Gary Johnson (Not) For President
While the young generation has historically supported the Democratic Party, a surprising diversion from this trend has emerged among millennials in the 2016 election. Of these nearly 75 million Americans, 36 percent have indicated a preference for third-party candidates, with Libertarian Gary Johnson (the primary focus of this article) earning more than 2/3 of this unusual support.
In light of this unprecedented third-party backing, a narrative has arisen regarding the implications of voting for anyone other than Hillary Clinton in what is undeniably a high stakes election. A vote for a third party candidate is, to some, indicative of one’s white privilege. This statement, while inherently undemocratic and borderline coercive, recklessly disregards the fact that Gary Johnson enjoys thirteen percent of his support from black or Latino voters, representative of nearly half of the percentage of that demographic in the United States. Admittedly, Gary Johnson is most certainly drawing votes from the Clinton campaign and is therefore a strategically unwise decision for those in the “Never Trump” camp. However, to say that white privilege entitles people to vote in this way is not only statistically inaccurate, it is also illustrative of the left’s emphasis on attitudinal conformity and intellectual homogeneity that has contributed to millennials’ lackluster opinion of the Democratic party in the first place. However, the intent of this article is not to disparage the left, but is to give concrete, more tangible reasons that Gary Johnson is not a viable candidate for the Presidency.
Johnson’s downfall is his economic policy, which should be alarming enough to convince every and all Hillary-hesitant millennials to reconsider their position. His proposal for cutting the federal budget by a whopping 43 percent is as outlandish as it is unachievable. To put that into perspective, decreasing the federal budget to this extent would be the equivalent of completely eliminating federal funding to health and human services (Medicare and Medicaid), education, veterans affairs, transportation, and lastly, food and agriculture. For those who would rather draw funds from other departments, tossing out the combined spending on social security and defense still leaves an additional 3 percent to be cut under Johnson’s plan. Upon closer examination, the man who opines himself as the moderate alternative to Trump and Clinton becomes the most fiscally conservative candidate in recent memory.
Elaborating on his crippling budget cuts, Johnson has stated that he wants to bring federal expenditures to under 15 percent of GDP — an amount lower than that desired by the Republican controlled house and lower than the level of government spending in relation to GDP since 1951. If bringing spending back down to 1951 levels is your ideal federal budget, then by all means, vote for Gary Johnson. Before casting your vote, however, it is important to remember that this level of government spending preceded the establishment of both Medicare and Medicaid. Essentially, Gary Johnson wants the United States to spend as if these essential programs did not exist.
Johnson’s disdain for government subsidized healthcare has been reinforced on several occasions, referring to it in 2013 as “insanity.” However, cutting spending to such an extent as to dismantle vital institutions like Medicare and Medicaid would be, as Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein states, “disastrous” and “depression inducing.”
Unfortunately, Johnson does not stop there. In addition to abolishing the income tax and implementing a regressive flat tax on new products — a type of taxation employed regularly at the state level that disproportionally affects lower income earners — a President Johnson would “sign legislation banning the Federal Reserve.” While Donald Trump has been likened to Andrew Jackson for his populist tendencies, Johnson usurps Trump for the title of “Most Jacksonian Politics” with this nonsensical and draconian attack on the Fed. For those not up to date on their American history, Jackson declared a similar war when he refused to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States in 1832. While the United States has since learned its lesson from President Jackson’s ill-conceived plan, Gary Johnson, it appears, has not.
If tax breaks for the wealthy, the crippling of Medicare and Medicaid, and the dismantling of the Fed are all things you look for in a candidate, then do not be dissuaded from voting for Gary Johnson. If you are white and consider the aforementioned policies as principled and sound, do not be deterred from voting your conscious because of your “privilege.” However, if you are a true moderate who cannot in good faith vote for Trump, do not vote for Gary Johnson. Somehow, his economic policies are more deficient than his knowledge about foreign affairs (a cheap shot, but it had to be mentioned), and are representative of a complete and total ignorance about the fixity of the modern welfare state. While Johnson’s progressive social policies — including but not limited to marriage equality, drug decriminalization, and women’s right to choose — are all luring for the politically disillusioned millennial, they are exceptionally deceptive. Economically, Gary Johnson is the most conservative candidate in this election. In fact, his policies are an insult to traditional economic conservatism, which would never employ such fiscal austerity. For these reasons, hesitant voters need to stand tall, take a deep breath, and say, “I’m with Her.”
