% in national polls. According to the Commission on Presidential Debates, candidates who wish to participate in the debates must satisfy Constitutional requirements for holding office; obtain ballot access in enough states to “have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College”, and average 15% in national polls, using the most recent results from five different national polling groups. Any candidate who satisfies those three criteria before each of the three debates will be allowed to participate, and the running mate of each candidate who qualifies for the first debate (in late September) will automatically be allowed to participate in the single VP debate.

Johnson meets all age and residency requirements in the Constitution, and the Libertarian Party has already obtained ballot access in thirty-six states, more than fulfilling the second debate requirement. All that remains is achieving a polling average of 15% before late September. He has already hit 13% in some isolated polls, and currently hovers around 8% in the RealClearPolitics average. With both Trump and Clinton intensely disliked, and their numbers unlikely to improve dramatically anytime soon, it’s easy to imagine Johnson reaching 15% in the polling averages within the next six weeks.

2.      Perform well in the debates. Just showing up won’t be enough. Johnson would need to stand out and draw a clear contrast with both Trump and Clinton, while not fading into the background. (The same would go for Bill Weld in the VP debate.) He’s not the best debater or public speaker, so if he does make it into the debates he’ll need extensive debate prep. If he handles the debate effectively, however, tens of millions of voters will hear from him for the first time, and the majority who despise both Trump and Clinton will learn more about their third option.

3.      Capitalize on debate success. It won’t be enough to just have a successful debate or two and coast to November. Assuming he does have a good debate, Johnson would need to get out right away and start holding larger rallies, airing TV and radio ads, and in general take advantage of the record-setting fundraising the Libertarian Party is already reporting. He would also be much more in demand for interviews and other valuable opportunities of free air time that he should seize wherever possible.

4.      Target disaffected conservatives, moderates, independents, and Sanders supporters. Broadly, those groups represent Johnson’s best path to victory. And he’s already been reaching out to them to varying extents. What he needs to focus on right now are the conservative Republicans who are firmly #NeverTrump but aren’t currently supporting the Libertarian nominee, as well as Republicans who opposed Trump in the primary, are supporting him now only because he’s the nominee and is, they believe, better than Hillary—but could be persuaded to support a more principled choice, especially with aid from Trump himself.

Competing for Cruz and Sanders supporters simultaneously may seem counterintuitive, but there are ways Johnson can reach out to both camps without contradicting himself. Cruz voters will find Johnson’s stances in favor of limited government and free markets appealing, while Bernie bros will like his support of same-sex marriage, a dovish foreign policy, and attacks against a political system rigged in favor of the two major parties.

5.      Target specific states where Libertarians have the best chance of success. This will pose the most difficult problem for Johnson, as unlike a standard Republican or Democratic nominee he would essentially need to compete across the country, taking no state for granted. On the other hand, if the Libertarian ticket does become a serious threat, both Trump and Clinton would need to do likewise, as Johnson could put many reliable red and blue states in play, either by winning them outright or by serving as a spoiler and enabling one of the other major candidates to compete strongly.

The closest thing to a geographic base for Johnson would likely be the Mountain West, an area in which both Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders thrived during the primaries. Utah in particular is turning out to be highly competitive, and with a large number of undecided voters it could be especially receptive to a third-party message. States like Colorado, Montana, and the Dakotas also have strong libertarian bents. And in other parts of the country, Maine, Vermont, and Minnesota have shown a willingness to support independent and third-party candidacies for state office in the recent past. All could be fertile ground for Johnson to make the case for a Libertarian President.

I want to stress once again that I don’t think Johnson will actually win the Presidency. (For some perspective, no Libertarian nominee has ever won more than 1% of the vote.) This is just what he would need to do if he’s to have any realistic hope of winning.

But a year ago, no one would have expected Trump to be the Republican nominee, or Hillary to struggle to the very end of the primary season against Bernie Sanders. This is the year anything can happen, and there would be no better way to highlight that fact than to see a no-name third-party candidate win the White House.

Top Nicknames for Trump Supporters

To celebrate the end of the nominating conventions, and the continuation of the (mostly) apolitical Olympics, here’s something more light-hearted—my list of the best nicknames for Trump supporters. As you’ll notice, each entry has a definition subtly different from the others. Are you a Trumplican, a Trumpeteer, or something else? Find out below!

(Some of these names I made up myself, while others originated with a variety of other writers, commentators, and interested citizens and have essentially entered the public domain at this point. In most cases it’s nearly impossible to tell who came up with what name first, but thank you to everyone who came up with a word that managed to bring some laughter into this wild year. All of the definitions are my own.)

• Trumpkin— (noun) One of Trump’s most dedicated fans; one who has been with the candidate since the beginning of the primary. Most willing to ignore any gaffe or any inconsistency as an Establishment scheme to ruin the good Mr. Trump.

• Trumpeteer— (noun) Intermediate in the ranks of Trump supporters; one who supported Trump during at least part of the primary, but who is not one of the original true believers. Nevertheless, they serve as effective enforcers for the Trump campaign, with the fervor of the converted, and seek to convert others to their cause—and silence those who dissent. Prominent Trumpeteers include Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie.

• Trumplican— (noun) Republicans who were resistant to Trump during the primary, but now compel allegiance to Trump for the sake of party unity. Their support may be only grudging, but they see the Trump campaign as the only vehicle remaining capable of stopping Hillary Clinton—and as such, all dissenters must now board the Trump Train. Prominent Trumplicans include Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

• Trump-bro— (noun) Similar to the Bernie Bros of the Democratic Party, a younger male who is especially fervent in support of Donald Trump. Members of this group are often also Trumpkins, though some are Trumpeteers, and are usually drawn to Trump by his racial and/or sexual views, rather than his business history or broader political views.

• Trumpanzee— (noun) Another subset of the larger Trumpkin group, someone most likely to set aside all intelligent thought and rational discourse in wildly militant devotion to Trump. Most likely to throw insults, personal attacks on family members, and their own feces at Trump opponents than engage in reasoned, intelligent debate.

• Trumpocrat— (noun) Whereas Trumplicans support Donald Trump for the sake of party unity, Trumpocrats defy their own party in supporting him, for a variety of reasons. This group may include enemies of free trade, aging hippies and Russia-lovers who see Hillary Clinton as more militaristic and antagonistic of Putin than Trump, angry Bernie Bros, and even a few who refuse to vote for any Democratic presidential nominee other than Martin O’Malley.

• Trumper-tantrum— (verb) The reaction of a Trump supporter to a non-Trump voter criticizing their beloved candidate; most commonly characterized by a demand for unity in order to beat Hillary. Oddly, those throwing Trumper-tantrums are strangely silent when their candidate attacks Paul Ryan or John Kasich.

• Trumpster diving— (verb) The act of looking for a compelling candidate, whether in the primary or general elections, and finding Donald Trump.

Some Overdue Praise for John Kasich

Ted Cruz has received effusive praise from many corners since his defiant, rousing speech at the Republican National Convention (along with more than his share of anger and hatred from the Trumpkins), but less attention has been given to John Kasich. He may not have given a primetime address in the middle of Trump’s coronation and pointedly refused to endorse, but Kasich has been no less critical of the Dear Leader.

He angered many during the primary campaign, and with good reason. Beyond his moderate policies, his christening of himself as the “Prince of Light and Hope”, and his holier-than-thou admonition of critics of Medicaid expansion, his presence served to split the anti-Trump vote for most of the primary season, costing both Rubio and Cruz several crucial victories and won only Ohio in the process.

This in turn led many to believe he was secretly in league with Trump, sabotaging the efforts of the #NeverTrump forces in return for the vice presidency. But since he dropped out in May we’ve all been proven wrong. He reportedly declined the VP nomination after it was specifically offered to him, criticized and pointedly refused to endorse Trump in several media appearances over the past couple months, boycotted the Cleveland coronation in his own backyard, and has now angered Trump enough for the God King to pledge up to $10 million to defeat him in a future election (Trump has also pledged up to $20 million to defeat Cruz’s 2018 reelection campaign).

You still aren’t the best presidential candidate in history, John Kasich, but we had you wrong. Thank you for having the courage to stand up for your beliefs.

Evan McMullin and Write-In Presidential Candidates

In case you haven’t yet heard, former CIA officer and House Republican policy director Evan McMullin has launched an independent campaign for President.

I’ll just go ahead and state the obvious—McMullin doesn’t have a chance of winning the election. Filing deadlines for ballot access will have already passed in roughly half the country by the end of the week, and even if he wanted to mount a legal challenge to those deadlines his campaign would be spending a crucial part of the election bogged down in court. The most likely result will be that he will be waging a write-in campaign in the majority of the country, a tactic that almost never ends well.

(There are exceptions—Lisa Murkowski won reelection as Alaska’s senior Senator in 2010 through a write-in campaign after losing the Republican primary, but she was already an incumbent with high name recognition. Almost no one had heard of McMullin before Monday. If an independent effort by a first-time candidate with no name recognition was to have a chance of influencing the election, it would have had to begin months ago.)

In addition, he has yet to earn any high-profile endorsements or significant financial backing. If people like Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, or the Koch brothers were to become seriously involved with the campaign, McMullin might begin earning more votes and making a bigger impact, but until something changes that looks unlikely.

This isn’t to say that any vote for McMullin is automatically a vote wasted because he can’t win—although Gary Johnson has a better chance of making an impact on the race, he has almost as little a chance of winning. This election, every voter needs to chart their own course and follow their conscience. And I’m sure McMullin has better principles and character than either Trump or Clinton (not, admittedly, a very high bar).

But when a candidate will likely only secure ballot access in a handful of states, has no significant backing, and enters the race only three months before Election Day, the question needs to be asked: Why does this candidate deserve my vote more than one of the third party candidates already on the ballot, or even one of the countless other possibilities for write-in candidates? Is this a serious effort to win, or just the addition of one more name to the nearly infinite list of choices to write in?

Of course, circumstances can always change. But for now, despite my issues with him, I’m sticking with Gary Johnson.

I'd Rather Have Mike Pence for VP, But...

…But I’d still rather vote for the Johnson-Weld ticket over Trump-Pence any day of the week.

No one can argue with any intellectual honesty that Bill Weld is more conservative than Mike Pence. On nearly every issue, from abortion and gun control to taxes, foreign policy, and the size of government, Pence is by far the more conservative of the two. Weld endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, praised Stephen Breyer and Merrick Garland as ideal Supreme Court justices in a recent interview, and has supported a number of liberal causes throughout his career. Even many in the Libertarian Party, both before and after his nomination, questioned whether he truly believed in a libertarian vision of government.

Mike Pence has his own flaws, to be sure. Most recently, and of most relevance to his potential service as Vice President, has been his repudiation of his own past statements and policy positions merely to earn the approval of Trump and his closest supporters. He has proven himself unwilling to stick up for his beliefs and for what he knows to be the right course of action, a key requirement for anyone wishing to serve as the Vice President of Donald Trump.

But comparing his flaws and policy positions with those of Bill Weld, Pence would still be the better, more reliable VP. If given the opportunity to vote separately for the next Vice President, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat.

Of course, that’s not the way national elections are conducted in America, and the top of the ticket has to be the prevailing concern. Considering the options put forth by the organized political parties, Gary Johnson is by far the best choice for the Presidency. Allowing the running mates of each nominee, candidates for an office which holds little formal constitutional authority, to significantly influence the choice between the nominees themselves, is foolish.

So I will happily vote for Bill Weld for Vice President, because every ticket is a package deal, and Gary Johnson would be an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.

Gary Johnson for President

I have long said that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are corrupt, liberal power-mongers without morals or any ethical compunction whatsoever. Both care more about winning elections and improving their own brands than about the future of the country. Neither is fit for the office of the Presidency.

Gary Johnson is neither corrupt, liberal, nor lacking in moral fiber, which by definition makes him the best choice for President in 2016.

Johnson, a former Republican governor now running under the Libertarian banner, is everything Trump and Clinton are not—namely, a fierce proponent of limited government and constitutional liberty. He alone among the significant candidates for President has consistently stood up for all rights enumerated in the Constitution, from the right to bear arms to the right of religious liberty. He alone has made the national debt and entitlement reform key aspects of his campaign, recognizing that a balanced budget is key to securing America’s future. And he alone has proven that he can be trusted to put principles and country ahead of personal gain.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson proved that he has the will to follow through on his promises. He managed to balance the state budget while cutting taxes fourteen times, and vetoed over seven hundred bills approved by the heavily Democratic state legislature. At the same time, he worked to find common ground with Democrats, leading to a comfortable reelection in a solidly blue state.

Johnson is a libertarian, not a full-spectrum conservative, and therefore some of his positions will leave conservative voters dissatisfied. He, like Clinton and Trump, disavows the Iraq War, as well as the “chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies” of both Barack Obama and George W. Bush. He, like Clinton and the Trump of 2013, also supports some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and opposes increased border security. And he opposes the death penalty for any and all offenses.

Yet even on many issues most likely to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians, Johnson walks a fine line between appeasing the base of his own party and reaching out to disaffected conservatives. Most notably on abortion, which the platform of his own party endorses as a woman’s right, Johnson declares himself to be personally pro-life. While supporting some legal abortion access at the state level, as governor he also signed a bill banning late-term abortions, supports parental-notification laws, and believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. His pro-life credentials are already therefore stronger and more consistent than those of either Trump or Clinton.

And beyond issues of policy, Johnson has proven himself to be a man of high character and strong moral fiber. With him in the White House, there will be no mishandling of classified information, shady financial dealings, or lawsuits brought by scammed customers of discredited universities. He will truly do credit to the office of Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan.

Gary Johnson for President.

Thank God for the Olympics

The Olympics are exactly what America needs right now.

After months (feeling like decades) of unending controversies, personal attacks, and general political chaos, we finally have two weeks of coming together as a country. Nobody cares what party Michael Phelps or Katie Ledecky are, or whether Simone Biles supports Trump or Allyson Felix is voting for Hillary. We can finally take something of a break from worrying about how close the nation might be to destruction, cheer on Team USA, and remember everything that brings Americans together.

I will be stunned if Donald Trump does not make at least half a dozen ridiculous statements over the course of these Games, but he finally will not be the only story in town. We can all watch, and cheer, and feel good about our country when an American takes gold and the national anthem begins to play.

The Olympics were designed to bring the world together, but they can also serve to bring the country closer together. This may not be the most divisive election in American history—yet—but it is easily the most divisive in decades, for good reason. The Olympics this year will hopefully serve as a cooling off period for the country, however brief, and remind all of us that no matter the politics, we are all on the same team in the end.

How Long Before Gender-Segregated Sports Are Eliminated?

As I’ve said previously, what were considered eternal pillars of human culture just ten years ago are now being challenged on an almost daily basis. The latest examples of this are the debates over “bathroom bills” which seek to clarify that only biological men can use the men’s public restrooms, and conversely that only biological women can use women’s restrooms. (The reality, which usually isn’t reported, is that most conservatives are fine with transgender individuals using the bathroom of their chosen gender, as long as they’ve undergone reassignment surgery.)

The most common compromise suggested in such debates is to have gender-neutral bathrooms set aside specifically for transgender individuals. This has the added benefit of accommodating “gender-fluid” individuals who don’t identify as either male or female. But some of those individuals respond by arguing that by being directly to special restroom facilities, they are being discriminated against. This, coupled with the notion among some radical feminists that separate facilities for men and women serve as gender discrimination, is slowly giving rise to the notion that gender-segregated restrooms and similar facilities should be done away with entirely.

To be clear, only a very few on the hard Left have advanced this idea so far. But I could see it taking hold among a larger proportion of liberals in the years ahead, possibly to the point where the issue will be debated in the political mainstream.

The many reasons why such proposals must be rejected out of hand should be clear. But along with the debate over bathrooms will come a broader debate over other facilities and activities segregated by gender, and in honor of the opening of the Olympics I want to look at that possibility as well.

Specifically: Within the next decade, will we see the end of gender-segregated sports? Will men’s swimming and women’s track be eliminated in favor of events open to both genders? And what would such an arrangement look like?

Change is already coming to the Olympics, with the IOC issuing new guidelines allowing, for the first time, transgender athletes compete in events corresponding with their gender identity, without having to first undergo reassignment surgery. To be clear, those athletes must still be undergoing hormone replacement therapy, but the change is still significant.

But take a movement away from specialized gender roles in recent years, such as the American military allowing women to serve in combat roles; a resistance by many on the Left to recognize any sort of biological difference between genders, coupled with a movement away from biology and toward psychology as a way to determine gender; and the long history of the IOC and other international bodies in actively promoting a variety of liberal causes—and the possibility, at the very least, of the eventual elimination of gender-segregated sports at the international level becomes clear. From there, it is a practical matter of the U.S. Olympic trials and other national competitions becoming gender-neutral, a change that would eventually filter down to the state and local levels of competition.

It’s impossible to know for sure how just how likely any of this is of actually occurring. The only thing that’s clear is that the current trend suggests that such an outcome, within the next couple of decades, is at least possible.

But if it does occur, and gender-segregated sports are eliminated? There would be no ignoring for long the scientific fact that men and women are biologically different, which leads to differing average results between genders in physical activities, and is the reason segregated sports exist in the first place. Assuming every athlete continues to perform at their absolute best, a wide discrepancy would emerge between men and women in terms of those athletes making it to the World Championships or the Olympics, as well as those who eventually won medals.

The only option to keep both gender-neutral events and a more even ratio between male and female victors would be to institute some sort of affirmative action program, at both the initial qualifying stage and to determine the final individual medalists. Of course, this would seemingly undermine the whole point of having gender-neutral events in the first place, but realistically it would be the only way such an arrangement could survive over the long term.

Policy Spotlight: Gay Marriage

The speed with which same-sex marriage has become an accepted part of mainstream American life is stunning. Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to recognize gay marriage, by order of the state Supreme Court, in 2004. Only eleven years later, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage was protected under the Constitution, it had already been legalized in thirty-six states. A final victory for a movement which had only begun in earnest in the 1990’s, and in a few decades succeeded in overturning thousands of years of tradition on what constituted marriage.

And in the vast majority of those thirty-six states, as well as at the national level, it was a bare majority of judges, many of them federal judges unelected and unaccountable to the people, who made the ultimate decision to change the longstanding definition of one of the core institutions of human society. By doing so, these judges overturned dozens of laws and constitutional amendments approved by both the elected legislatures of the respective states, and the people through direct referendums.

Overturning these popularly approved laws and constitutional amendments was a direct strike at the idea of federalism central to the American experiment, and the ability of the states to serve as, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “laboratories of democracy”. A central principle of federalism is to enable states to pass laws reflecting the values and policies best suited to their unique circumstances. Often, what’s best for Maine is not best for Georgia or Oregon—and if it is, states are free to learn from the experiences of others and implement similar laws tailored to meet their own unique needs. The same process was happening organically with the question of legalizing same-sex marriage, when federal judges—culminating with the Supreme Court and the Obergefell decision—stopped it cold and forced an identical solution on all fifty states.

Gay marriage was already winning the public debate—in 2012, four states approved referendum legalizing marriage between two people of the same gender, the first time the issue had actually won at the polls. If the majority in Obergefell had instead upheld the principle of federalism by allowing each state to continue making their own, democratic policies, it’s probable the majority of the country would have come to the same conclusion over time, with the added benefit of having people arrive at the decision freely, rather than being coerced into accepting a particular point of view.

All this is to say that both the conservative and tolerant policy with regard to gay marriage is continuing to allow each state to decide for itself whether or not to continue to recognize the practice. If Obergefell had been decided correctly this would be the current national policy, but as it is it will necessitate overturning that decision, whether by constitutional amendment or a later Court decision, both of which are obviously unlikely. But the end result should be promoted regardless, and the basic lessons of Obergefell can easily be applied to other, more current, debates, such as forcing individuals to perform and cater for same-sex weddings and bathroom use for transgendered people.

It’s also an easy policy to get behind and form compromises around, at least in theory. Supporters of gay marriage or abortion regulation or anything else will be comforted with the fact that no federal action will be taken to dissuade their favored policies in states which implement them, and vice versa with opponents of those policies, in states which ban same-sex marriage, or offer unregulated access to abortion.

In reality, the Left, which favors a top-down approach in which dissenting views are not to be tolerated, would not be content with such an arrangement for long. But this doesn’t change the fact that such an approach to issues like gay marriage or transgender bathroom use is the most tolerant option in respecting different viewpoints, and is also most in keeping with an original interpretation of the Constitution. Aggressively promoting this approach also has the added benefit of pushing back against the liberal narrative of intolerant and discriminatory conservatives, by pointing out the hypocrisy of a movement which itself is biased and discriminatory against any and all opposing opinions.

Above all, however, when long-established social norms such as the definition of marriage or appropriate bathroom use are challenged, it should always be the people and their elected representatives who make the final decision, not a few unelected oligarchs dictating what is best for the entire country.