Four years ago, I hated Trump and Clinton equally. I really could not care less about who between them would win. So, I went third party with Gary Johnson -- a decision I have yet to regret, though I knew that half of my friends would condemn me no matter what. My Clinton friends still tell me I let Trump win. And had it gone the other way, my Trump friends would have said I let Clinton win. I explain this logical fallacy here, and reveal who's really to blame for Trump's election.
This time around, I really don't like Trump nor his policies. I do like Biden, though I may not agree with every one of his policies. There doesn't seem to be that perfect candidate for me this time around ... but what about Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian option? Could I do third party again?
One thing I notice right off the bat ... it seems that hardly anyone knows anything about her. This time four years ago, the mainstream media was mocking Johnson and his "moments." (Though, I did and still think he was much more intelligent than he portrayed himself -- and the media took advantage of unfortunate soundbites that were numerous.) But Jorgensen has practically no media coverage at all. She might as well be Andrew Yang (inside joke).
She is impressively professional in speech and demeanor. She has many traits I wish Biden and/or Trump had. So, is she my choice?
Let's take a closer look. She has an official website, the first place I went to research. The website features this impressive campaign video on the home page ... a "Let Her Speak" campaign.
I definitely agree with the whole "let third party candidates join in the debates" thing. Jorgensen appears to be polling at about 5%, which seems sizable enough for inclusion. And I hate the duopoly thing. Screw Duverger's Law!
If you watch the video, you'll probably pick up immediately on all the Ayn Rand parallels. And sure enough, exploring her website where she spells out issues and Q&A's, she is clearly a Libertarian candidate ... probably even more so than Johnson was.
And that's a problem for me. And here's why ... pick any issue, and ask "what should government do about that?," and the answer is 95% of the time: "Absolutely nothing." Yeah, I get that that's Libertarian philosophy, but if I ran a presidency like that, you'd probably wonder, "What would you say you do here?" That would be great for me as president ... I could do lots of golfing, do a few speaking gigs here and there, watch TV even.
I'm all for small government, but I think Jorgenson goes too far in this respect. The federal government is good for some things (long discussion).
Also, she gives some strange answers such as being for term limits on Supreme Court justices, which is something clearly (mostly) spelled out in the original Constitution. She also comments on NAFTA as if it were still in effect (maybe she wrote the Q&A earlier in the year).
BTW, of you who have done your own research, did you pick up a little connection or possibly a conflict of interest in Bitcoin? Maybe it was a coincidence ... I just thought it was weird that Bitcoin kept showing up in searches next to her. And one of her questions speaks of Bitcoin.
She has a whole page devoted to coronavirus. I'm impressed that she condemns our national handling of the epidemic, but in her view of things, the government failed by instituting burdensome medical requirements on approving COVID-19 tests. She also seems to think that more testing is the solution to fighting the virus -- which is good, but doesn't do the job alone. She mentions nothing about contact tracing. She mentions masks, but doesn't push them. And she condemns lockdowns, which ironically did delay the spread of the virus until the warm weather hit to slow it down naturally (more about that tomorrow in the coronavirus newsletter). In other words, she really wouldn't have handled the pandemic much differently than Trump had.
And I think the last part is the kicker for me. I like Jorgensen -- looks good and professional -- possibly up to the job. But I'm not excited about her platform, and I'm in no way impressed by her COVID-19 answer. So, it looks like I'm still voting Biden.
I should also add in passing a little something about her running mate: Jeremy "Spike" Cohen. This guy first ran as the running mate for Vermin Supreme, and said some pretty interesting things (time travel, ponies, zombies, etc.) in the spirit of satire. I have no idea how he became the official vice presidential candidate, and it appears Jorgensen wanted someone else ... so ... I guess they do things differently.
If you like her, go for it -- don't give into the duopoly. Take a look into her platforms, etc. You might like what you see.
No comments:
Post a Comment