A couple of my non-liberty friends have asked me privately why I support Jo Jorgensen rather than the two untrustworthy, unstable, economically illiterate, disinterested, racist, curmudgeonly septuagenarians in the major parties... so I thought I'd make a short list for me to refer to later.
Most importantly, Trump is a habitual liar who often doesn't stay consistent for days or even sometimes hours. Likewise, Biden has shifted in the winds of public opinion, championing causes he once actively fought against without ever dealing with why he was wrong, because the popularity of the issue has changed. Jo, by contrast? Can we trust her? I dunno... but I can say she hasn't given us nearly as much reason to actively distrust her. And if we can't trust Biden/Trump? Why bother.
I guess Joe Biden would be better on, what... trade?
There may be differences between their tone and tenor, or who they appeal to. Partisans wanting to support (or more often, oppose) “the right” or “the left” can always be given some talking points from twitter that assume far too much. Their cultural resonances send different tribal signals. But on actual policies and what really matters most? They may as well be the same candidate from the same party.
Trump has, as President, presided over not just a terrifying expansion of the national debt, but he's actively tried to weaponize monetary policy by directly pressuring the fed to be subservient to his attempts to federally direct the economy. Biden has hit him on that, calling his attacks on the fed an abuse of power and attack on their independence. However, when it comes to monetary policy, the Obama-Biden plan called for a rapid, aggressive response from government agencies like the Federal Reserve to use more authority than they have in the past. Trump and Biden both supported injecting capital into Wall Street in order to encourage more lending at a time the market was struggling to correct itself from crisis exacerbated by their own exuberance and liquidate such bad debt. To that end, they both worked to offer more assurances and credit to the big banks and business interests while small businesses, savers, and laid off workers struggled with significantly less help than the powerful.
They both support subsidizing banks, agriculture, energy companies including oil, and a federal emphasis on state infrastructure. Rather than debating whether or not government should be bailing out businesses and billionaires, their only disagreements seem to be about which ones. No matter how large deficit spending goes or how much individual taxpayers may be hurting, none of that seems to affect their support for the cronies with enough power to get special favoritism from the feds.
Trump has assured us that he would veto any attempt to significant entitlement reform, despite how unsustainable our current system is and despite the fact that we're already $26 trillion in debt. Biden, for his part, promises to expand entitlements without any significant reforms to their structure outside of an increase in taxes. They both oppose private accounts, raising the retirement age, lockboxing the trust fund, and limiting public debt. They've both voiced concern over the risk of retirement funds in the market, while remaining silent about the risks of lending 12.4% of income earmarked for retirement to the general fund through treasury purchases (and seem to have no qualms about using the proceeds to buy bombs, as they both have supported increasing military spending as well). Congress, the entity that got us into over $26 trillion dollars in debt and growing (honestly, it's hard to even keep up at this rate), are seen by both of them as a safer bet than the market (which has consistently grown, especially over time horizons as long as “working years”, and recovered quickly from it's various recessions).
Trump showed us time and again where he stood with his repetitive and oft-capitalized mantra of “law and order”. From his appointment of Jeff Sessions to his pardon of Arpaio to his pandering to the police to his preference for clamping down on protests in a heavy handed way, it's one of his few consistencies. Biden has historically been even worse in many ways. Few Democrats have remained as consistently pro-drug war as Uncle Joe. His influence over drug policy and mass incarceration was instrumental in the 80s to advancing Reagan’s failed harsher prohibitionist approach, having ridden the tough-on-crime wave since the early 70s. He’s supported civil asset forfeiture, mandatory minimums, mass incarceration, and the militarization of the police. He’s supported the concept of a “drug czar” (and wrote the law establishing the office) since 1982, supported drug propaganda efforts, and his signature legislative accomplishment in the 90s was the ’94 crime bill. He didn’t just spearhead the effort, it was known as “The Biden Crime Law”. He was, literally, the chair of the International Narcotics Control Caucus. He has yet to take ownership for the vast majority of these things, and is one of the few Democrats left that actively opposes the legalization of pot.
A Trump/Biden victory in November is a guaranteed loss. If winning is defined by getting someone worthy of the office of President, even a victory is a loss. If winning is defined by sticking it to some lesser evil, we'll still have advanced evil. If winning is defined by taking a small step towards long-term change, that's not currently advanced by going right or left rather than forward. If winning is defined by sending a message, neither candidate has much worth listening to that can be believed.
We have, by contrast, a candidate who wants to pardon non-violent drug offenders, end qualified immunity, no knock raids, and civil asset forfeiture, rather than expand or preserve the drug war and police unaccountability. We have a candidate who wants to bring our troops home rather than expand our involvement in unwinnable quagmires overseas or simply leave them in war zones indefinitely.
A candidate who can speak to specifics of substantive policy rather than relying on vague speeches filled with platitudes and abstractions, delivered in a third grade reading level or a meandering off into what sounds like dementia. A candidate who, despite a command of specifics, can recognize and avoid the hubris that paralyzes so many powerful politicians who believe they, rather than everyday Americans, can best order society while ignoring the limits of basic math or a cursory reading of history.
A candidate who is smart, sane, sassy, and has zero sexual assault allegations, corruption charges, or a problematic history of racism. She doesn't flirt with nationalism or socialism. Really, if it wasn't for the zero-sum game of two-party politics and fear-mongering about what a win from “the other side” could mean, she'd be the obvious choice for rational Americans by passing some of the lowest bars the duopoly has ever set.
If you like the way things are, or the way they've been for decades... if you think doing the same thing over again will yield different results this time, by all means waste your vote on Trump/Biden in November... it doesn't really matter which. If you want to take the power back from the powerful? If you want to send a message that what the major parties, politicians, and those who control them have for too long convinced you is your only choice... is simply not good enough any more?
Then consider Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen (for VP)