Recent polls have shown the Libertarian party ticket, composed of former Republican governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, earning as much as 10 percent of the vote when placed alongside the two most disliked major party nominees of the modern era.

In 2012, I attended the Libertarian party convention and interviewed Johnson. He was thoughtful, had a good fiscal track record as a governor, and was clearly trying to drag the Libertarian party in a more respectful and serious direction. (Four years later, there's still much work to be done on that front.) In terms of appealing to Republican voters, however, Johnson had some obstacles to overcome. Unlike Ron and Rand Paul—the two other notable small-l libertarians who have had some success appealing to Republicans—Johnson was pro-choice, which is a nonstarter for social conservatives.

This year, Johnson seems to be doubling down on alienating social conservatives at a time when, more than ever, they might be inclined to give the Libertarian party a shot. Johnson has quite inexplicably rejected the notion of religious liberty protections, arguing that Christians who object should be forced to bake cakes and the like for gay weddings.

As for Weld, read this excerpt from an article in Thursday's New York Times:

Mr. Weld gave a single-word response about whether Mrs. Clinton was a good secretary of state: "Yes." He was equally succinct when asked if her use of a private email server, now the subject of an F.B.I. investigation, was a legitimate issue. "No," said Mr. Weld, a former prosecutor, adding that he had read of no evidence that would clear the bar for criminality. "I think it's a nonstarter."

Defending Clinton's record as secretary of state is a difficult task for a number of reasons. The Middle East is less stable than before her tenure began. On her watch the State Department was surreptitiously editing videos of press conferences to hide their lies. And how's that Russian reset going?

As for Weld's position that concerns over the legality of Clinton's email arrangement are a "nonstarter," this is indefensible, intellectually unserious, and, in practical political terms, precisely the kind of thing that would give Republicans looking for an alternative to Clinton reason to balk.

There are others. Johnson recently said he agrees with Sanders " 73 percent" of the time—but even Sanders now says that the recent damning inspector general report on Clinton's emails is cause for serious concern. If the Libertarian ticket disagrees with Sanders on this, it makes you wonder what they do agree on with the avowed socialist.

Ideological libertarians have a lot to offer to the political debate. Libertarian think tanks such as Cato and the Mercatus Center are doing valuable policy work, and Reason is one of the best periodicals in the country. Libertarians like Rand Paul and Justin Amash have found success as Republican members of Congress and are making their own contributions to policy debates.

But at a time when the GOP presidential nominee is hated by a sizable portion of Republican voters, it's curious the Libertarian party isn't attempting to deepen the traditional fusionist libertarian-conservative alliance. Instead, the party's standard bearers are identifying with a Vermont socialist and backing statist ideas about gutting the First Amendment so politically correct thought police can compel private business owners to hand over the fruits of their labor.

Jonah Goldberg once quipped that conservatives should regard libertarians roughly the same way English kings used to regard Scottish warriors. They're great to unleash on your enemies, but you never, ever put one on the throne. The Johnson/Weld ticket thus far seems to be validating Goldberg's dictum.