Why I'm Voting For Gary Johnson (And Why You Should Consider Doing So, Too)

My name is Ryan, and I am a moderate conservative; a religious one at that.

While not a member of any party, I have overwhelmingly voted for Republican candidates. George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. McCain in 2008. Romney in 2012. Senators, Representatives, both state and federal. I live in NC and voted for McCrory.

So when I tell you that I'm not voting for Trump, even in the face of his running against Hillary Clinton of all people, you need to understand how radical of a deviation this is for me.

I will be voting for Gary Johnson and William Weld, the Libertarian candidates, in this year's general election. This was made set in stone the moment that Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton went from being presumptive nominees to official nominees of their respective parties. In the interest of time, I won't go into how amazed I am that it came to this; that somehow these two were the best that the United States of America had to offer.

I have been deliberately outspoken about this on all social media. I have purchased domain names, created Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and Instagram feeds, and am just beginning to get them off the ground. Yet in the midst of this, I find myself spending most of my time explaining to friends, family and colleagues WHY I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate. "You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?" "You know he's pro choice, right?" "You know he supports gay marriage, right?" "You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"

I get these questions on repeat, and handle them as politely and succinctly as I am able (which is to say, not very well. Just ask my wife). So I decided it was high time to address these questions and some others that confront some statements made in opposition to the very existence of a third party.

But before I launch into becoming a libertarian apologist, I'd first like to take a bit of time and explain why, outside of those hot-button issues, I will be voting Johnson/Weld.

First of all, I needed something better than just voting against one candidate or the other. I believe that men and women have fought and died to provide our right to vote. I believe men and women have fought and died to protect that same right. I consider it a sacrament of the American experience, and one I hold in sincere reverence. I don't treat this like American Idol; I don't vote with a primary motivation of sending someone home. I need to believe in someone if I am going to vote for them. I have believed in every candidate for which I have cast a ballot, and I have no intention of changing that habit. So when I tell you I believe that Gary Johnson will make an honorable and trustworthy President, I mean it. And regardless of political maneuvering, I cannot say that about Clinton or Trump. I believe they are con artists, and their only successes are dependent on that specific skill-set.

I believe it takes experience to govern, and Johnson and Weld have done that (successful Governors of New Mexico and Massachusetts). I believe it takes experience to compromise and work with those who maintain different civic philosophies, and Johnson has done that (elected as a republican in a democratic state). I believe that someone whose decisions will have a direct impact on the taxes, economy and deficit of our country ought to have experience balancing budgets and managing taxes, and Johnson has done both (balanced budgets, cut taxes, and left surpluses, not deficits).

So now, let's get down to the concerns friends have raised as they have learned about my support of Gary Johnson.

"You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?"

No, at least not in the way most people intend. The assumption here is that by choosing Trump, I'm helping Clinton by taking away votes from him. That's a terrible assumption, because I wasn't ever going to vote for him in the first place. Might I have voted Republican if another candidate had been chosen? Sure. But the Republican ticket lost my vote the moment they made Trump their candidate. More to the point, they lost my vote the moment they let him hijack their nomination and hold it ransom.

See, what's interesting here is that both sides are claiming the same thing. "If you vote for Johnson, you're giving the election to Clinton/Trump". It's interchangeable, and it isn't true on either side of this election. I'm voting FOR Johnson, and as a happy consequence I also happen to be voting AGAINST Clinton AND Trump, and that's the whole point. 

Am I splitting the ticket? In a way ... a very good way. I'm saying with my vote that both "major" parties have run off the rails, and that this is the time to establish and support alternate parties.  As Johnson has said, "The two party system is a dinosaur, and we're the comet."

As an aside, this is NOT the same as Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996. He was an uber conservative who ran as the Reform Party candidate and drew votes almost exclusively from Republicans. And it isn't the same as Ralph Nader in 2000. Nader was a Green Party candidate that leached votes exclusively from Gore. Gary Johnson is drawing equal votes from both sides, because both parties are fed up with the corruption and collusion on their side of the aisle. He is polling incredibly well with independents, first-time voters, and minorities.

"You do realize he's pro-choice, right?"

Yes, and this was the most challenging internal knot I had to untangle. See, I'm pro-life. Always have been, and likely always will be. This is one of my least "moderate" positions. So how can I bring myself to support a pro-choice candidate? Because all of the candidates in this election cycle are pro-choice. In what I believe to be a very accurate representation of current and future America, everyone in this race is pro-choice. Furthermore, all candidates support Planned Parenthood. So how do I distinguish between them? Johnson is pro-choice until the viability of the fetus (24 weeks, and conservative states define it at 22 weeks), whereas Clinton and Trump have supported or do support mid-to-late term abortions. The biggest difference is that Johnson wants states to be able to govern themselves with minimal federal government interference. For me, that makes a very, VERY big difference.

I also had to come to grips with the fact that I believe many of our political animosities are based on the fact that each party tries to impose its morality on society (Republicans push Judeo-Christian, while Democrats strongly favor Secular Humanism). But is that the purpose of a governing body? After all, America is not and was never intended to be a theocracy. Yes, we were founded on biblical principles. Yes, faith informed some of our greatest triumphs and tragedies. But that was not the purpose of America's founding. The purpose was freedom. Freedom to worship and to live in accordance with our beliefs. And we don't need the President to tell us how to do that. What we need is for our government to WORK, to defend our nation, safeguard our liberties, maintain positive relationships with our allies and trade partners, and to stand up to organizations who become too formidable for families and communities (to name a few). When I realized that I have been voting in order to impose my own morality on everyone, things changed drastically for me. I shouldn't do that. The Religious Right should never have done that. The Progressives should not be doing that now.

"You know he supports gay marriage, right?

See above. All three candidates do. But Johnson differentiates himself in that he wants the government out of the marriage business, out of couples' bedrooms, and supports religious freedom in ministers' right to perform or abstain from performing marriage ceremonies.

"You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"

This circular argument upsets me more so than any of the others. It has no basis in polling data or election law.

In essence, here's what you're saying:

"You shouldn't vote for someone who can't win." 
"Well why can't he win?"
"Because not enough people are going to vote for him."

That. Is Absolutely. Insane.

So allow me to put it to you a different way:

"You should vote for Johnson."
"Why would I go and do a thing like that?!"
"Because if everyone who was fed up with Washington voted for Johnson, he would win."

 And guess what ... EVERYONE IS FED UP WITH WASHINGTON. We're sick of the cronyism. We're sick of the empty promises. We're sick of the absurd spending. We're sick of mandated political correctness. We're sick of being taxed on income, retirement, investments, our cars, our homes, our phone lines, our groceries and our internet. We're sick of being observed by every government agency for no reason whatsoever. And we are sick, sick, SICK of the two "major" parties conspiring to tell us who we should want for president. You know what? The vast majority of us don't want Trump. The vast majority of us don't want Clinton.

I wonder what would happen if we all voted that way.

#GreekLivesMatter

Racism is as old as humankind itself. The Bible is completely littered with accounts of racism, whether it be the misdeeds of the “heroes” of Biblical accounts, or else racist actions taken against them. That anyone denies racism as an actual part of the human experience blows my mind. For someone to sincerely believe that, they not only have to be completely blind to the world around them, but they also have to completely ignore the whole collection of our historic literature. If you’re someone who has been tempted to say that, stop and read a book. And after doing that, if you still need proof, I have a truckload of data. Make me use it. “Go ahead punk, make my day.”

For those of you who recognize the reality of racism, but are having a hard time grappling with the #BlackLivesMatter movement specifically or the validity of racism against minorities in America in general, this blog is for you.

But more specifically, I’m writing to fellow Christians, because I am compelled beyond restraint to do so. We read the Bible. We love Jesus. We worship and participate in sacraments, we pray and we fast. In our time doing all those things, it has become very clear to us that God is all about reaching the marginalized. He loves the outcast. He welcomes the foreigner. He chases after the discarded members of society. We know these things because He commanded His Church to behave this way. We know these things because the Son of God Himself behaved this way. In light of those things, I want to draw attention to two different challenges faced by the early church which I sincerely believe give us a clear course of action to take in this current cultural war.

In Acts 6, we find the first challenge. Verses 1-6 paint the picture: Greek Jews were upset because their widows weren’t being given their portion of daily food. Widows were provided for, because they had no way to provide for themselves, and had no family members to provide for them. The church took care of them. But in a very short period of time, preference was shown to Native Hebrews. When the Greek Jews came for their portion, they were told “Sorry, we’re fresh out.”

Now, let’s stop right there to clarify a few things: was this discrimination? Yes. Was it based on ethnic background? Yes. Was it therefore racist by our modern definition? Yes. We're believers in Christ the ones doing it? Yes. Christians were discriminating against other Christians because of their ethnicity. But as is often the case, this story doesn’t endorse the behavior. The Apostles’ response to this conflict is so good we should unpack it:

“Administrate it.”

“Handle it.”

“Take care of it.”

What we don’t find is any dispute. Now perhaps there was contestation, but it isn’t recorded here or anywhere else. The Native Hebrews didn’t deny the discrimination. They didn’t marginalize the claims. And if they did, that aspect was completely overlooked. Why? Because it didn’t matter. The Apostle’s direction shows that they ACKNOWLEDGED the discrimination and chose to CONFRONT IT with ACTION. Why? Because it was important that there be equality in Christ’s Church, a place where racial, social, economic, and gender distinctions were nullified as it relates to people’s inclusion and participation in God’s family. We are called to live "on earth, as it is in heaven."

In this instance, the Apostle's needed to make a statement, and they did it in short order:

#GreekLivesMatter

It’s really important to note here that affirming the fact that #GreekLivesMatter in no way rejected or prevented the Church’s practice of providing for non-Greek widows. It only motivated them to ensure that they were included and that the discrimination, whether intentional or unintentional, stopped from that point forward.

Why then is this so hard for us to acknowledge now? If we see that racism exists, and if we see that a particular segment of our population is on the receiving end of that discrimination frequently, why do we hesitate to speak up and act on their behalf?

Because the media twists it? Because they’re speaking for themselves? Because some of them are violent? Because they’re angry? Because it’s not as bad as it used to be?

What a despicable bouquet of excuses! Jesus would behave differently, because Jesus behaved differently (and had his own experiences being on the receiving end of racism). The Apostle's would behave differently, because they behaved differently when given the same opportunity that the Church is being given now.

THAT is why saying #AllLivesMatter is so damaging; so beneath God’s family. It’s not for us to generalize all of humanity as if that somehow makes racism a myth, as if closing our eyes to it somehow makes the storm around us go away. It’s not for us to spout off self-help platitudes as some kind of cheap substitute for our PARTICIPATION in the PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION. And it’s certainly not for us to laugh at, mock or tear down those who are doing what they can with what they have to try and DO OUR JOB FOR US.

I’ve decided to tackle Acts 11 in my next post. But for now, I’ll leave you with this question: If the Church was behaving as the agent of change in the world that God intended it to be, would there need to be a #BlackLivesMatter movement at all? Food for thought.