Third Party

With the election nearing and more and more coverage (as if we weren't already saturated in it) coming out about both the Trump and Clinton campaign, a lot* of people are talking about third party candidates. I'm familiar enough with American history to know that third parties are almost always a bad idea, and history can hinge on these things pretty heavily. Since most everyone who reads this blog was likely alive to see what Nader did to Gore in 2000, and also how Perot tweaked the '92 election, I don't need to point out that most of the time, third parties don't advance their agendas, but instead muddy the waters enough so that the race is more difficult to manage. To see the largest swing in the last century, consider what the Bull Moose Party did: If you look at the election numbers, there were more votes cast for the Republican-style candidates. However, because Roosevelt started his own party, it split the support enough that the country voted for Wilson instead. I'm ambivalent about Wilson's success--the world maybe wouldn't have been pulled into World War II if America had entered earlier or if Wilson's diplomacy hadn't failed in 1919, but it's hard for me to say what the world would be like had Teddy been in office--but his victory is decidedly thanks to having two rivals.

All that being said, I feel like a quick run-down of why I don't believe choosing a third-party candidate is wise.

Dr. Jill Stein

Despite being a doctor, this Green Party candidate has been chirping on the fringes for some time. Hoping to scoop up discontented Sanders supporters, Dr. Stein has an anti-vax policy that turns my stomach. Additionally, though she has vastly progressive-left policies, the Green Party as a whole has essentially no expertise in doing anything other than chirping on the fringes. I'm not voting for a songbird whose tune is one of lack of experience, and I believe most people feel the same way.

Zoltan Istvan

The Transhumanist Candidate: Openly atheistic, promising immortality in the form of transhumanist science, he drives around America in a giant car shaped like a coffin. In terms of his pro-science stance, I'm fully on board, but the fact that basically anyone who is reading this just said, "Who is Zoltan Istvan" is part of the problem with third-party candidates anyway: If you're not one of the big two, you're not really playing. Istvan has been active on Twitter and social media, and were he getting the numbers he's enjoying now about 150 years ago, it might make a difference. His ideas are as fundamentally radical as Dr. Stein's, but he's in a different direction. Economics would change with immortal Americans (done through technology as a "back up" of a brain, though that's not all that transhumanism embraces), though not the way a Green Party candidate would change economics. I'm not looking for this kind of revolution.

Vermin Supreme

Often satirizing and bothering the Democratic Party in the primaries, Vermin Supreme isn't really trying to be president: He's a satirical activist who likes to make people uncomfortable. I mean, look at him.

Yes, that's a boot on his head. He also has a lot of ties on.

I honestly don't know if he's technically still running, though it wouldn't surprise me if he stops after losing the primary. Still, he's an outlier and an interesting fellow, whose number one campaign promise is that he'll guarantee a pony for every American. "A vote for Vermin Supreme is a vote thrown away," is his motto. I like him, but I'd never vote for him, because 1) he'd probably turn around and resign as soon as he was sworn in, and 2) as much fun as it is to ridicule our leaders (and it is fun), I love this country enough to not want to see it burned to the ground by a septuagenarian who has a dim grasp of reality--of course, Trump isn't third party, so I digress.

Evan McMullin

Coming out of the disaster of the RNC this summer, McMullin has pretty strong credentials in terms of understanding foreign policy, what with his time in the CIA, as well as a platform that's conservative in much more substantial ways than the conservativism of the GOP. That appeals to a lot of those in my neck of the woods--that he's Mormon and a BYU grad also helps. As I'm not really a fan of conservative policies--though I find many of their philosophies necessary to keep balance in the federal government--he certainly doesn't gain any credit from me. As far as "being a real conservative", well, since he doesn't have a voting record, that's an indeterminate claim, and can't really be used in a way that should satisfy an unbiased observer. That he has knowledge of the darker side of the American intelligence community is actually his largest detriment to me: I'm not interested in refighting wars of the past. The Cold War is over** and I don't want to see our Commander-in-Chief also viewing the world as part politician, part Jason Bourne.

That's probably overstating it some, so let me put it another way: He's no Ike. Our warrior presidents have had different levels of success, and how one measures the gains of a president can vary. I think there's enough variety in generals-turned-presidents to make me leery of McMullin's background.

Gary Johnson

In a brilliant bit of rhetoric stolen from millennia of orators, I saved the consideration of the person that most of you are likely to want to read. I put it at the end so that you'd see more of my writing and satisfy all of the non-advertisers that my free blog doesn't attract because it's not monetized. I'm sure you've Poloniused this enough to determine the method in my madness, yes?

Actually, I save Johnson for last because, aside from a couple of specifics, my refusal to consider him as a candidate comes from what I hinted at the top of the post: The inherent flaw of third-party candidates.

So, why not Governor Johnson? Besides the gaffes? The perpetual brain farts? Well, as a Libertarian, I'm already allergic. Sure, he has some social progress to his credit: legalization of marijuana (I don't use, but I think it's significantly less dangerous than alcohol, and could be taxed to great revenue of the country--vice taxes, baby!), in favor of LGBTQ+ rights (though not the strongest ally), avoiding things like "Stop and Frisk" laws. These tend to fall in line with libertarian thinking in the first place, so it's no surprise that he supports them.

Unlike many people in my area, I'm not curious who John Galt is, I don't adhere to objectivism, and though I love the fantasy series The Sword of Truth by Ayn Rand's disciple, Terry Goodkind, I'm not actually down with the survival-of-the-fittest approach to economy, government, or human interactions that libertarianism broadly and objectivism specifically embrace. In particular, I find it disquieting whenever a libertarian starts stumping, because I feel there's a fundamental paradox: "Government is bad. Vote for me, so I can be in control of the government. Which is bad."

Okay, I'm satirizing. They aren't anarchists: limited government is the large thing they kick about for. The problem with that is digging down into whom it benefits. The Civil Rights Act, for example, is anti-libertarian, as it forces people to behave a particular way. The ADA is another one. And, yes, making certain that wheelchairs can access a building is definitely the government getting into your business, I am (as I've said before) in the default position of cheering on those who are minorities, the undefined, the voiceless. The ADA, like all legislation, has frustrating implications that can sometimes cause harm--but it has also benefited and blessed the people of this country in so many ways that we don't even realize it most of the time. A "true" libertarian wouldn't be able to actually make the country better for the minorities here, because the libertarian instinct is to let people behave as they will, only intervening when it "gets bad enough" (whatever that means). A libertarian student of mine once groused that there shouldn't be regulations like having to wear seat belts or warning signs on items. "If they get hurt, let them sue!" The problem with that is, if there's no regulation violated, their complaints are moot. There has to be a law broken for them to sue--and do we really want our already congested court systems to be filled with even more minor disputes?

This goes a long way to say that I'm not a fan of libertarian philosophy in the first place, so I'm not likely to vote for the guy.

Plus, he's against the Department of Education. I see where he's coming from--there's no provision for education in the federal Constitution--but it's also my family's entire livelihood. I'm not voting for a guy who wants to make our already tight budget untenable.

Conclusion

This is all to point out one particular thing: I don't think voting third-party is a good idea. Any one of these people (except Vermin Supreme) is loaded with baggage. There are "problems on both sides", as some people are quick to point out about the current election cycle. But voting your conscience is a treacherous proposition.

Consider this: Three candidates are before you. All you know is the following facts:

• Candidate 1 is an alcoholic, smoker, pugnacious career politician who sees war as the best response to any situation. He would smack Gandhi if he had the chance.
• Candidate 2 is sickly, romantically entangled with a not-too-distant cousin, and pushes all sorts of government programs all in the name of economic strength. He, too, has a major smoking problem. 
• Candidate 3 is charismatic, passionate, and a war veteran. He has strong economic polices that enhance private sector jobs. He is a vegetarian, hates smoking, and believes strength comes from military might.

Who would you vote for? Well, if you're anything like my students, you'll overwhelmingly vote for number 3. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that I'm spinning these candidates' behaviors, vices, and virtues to manipulate you. That's part of the lesson--single issues can sometimes drown out larger, more important pieces. 

Before I tell you what you likely already know, I also want to point out that, when my students do this little exercise, they walk away with a challenge to consider what "values" actually mean. Do we value what we have? What we think we could have? Should have? Who deserves what they get? All of us? Some of us? Since no candidate embraces every political preference, which issues matter most? Since voting for a candidate means voting for the entire candidate, how much should we know about someone before casting a ballot?

Candidate 1 is Sir Winston Churchill. Candidate 2 is Franklin Roosevelt. And, yes, Candidate 3 is Adolph Hitler. (I should point out that I'm not comparing any current candidate to Hitler, so Godwin's Law doesn't apply. Right? Right.) So, yeah, I usually get about 90% of my students to vote in favor of Adolph Hitler based solely on specifically chosen details about the candidates, calibrated to trigger prejudices (particularly against alcohol and smoking, as I have so many LDS students) and make them feel that they're voting their values.

How does this pertain to a third-party spiel? I dunno...I don't think you should vote for Candidate 3 in my example. But it's more than that: It's the idea that we have to have a perfect choice in order to make the choice. We don't. Voting is an important duty, and I feel like we don't treat it with enough consideration. Saying there are things you disagree with about "both sides" of the electoral offerings this year is a cop-out. 

Look, third-parties sound great on paper. Thinkpieces (like mine, but more coherent) abound about why and how a third-party can make a difference. But the stakes are immensely high. And voting third-party won't make you feel better when a future President Trump wants to start a war because someone tweeted something mean about him.*** 

---
* And by a lot, I mean 93% of the country wouldn't vote for the guy--which is, I think, better context than saying 7% would.
** Yes, Russia, I know. It's absolutely a problem and the world is definitely a different place than it was even 30 years ago. Cold Warriors are distinct relics of the twentieth century from whom we ought to learn, not put back in power.
*** I'm not saying that I support Hillary Clinton, by the way. I tend to shy away from "supporting" any of the elected officials. They knew what they wanted--they can hack it on their own, or not. So, no, I'm not a supporter of Hillary Clinton. But will I vote for her? Pffsh. Yes. Like, that's a no brainer. There's no wringing of hands on this one: Trump is not an option and third-party is out. That leaves Clinton. Easy.