by Josh Guckert

Gary Johnson has engineered likely the most successful Libertarian presidential run in the party’s history. Nonetheless, he faces harsh criticism from some libertarians who suggest that a “better” candidate would have done better. These critics suffer from the fallacy of “special pleading,” otherwise known as “moving the goalposts.”

First, let’s examine the facts. Johnson has raised more money than likely any Libertarian candidate in history. Moreover, he has received more exposure than any past LP candidate. His consistent inclusion in presidential polls is enough of an accomplishment of its own, but Johnson has also done particularly well in several states.

He has done so well in his home state of his New Mexico that polling guru Nate Silver envisions a scenario (albeit unlikely) where Johnson could win the state and become President. Based on historical analysis, Silver suggests that Johnson’s late-August support level of about 9% could hold on November 8, which would be nine-times the previous best for the LP.

Further, his national polling at numerous points in the campaign led to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) actually preparing a podium for him. Of course, the disappointment came when the CPD would not bend its fairly ridiculous standards to allow Johnson to participate, but as stated by the Libertarian nominee himself, this was hardly a surprise considering the Commission is run near-exclusively to omit third-parties.

The positive effect from the presidential ticket has also seemingly been felt in down-ticket races, where numerous LP candidates have thrived like never before.

However, given all of these positives, some still suggest that the Libertarian Party would have done better with another (“more libertarian”) candidate. This is where the “moving of the goalposts” begins. Johnson and running mate William Weld are unlike any other nominees in LP history in that they are both former governors. Using this simple fact, they have been able to campaign on experience and prudence in foreign and domestic affairs.

They took on the mantle of a party which has only reached 1% in a presidential election on two occasions and has never won a state. With that in mind, their primary goal (even if not explicitly stated) is obvious: to reach 5% of the popular vote, thus guaranteeing matching federal funds in 2020. This is highly likely, and would be clearly the first step toward becoming a force in electoral politics. The next step would be to win a state, which is less likely this year, but is easily within the realm of possibility.

The operative fact remains, however, that no matter what Johnson achieves, those who dislike the former governor can quickly change their argument.

If he reaches 5% but doesn’t win a state? Somebody else would have gotten betters and would have won at least one state.

If he reaches near 10% and wins one state? Somebody else would have won a few more states and taken the election to the House.

Also, rest assured, if the party cannot find a pair of nominees as qualified as Johnson and Weld in 2020 and capitalize in 2020, this too will be pinned on the former governors for “diluting the brand.”

No matter how ridiculous, this confirmation bias so broadly paints perceptions for those who do not like Johnson. On the other hand, those libertarians who are thankful for the opportunities he has given the LP and libertarianism at-large should brace themselves for such absurd complaints on Election Day.