Journalist and writer Liana Kerzner has been kind enough to shoot the shit with me on Twitter from time to time. You should check her stuff out (she has a website and YouTube channel–at the very least, check out her “Gamer’s Guide to Feminism” videos). I endorse her as a competent writer and thinker. Anyway, she asked me what I thought about the (second) CNN town hall with Libertarian POTUS/VP candidates Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, which I live-tweeted a couple weeks back. I realized I was basically typing her an essay, so I bailed and meant to publish it as an essay, which I just now got around to doing, because I’m a lazy ass. Much more personal than I feel I tend to post at this length, but I have enough friends who will be interested, I think.
This is probably not going to make sense without watching the segment first.
Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order:
I was really pleased with the presentation, all things considered. Much more polished than the first one—and really, one of their best performances overall.
First thing I noticed: Gary had dress shoes on! He’s a dork (and it’s adorable), and he pretty much always has brightly colored sneakers on, even when wearing a suit. Usually jeans and a sportcoat is as fancy as it gets. On a related note, Bill’s tie didn’t look like it was from the 70’s. And I feel like a jerk for commenting on wardrobe, but the reality is that people expect a certain look from POTUS candidates. The overlap in the Venn diagram of non-conformists and Libertarians is pretty substantial, so this is an issue the Party’s been struggling with.
I think they played off each other really well. Weld was an unknown to most of the Party a mere two weeks before the convention that elected him, and he made a lot of the LP delegates nervous going into the convention (the delegates to the Libertarian National Convention elect both the presidential and vice presidential candidates to their ticket; the presidential candidate can request a VP, but has no authority to demand one). Weld still makes a lot of Libertarians uneasy, considering his moderatism. But he really is an asset to Gary, and to the Party (his money and connections are a major factor in the media appearances the ticket is getting, which are completely unprecedented), and it’s been nice seeing that. The thing about Gary is that he is basically a normal dude, and doesn’t have that presidential j’sais pas about him. Weld does, and his presence elevates Johnson a lot. I’m curious to see if/how people will respond to that. I wonder if people will see the pair and go “oh, this guy is treating the VP as a teammate, not some token ‘safe pick’ to shore up votes from the party base”. Or if they’ll go “uh, why is the VP candidate doing all this talking? Can’t the presidential candidate speak for himself?” During the LP Convention, Gary told the delegates that not voting in Weld for VP would make his campaign like running a marathon with a broken leg. Some delegates interpreted that as a threat to resign, as that seems such a dire analogy. But Johnson climbed fucking Mount Everest while recovering from a broken leg, so I think he legitimately just meant it to be an analogy for “hard”, not impossible.
They appear to be selling themselves as moderates who can act as neutral, partisan bridge-builders more than libertarians (by my count, they didn’t mention “libertarian” until 13 minutes in). Brian Doherty from Reason did a good write-up on that from one perspective.
BUT, I actually liked that. I think it will play well with general audiences. Judd Weiss, who ran for the LP VP spot with John McAfee’s (yes, like the antivirus software) ticket had a great comment (among many) at the convention I think applies here: “Election season is not the time to ‘educate’ voters. Voters already know what they want. Election season is when you convince them you’re the best at giving them what they want.” Libertarians–really by nature of the Party in this stage of development—have an obsession with ‘educating’ voters. Frankly, Weld doesn’t give a shit about libertarian philosophy and proselytizing, and Johnson knows he’s not a policy wonk. It may piss off the Party base, but whatever. Communicating libertarian philosophy is not their forte. Their talent is making the Party, a third party in general, look electable, and that’s what they should focus on, imo.
Favorite moment: The reason more than anything I love Gary Johnson is that he has the wherewithal and decency to admit he doesn’t know everything and have all the answers. It’s why he has no chance of winning the election without something crazy happening. But whatever. They broke the London terror attack in the middle of the town hall, and it naturally made it into a “what would you do to stop terrorism?” He could have thrown out any number of stupid bullshit answers politicians love supplying for those kinds of things, but he didn’t. “These things are going to happen” is what he said. It’s such a mature, reasoned answer, and it’s politically stupid (cf. French PM Manuel Valls taking shit for expressing that same sentiment). And I fucking love him for making it.
Weld, being the politician, supplied the political answers to fighting terrorism. He’s suggesting a 1,000 man FBI task force, which is basically throwing bureaucracy at an unsolvable problem. He also had the “maybe drones, maybe” kind of answer. Both of these rightly are annoying the LP base. But it’s downright dovish compared to the major party candidates.
Liked how Johnson answered the gun question. He corrected the misinformation without calling the guy an idiot and came off as knowledgeable more than a gun-toting nut. Although on that note, he is incorrect about the legality of automatic weapons in the US. They’re legal, but extremely heavily regulated. They aren’t easy to get your hands on legally. Legal automatics are also implicated in basically no crimes either, from the best I can find in my research.
I liked how he answered the marijuana question, although not everyone shares my sentiment on that. I’m not used to seeing people who are super anti-drug outside of my state reps. I think his comments will inflame the stereotype about Libertarians being potheads, but the war on drugs is fucking stupid, and if someone has to be the bad guy to make traction on the issue, then so be it.
I think they handled the response to the #BlackLivesMatter question pretty deftly. If you’re not paying attention to the culture wars, that was meant to be a goddamn hand grenade, and Johnson was supposed to lob it at a particular side on the culture-aisle. But he didn’t. And his tact is apparently resonating with people who care about that issue (jump to 2 minutes in to see Raven Symone be genuinely impressed)
Johnson’s comments about non-discrimination laws are probably moderate as far as most voters are concerned, which I think will win him credibility, but I want to note how much shit he’s taking for them in libertarian circles for them. The right to be a bigoted asshole, even if it’s disgusting, is still a right, according to libertarian principles. But I think Johnson comes by his rebuke of the principles honestly. It doesn’t strike me as wrapping bigotry in a defensive cloak of “religious liberties” as segments of the far-right seem to do on occasion.
I’m warming up to Weld. He’s a politician through and through. You talk to him, and it’s super conspicuous. I don’t think it’s malicious, I think it just becomes a part of you if you’re in the industry long enough. I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him, but like I said, starting to warm up to him nonetheless. What I like the most about him is that he’s a giant political nerd, and he doesn’t condescend to people. Man after my own heart in that sense. I spoke with him a fair amount when he was gunning for the VP slot; his nerdiness was very conspicuous. Not knowing him well, and based on the nature of our jobs and relationship, I couldn’t tell whether he was doing that to pander to me (I’m an open book; anyone sharp at reading people can figure me out in a heartbeat), but seeing it on CNN, it’s clearly a part of his personality. I think it’ll hurt way more than help. People want a smart executive, sure, but when I have too Google shit, you’ve lost a general audience. So that endeared him to me. I like that he has actual goddamn opinions about the SCOTUS (I’m sure Clinton does to, but she seems to be keeping that close to the vest, probably for tactical reasons, from what I’ve gathered). He’s taken flak from his Party for supporting Obama’s proposed appointment of moderate judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Scalia (plug for my article on his passing) on the SCOTUS (frankly, considering the reality of politics, it’s a sensible choice). Beyond that, he referenced (by last name only) three judges from history he admired for various reasons, John Harlan (which I’m surprised nobody has given him shit for, because, well, look at some of the positions he supported), and FDR appointees Hugo Black and William Douglas. In personal conversation, he expressed interest in Black and Douglas for their personal connections to FDR, his presumption that they would basically do what he asked, and their refusal to do so in many significant circumstances.
I was impressed with Anderson Cooper. And lord knows I tend to be hostile towards the media. He was being a good sport, and he seemed to have done his research going into the debate. He had the Party Platform at his disposal and referenced it right of the bat on one of the questions. I also appreciate that he gave Johnson credit for things he wasn’t going to call attention to—like that he was an ironman athlete. I also really like that Cooper drew attention to Johnson’s ability to admit wrongness. Not sure if that will help or hurt the Party image-wise, but that is my absolute favorite thing about Johnson, and I’m glad people are noticing it. Never thought I’d see a minor party getting friendly media support.