On paper, this should be a terrific year for Libertarian Party, with two unpopular nominees from the major parties. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have a chance to do better than any Libertarian ticket ever before. But will it remain a good year for Libertarians if the rest of the general election season remains regularly focused on terrorism and national security?

We’ve had four terror attacks in the past thirteen months: the Garland, Texas attacker of the ‘draw Mohammed’ contest, the Chattanooga shooter who killed four Marines and a Navy sailor, the San Bernardino attack and now Orlando. How likely is it that the United States gets to November without another terror attack?

For nervous Americans, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson may not be much of a balm.

In June he told the Daily Caller that he thought the threat of radical Islam is “overblown.” He identifies the root cause of terrorism to be Sharia Law, but it’s not terribly clear how he wants to fight it; he laments both boots on the ground and drone strikes because they “make a bad situation even worse.”

He opposes sending troops to fight ISIS in Iraq or Syria, and doesn’t want to keep troops in Afghanistan: “I opposed – and continue to oppose – our failed attempt at Afghan nation building. And I opposed our involvement in overthrowing the government in Libya.”

He’s declared that as president, he would eliminate the National Security Agency, which handles foreign and (much more controversial) domestic surveillance, but he’s also declared, “we must deploy our formidable technological might to join the battle [against ISIS] in cyberspace – and win.”

He wants the U.S. to support Syrian rebels opposed to ISIS, but never quite comes out in support of arming them: “Reviving and supporting strategic partnerships with those who are fighting ISIS in Syria and elsewhere just makes sense. The U.S. must assume a stronger, more committed role to galvanize and lead an alliance based on those partnerships that will first contain and ultimately neuter ISIS.”

He wants the U.S. to take in “our fair share” of Syrian refugees, and while it’s debatable about whether his position can be characterized as “open borders,” Johnson is hardly a staunch advocate for a secure border: “In the 2012 cycle, it was my voice out there saying, look, building a fence across the border is–really, it’s not a good idea. There’s no common sense associated with building a fence across the border.”