After the Orlando shooting this past weekend, each of the candidates running for President responded to the tragedy in different ways. Clinton joined Americans in praying for the victims but then called for increased gun regulation to avoid future massacres. Trump called the shooting a horrific event but then added boasting remarks that he was right about the Muslim ban. Johnson responded by empathizing and saying it was too soon to politicize.

In this immediate aftermath of what is clearly a tragic and despicable attack, our thoughts must be with the victims…. Posted by Gary Johnson on Sunday, June 12, 2016

Days later, Johnson did give his political opinion in an interview with Reason. However, I found the difference between his initial reaction and that of the two other candidates quite striking. Clinton and Trump both empathized but then made calls for political action within a few hours. Johnson only empathized, missing a huge opportunity to make his case to the country and defend the rights of innocent Americans who had nothing to do with the shooting.

Here’s a note for those concerned about politicizing such somber events: they are inevitably politicized. If Clinton and Trump immediately demand we take away rights after a shooting, there must be a voice of liberty countering theirs. If a candidate does not respond with their political opinion ASAP, they will also miss a large portion of their chance to be heard. That is the sad reality of politics.

TLR contributor Julie Borowski weighed in on this:

I’ll stop talking about gun rights when they stop talking about gun control immediately after these tragic events. — Julie Borowski (@JulieBorowski) June 13, 2016

Johnson’s reaction here exemplified a more general characteristic within his campaign for the presidency: passivity. In an interview two weeks ago with MSNBC, he stated “I have no intention, neither of us have any intention of attacking Trump or Hillary.” His VP pick Bill Weld similarly refused to criticize Clinton when presented a question about her e-mail servers.

The issue with this sort of strategy is that it relies too much on the media choosing to talk about a candidate rather than making them talk about that candidate. To understand this, consider the polar opposite — the Donald Trump strategy. Trump makes bold, daring, and often crazy-sounding remarks, forcing the media to cover every last thing he has said. He dominated the news cycle during the Republican primaries and arguably won the nomination in large part because of it.

If Johnson thinks he’s going to “live or die on free media,” he needs to play the free media game effectively like Trump. He doesn’t need to appear racist or sexist or call for murdering innocent family members of terrorists, but he does need to push buttons. The candidates, their histories, and their personalities are all fair game for an election, and solely criticizing them on the issues misses out on a chance to make headlines.

I will admit that if there were ever a time for the “I’m the sane option” strategy to work, it’d be with the two most-hated presidential candidates in recent history. However, Johnson isn’t starting with mass awareness of his campaign. Quite the contrary. He’s starting a 100-meter dash a mile behind the finish line. Johnson’s trying to play the “adult in the room,” but no one is even aware he’s in the room. Passivity is not a good strategy for an underdog.

Though many supporters are excited by Johnson’s unusually high placement in the polls, the ~10% he currently has isn’t a given. In fact, it’s uncertain he’ll even get the 5% Libertarians need so much. Gallup points out:

Prominent third-party candidates have tended to receive significantly higher support in polls taken earlier in election years than they wind up getting on Election Day [. . .] In general, the candidates wound up getting a fraction of their June estimated support — in most cases, less than half.

As we approach election day, more and more voters will fall to the party line. Realizing Johnson doesn’t have a plausible chance of winning, voters will gradually pick the lesser of two evils rather than their ideal option. Democrat-leaning independents will say “Well, Hillary’s not that great, but we absolutely can’t allow someone as crazy as Donald Trump to control our nukes.” Republican-leaning independents and even many in the #NeverTrump faction will say “Trump is a nutjob, but at least he’s an unknown. I know a liberal like Clinton would be terrible for this country.”

Add to this the fact that the next president will potentially decide two Supreme Court justices, and that’s the final straw.

In order to avoid this gloomy fate, a third party candidate needs to actively inspire excitement and passion from his supporters. Gary Johnson needs to be a champion of liberty, so that people that get behind him have something simple, exciting, and historically American that they’re fighting for. But he also needs to take the fight to Clinton and Trump, push buttons, and generate awareness. Otherwise, voters will fall in line as they always have and march toward their doom.