This Election Wouldn't Be So Important If We Just Followed The Constitution

The strongest argument Trump apologists can muster for their man has consistently been, “At least he’s not Hillary!” Similarly, one of the strongest arguments in favor of Clinton has consistently been, “At least she’s not Donald Trump!”

Both sides say that this presidential election could be one of the most consequential in American history, and with the ideological balance of the Supreme Court, the expansion of the regulatory and welfare state, and the potential continuation of Obama-style liberal policies and executive actions all at stake, both sides have a point.

But the real question—and yet one not being asked—should be, “Why is this election so important?” Why is the partisan affiliation of the President, or his ideological background, of such vital importance? Why so much attention upon the filling of a single office?

No President, Democrat or Republican, should exert the sort of power and influence over the direction of the country that the media and popular opinion now attribute to the office. The simple fact is that no single presidential election should be so enormously consequential in the life of the nation.

The Constitution, as has been endlessly repeated during the Age of Obama, limits presidential power. Congress is designed to be most responsive to the people, and is therefore delegated most direct authority over domestic concerns. The president, while serving as the sole face of America in foreign affairs and holding significant unilateral power in matters of national security, must still consult with Congress on the direction of the nation.

On everything from health care to immigration, many of the most popular debate topics are framed as if the President has singular authority: "What would you do to fix _____?" But the president's primary responsibility is to sign or veto bills passed by Congress, and enforce those which do become law. Apart from his role as Commander in Chief, and immediate issues of national security, there is little he can do unilaterally, particularly in domestic affairs. The President was intended to be the enforcer of the law, not its author.

Nor, as Barack Obama needs to constantly be told, is there a clause in the Constitution which allows a president to assume monarchical powers should Congress fail to act on any given problem. He can encourage them to do so, but he cannot take binding action on his own. Many of the questions at these presidential debates seem to either forget or ignore this basic principle of American government—at the end of the day, while important, a single presidential election shouldn't be so impactful. It was only in the past century—a trend begun by Wilson, expanded by FDR, and brought into its own by Obama—that presidents began to drastically exceed their mandates.

Donald Trump has no constitutional power to single-handedly build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Hillary Clinton has no power to implement a public option for health insurance or “make college more affordable.” But now, thanks to Obama and the presidents who came before, they think they do, and will attempt to make it so.

Trick or Trick

This year, both major party candidates are tricking the American voter. The many lies and deceptions of Donald Trump are hardly worth repeating at this point—from his policy flip-flops to his refusal to release his tax returns, to his past praise of his supposed opponent. The evidence continues to mount that he is conducting this campaign either as a favor for his friend Hillary Clinton, or as an ad campaign for Trump TV, or both.

And Clinton herself is no better. Her own lies and deceptions have been on public record for decades, from Whitewater to Benghazi to her private email server and the pay-to-play schemes of the Clinton Foundation. Leaked emails from campaign chairman John Podesta show her discussing how she has a “public position” and “private position” on certain issues, and now word emerges that she may have illegally coordinated with SuperPACs. Meanwhile, the FBI reopens their investigation over the mishandling of classified information.

And the one candidate who emerges from 2016 with a “lying” nickname is Ted Cruz.

At this late stage, there’s just no other way to say it: Both Trump and Clinton are god-awful candidates, and would make god-awful presidents.

So choose neither. Look at Evan McMullin (especially if you’re in Utah!) Give Gary Johnson a chance. Check out Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party nominee, or someone else. Just remember that it’s not necessary to vote for someone who’s neither run a scam university nor stored state secrets on a private server in her basement.

Trump and Clinton backers will say that a vote for a third option is a vote wasted, that only the Democratic or Republican nominee stand a chance of winning. But that only remains true as long as the voters believe it to be true.

Why We Talk So Much About Trump: It's Personal

Over the weekend, Kimberly Ross, writing at RedState, posted an excellent piece asking, “Why Do We Talk So Much About Trump?” I agree completely with all of her arguments, but I think there’s an even deeper reason for why many conservative members of #NeverTrump are so obsessed (for lack of a better word) with The Donald—it’s personal.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible, awful, no good, very bad candidate, and would be the same as President—but she’s a liberal Democrat who is running as the candidate of the Democratic Party. Trump, meanwhile, is a liberal who has taken over the Republican Party, making many of its leaders and members look like fools and hacks in the process. Based on past statements and evidence, he would pursue many of the same liberal policies as Clinton, but with the added detriment of giving them an air of conservative approval. I’ve written before about how Trump can be liberal, and yet give conservatism a bad name at the same time—it’s all about perception, and merely being the nominee of what was once America’s major conservative party will be enough for many voters to see Donald Trump as emblematic of conservatism.

The point is that Hillary Clinton is the terrible candidate of the other side, the sort of person Democrats nominate all the time. But, for many Republicans, it feels as if Trump and his followers stole the party out from under them, all while destroying some of the party’s brightest stars in the process. The fact that many of Trump’s primary wins were the result of Democrats and independents voting in Republican open primaries makes that perception even stronger.

This was our party, many conservatives think. And now this orange freak and his cultists have stolen it. For many who had (and still have) an emotional attachment to the Party of Reagan, that anger is hard to let go of, and is the reason many still can’t stop talking about (or raging about) Trump.

A Warning To The Reluctant Trump Voter

As we reach the home stretch of the campaign, the inevitable is happening. Many Republicans and independents are beginning to forget some of the objections they had to Trump, some of the reasons they had earlier declared themselves to be #NeverTrump. The specter of a Hillary Clinton presidency has caused them to reconsider, to decide that Donald Trump is the only vehicle left to stop a second Clinton presidency. The “lesser of two evils” argument is beginning to gain greater traction.

Enough people have already stripped away the arguments for the “lesser of two evils”. Either option entails voting for evil. But there is another simple fact that all those who vote for Trump, however reluctantly, must be reminded of: To vote for a candidate means to become responsible for everything that candidate says or does. The same is doubly true for Donald Trump.

If Trump wins the Presidency, everyone who voted for him and promoted him must answer for every action, objectionable comment, and liberal policy he makes or promotes over the next four years. They will bear responsibility for elevating to the most powerful office in the world a man who insults women, ridicules and threatens everyone who dares disagree with him, and believes that Planned Parenthood does “wonderful things”. They will own it all.

Just as every person who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 bears some measure of responsibility for Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and his two Supreme Court appointments, so too will every person who supports a victorious Trump campaign in 2016 be in some way responsible for his every action while in office. If not for millions of people who consider themselves reluctant Trump voters, Donald J. Trump will not be President come January 2017.

This is not to say I don’t understand their reasoning in supporting Trump over Clinton. I do. Hillary Clinton would be an atrocious Commander in Chief. But just as her supporters must answer for everything that may come of a second Clinton Presidency, so too must Trump supporters answer for anything that might emerge from a Trump administration. Both policy papers and Tweets.

Elections have consequences. Trump voters, be certain you are prepared to defend your man, his actions, and yours.

The Good Thing About Having No Candidate to Support

For the first time in my life, I truly have no candidate to support in a presidential election. I truly see no effective difference between the two major party nominees. I will likely vote for Gary Johnson, as I believe him to be the most honest, trustworthy, and overall best candidate currently running (although Evan McMullin is an appealing choice as well), but I carry no emotional attachment for either Johnson or his party, and disagree with both on a substantial number of issues. Realistically, either Trump or Clinton will be the next president, and it can be sobering and slightly depressing to stay on the sidelines.

The silver lining, however, is that I no longer feel any constraints on pointing out the flaws of one candidate or another, simply because I hope for a certain outcome. Both are terribly flawed candidates. Previous candidates I have supported, for both national and state office, have had flaws as well, but because I wanted them to win and saw them as infinitely better than the alternative I would often hold onto those opinions which could negatively affect the outcome I preferred.

This election, however, all of us who remain #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary can regain some intellectual honesty we may have lost over the last few election cycles. Neither of the two major candidates want or need our support, and most of the minor party candidates have significant flaws, as well. This election gives us a chance to truly voice our opinions, tell it as we see it, and hopefully regain some independence from the opinions and pressures of others in the process.

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.

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.

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.

Balancing the Two Evils

For many voters in presidential elections, attempting to choose between the two major party nominees has long been compared to choosing between the lesser of two evils. Always before, conservatives have faced a choice in which both options were flawed, but one infinitely better, on both policy and character. Now, however, it’s not clear which of the two evils selected for 2016 is truly the lesser.

Both parties have nominated arrogant New York liberals who allow ambition to overshadow all else, including what will be best for the country. Both parties have nominated people who promise change, but who are the very embodiment of the political establishment and have for decades bought and sold other politicians, and have been bought and sold themselves. And both parties have nominated people who have between them literally dozens of major scandals already in the public record, and who are both facing either a current lawsuit or the prospect of a federal indictment. Lies and deceit follow both wherever they go. No wonder that both nominees are also the two most disliked major party presidential nominees in the history of polling.

One candidate brings with her decades of scandal and corruption in the political world; the other brings with him decades of scandal and corruption in the business world. The only meaningful difference between the two, then, is that one promises a different sort of corruption and incompetence from what we’re used to seeing in politics.

The search goes on to find the lesser of the two.