2020 Dem Debate: Perspective from a lonely independent

Last night marked the second night of the second set of debates for the 2020 Democratic primary presidential election. This set of debates, just as the first, included the typical kind of grandstanding you’d expect from experienced politicians. This included a lot of call-outs, nonsensical and borderline unfounded claims about wealth and poverty and a great deal of vitriol directed at President Donald Trump. Candidate Andrew Yang concluded the evening by saying: “We’re up here with make up on our faces and rehearsed attack lines, playing roles in the reality TV show. It’s one reason we elected a reality TV star as president.”

Andrew Yang will not be president. However, he raises a good point with that remark, a point shared by many Americans: politicians are generally believed to be inauthentic and untrustworthy. In fact, trust in the American government itself has been dropping. In January 2018, The Atlantic published a piece with the provocative headline, “Trust Is Collapsing in America” and cited data from a recently released report from Edelman.

There is a widening gap in both the Republican and Democratic parties. The far-right and center-right are growing further apart. NeverTrumpers now command the respect of the liberal establishment and speak with authority as “principled” conservatives. Never mind the fact that a number of these so-called conservatives are also responsible for enabling the disastrous foreign policy under President Bush (see David Frum and Bill Kristol); they’re now embraced by the left as having shared disdain for Donald Trump. In the Democratic party, the far-left and center-left are also growing apart. The difference is that, while in the Republican party, the center-right is usually gleefully enabling the far-right, the Democratic party is facing an unprecedented level of in-fighting. This is made no more obvious by the recent public strife between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. AOC’s far-left agenda is indeed at odds with Pelosi’s. Regarding public opinion, far-left policies are growing in popularity. As such, the Democratic party is having a bit of an identity crisis.

And then, of course, there’s the “third parties” that are fumbling along the sidelines trying to mount a candidate who has a real shot in 2020. This, of course, is unlikely, even less likely than in 2016. The Libertarians have so far offered up Kim Ruff (who?), Arvin Vohra (huh?) and of course Adam Kokesh (please, not again). The Green Party is touting Howie Hawkins, a man famous for never winning any election in which he ran. It’s shaping up to be an even bigger embarrassment for third parties than 2016. Remember when Gary Johnson talked while chewing on his tongue? Imagine it being worse than that.

Anyone who knows me knows that I’m a libertarian-leaning centrist. I believe in the power of the free market and in the compassion of charity and social responsibility. I also believe in noncoercive politics; essentially the current array of far-left policies on the board for current 2020 Dems are all no-go’s for me, despite (socially-speaking) agreeing with their intentions. So what’s a small-L libertarian like me thinking ahead of the 2020 election?

I’m still trying to absorb it all, to be honest. I do not intend to vote for Donald Trump, and I do not intend to vote for Joe Biden. Even if a Dem candidate, whom I do like, received the nomination, I would still refrain from casting my ballot in his or her favor. So far, Justin Amash (who is rumored to be considering a Libertarian-party run) is my first choice. If he does not run or does not receive the Libertarian party nomination, I am unlikely to vote in 2020. There is not a single candidate I believe in.

However, having said that, my perspective is not just about what’s wrong. It’s also about what’s right. I’m an enormous fan of Julian Castro. He presented himself incredibly well in the first debate. I believe him to be a competent and compassionate person. Last night, he advocated for cash bail reform and diversion; in the last debate, he advocated for decriminalizing illegal immigration (as he put it, “We should not criminalize desperation”) and went out of his way to recognize the validity of trans people and their experiences. Just following along on Twitter, you can see that countless people feel seen and represented by Secretary Castro. It’s inspiring. I also have become a fan of Marianne Williamson. I do not believe she should ever be president; however, her compassion and spiritual-awareness is intriguing and encouraging. Her voice is a necessary one. In a recent conversation with Dave Rubin, she made an incredibly compelling case for reparations and the so-called “politics of love.”

At the end of the day, I’m opposed to government bureaucracy and authoritarian policy. As great as universal healthcare would be, it needs to be paid for; this is done through heavy taxation, and refusal to pay taxes on money earned and exchanged between private individuals ends with people touting guns showing up at your house, breaking in and hauling you away. That does not represent the compassion for which politicians Julian Castro and Marianne Williamson advocate; it is, nonetheless, an inevitability of implementing policies that are designed to take from some and give to others. Such policies are also buried in bureaucracy, often wasting more time and money than the policy itself is worth.

So what’s a libertarian like me to do? A libertarian who agrees with the ideas of the Democratic candidates, but not with their political implementation? A libertarian is who is embarrassed of (big-L) Libertarian policy and politics? A libertarian who is often told that a third-party vote is a waste?

I’ve found in the last few years that my advocacy and money is usually best utilized outside of politics. In his book On Tyranny, Yale professor Timothy Snyder marks 20 different lessons we can pull from the growth of tyrannical regimes in the 20th century. These include supporting nonprofits and causes you care about; supporting journalism; defending institutions and culture; practicing courage and self-awareness; befriending strangers and embracing diversity; and more. This is where I choose to practice my politics. I have yet to vote for a candidate in whom I truly believe. Some say, “That’s fine. The point is to pick the best of what we have nominated.” That’s a sad compromise, if you ask me. I understand it’s validity. But it’s also how we got two of the most unpopular public figures in history to be nominated by the two major political parties in 2016. Harvard scholar Dr. Cornel West said of picking between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, “It’s like picking between a disaster and a catastrophe.”

So no, I won’t compromise on who I vote for. I can disagree with some of the policies, sure. That’s okay. But I can’t vote for someone I do not believe in. The 2020 election is shaping up to be yet another year of candidates I don’t believe in and for whom I cannot force myself to vote. So, while this lonely libertarian comes to terms with that reality, I’ll continue to subscribe to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; I’ll continue to financially support the Electron Freedom Foundation and volunteer with the OK Central Humane Society; I’ll continue to say hi to strangers on the street and embrace the diversity of my friend group; I’ll continue to engage different ideas, both online and in person; I’ll continue to advocate for institutions; I’ll continue to remain rooted in principle rather than in tribal partisanship.

Cover photo courtesy of Politico.