Last time we checked in on Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, he was failing to tell MSNBC’s Chris Matthews the name of a single world leader he admires. He was only asked that question because three weeks earlier he failed to know what Aleppo is on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

Johnson later decided that he shouldn’t have to like any foreign leaders, which is his right, though we’ve suggested some perfectly serviceable ones for him in case he changes his mind. But today in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC again?), he took his whole don’t-know-much-about-geography shtick a little too far:

The fact that somebody can dot the I’s and cross the T’s on a foreign leader or geographic location then allows them to put our military in harm’s way. You were talking about PTSD earlier. We put our military in this horrible situation where we go in and support regime change. They get involved in civil wars where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are in a cross-fire … we’re literally shooting at ourselves because we support both sides of a conflict. Syria is an example. We wonder why our men and servicewomen suffer from PTSD in the first place. It’s because we elect people who can dot the I’s and cross the T’s on these names and geographic locations, as opposed to the underlying philosophy, which is, “Let’s stop getting involved in these regime changes.”

First of all, U.S. troops are not involved in regime change in Syria. That’s kind of the main point of contention about current U.S. policy in Syria. I would also note that the recent U.S. president who was most enthusiastic about regime change, wasn’t exactly known for his extensive knowledge of foreign leaders and capitals.

I get the argument that foreign policy judgment is about more than just being able to find Ouagadougou on a map, or what have you, but what Johnson seems to be arguing here—that knowledge of foreign leaders and geographic locations is actually dangerous since presidents will want to invade more places if they’ve heard of them—is a new one to me.

There’s certainly a long history of anti-intellectualism in American politics, but even the Know Nothings didn’t actually brag about knowing nothing.