Post by: Dannyboy on December 19, 2006, 05:36:11 AM
Libertarian or libertarian
By Bruce Bartlett
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
In a recent column, I discussed the disaffection of libertarians within the conservative coalition, suggesting that many might be more at home on the political left. A number of readers wrote to say that they agreed with my analysis and had left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. Among these is former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who officially joined the Libertarians last week.
Of course, people are free to do what they want to do, and if they want to join the Libertarians, that's their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, then they are making a big mistake, in my opinion. The Libertarian Party is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than it has done to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the Libertarian Party to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.
The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
Furthermore, to the extent that third parties exist, they invariably hurt the party closest to them ideologically. When Ralph Nader ran for president in 2000 and 2004, for example, he didn't hurt George W. Bush, he hurt Al Gore and John Kerry. Maybe a few of Nader's voters wouldn't have voted at all if he hadn't run, but the vast bulk of his votes came from Gore's and Kerry's totals. Needless to say, Gore and Kerry are certainly closer to Nader generally than the man he helped elect.
Over the years, I have known a great many people who have flirted with the Libertarian Party, but were ultimately turned off by its political impotence and immaturity. C-SPAN runs Libertarian conventions, and viewers can see for themselves how unserious and childish they are. They show that the Libertarian Party is essentially a high-school-level debating club where only one question is ever debated -- who is the purest libertarian, and what is the purest libertarian position?
At times, serious people have tried to get control of the Libertarian Party and make it a viable organization. But in the end, the crazies who like the party just as it is have always run them off. In the process, however, they have also run off millions of voters who have supported libertarian candidates at one time or another. After realizing what a waste of time the Libertarian Party is, many became disengaged from politics and don't vote at all.
The result has been that libertarian-leaning activists have been drawn away from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party by the Libertarian Party, leaving the major parties with fewer libertarians. In other words, both major parties have fewer libertarians than they would without the Libertarian Party, meaning that the net result of the party has been to make our government less libertarian than it would otherwise be.
My conclusion is that for libertarian ideas to advance, the Libertarian Party must go completely out of business. It must cease to exist, period. No more candidates, no more wasted votes and no more disillusioned libertarian activists.
In place of the party, there should arise a new libertarian interest group organized like the National Rifle Association or the various pro- and anti-abortion groups. This new group, whatever it is called, would hire lobbyists, run advertisements and make political contributions to candidates supporting libertarian ideas. It will work with both major parties. It can magnify its influence by creating temporary coalitions on particular issues and being willing to work with elected officials who may hold libertarian positions on only one or a handful of issues. They need not hold libertarian views on every single issue, as the Libertarian Party now demands of those it supports.
I believe that this new organization would be vastly more influential than the party and give libertarian ideas far more potency than they now have. As long as the party continues to exist, unfortunately, it will be an albatross around the necks of small-L libertarians, destroying any political effectiveness they might have. It must die for libertarian ideas to succeed.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BruceBartlett/2006/12/19/libertarian_or_libertarian
I'd have to agree with most of what he says except for this: "But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government." Seems to that if you can't win locally, you can't win anywhere.
Post by: meinbruder on December 19, 2006, 07:31:02 AM
From townhall.com
Libertarian or libertarian
By Bruce Bartlett
<snip>
The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
<snip>
I'd have to agree with most of what he says except for this: "But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government." Seems to that if you can't win locally, you can't win anywhere.
Libertarian or libertarian
By Bruce Bartlett
<snip>
The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
<snip>
I'd have to agree with most of what he says except for this: "But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government." Seems to that if you can't win locally, you can't win anywhere.
I dont agree. Winning 270 electoral votes merely requires a majority of a popular vote in the states; at least thats the theory. So many people have voted against a candidate for so many years that its obvious, at least to me, that the time has come for a third party to rise up and take power. How many times can one say, I voted for _______ because he is the lesser of two evils ? I finally realized that voting against the democrat party didnt make me a republican and found a party of principle.
I think the Libertarian Party Platform is whats keeping it from a broader acceptance. The majority of people I talk to are scared to death of freedom. They find great comfort in having the ability to pass laws to control the behavior and life choices of others; this is true of both sides of Red/Blue America. I also think that people need to take a step back, so to speak, look at all the issues and stop voting for or against a candidate on a single issue.
}:)>
Post by: Werewolf on December 19, 2006, 07:52:52 AM
Why? Two Reasons related to the party leadership:
1. Because invariably the people they support for office are certifiable nut jobs like the moron they ran for president in the last election.
Most voters aren't that astute IMO but they are intelligent enough to sort the whackos out from everyone else.
2. In addition the folks in charge of the party don't have the smarts to take the long view and build a voter base from the ground up by starting with getting libertarians elected to town councils, county commissioners then state legislators etc etc. It might take 50 years to achieve any level of representation in National Politics but so what. Hey - if the Fabians can do it in the UK then Libertarians could do it in the USA but NO! - those morons want the whole ball of wax now and run for President! Since I started voting 35 years ago I have never seen a libertarian on any ballot other than a presidential one and I never miss an election - even when I was in the military and overseas.
Libertarian leadership is the Libertarian party's own worst enemy.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 19, 2006, 07:54:24 AM
Quote
So many people have voted against a candidate for so many years that its obvious, at least to me, that the time has come for a third party to rise up and take power.
Good luck with that, Meinbruder. Unless I'm mistaken, that hasn't happened since 1860, and the country has changed a lot since then. It may be less likely now. I've been lightly involved with third-parties myself, but I have also come to believe that third-parties should not expect to win major elections. They can win local races, and might even win in a state office, but they have to expect their main role to be as a corrective to the major party they align more closely with, by drawing off votes when said party gets too far out of touch with its base. Or as standard-bearers for the issue or issues on which the larger parties are stumbling. The author's thesis feels right to me.
Quote
C-SPAN runs Libertarian conventions, and viewers can see for themselves how unserious and childish they are. They show that the Libertarian Party is essentially a high-school-level debating club where only one question is ever debated -- who is the purest libertarian, and what is the purest libertarian position?
I've never seen such a convention, but that is the impression I get from Libertarians on internet forums. I *Long ago? What am I, Cal Thomas?
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 19, 2006, 07:58:59 AM
take the long view and build a voter base from the ground up by starting with town councils, county commissioners then state legislators etc etc. I might take 50 years to achieve any level of representation in National Politics but so what.
Quite right. It may be the greatest weakness of our current third-parties that they seem to put all their attention on a hopeless bid for the presidency. Quote
1. Because invariably the people they support for office are certifiable nut jobs like the moron they ran for president in the last election
. They ran Alan Keyes? 
Post by: Ron on December 19, 2006, 07:59:29 AM
Quote
Libertarian leadership
That is an oxymoron
Post by: The Rabbi on December 19, 2006, 09:16:52 AM
Post by: roo_ster on December 19, 2006, 09:46:03 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 19, 2006, 09:50:00 AM
Article is spot on. If people with libertarian leanings leave the GOP then there is no constituency for libertarian type reforms.
The response to that, from some, is going to be that the Democratic Party is as much or more libertarian, in terms of "reproductive rights," and other pet projects of the ACLU. Post by: The Rabbi on December 19, 2006, 10:01:34 AM
Article is spot on. If people with libertarian leanings leave the GOP then there is no constituency for libertarian type reforms.
The response to that, from some, is going to be that the Democratic Party is as much or more libertarian, in terms of "reproductive rights," and other pet projects of the ACLU. "Reproductive rights" is probably about the only area where the Dems would be more hospitable. The Dems are largely statist and even with regard to "reproductive rights" they will turn that into a government entitlement in no time.
But the argument is good mutatis mutandis for the Democratic Party as well.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 19, 2006, 10:10:13 AM
Wouldn't Democrats be more friendly toward ending "The War On Some Drugs"? Then there are a whole raft of libertarian or so-called libertarian causes:
Homosexual marriage
Rolling back the alleged Police State
Homosexual adoption
Removing crosses and such from public displays and adding pagan symbols to military tomb-stones
There must be a few more.
Post by: Bogie on December 19, 2006, 10:18:04 AM
Damn pit bulls are barking from my neighbor's yard again... Time to go out and fire up the tweeter array again... 2,500 watts at 22,000 hz...
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 19, 2006, 10:28:23 AM
mutatis mu-what?
It means "the necessary changes being made". As in - The same argument applied to the Republican party would apply to the Democratic party, if you make the necessary changes. Democrat for Repub. Democratic traditional issues replacing "Republican" issues. Change the terms/political sides and the argument still stands.
Post by: Bogie on December 19, 2006, 10:59:53 AM
This gained the Reagan years, but MANY intelligent people then defected themselves to the Democrat side. There's a sizable contingent that is middle of the road, liable to swing either way. And currently it is swinging away from the religious nutjobs.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 19, 2006, 11:03:05 AM
And currently it is swinging away from the religious nutjobs.
They prefer the term "social conservatives".
Post by: Mannlicher on December 19, 2006, 11:08:10 AM
Notice that despite the voluminous rhetoric from the libertarians, its never about what a Republican had done good. Its always about what they did wrong.
Gutless, I call them.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 19, 2006, 11:35:52 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 19, 2006, 11:38:19 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 19, 2006, 02:58:07 PM
Interesting take, yes, full of BS as well.
Post by: thebaldguy on December 19, 2006, 03:26:16 PM
I have voted third party when the two major parties failed to give me a reason to vote for either. I cannot, and will not vote for parties, policies, and candidates I don't like. I will not support them with a vote. Third party voters may not win an election, but they can swing one. At least they need to be respected for that, and maybe the two monopoly parties will take notice of the loss of support.
Post by: Dannyboy on December 19, 2006, 05:20:17 PM
Interesting take, yes, full of BS as well.
Please enlighten us as to what is actually BS. You may not agree with him but most would think he has a valid point regarding the Libertarian Party.
Post by: Antibubba on December 19, 2006, 07:51:41 PM
Quote
Libertarian leadership is the Libertarian party's own worst enemy.
Yup. Sums it up nicely.
Post by: Strings on December 20, 2006, 12:54:02 AM
>Rolling back the alleged Police State<
>... and adding pagan symbols to military tomb-stone<
How, precisely, are thses Libertarian issues? Looking at each seperately:
>Rolling back the alleged Police State<
Shouldn't we all want to end the appearances of police state in the US? Or is it that the belief that we're becoming a police state is a libertarian thought?
>... and adding pagan symbols to military tomb-stone<
Ummm... if a pagan dies in service to the country, shouldn't they have the option od being burried under the symbol of their faith, just like hristian, Muslims, Jews, etc? How is THAT Libertarian? Wouldn't it be more just common decency?
Personally, I'm a small "l": the party just doesn't seem to want to win. I have yet to see a Libertarian candidate at the local level, and I HAVE been looking. Unfortunately, it seems that Libertarian leadership wants to build the Great Pyramid by placing the capstone, then filling the structure in under it...
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2006, 03:25:58 AM
When I say something is a libertarian issue, that doesn't mean I don't like it or don't agree with that position. I consider myself a libertarian, in the sense that I desire a limited govt. that does nothing more than protect one citizen from another and take care of national defense.
The Police State issue is libertarian because the concern over it comes from a libertarian impulse. That is, the impulse to live a life free from a heavy-handed police force. Democrats don't object to the "Police State" out of their socialism, nor Republicans from their traditionalism and desire for law and order. Both sides object to it due to America's libertarian tradition.
The pagan tombstone issue:
"Common decency" can mean just about anything. Plenty of conservatives would argue that "common decency" demands our govt. not put them devil worship symbols on our soldier's grave markers, don't you know? The issue is libertarian because it is a question of whether "limited govt." means that the military gives you whatever religious symbol you want, or whether it means that govt. funds not be used for religious purposes at all, or whether it means that govt. should not use taxpayer funds for things of which the majority of tax-payers disapprove. Without our libertarian tradition, I don't think America would even ask such questions. We'd just tell pagans to shut up and quit rocking the boat.
Post by: Waitone on December 20, 2006, 05:57:11 AM
Bottom line is the LP displays a profoundly infantile understanding in the acquisition and maintenance of power in our country. Sad since conditions are rapidly developing which will suppport a viable third party.
Post by: Strings on December 20, 2006, 07:23:18 AM
Post by: ArmedBear on December 20, 2006, 12:07:36 PM
Quote
take the long view and build a voter base from the ground up by starting with town councils, county commissioners then state legislators etc etc. I might take 50 years to achieve any level of representation in National Politics but so what.
"So what?" Let me show you what.
Totalitarians have two advantages over libertarians:
1. Totalitarian government enforces its own rules, making it far more difficult for a libertarian revolution to occur. The opposite, of course, is true when a government is libertarian. Would-be totalitarians find it far easier to organize and take over, if the government can and will do little to stop them.
2. Totalitarians are faster. If there's a crisis, we libertarians don't HAVE 50 years. We don't have 50 months, or even 50 days, necessarily.
How long did it take for countries to be taken over by Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Gaddhafi, Khomeini, Hussein? Certainly not 50 years! Have those who crave more power over individuals ever desisted even in the US, the UK, Australia, or any other place that has been a model for libertarian ideals in one way or another? Has their power increased or decreased in the past 50 years? Is the average citizen of the US, UK, Australia, or the EU freer or less free than 50 years ago?
Either we look for ways to influence things here and now, or we look at the reality that we can't win over 50 years, either.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 20, 2006, 12:17:06 PM
So the only choice is libertarian (or "Libertarian") or totalitarian??
Post by: ArmedBear on December 20, 2006, 12:26:10 PM
Quote
Huh?
So the only choice is libertarian (or "Libertarian") or totalitarian??
So the only choice is libertarian (or "Libertarian") or totalitarian??
No.
However, as you may note with a lot of things in life, we're either moving in one direction or the other. There is no stasis in our world, just the illusion of it for a short while.
Either we're going towards liberty, or away from it. We can go pretty far from it in 50 years, or we can go pretty far towards it.
If libertarians take ourselves out of the game while trying to get some dogcatchers elected, rather than influencing our government, a turn for the worse can occur VERY quickly. World history gives us many, many examples of this.
When this happens, either slowly or quickly, it becomes much more difficult to make a net gain in the libertarian direction, both because power resists change, and because the baseline from whence we start is far closer to authoritarianism. Therefore, spending 50 years on the sidelines is not a realistic option, since the world won't just sit there and stay as it is right now, waiting for us to come along and do some great things someday. That's not how the world works.
Post by: Werewolf on December 20, 2006, 12:43:14 PM
Quote
If libertarians take ourselves out of the game while trying to get some dogcatchers elected, rather than influencing our government, a turn for the worse can occur VERY quickly.
No one is saying to take ourselves out of the game. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get into the game of influencing our government without having elected and appointed representatives as a part of it. As it stands right now the libertarians aren't even in the game. At best they are little more than spectators in the stands and IMO what they really are is the little kid watching the game with a set of cheap binoculars on the hillside a half mile away from the ball park.To get into the game libertarians must get elected to government and the reality of present day politics is they aren't gonna just jump in and become the president, or congressmen, senators, judges or even appointed bureauscum which is what they seem to want.
It's just not going to happen without paying their dues and that means that first the libertarians have to make the electorate know they exist, shed their reputation as nut jobs and get elected to local offices where they have to convince fewer people and thus spend less money.
The Fabian Society started out in the 30's with a 50 year plan to turn the UK into a socialist paradise. They had the long view, they planned and executed and look at the UK now - a socialist paradise.
You don't just graduate from HS and become the President and CEO of GM (though lots'a kids today seem to believe that they can and are actually amazed when they get smacked in the head by reality - but then that's another discussion entirely). It takes time, work and the proverbial paying of the dues to get there.
The libertarians aren't gonna just jump in and take over the government without taking the time, doing the work and paying their political dues.
Post by: ArmedBear on December 20, 2006, 12:51:51 PM
Quote
The libertarians aren't gonna just jump in and take over the government without taking the time, doing the work and paying their political dues.
That's true.
And in this country, barring a cataclysm, this means "taking the time, doing the work and paying their political dues" within the two-party system that exists.
Furthermore, libertarians HAVE influenced government. Mostly, they weren't "ideologically pure," and they weren't Libertarians.
We have allies in Congress RIGHT NOW. Voting against them in order to vote for Libertarians is not a good way to gain influence for our values and ideas (I don't give a *expletive deleted*it about a party, any more than the Founders did -- I want liberty, not a party).
Hence, I agree with the author of the article. The Libertarian Party (Founded 1971, BTW) is doing far more to siphon off libertarians from the real world of politics, than to get any of us into it. It's sad, but it's true.
Post by: doczinn on December 20, 2006, 02:10:50 PM
Quote
Ron Paul is an example of another issue in that he does an outstanding job diagnosing a problem but really sucks at offering a viable therapy.
He offers plenty of treatment. The problem is, no-one in power listens.Post by: Strings on December 20, 2006, 02:49:44 PM
Yes, they should keep trying. But they also need to try getting folks elected at all levels of the field; local, state, AND federal...
Post by: meinbruder on December 20, 2006, 07:20:17 PM
Another aspect of the "let's go for the Presidency right away!" thing is this: let's say (for discussion) that Mr Libertarian gets elected as Pres. He can now do... what, exactly? Does anyone here honesty think a Lib Pres would get ANY kind of support from either Dems or reps in either House or Senate?
Yes, they should keep trying. But they also need to try getting folks elected at all levels of the field; local, state, AND federal...
Yes, they should keep trying. But they also need to try getting folks elected at all levels of the field; local, state, AND federal...
One comment, which keeps getting brought up, is the lack of Libertarian candidates on the ballot. Here in Oregon there is normally one in each of the state office races from Governor on down, we must be a more involved state than most.
Hunter Rose is absolutely right; there would be zero support from the two parties for a Lib President. However, consider the Executive Order process. Every President has the ability to issue an executive order. Some are frivolous and just for show, others can be contrary to the constitution but no one complains, and still others revoke prior executive orders. A Libertarian President could literally stand the FedGov on its ear in the first twenty-four hours by revoking some of the more odious. Google the EO list, some folks will be horrified by what they find.
One the other hand, a sitting President with no co-operation from the legislative branch would be a shining beacon holding the spot light on the gridlock of the two party system. It just might be the catalyst to get more people to stop voting for the status quo.
I will agree that the lack of candidates at the entry level of government office is a major problem in the partys success. One stumbling block for any third party is the rejection of any candidate not a member of the two party system, there is no reason to run if no one will consider even for a second to vote for the candidate. A couple of Libs here in Oregon, have re-registered as Repubs to gain acceptance by the proletariat.
}:)>
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2006, 07:27:40 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on December 21, 2006, 01:40:43 AM
Quote
Damn pit bulls are barking from my neighbor's yard again... Time to go out and fire up the tweeter array again... 2,500 watts at 22,000 hz...
Tell me more, please, Bogie!