In most elections, there aren’t many candidates worth voting for who actually stand a real chance of winning. That has to change.
More than two decades ago, while I led the print edition of Reason as editor in chief, I commissioned a cover that neatly captured my view of elections. It appeared for the October 2004 issue, which landed a little before John Kerry faced off against George Bush in the presidential contest. It prominently displayed mugshots of the two major-party nominees sporting what could generously be described as smug grins. Above them bloomed the bold uppercase headline “THE GOOD NEWS IS ONE OF THESE GUYS WILL LOSE.” Beneath them ran the parenthetical phrase, also in all caps, “THE BAD NEWS IS ONE WILL WIN.”
The cases against Bush and Kerry were laid out in two feature stories (which still hold up; read them here). Good heavens, both were dreadful candidates, weren’t they? The Bush administration funded the War on Terror through a variety of budget gimmicks, bungled the invasion of Iraq, and faced credible accusations of manipulating the old color-coded threat system to secure re-election. Kerry not only looked like a Frankenstein’s monster, he campaigned in the most ineffective fashion, scaring voters with his wavering stances on big and small issues. At best he offered “an echo, not a choice” at a moment when America deserved something better.
That cover and these pieces weren’t just a pose of detached virtue signaling, a libertarian purism detached from the rough realities of retail politics. They reflected my views on elections, which I vote in reliably every two years (and sometimes more). As someone who has never supported a winning candidate at any level, nothing would please me more than to be able to cast a ballot for a major-party politician who might actually have a chance at victory. I describe myself as a principled small “l” libertarian, but that doesn’t mean I’m an unappealing vote to win. All that’s required is a commitment to curbing the size, reach, and spending of government. Yet it turns out that neither major party tends to nominate politicians at any level who align with that philosophy. And that realization is deeply depressing.
But could things get worse, right? I reside in New York City, so my gubernatorial choices from the big parties are the Democratic incumbent Kathy Hochul and the Republican challenger Bruce Blakeman. Hochul recently earned the dubious distinction of being named the worst governor in America by the Cato Institute in its latest edition of Freedom in the 50 States, which “grades governors on how well or poorly they have advanced both economic and personal liberty in their states.” Blakeman, the current head of Nassau County, has a weak record and has never trailed Hochul by more than ten points. I would vote for the Libertarian candidate if there were one, but there isn’t, partly because the 2020 legislature made it nearly impossible for a minor party to gain access. Following the Libertarian Party’s suggestion, I will cast a protest vote by writing in “none of the above.”
It isn’t just New York that consistently produces elections that feel either preordained or simply pits two dismal choices against one another. After twenty years living in Ohio, I know the governor’s race there is a chaotic buffet of terrible options. Democrat Amy Acton, whose leadership as Ohio’s health director during the COVID era earned the nickname “Dr. Lockdown,” appears headed for victory as she runs against Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, someone uniquely unlikable and underqualified. Ramaswamy, who has never held elective office, started flailing before releasing an ad featuring Acton’s estranged mother—an act that nearly every commentator regards as a new low in political campaigning. Regardless of the ad’s quality, his initial doubling down on it, along with later vocal support from President Trump and Vice President Vance, has all but doomed his chances. If I still lived in Ohio, I’d at least have Libertarian options on the ballot.
The same would hold true in Texas, another state I’ve called home. The Republican Senate hopeful is current Attorney General Ken Paxton. He was anointed by Donald Trump, who used his influence to push out the incumbent Jon Cornyn, who would have sailed to victory as well. Instead, James Talarico looks likely to achieve the first statewide win for a Democrat in Texas in more than three decades. If I still resided in Texas, at least I could vote Libertarian Ted Brown, who might help narrow the margins.
Yet that seems to be a trivial matter, doesn’t it, especially in a country as vast and diverse as America? It shouldn’t be this hard to locate candidates who champion “free minds and free markets” and who might actually prevail in races ranging from local to federal offices. Democrats and Republicans opened the year with especially low levels of voter appeal. According to Gallup, 27 percent identified as Republican and 27 percent as Democratic, while a record-high 45 percent identified as independent.
The midterms, currently looking very favorable for the Democrats, may spur Republicans to reorient toward a more libertarian stance, particularly since Trump’s second presidency has made government corruption the top issue on voters’ minds. When you couple that with a long-standing skepticism toward large government, a libertarian tilt makes even more sense.
I’ve been casting ballots since the early ’80s, and despite decades of frustration, I still look forward to the day I can vote for a genuine winner.
