I need not be reminded that both major party presidential candidates are the most unpopular in the history of presidential polling, according to ABC News and Washington Post. I need not be reminded that 57 percent of Americans believe a third major political party is needed, up 11 percentage points in just four years, according to Gallup. I need not be reminded that there already is a third party in the American political system.
Gary Johnson is allegedly running for president. The former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico has refrained from name-calling and mudslinging during the campaign. Rather, he has promised voters a solution to current government problems using policies that haven’t been used on a national scale.
This is perpetually terrifying, most specifically in the area of foreign policy. As an international politics major, I prefer candidates with a foreign policy attitude that reflects an understanding of America’s place in the global society that we are engulfed in. While this bias may slightly harness how I perceive presidential qualifications, the Johnson campaign has ultimately failed to meet any reasonable expectations for the knowledge of global affairs.
Johnson is an immensely qualified governor. I would argue that he is the second most qualified candidate running, but his utter doltishness solidifies his unfitness to be the most powerful leader in the world. A vote for Johnson is not a wasted vote, as there truly isn’t a wasted vote in a democratic system. A vote for Johnson is rather a vote for a candidate that lacks a basic understanding of international relations and sometimes even common knowledge.
According to Pew, terrorism and foreign policy are the second and third most important issues of the presidential election, as deemed by voters. If these voters then turn around and vote for a candidate just because he isn’t Clinton or Trump, they are invalidating their fears of terrorism and lack of national security completely.
The famous “What’s Aleppo?” moment hasn’t ceased to linger in the minds of voters. Johnson polls at just 6 percent nationally, a drop from his numbers just one month ago. When upset about not being on the debate stage, MSNBC gave him an opportunity to attract voters by way of a primetime town hall with Chris Matthews.
“Anywhere. Any continent,” Matthews said. “Name a foreign leader that you respect.”
Johnson couldn’t name a single foreign leader. He fixated his mind on the former president of Mexico, who led the country bordering New Mexico from the south at the time when Johnson was governor, but couldn’t recall his name until his running mate finally saved him.
Human mistakes are understandable. Politicians make them, and Johnson is honest enough not to make excuses for his gaffes, but these blunders show an utter lack of interest in understanding the world. With one of the largest humanitarian crises in history occurring in Syria, the country cannot afford a president who doesn’t know the significance of the epicenter of the refugee crisis. The relationship between the United States and Russia is at its most strenuous point since the days of John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, and the chief negotiator cannot be a president who doesn’t know the name of a single NATO-allied leader.
ABC News reports that for the last month, Russian government propaganda has been urging citizens to prepare for the prospect of nuclear war with the United States. While highly unlikely, the mere mention of something unheard of since the late 1980s is enough to make Americans think about the merits of the leader that they elect on the top of the ballot.
The Johnson campaign has made a science of spinning their candidate’s lack of knowledge and ignorance on the basis that “he’s just human.” Johnson, the man that once had to ask an aide who Harriet Tubman was, puts the United States’ national security at risk by being “just a human.” Spinning a lack of knowledge on the prospect of being non-interventionist is ineffective as well, as there is virtually no true evidence that Johnson has a sufficient understanding of things that happen outside of the border. I understand that libertarians seek to not involve the United States heavily in world affairs, but the president has a duty to the American people to remain informed about the actions of other players on the world stage.
Johnson is failing in that regard.
Both major candidates have their shortcomings in international affairs. Clinton isn’t blameless for Libya, meanwhile her rival openly praises Vladimir Putin and has condoned killing the families of terror suspects. It’s no laughing matter, and neither is the lack of credibility from Johnson on foreign policy.
It could be described as dangerous and incompetent, but that would at the very least imply Johnson’s knowledge toward international affairs is existent, which I am hesitant to infer.
