The Case for Gary Johnson

We're a few days past the first presidential debate of 2016, also known as Fall Dumpster Fire #1.  For those of you who are trying to figure out which of these not so good options to vote for, I submit that these two are not your only choices.  There is another option who will appear on the ballot in all 50 states: the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.  Here are some things to consider with regard to Johnson's qualifications:

• He is the only candidate with government executive experience.  Johnson was a popular, two-term governor of New Mexico.  Likewise, his running mate, William Weld, was governor of Massachusetts.   Clinton has experience running the State Department from her time as Secretary of State, but she's never been a government CEO.  Neither has Trump.  There's something to be said for having experience running a government before, as Reagan and Clinton and Bush 43 had before they became president.
• He has business executive experience, too.  One of Donald Trump's primary arguments is that he has experience as a successful business executive, experience that will help him as the nation's chief executive.  Some would argue how successful of a business man he has actually been, given multiple bankruptcies, etc., but that's an argument for another day.  Gary Johnson also as experience as a successful business executive.  He built a small construction firm into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico, with more than 1,000 employees.  And he did it without filing for bankruptcy.
• He doesn't have the baggage that come with Trump and Clinton.  Both of the major party candidates bring with them loads of baggage that has, in part, caused them to be the two least popular presidential candidates in decades.  Whether it's Trump's numerous controversial remarks or sketchy business dealings or Clinton's issues with emails and Benghazi, there are plenty of issues with both of them.  Johnson, on the other hand, has no such negative baggage.
• He's not a warhawk.  If you believe, like I do, that we need to spend less time and money trying to influence international affairs - especially since we have such a horrendous track record of it - Johnson is much less likely to meddle overseas than either Trump or Clinton.
• He fills a unique niche on the political spectrum.  Democrats are fiscally and socially liberal; Republicans are (nominally) fiscally and socially conservative.  Johnson's platform splits the difference - he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  There are a LOT of people who fit that description but who don't have a party that gives them both sides of that coin.  Johnson does.

Does Johnson potentially have some shortcomings?  Yes.  He's probably not as astute on foreign affairs as I'd like and I don't necessarily agree with his position on some social issues.  However, he is unquestionably head and shoulders above the two major party candidates when it comes to honesty and integrity and that should count for something.

I'm not telling you who you should vote for - that is a personal decision that only you can make.  I'm simply pointing out that you don't only have to choose the lesser of two evils.  There are other choices.  Also, if you are truly sick of the political cesspool and morass that is Washington, D.C., what better way to try to change that than by electing a third party candidate?  I encourage you to do your research and not just automatically ignore anyone who doesn't have an R or a D after their name.

Thanks for reading!