Oh, By All Means, Please, Let Gary Debate

Alex Trebek: Welcome back to our special political edition of Jeopardy. Rand, you control the board.

Rand Paul: Alright Alex, I’ll take ‘Softballs’ for $400.

Trebek: This critical Syrian city, a hotbed of violence, death, and destruction, is one that no international leader could possibly ignore.

Gary Johnson buzzes in.

Trebek: Gary.

Johnson: “What is Aleppo?”

End scene.

This would have made sense. But Gary Johnson wasn’t on Jeopardy. In his tragic “Morning Joe” interview where he now-famously uttered that question, Johnson didn’t seem to have even heard of Aleppo. He didn’t ask “where is Aleppo,” and it is unclear that he even knew that Mike Barnicle was referring to a geographical place.

Johnson projected an image of extreme detachment from goings-on around the world. Yes, Johnson doesn’t want to give foreign aid to any country (including Israel—no, except Israel—no—his position on this issue is unclear, as is, I’m sure to Johnson, Israel’s on the map). But an isolationist policy requires a deep understanding of what is happening around the world, because without it, there is no way to determine the policy’s costs and benefits. It is clear by now that Gary Johnson doesn’t read the news, but if he wants to get on that debate stage, he should probably start studying up. His competition is tough, after all—he’d be facing a career public servant and diplomat on one side, and someone who “know[s] more about ISIS than the generals do” on the other.

On Wednesday, Johnson returned to MSNBC, this time with his running mate to back him up, for a town-hall-style interview with Chris Matthews. Matthews, a renowned interrogator, drilled Johnson with the ultimate “gotcha” question:

“Name one foreign leader that you respect.”

Johnson audibly exhaled.

“Anybody,” Matthews pressed, somehow maintaining his composure in front of a man who wants to run the country in four months.

“Mine was Shimon Peres,” said his running mate Bill Weld, citing Israel’s former president who was then trending on Twitter because of his death hours earlier.

Johnson continued to flounder as Matthews started rattling off the names of different countries and continents to jog his memory.

“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” Johnson said before citing the “former president of Mexico” by his title, ultimately nailing his last name: “Fox.”

Matthews’ audacity to set Johnson up for failure rivals only that of Katie Couric, who in 2008 famously stumped vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she asked her to name a magazine or newspaper she reads.

Johnson’s ignorance of foreign policy and American history is disqualifying. (Regarding the latter, he had to ask a staffer who Harriet Tubman was.) He is only seen as a viable option for the presidency because of the delusion that both of the main candidates are unfit.

Is this guy seriously better than the candidate whose dominant transgression was keeping a private email server in her basement, an act for which the Republican FBI director absolved her of intent?

He is a danger to American interests abroad. He endangers our relations with Turkey, a key ally that hosts a chunk of our nuclear arsenal in proximity to some of the greatest nuclear threats in the world. He alienates Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. He threatens international trade with his foreign stance, despite his flagging support for some trade deals. He risks undoing President George W. Bush’s legacy of providing disease assistance in Africa, Obama’s of normalizing relations with Cuba, Reagan’s of shaping the world with our influence.

The world is too interconnected for its largest economy to withdraw—humans in all countries, including our own, will suffer for it. Trusting someone to lead our foreign policy who doesn’t even have the wherewithal to have heard about the most newsworthy events happening outside our borders is a risk that voters cannot afford to take.

Gary Johnson will not win this election. I’ve yet to hear an affirmative case for Johnson, and I can’t understand voting for the (for some people) lesser of three evils because it’s not fair to have to vote for the lesser of two. Many people will vote for Johnson because their “conscience” tells them to. I encourage people thinking about doing that to ask themselves if their consciences are OK with the consequences of his (or Trump’s) election—because a vote for Johnson is a vote that undermines the much better alternative.