Compromising Principle for Party
By: Robert Villanueva
The classic question of whether or not your should cast a vote for a pragmatist who could move things forward compared to somebody who may not be as popular, but is somebody who you believe in. It takes a lot of stoicness (if that’s a word) and due diligence in order to not collapse into a fervor of irrational hatred towards the Republicans’ leading contender, Mr. Trump.
I was adamantly #NeverTrump until I started doing my own research, instead of reaching out to pundits for expertise and 8 second talking points. Trump is not racist or sexist. Just so I don’t spend four pages arguing semantics and comprising logical correlations, think about this: would you have called Trump bigoted or racist just last year before he announced his intention of holding the highest office in the land? When Trump was a best friend of Michael Jackson? When he was on WWE as an Entertainer?
The point is that I was against Trump because I was vying for the reptilian Cruz to secure the nomination. I make the -saurian connection because his rhetoric and presumptuous actor’s cadence reminds me a lot of the despotic, robotic Hilary Clinton. He wants to say what sounds good, or at least attempted to, before the media gobbled him up. (The very same media that Donald has been exposed to since he engaged in the real estate business, for decades).
Where does that leave us? We can cross off the criminal, Mrs. Shillary. Presumptively, I would say that Trump is going to defeat the Democratic machine in a landslide, barring any conservative third party shenanigans. Hilary is given talking points by her shadowy elite figures; while Trump has a phallic-like tongue that carves out anybody questioning his ideals, just look at what’s left of Megyn Kelly. That being said, a vote for Trump wouldn’t do much. He is already “destroying the Establishment”, so why not find something else to destroy – how about the 2-party system?
The only third party that is going to legitimately be on the ballot in all 50 states is the Libertarian Party. The convention to nominate their candidate will take place in Orlando this Memorial Day weekend, which I have the pleasure of attending as a media correspondent. There are only 3 candidates who are more or less vying for the nomination spot: Gary Johnson, Austin Petersen, and John McAfee. Their popularity would be in the aforementioned order as well.
McAfee is a long shot, as his public aura of danger and peril doesn’t stand well with the already anarchy-weary public, thanks to the riots caused by BlackLivesMatter and such frivolous organizations. That leaves us two, Petersen and Johnson. Petersen was born 1981, has never held office before, and sounds like he is reading a tall stack of libertarian bumper stickers when he gives speeches. Johnson, who has was Governor of New Mexico for two terms, has the expertise but is low on energy, like a koala on xanax.
Johnson has been getting a lot of flack lately because he gave an unlibertarian response concerning religious liberties, where he would “force” a Jewish bakery to bake a Nazi cake in the name of public welfare. This has been enough to call for the rise of Austin Petersen as a candidate from the deep atavistic freedom dungeons, as he is more “Principled and Virtuous”.
Why has the Libertarian Party been dormant for the last 40 years? Why has it never gotten more than 2% of the national vote? Do we really think that nominating a 35 year old walking meme will bring the party into the wandering eyes of millions of Americans? If we thought Cruz was a bad actor, Petersen gives off the Sean Connery “better than you” vibe every time he debates. Not only has Gary Johnson nominated a VP candidate with plentiful pockets, but his name recognition is few and far between. Johnson just received 10 percent in a Fox News poll, and 14 percent in a New Mexico poll (front runners being Trump and Hilary). Did I forget to mention Johnson hasn’t even started campaigning yet?
To tie this all together, I have to compromise principle for party. I originally would have never done such a thing, as the #NeverTrump train was loaded with constitutionalists who used such shrewdness that you would think they were Professor Snape from the Harry Potter series. This time around, Gary Johnson is the less principled candidate. In a chance to end the two party system**, the Libertarian Party needs to nominate the candidate who may sacrifice some principle in order to draw in voters who are disgusted with both the left and the right. Johnson has the name recognition, political knowledge, and vacillating platform, which would allow everyone from fiscal conservatives to Rachel Carson peaceniks to join the party. Inclusion is the key, as people flock to what they see and hear the most. Trump. Point in Fact.
** In order to even have a chance of winning the election, Johnson must be included in the debates. The criteria for this is to poll at 15% in several national polls, from which the committee members will decide if they are valid or not. Yes, it is rigged for the Dems and Repubs, but so it goes. On a side note, if Gary Johnson receives 5% in several national polls, the Libertarian Party is eligible for matching federal funds in the 2020 election. Which means that the Federal government will match individual donations to the Libertarian Party up to a certain point with tax-payer dollars. The same applies already for the dichotomous powers.
* Robert Villanueva is entering his junior year at Florida State University. He lives and breathes economics and politics, while dabbling with guitar and off-road biking on his free time. He troes not to take anything too seriously.
Latest posts by Being Libertarian (see all)
- Tariffs: Minimizing Winners and Maximizing Losers - March 16, 2018
- Colton Haab vs CNN: Cutting Through The Media Dishonesty - March 15, 2018
- The New Democratic Slogan: “Never Waste a Good Tragedy” - March 8, 2018