donald trump

Why you should support the Libertarian Party, at least until the November election

The premise of this piece is simple: if you don’t firmly support Trump or Clinton, you should openly support Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s nominee, at least until you actually vote in November. Also, politics and elections are a big picture long game, so you need to think about your support and vote as not just impacting this election, but the elections to come.

Although I would like to see you actually vote for Johnson in November, all you really need to do is openly support Johnson until then. The reason for this comes down to basic math: Johnson will be invited to the presidential debates if he is polling at a minimum of 15% based on the “average of five selected national public opinion polling organizations’ most recently publicly reported results, at the time eligibility is determined.

Brief History of the Presidential Debates

The Commission on Presidential Debates (the “CPD”) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1987 to regulate presidential debates in the U.S. It doesn’t receive government funding, but it was created by the Republican and Democratic parties for the supposed purpose of ensuring that presidential debates offer the best information to prospective voters. Since the 1988 debates, the CPD has controlled every general election debate and, only in 1992, has a third party been present at them. That year, Ross Perot attended the debates and went on to win 19% of the popular vote.

Why  Debates Matter

Not only do the presidential debates give candidates the ability to participate in high-profile arenas where they can share their views, but they also give the attendees an air of authority and significance. Millions of people watch them, pundits endlessly comment on them, and they expose the attendees to the public at large. Without a spot on that stage, a candidate has almost no chance of reaching the public at large. This means that third parties languish on the sidelines as  topics of interest for only the most politically-attentive Americans.

The debates also provide the only potential opportunity for candidates to directly engage with one another. Outside of the CPD-sanctioned debate stages, candidates tend not to interact directly, opting for indirect opportunities through their campaign machines and media to attack their opponents’ positions. But in the debates, they’re head-to-head, and this sharpens their contrasts.

Why Supporting Johnson Matters…even if you’re not a Libertarian

Getting a third party on the debate stages is important for our democracy. Voters have more than two choices, although most either don’t know that, or think it isn’t significant because the likelihood of a third party winning the election is too unlikely. To some extent, the latter camp is correct, because it would take a political miracle for a third party to win the general election this year. Getting Johnson (or any other viable third party candidate) onto the debate stage is a step towards breaking our country’s dependence on the two-party system. More candidates means more choices, and more choices means a better chance of breaking down the beleaguered beats the two major parties have gotten so good at walking. A third party could shake up the (increasingly transparent) holograms being broadcast by the two major parties.

Think of it this way: if you’re in a fight against one other person, you only have to watch out for attacks from that angle. But bring a third fighter into the mix, and now you’re vulnerable from positions you otherwise wouldn’t have had to defend. This makes it more likely for weaker fighters to get knocked out and strengthens better fighters whose stance can actually hold up against attacks from all sides.

Why You Should Vote for Gary Johnson in November

Put simply, a political party convention is eligible for federal campaign financing in a general election if it wins at least 5% of the popular vote in the preceding election. Getting this funding would be huge for a third party, because one of the biggest barriers to entry into this protected field is money. We have to think ahead, and although you might be right when you say that a third party could never win the election, you’re only partially right. After this election, another will occur in at least four years. After that, at least another four. And so on. To create real and lasting change, you need to play the long game. Your vote in November will have consequences for the next cycle. Don’t waste it on Trump or Clinton, unless you’re in a battleground state like Ohio or Florida and you actually want one of them to win.





The Statue of Liberty: A Roadmap for Navigating the Syrian Refugee Debate

In the wake of the highly coordinated terror attack in Paris, the U.S. has begun a debate about whether or not to bring in Syrian refugees. Unfortunately, much of this debate has been tone-deaf and devoid of fact or even a cursory understanding of our laws and history.

More disturbing than this stunning lack of context, however, has been the shunning of our most cherished ideals and morals.

The most heinous example of blindness to American values comes to us in the form of republican presidential candidate front-runner Donald Trump. I will make my biases known: I think this man is an idiot. This is a man born so rich that he had the ability to, and did in fact, fail miserably in numerous business ventures with such extravagance that he had to declare bankruptcy on multiple occasions. As to be expected, this made him ridiculous enough to become a reality television star, which is the worst thing a human can be. On top of that, he’s a hypocrite and a liar.

But Trump, not to be outdone by his past self, has decided to up the ante and double-down on reasons to dislike him. Now he’s espousing spectacularly fascist ideas, which aren’t even good ideas. They’re not good ideas because they lack any basis in data, history, foresight, or morality. They will not solve the problems they (allegedly) seek to solve, and instead may exacerbate them. Of utmost concern is the fact that he’s not alone in his ill-advised thinking.

In the opinion of Donald Trump and those who share his views, the greatest nation on Earth – a phrase I don’t say ironically – should (a) shut its doors to Syrian refugees, and (b) create a national registry of mosques and Muslims. Following closely behind him in the asinine-worldview category is Jeb Bush, who wants to admit Syrian refugees, but only if they’re Christian.

These ideas are un-American, unintelligent, and for whatever it’s worth, un-Christian.

I am proud to call myself an American. I’m proud to be well-educated. I’m proud to come from a working-class home. And I’m proud to have been raised in a Christian family that taught me the very best values Christianity has to offer. Each of these elements of my identity cause me to vehemently reject the views of Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, and their cohort. Then logic and knowledge cause me to reject their explanations.

The argument that we should ban all Syrian refugees from the U.S. because we cannot properly vet the applicants, is premised on a lack of understanding about refugees and the process by which they gain entry to the U.S.

The argument against bringing in Syrian refugees, carte blanche, goes like this: ISIS and other terror organizations are sophisticated enough to implant terrorists into the ranks of the refugees as a means to gain entry into the United States and other countries where they can then wreak havoc. Our immigration system is unable to properly vet these refugees, because Syria is in turmoil and doesn’t have a great history of keeping good records on its citizens. Thus, considering the risk of harm to Americans and the insufficient means of mitigating those risks, we should not bring any any Syrian refugees.

This is flawed on many levels, but it is important to note the few merits to this thinking.

First, it is absolutely a real possibility that admitting Syrian refugees will lead to the inadvertent admittance of some terrorists. However, this risk is blown out of proportion to the actual likelihood of this happening, and it is absurd to attempt to implement a zero risk policy with regards to, well, anything we do. There’s inherent and unavoidable risk in everything, and humans accept some level of risk every single day, all over the world, in every single aspect of our lives. We should never consider banning a choice based on risk where the reward outweighs the risk. Here, the risk is minimal and the reward is maximal. Since September 11, 2001, with over 700,000 refugees being resettled in the U.S., only a tiny fraction of 1% of refugees in the U.S. have been arrested or removed based on terror charges. Although the exact number is in dispute depending on how words like “terror” and “refugee” are defined, one thing is clear: the vast, vast majority of refugees in the U.S. are not implicated in terrorist threats. Barring entry to thousands of human beings posing a risk of less than a fraction of a percent is not based in sound risk-aversion theory.

Second, our refugee and asylum laws are tough. I briefly worked for an organization involved in legal asylum and refugee resettlement, and in that time I came to the conclusion that the process by which we admit refugees and asylum seekers is rigorous. But don’t just take my word for it. You can actually read about the process, for free, to see for yourselves: here and here are good starting points. Basically, both the U.N. and multiple government entities within the U.S. have to approve every refugee’s resettlement in this country. The process can take years. We are not letting people just wash up on shore from Syria with guns and bombs. It just doesn’t work like that. Also, despite the fear that we won’t know enough about the refugees because of the lack of reliable record-keeping by the Syrian government, it is important to note that we do this all the time anyway and, again, refugees aren’t murdering Americans in the streets.

The argument that we should only allow Christian refugees, to minimize the risk of terrorism, fails to appreciate the inherent difficulty in determining who is “Christian” and how many “Christians” commit acts of violence and terrorism.

Jeb Bush is afraid of letting in Syrian refugees due to a lack of proper record-keeping, because we won’t know who they are or what they’ve done; nonetheless, he assumes we can parse out the Christians. Presumably, he thinks that terrorists won’t lie about being Christian to gain entry into our country and kill us all. But something about the premise that they’ll blow themselves up to kill us, but won’t lie to do it, just doesn’t sit right with me.

It’s also important to note that we have plenty of “Christians” committing acts of violence and terrorism every year in this country. Just look at terrorism committed by white supremacist groups claiming ties to Christianity.

Although there is probably some truth in assuming that, if we could somehow only let in Christian refugees, we would expose ourselves to less risk than if we let in both Muslim and Christian refugees (based on sheer volume, if nothing else), it still seems hardly plausible that we can, and even less plausible that we should.

In light of the rhetoric being used by U.S. politicians and political candidates, it seems that the age-old caricature of the French sissy may no longer be relevant, and should be replaced by that of the American wimp.

It would be remiss to fail to appreciate the fact that this debate was sparked by horrific attacks in Paris, France, of all places, and that it has not shaken President Francois Hollande’s resolve to accept Syrian refugees, including Muslims. That, coming from France. And this, coming from the U.S.

We should, above all else, prioritize the words emblazoned across the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” In times like these, that beautiful proclamation should not be forgotten. As we navigate these difficult times, it is of tantamount importance we remember that those words come from “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus. Picture it: a Jewish woman named Lazarus wrote about the U.S. being a lighthouse of hope for refugees, then we put it on a statue given to us by the French commemorating our determination to proceed forward with liberty and democratic ideals.

And now, in 2015, my fellow Americans have Donald Trump as the front-runner in the race for our nation’s president, vowing to refuse all refugees, women and children included, from a country devastated by religious conflict, sectarian violence, and anti-democratic ideals. Piling on the historical irony, he wants to create a database of one minority group and use the military to force his views. He’s a failure at his first venture, he’s a hypocrite, he has weird hair, and, for some strange reason, a lot of people love him.

When I was growing up in the 20th century, conservatives always used “being French” as shorthand for cowardice. I wonder if the 21st century will reverse that trend, where French people can – rightfully so – call Americans the cowards and make mocking caricatures of us hiding under our blankets in fear of the downtrodden, scared, hurt refugees.

Our country thrives on doing for others, and I believe that we can best defeat evil and hatred through love and courage. Freedom ain’t free, these colors don’t run, yada yada. What happened to that? What happened to my brave, strong countrymen and women, willing to face off against perilous danger and evil overlords to protect the weak?

Or did we ever even exist?