SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gary johnson
Free to Plunder: The Case Against Gary Johnson and Libertarianism
A recent Quinnipiac poll reports that 19% of likely voters between the ages of 18 and 34 - "millennials" - plan to vote for Gary Johnson. Many of these voters identify as "progressive." I find this confusing and troubling.
Gary Johnson is a libertarian. Like the Koch Brothers. Like Ayn Rand.
Libertarianism is not progressive; it is, to the contrary, profoundly and essentially reactionary. And you don't need to be a left-winger to recognize that it is a dangerous philosophy of governance.
Oct 24, 2016
A recent Quinnipiac poll reports that 19% of likely voters between the ages of 18 and 34 - "millennials" - plan to vote for Gary Johnson. Many of these voters identify as "progressive." I find this confusing and troubling.
Gary Johnson is a libertarian. Like the Koch Brothers. Like Ayn Rand.
Libertarianism is not progressive; it is, to the contrary, profoundly and essentially reactionary. And you don't need to be a left-winger to recognize that it is a dangerous philosophy of governance.
I understand and share progressive voters' ambivalence about Hillary Clinton (and their disdain for Donald Trump). More generally, I understand and share their disgust with an electoral system that is so responsive to the hopes and dreams of big donors and big capital. I also believe that voting for a "third party" candidate can be a principled and wise choice. (I've voted for Ralph Nader, twice, and many people I respect and admire will vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein.) But if the goal is to "send a message" or to expand the range of "legitimate" political debate, why would a thoughtful person vote for a libertarian?
Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party oppose the minimum wage. (Note: they do not only oppose raising the minimum wage, they oppose the existence of a minimum wage.) More generally, Libertarians argue that "agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government." Sexual harrassment on the job? Racist or sexist compensation practices? No worries! The sovereign individual is free to work it out with her employer - free from the burdens of intrusive government protections.
"Libertarianism is not progressive; it is, to the contrary, profoundly and essentially reactionary."
The Libertarian platform calls for privatizing health care ("We favor a free-market health care system"), a model that would provide health care for those who can pay, and no one else. It calls for the privatization of education ("Education is best provided by the free market...Parents should have ... responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.") The Libertarian platform calls for the "phasing out" of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security ("Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government"). Libertarians oppose laws limiting campaign contributions and lobbying, they call for the repeal of the income tax, and they favor "free market banking." An unfettered financial sector? I mean, really, what could possibly go wrong?
And, further, Libertarians advocate the privatization of public land and, more generally a "free market approach" to environmental protection. Again, what could possibly go wrong?
Libertarian policies liberate businesses to profit without accountability. The rest of us--freed from the shackles of consumer, work-place, and environmental protections--are free to get by on our own, without a safety net.
Libertarianism is rooted in a philosophy that aggrandizes capitalism's winners while blaming its victims. Libertarian policies are, overwhelmingly, good for those who already enjoy abundant advantages and privileges, e.g., corporations and rich straight white men. That's why the Koch brothers are libertarians. That's why Kenneth Lay, the late, repugnant CEO of Enron, was a libertarian.
Libertarianism is a Darwinian free-for-all, an adolescent Randian fantasy in which privileged people are liberated from an obligation to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and the benefits of their unearned privilege. It's a fantasy that allows unspectacular white guys (and others) to imagine that they are victims.
A libertarian world would, in fact, leave us with appalling economic inequality, filthy air and water, regular financial panics and crashes, unsafe work places, and access to adequate education, health care, and economic security for only a privileged minority.
On the other hand, Libertarians favor the legalization of pot.
"A libertarian world would, in fact, leave us with appalling economic inequality, filthy air and water, regular financial panics and crashes, unsafe work places, and access to adequate education, health care, and economic security for only a privileged minority."
Gary Johnson comes off as an affable, unpretentious goof-ball--someone with whom you might want to have a beer (or smoke a joint). But his platform is the Libertarian platform. His policies are those of the Koch brothers. His agenda is a dream-come-true for big capital and a nightmare for almost everyone else.
Notice that I have not yet pointed out that Gary Johnson is uninformed and, it appears, kind of stupid. That's another thing a voter might want to take into account.
The United States is the most unequal of the world's rich countries, and it is tied for last in class mobility. The median wealth of African American households is one thirteenth that of white households, and the unemployment rate among African Americans is twice that of whites--as it has been for the entire post World War II period. The US is the only rich country without universal health coverage, and millions of children do not have access to a decent education. The oceans are rising, and our planet is at risk because big capital--with its profitable disregard for the environmental consequences of its operations--has so effectively resisted regulation that could slow climate change. And less than a decade ago, an unregulated financial sector nearly blew up the world economy. Unregulated, let-it-rip free markets would make all of this worse.
I could go on in this vein for a long time.
Given this reality, why would a thoughtful person conclude that libertarianism is the answer? Why would a progressive person conclude that libertarianism is the answer? And, most confounding of all, why would a progressive young person--with six or seven or eight decades left on this planet--conclude that libertarianism makes sense?
Libertarianism is, in short, brutal nonsense. Please don't vote for Gary Johnson.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Climate Emergency and the Election: A Pathway to WWII-Scale Mobilization
This week I will turn 28, and thoughts of the future are weighing heavily on my mind. Clinging to the idea of a relatively stable future, people encourage me to get real, grow up, and focus on myself -- to make a lot of money, have a family, and live out a gratifying and stable upper-middle class life. While I understand the appeal of this vision, its narrowness, amorality, and blind confidence in the crumbling status quo does not inspire confidence.
Oct 05, 2016
This week I will turn 28, and thoughts of the future are weighing heavily on my mind. Clinging to the idea of a relatively stable future, people encourage me to get real, grow up, and focus on myself -- to make a lot of money, have a family, and live out a gratifying and stable upper-middle class life. While I understand the appeal of this vision, its narrowness, amorality, and blind confidence in the crumbling status quo does not inspire confidence.
For the past three years, as co-founder of The Climate Mobilization (TCM) movement, I have been studying major global threats -- especially the climate emergency and the crisis of ecological overshoot. These problems are considerably more urgent than is publicly recognized. We face the end of global economic growth, a runaway overheating of the planet, the premature deaths of billions of people, the utter devastation of the natural world, and the collapse of our civilization in the coming decades -- well within my projected lifetime and the lifetime of my girlfriend, brothers, close friends, and cousins. When I plan for the future, I focus on preventing these looming catastrophes from annihilating me and virtually everything and everyone I love.
Yet I approach almost every day with a sense of momentum, excitement, and hope. I work around the clock with an unbelievably talented group of people across the United States and the world to trigger the WWII-scale mobilization that can solve these crises on the scale and with the speed required to protect us. Our strategies -- and our success to-date -- give me a relatively hopeful perspective on the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
WWII-scale Climate Mobilization is Now Mainstream
This summer, we fought to include our call for a WWII-scale climate mobilization in the Democratic Party's 2016 platform (see pg. 45). Thanks to our efforts (and in particular those of Russell Greene), the platform declares a "global climate emergency," and in response, calls for a climate emergency summit within the first 100 days of the next administration as well as a WWII-scale climate mobilization:
We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II. In the first 100 days of the next administration, the President will convene a summit of the world's best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis.
Following the platform's ratification at the party convention in Philadelphia, Bill McKibben published a cover story in The New Republic that called for a WWII-scale climate mobilization and drew attention to our amendment to the Democratic Party platform. A week later, I published a draft 110-page Victory Plan that explores how exactly such a WWII-scale mobilization could restore a safe climate and reverse ecological overshoot through a variety of drastic, emergency measures (including a fossil fuel phase-out by 2025, a shift toward plant-based diets, a job guarantee, a massive carbon dioxide sequestration effort, and a campaign to preserve half the earth). And last week, McKibben called for hundreds of thousands of people to take to the streets to force the Democrats' to hold the climate emergency summit and launch the WWII-scale mobilization promised in the platform!
"We are a broken people, destroyed by our own cynicism, desperate for quick fixes, obsessed with our imagined victimhood and helplessness, and totally at a loss for how to save ourselves."
These are tremendously exciting developments. While experts have known for a long time that a WWII-scale mobilization is the answer to the climate emergency, it has generally been perceived as a politically impossible dream. Even many in the climate movement have been concerned that calling for a WWII-intensity response could alienate the public and sow the seeds for failure. Now we are realizing that as a movement, it is our job to demand what is necessary, inspire people to action with a hopeful vision of victory, and transform society's understanding of what is possible.
Given these developments -- and many others that I haven't yet mentioned -- we believe that if we commit to building the greatest social movement in history in the coming weeks and months, the climate movement can become powerful enough to force the federal government to commence a WWII-scale mobilization to save civilization next year. And not only can we trigger this mobilization next year, we are certain that we must.
If I was not engaged in this hopeful turn of events, my predominant emotion right now would be disgust -- with mainstream liberals, Hillary Clinton, Baby Boomers, the media, and Donald Trump. Emotionally, I would probably stand somewhere close to the Bernie-or-Bust camp, feeling betrayed and fulminating with anger.
There is a huge amount to be depressed and angry about. We face the greatest calamity in history, and our presidential campaign has produced a fascistic demagogue and a patronizing centrist with no evident intention of solving any of our massive structural crises, as her primary goal seems to be sustaining a status quo that cannot survive.
Who is to Blame for the Crisis?
It is too easy to start assigning blame in a moment like this. This crisis represents a collective failure--on a grand scale--of the American people and our institutions. Almost all of us have contributed to this mess (with the exception of the very young), albeit on vastly different levels.
Elites have run the economy into the ground with their endless greed, self-serving economic theories, and hubris. The Democratic Party has repeatedly sold out young and working people and foisted an uninspiring, divisive, and visionless politician onto the American public when heroic, unifying leadership is needed. Boomers, on the whole, have failed to stand up and protect their children from the impending collapse of civilization, a much worse crime than their parents' prosecution of the Vietnam War. In the face of Bernie Sanders' defeat, many Millennials are descending into nihilism. Republican voters have allowed a clownish billionaire to prey on their fantasies, prejudices, and fears. The Republican Party has betrayed America, moving our nation a long way toward fascism by sowing racial discord and resentment of intellectuals, and by destroying the government's ability to regulate the economy. Leftists and populists, more concerned with generating spectacles of moral purity than delivering real-world transformation, have failed to create and lead well-organized mass movements that deliver society out of the crisis. Mainstream liberals have failed to engage realistically with the tremendous scale of our present problems, choosing baseless optimism, neoliberal identity politics, finger pointing at their opponents, and terrifically inadequate solutions over responsible engagement with the real world. Environmentalists have not only failed to persuade the government to stop and reverse the ecological crisis, they have largely failed to even honestly describe the full extent of the emergency or the drastic measures required to save civilization.
We are a broken people, destroyed by our own cynicism, desperate for quick fixes, obsessed with our imagined victimhood and helplessness, and totally at a loss for how to save ourselves -- and everyone and everything else impacted by our behavior -- from spiritual, economic, and ecological oblivion.
Rescuers or Perpetrators?
I strongly disagree with the American public's pervasive sense of victimhood--the conviction that we have been betrayed and are blameless victims of an evil system. If we continue on our present path--and historians still exist in the future--will we really be regarded as victims? We, the American people, have been the premiere world leaders in wrecking the climate and the global environment, albeit on vastly different scales according to age, power, resources, and other factors.
Each of us has the most serious moral responsibility to lead the world out of this mess and save as much life as possible. Sober analysts believe that the ecological crisis could kill billions of innocent people and render much of the planet uninhabitable--easily the greatest act of collective evil in human history. We must choose now whether we will be rescuers, or perpetrators.
Given this moral duty, our primary obligation this election cycle is to create a context in which we can deliver a WWII-scale climate mobilization as rapidly as possible, before uncontrollable global warming kicks in and civilization begins to completely collapse. It is true that Jill Stein is the only presidential candidate still running that advocates a WWII-scale climate mobilization (Bernie Sanders also called for such a response). Her climate platform is far superior to Clinton's. But Stein is polling an average of 2.4% with just over a month left until Election Day, down from an average of nearly 5% in late June. She doesn't appear to be generating the massive momentum needed to suddenly take her to 45%.
It seems that neither of the two presidential candidates capable of actually winning intend to take measures remotely powerful enough to save us. And, of course, Trump has made it clear he intends to incinerate the planet as quickly as he can.
If We Want a Mobilization Soon, There's Only One Choice on Election Day
Despite this, it is abundantly clear to us that a critical step on the way to initiating a WWII-scale climate mobilization within the next year is the election of Hillary Clinton to the presidency. A vote for Hillary Clinton is the best way to ensure that we can continue our work building a movement for a WWII-scale mobilization without a devastating attenuation of political possibilities due to a sudden, further curtailment of our civil liberties and a mass demoralization of the section of the public that is currently in favor of organizing to stop the climate emergency.
We are under no illusion that Hillary Clinton has any intention of initiating a WWII-scale climate mobilization powerful enough to save us. Democrats are warning that Trump will rip up the non-binding Paris Agreement (which is on track to deliver a civilization-destroying 3.5degC warming of the planet) and Obama's woefully inadequate Clean Power Plan. Since Clinton supports these baby steps, calls for half a billion solar panels installed by 2021 (we should be producing well over half a billion solar panels ever year, not every four years), and says she accepts climate science, we should vote for her in order to assure continued "climate progress," they argue.
This misses the point. We are organizing in every sector, and the need for WWII-scale climate mobilization is catching on like wildfire. Our next goal is to have the leaders of business, labor, the military, world religions, the academy, the media, and civil society join the grassroots in demanding a WWII-scale mobilization to restore a safe climate by the end of this year. If parallel, extraordinarily potent movements of the 99% and the 1% (we are working every day to create both) arise demanding an immediate WWII-scale mobilization to save civilization, we believe that Hillary Clinton will have little choice but to answer the call. It will become her only option. And for all her faults, it's clear to us that Clinton has sufficient competence to organize a full-scale mobilization of the economy. We just need to transform society and force her hand.
If Trump is elected, however, there will be scant hope for the near-term commencement of a climate mobilization. Even if we succeeded in organizing every sector and class in favor of WWII-scale climate mobilization, even if Donald Trump wanted to lead such a mobilization, it is our assessment that he is emotionally and intellectually incapable of the task.
Furthermore, it seems unlikely that a President Trump would ever allow such a radical, transformational movement to build. Trump and his cabal of reactionary capitalists and crypto-fascists would likely deploy the comprehensive national security state expanded over the past two administrations to brutally shut down the climate movement, and harass, imprison, violently attack, or even kill dissidents who challenge the hegemony of corporate capital.
Most importantly, Trump's election would kill hope--a critical ingredient in any mass movement--among the broad swath of the public that has not yet lapsed into proto-fascism. How would you feel if you wake up on Wednesday, November 9th to start your day in an America governed by President Donald J. Trump and the Republicans?
The ahistorical and deeply misguided theory that things must get worse in order for revolutionary movements to rise up has been debunked repeatedly. Erik Hoffer's "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" demonstrates that it is often at moments of rising expectations and improving conditions that mass movements capable of transforming society emerge. Occupy Wall Street did not emerge in 2008 or 2009, but in 2011, after a very modest recovery had occurred. People were too busy losing their homes and their jobs immediately after the financial crisis to intellectually and emotionally absorb what had just happened, much less to organize a powerful movement in response. In this case, the election of Trump and the empowerment of an American fascist movement would be a psychological and civil catastrophe that could set our movements back for years--a delay we simply cannot afford. We would be constantly on defense, organizing to stop the latest fascist aggression. A mass movement must deliver hope of near-term transformation and a realistic vehicle for delivering on that promise. It must be constantly on offense.
Buying Time for the Climate Mobilization Movement to Grow and Succeed
Consider the first year of a Clinton presidency. Sanders' campaign has raised the hopes of virtually an entire generation (the Millennials) and millions of working class people for a near-term transformation of the economy. That is a tremendous victory that should not be dismissed. With millions of Americans becoming politically active, Sanders in the Senate acting as a megaphone for the populist movement, and Clinton widely distrusted and disliked by the general population, a Clinton presidency could prove an extremely fertile ground for movement-building. In addition, popular movements are considerably more politically sophisticated, independent, radical, and better organized than they were last time around. In 2009, Obama was bizarrely regarded as a messiah and treated with kid gloves by virtually everyone except the Republicans. At the Obama administration's request, leading environmental groups even agreed to downplay discussions of "climate change" in favor of de-contextualized demands for "clean energy" and "green jobs" for Obama's entire first term!
Under a Clinton administration, we will have all the popular energy--and the tools needed--to bend the arc of history. Thanks to the movement power generated by the Sanders campaign, a tiny group of us managed to execute a maneuver that placed the framework for the transformation that will save civilization directly onto the Democratic Party platform. The Democrats' platform and McKibben's article provide the vehicle we need to raise expectations and channel the unfocused populist energy coursing through America into the only solution that can save us -- economic mobilization to solve the ecological crisis.
A Clinton administration buys us a little breathing room to build up the huge, well-coordinated mass movement needed to save civilization. A Trump administration will very likely slam the door shut. All the massive potential for raising expectations for a mobilization through the vehicle of the Democrats' platform and our Climate Mobilization campaign -- as evidenced by McKibben's widely disseminated TNR article -- will be destroyed in an instant if Trump wins.
The movement for an emergency, WWII-scale climate mobilization has reached a tipping point. This is all happening. The only thing that can effectively stop it in its tracks before the end of the year is a Donald Trump presidency, which will destroy hope and potentially drastically curtail civil liberties. If you vote and/or organize for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton, please understand that you are making it less likely that we will be able to effectively deliver a mobilization, since you will be making a Donald Trump presidency more likely. It is our moral obligation to be strategic in the fight to save civilization. Please consider not just voting for Clinton but organizing to ensure that she wins. 350 Action and NextGen Climate have created an easy way to organize for Clinton on a climate basis by calling and texting young people in swing states. Sign up here.
How the Candidates Can Contribute
It is also the Democratic establishment and Hillary Clinton's obligation to abandon carbon gradualism and to run a considerably more effective campaign. Clinton should immediately announce a televised listening session (or multiple sessions) with young people on the climate emergency, jobs, and the future. After the listening session(s), Clinton should announce that she is holding the climate emergency summit and declare her support for a WWII-scale climate mobilization and a job guarantee. This could inspire young people, who are sick of being bullied and dragged into a miserable future, to turn out for her. They deserve a future, and Clinton has not promised to protect their future. So far, she has patronized young people and promised gradualism on the climate emergency and the economy -- a recipe for catastrophe across the board. No wonder 44% of Millennials are considering voting 3rd party.
If Clinton comes out for a WWII-scale climate mobilization, Jill Stein could legitimately declare victory (since mobilization is her most important campaign plank) and call it quits on her campaign prior to Election Day. She will have played a historic role in advancing the need for a climate mobilization and will almost certainly be celebrated as an American hero for subordinating her campaign to the greater good of the people and all of creation. On the other hand, if Stein wins 2% of the vote, and Clinton loses very narrowly, liberals could blame her (fairly or unfairly, depending on what happens in various swing states) for flipping the election to Trump and for destroying America. That scenario would be a disaster on so many fronts it is unthinkable.
Everybody has a role to play in this great mobilization to save civilization. We must assume responsibility for the future and act as though everything is on the line, because it really is this time. That means making wise, strategic choices, taking responsibility for actually solving the crisis, and welcoming everyone into a beloved community that breathes new life into our sick nation and dying civilization.
Join us at ClimateYear.org and TheClimateMobilization.org
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Latest Johnson Gaffe, Critics Destroy Argument for Voting Libertarian
Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson—who's drawing support from former Bernie Sanders supporters—"has an exceptionally low bar to clear. And yet again, he has shown that he's unable to clear it"
Sep 29, 2016
Raising further questions about his presidential bona fides, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson failed to name a single foreign leader he admired, in what he called an "Aleppo moment" during a town hall-style interview on MSNBC Wednesday night.
When asked by host Chris Matthews to name his "favorite foreign leader," Johnson drew a blank. "Prodded to come up with something, he finally settled on a former president of Mexico--but couldn't recall his name," the Associated Press reported.
Watch the exchange, also featuring Libertarian vice-presidential candidate Bill Weld (who named German Chancellor Angela Merkel as his top choice), below:
Observers said the gaffe was evidence that Johnson is unprepared to serve in the White House. "Gary Johnson can't name a single foreign leader. Can we stop pretending he's a real alternative now?" was the headline at Salon, while others piled on via social media:
\u201cAsked to name his favorite foreign leader, @GovGaryJohnson couldn't name one. He shouldn't be running for president. https://t.co/cn4oWaUFu1\u201d— Jamil Smith \u062c\u0645\u064a\u0644 \u0643\u0631\u064a\u0645 (@Jamil Smith \u062c\u0645\u064a\u0644 \u0643\u0631\u064a\u0645) 1475123090
\u201cSo, what's the game plan here? To make it clear that Donald Trump isn't the most ill-informed presidential candidate? https://t.co/wevfAYHn6i\u201d— Jeet Heer (@Jeet Heer) 1475116749
\u201cThat's OK. Not a single foreign leader can identify Gary Johnson. https://t.co/aGWuIiIacW\u201d— Sanho Tree (@Sanho Tree) 1475155367
\u201cHope the phrase 'Aleppo moment' doesnt catch on. Aleppo's having a lot of moments-none related to US election circus https://t.co/arIZCDBnAB\u201d— Ishaan Tharoor (@Ishaan Tharoor) 1475156708
Still, despite Johnson's seeming lack of foreign policy knowledge, he's drawing a significant amount of support in the 2016 election--much of it from "young Democrats and Independents who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary," wrote ThinkProgress editor-in-chief Judd Legum last week.
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, recent polls have shown Johnson chipping away at millennial support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, with one pollster recently telling Vox: "The millennial vote isn't Hillary versus [Republican nominee Donald] Trump. It's Hillary versus Gary Johnson versus sitting on the couch on Election Day."
"That's nuts," argued The Stranger's Dan Savage in a column on Monday:
Name an issue Sanders ran on--TPP, Citizen's United, climate change, minimum wage, health care, free college tuition--and Johnson is on the opposite side. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage, Johnson doesn't think there should be a minimum wage; Sanders wants a single payer health-care system, aka "Medicare for all," Johnson wants to eliminate Medicare and let the free market work its magic; Sanders opposed TPP, Johnson supports TPP; Sanders wants the federal government to guarantee free college tuition, Johnson wants to eliminate what little support the federal government currently provides to college students; Sanders thinks climate change is a threat to humanity, Johnson thinks we shouldn't do anything to address climate change because colonizing habitable planets we haven't yet discovered is the far easier solution--and, hey, Earth is going to be swallowed up by the sun billions of years from now so let's eliminate all regulations on the energy industry and destroy Earth ourselves before the sun has a chance.
Indeed, Legum wrote, "If you went into a lab and created a candidate who has the opposite view of corporate power as Bernie Sanders, he would look a lot like Gary Johnson."
The New Hampshire Union Leader further reported that at Wednesday's town hall event, Johnson vowed to cut funding to Planned Parenthood by 20 percent if elected.
"Gary Johnson's libertarianism is very, very different from Bernie Sanders' altruistic democratic socialism," wrote Salon columnist Heather Digby Parton in her take-down on Thursday.
"Sanders believes that government has an affirmative duty to help people," she continued, while
Johnson believes that government is an impediment to the natural working of the free market. It's overwhelmingly obvious that Clinton comes much closer to the Sanders philosophy than does Johnson. Given how close the election is in certain key states, a few protest votes could put Donald Trump in the White House. As Sanders is telling anyone who will listen, "Before you cast a protest vote--because either Clinton or Trump will become president--think hard about it. This is not a governor's race. It's not a state legislative race. This is the presidency of the United States." It's also the future of the planet.
Whether Johnson's latest stumble will weaken his base of support remains to be seen. But as The Atlantic wrote on Thursday, "For so many voters, this election is a choice between two undesirable options. Set aside whether Clinton and Trump are equally distasteful for the moment; just recognize that Johnson has an exceptionally low bar to clear. And yet again, he has shown that he's unable to clear it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular