Spoiler Candidates

  Video Links:  [TikTok] [YouTube]

In the world of politics, spoiler candidates are like the pineapple on pizza of elections: controversial, unexpected, and usually sparking a fury of confused head scratching. In the grand circus of political drama, we Libertarian candidates are the real clowns, turning the typical two-party system into a three-ring circus of bewilderment and bemusement.

"A world of indifference, a world so out of touch. Overwhelmed by everything but wanting 'more' so much."

As a Libertarian, in every political race I've been in, I have always been accused of being a "spoiler candidate." To be clear, a "spoiler candidate" is someone who enters a political race primarily to siphon votes away from a front-runner, usually for reasons that are as murky as a swamp on a foggy day. Being called a "spoiler" used to really bother me until I realized (with some help) that their derision was not really about me; it was about what I represent.

Instead of sticking to the script written by the Old Parties, we Libertarians burst onto the scene like an uninvited guest at a formal dinner party, armed with a manifesto that promises freedom from government overreach, excessive taxation, and, let’s face it, probably from having to sit through yet another debate where the most controversial topic is whether the candidate prefers waffles or pancakes.

"Call it blind frustration. Call it "Blind Man's Bluff". Call each other names, your voices rude, your voices rough."

But they don't seem to see it that way. As far as they are concerned, all voters MUST align, goose step, behind one of their candidates. Any candidate stepping outside of their 'Overton window' (i.e., a range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time) must be derided as a "spoiler" candidate; a shill working to siphon votes away from their side, thus ensuring that the opposing side wins. Oddly enough, however, only partisan 'sheeple' bleat about stealing votes away from their candidates.

Imagine this: The Democrats and Republicans are having a heated debate about healthcare policy when the Libertarian candidate nonchalantly suggests that everyone should be able to opt out of government-mandated health insurance and adopt a "pay as you go" system. The crowd gasps, the moderators faint, and the Old Party candidates awkwardly shuffle their papers, trying to figure out how to respond to this curveball of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

And here's where the real fun begins: by presenting an alternative that no one expected, we force the Old Parties to (1) acknowledge that their policies might not be the only solutions out there, and (2) remind themselves that they really are just a circus. It’s like realizing you’ve been eating plain rice for years and suddenly discovering the wonders of a well-spiced curry. The two-party system, accustomed to its bland monotony, starts to realize that voters might start to question whether they're missing out on something more flavorful while the Old Parties worriedly wring their hands wailing, "What are we going to do?"

"Handle with kid gloves, handle with kid gloves. Then you learn the lessons taught in school won't be enough."

Take Gary Johnson, for example. In the 2016 presidential election, his candidacy was like the quirky, eccentric uncle who shows up to family gatherings wearing a neon green tuxedo. His platform was a kaleidoscope of ideas — legalize marijuana, end the war on drugs, and, oh yeah, let’s not forget the part about drastically reducing government interference in just about everything. While the Old Party candidates were arguing over who could build a better wall, Johnson was busy talking about how walls are so last century, and freedom is where it’s at.

We Libertarians are like the anarchists of the political world, but with a side of responsible fiscal management. Our whole thing is about individual liberty, minimal government, and an end to federal intervention — basically, the opposite of what most career politicians are offering. Our candidacies disrupt the status quo in a way that makes the Old Party candidates sweat more than they would during a live TV debate in a sauna.

"A world of indifference, heads and hearts too full, careless of the consequence of constant push and pull."

Here's another fun fact: people who vote for Libertarian candidates are often accused of “throwing away their votes.” But we look at it differently. To us, it's more accurate to say we’re giving those voters someone who actually wants to see a government that doesn’t stick its nose in every nook and cranny of their lives. Sure, we might not win the election, but we manage to make the entire process a lot more entertaining. Plus, we force the Old Parties to confront their own shortcomings and maybe, just maybe, consider policies that are a bit less... well, boring.

For instance, take the most recent presidential debate. Sure, the Democratic candidate mopped the floor with the Republican candidate's probably-expensive-but-bought-at-a-steep-discount hairpiece, but did either candidate actually say anything more than "I know you are but what am I?" Can someone PLEASE just answer the damn question?

"Anger got bare knuckles. Anger play the fool. Anger wear a crown of thorns, reverse the golden rule."

So, the next time you see me or any other Libertarian candidate strutting onto the political stage with our unconventional ideas and lassez-faire attitudes, don't groan about us being a spoiler. Instead, try to appreciate us for the role we are playing in keeping the election cycle from turning into just another monotonous snoozefest. After all, every two-party system event needs its Libertarians to keep things lively, unpredictable, and just a bit zany just like every circus needs its clowns. And isn't that why you go to see the circus anyway?

In a world where the political landscape often feels like it's stuck on an endless repeating loop, we Libertarians are a refreshing burst of unpredictability that you never knew you needed. So, I hope my campaign continues to make you question everything you thought you knew about politics, and maybe even remind you that even in a world of red and blue, there’s always room for a little more gold (and maybe just a little fun).