By Joe Moresky
This past Saturday, I decided to step outside of my normal political box and attended a rally down in Times Square for Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. As a self-described moderate Republican with a penchant for reform conservatism, I’ve been in search of political representation ever since the GOP nominated Donald Trump as the party standard bearer. Upon hearing that the Cornell College Republicans would be at Gov. Johnson’s rally, I decided to attend out of a sense of solidarity since their endorsement of him wrongly cost the chapter its operating charter.
As I made my way into Manhattan, I mulled over exactly what I might find at the event. With a fiscally restrained approach to domestic economics and an open-mindedness in regards to social issues, maybe the Libertarian Party could be my new home. I arrived in Grand Central Terminal and boarded the shuttle to 42 St. and marveled at how the unorthodox nature of this election had brought me to the doorstep of a minor party. I emerged out of the underground and into the fluttering crowd of tourists and began to fight my way up to the Marriot hosting the rally.
Upon arrival, I encountered fellow Rams, both new and old, diligently working to promote Gov. Johnson and ensure the rally was a positive experience for all who attended. Friendly in demeanor and generous with free items, the volunteers and staffers helped create an energetic and welcoming environment. Equipped with my limited-edition “Johnson/Weld 2016” wristband and rally sign in hand, I took my place towards the back of the ballroom and listened in on the warm-up speakers. I certainly looked the part of the average Libertarian voter.
Within the hour Gov. Johnson finally took to the stage with thunderous applause. Chants of, “Let Gary Debate” broke out and signs advocating for the legalization of marijuana were thrust up. Gov. Johnson began his speaking slot with an earnest apology for his damaging blunder earlier in the week, in which he was unable to identify what Aleppo (the Syrian city that rests squarely in the center of the conflict plaguing the country) was. I was struck by the novelty of it all. Instead of downplaying the gaffe’s significance or trying to write it off as the product of Gov. Johnson assumed full responsibility for the remarks. He owned the mistake and expressed disappointment in himself for not meeting the standards his audience deserved.
For a brief moment I was intrigued by a candidate who genuinely seemed to be striving to meet a higher standard for himself.
In an election season filled to the brim with mudslinging, racial undertones and the occasional rise of conspiracy theories, it was a breath of fresh air.
But then the speech continued and I was abruptly reminded of why I wasn’t a libertarian to begin with. Gov. Johnson’s assessment of the situation in Syria came across as amateur, lacking the nuance that comes with recognizing just how complex the problem really is. He fumbled with the pronunciation of “Islamist State” and confused the 2003 invasion of Iraq with the United States’ initial incursion into Afghanistan. The failed attempt to assure potential voters of his grasp of international affairs soured the rest of his policy prescriptions. He talked of the need for sentencing reform and the virtues of fiscal responsibility, but it all seemed inconsequential in light of the inability to offer up a convincing vision of the United States’ role on the world stage.
I returned to Grand Central to make my way back to Rose Hill, freshly reminded of my own disagreements with the Libertarian Party platform and a new appreciation for just how outside of mainstream political thought it is perceived to be. Spotting the rally sign I had held onto, an elderly couple jested about Johnson’s Aleppo gaffe and asked if I defend the remark. I, somewhat awkwardly, explained to them that I was not in fact a Johnson supporter.
I was just another disillusioned voter looking for a home.
Jim Logajan • Sep 14, 2016 at 5:47 pm
Since libertarians are non-interventionists, they do not believe that the U.S. should strive for some “convincing vision of the United States’ role on the world stage.” Such visions often seem to involve preemptive military action or arming/funding of one side in some civil war, with only years of human misery to show for results.
If you believe that the U.S. should be engaging in such actions then yes, of course you aren’t going to ever be or accept libertarianism. It is probably impossible for a government to engage in such extra-territorial interventions on one hand while trying to keep the other hand of that government “light” upon the liberties of its own citizens.
It might have been interesting to indicate who you do plan to vote for, and why, because the article seems to indicate foreign policy that matches your view is your only priority – you basically dismissed all other topical positions of Johnson as irrelevant in making a decision. So will it be Clinton, Trump, or no one?