On the issues, the editorial board does not sound altogether thrilled with Johnson. (“On public education, he supports more local control. We agree, although we object to his emphasis on eliminating the federal Department of Education and Common Core. . . . We like his emphasis on criminal-justice reform, especially on draconian and unequal drug laws, although we are not with him yet on the legalization of recreational marijuana.”) Conceding Johnson has “much to learn on foreign policy,” the board gives him lavish praise for “defending our civil liberties against big government, especially on our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.”

AD

AD

Mostly, this sounds like a plea to let him into the debates. (“This Libertarian ticket has the potential to transform this race from one about insults and scandals to one about issues and honor.”) We are not sure Johnson would have such a dramatic effect on the tone of the race, but we are certain he would knock down Donald Trump’s nonsense on immigration, go after Hillary Clinton for ignoring the entitlement crisis and, most of all, challenge their shabby ethics and insistence on denying voters access to information critical to their decision-making.

We remain skeptical that Johnson can win any states, but we are equally enthusiastic about his participation in the debates. He has qualified for the ballot in all 50 states, which should count for something. The Commission on Presidential Debates is really the Commission on Democratic-Republican Debates, intent on maintaining the two-party duopoly. Nevertheless, the commission may be foiled by poll respondents who would also like to hear from Johnson. If the commission does not let Johnson in, he surely should debate Green Party nominee Jill Stein and independent conservative Evan McMullin. If they are wise, they will spend not a moment attacking one another and instead aim their fire at the two main candidates.

There are two philosophies about voting. One says pick the least bad of the choices, making certain the country is protected from grave harm. The other says everyone has the right and even the obligation to cast a vote for the person who would best serve the country. Even a losing candidate can accumulate impressive vote totals and thereby affect the political landscape.