Interesting take on the Libertarian Party

[Dannyboy]

From townhall.com

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.

[meinbruder]

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.

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.
 }:)>

[Werewolf]

Though I don't agree with the Libertarian stance on Natl Defense or Immigration I do agree with them on most every thing else which is too bad because they are going no where fast and have ZERO, NADA, NO influence on the direction our country is taking.

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

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 some time ago* coined the phrase, "more Libertarian than thou."  I think this is also true of the Const. party, and is probably just a consequence of the idealism of the American third party.   I once read about the trouble the Greens had in Germany when they actually attained power in Parliament (or whatever they call it) and had to align with other parties in making decisions about using (aaaaahhh!) military power!  The split between ideologically pure pacifists and Green realists was, uh, quite something. 

*Long ago?  What am I, Cal Thomas? 

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

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? 

[Ron]

Libertarian leadership

That is an oxymoron

[The Rabbi]

Article is spot on.  If people with libertarian leanings leave the GOP then there is no constituency for libertarian type reforms.  Ergo there is no chance whatsoever of any reform.  So now someone will mope about "they control everything anyway" and there is no arguing with some people.

[roo_ster]

Some folks would rather mope about in their little plaything-party than get out and to the heavy lifting of intra-party politics.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[The Rabbi]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

mutatis mu-what? 

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. 

[Bogie]

Personally, I tend to vote against candidates, and hold my nose while voting for my "choice."

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...
 

[Matthew Carberry]

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.

[Bogie]

Well, the Republican party started the downhill slide in a sort of ethics for power tradeoff, when the rollers defected en masse from the Democrats in the seventies... Used to be the Republicans were generally the educated... Now, there's a dichotomy of educated, and backwoods fanatic...

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.
 

 

[Matthew Carberry]

And currently it is swinging away from the religious nutjobs.

They prefer the term "social conservatives". 

[Mannlicher]

The main thing about the Libertarians to me, is that its a sub set of the GOP, where the folks who want to bitch, but not take any responsibility hang out.  They know their candidate won't be elected, so they can complain about everyone else, and waste their votes, and never have to owe up to what an elected official does wrong.
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.

[Perd Hapley]

The Const. Party does this too.  Third parties can never afford to praise the major parties. 

[Perd Hapley]

The "religious nutjobs" were, obviously, never numerous enough to matter.  Mainstream religious conservatives have been an indespensible cohort in the Republican base.  "Swinging away" from them is one of those things that brought us the recent Democratic success at the polls. 

[Jamisjockey]

Bashing third parties as ineffective is a tactic of the left and right to keep votes.....
Interesting take, yes, full of BS as well.

[thebaldguy]

Many folks have given up on change from within the Democrats/Republicans. Friends of mine have attended caucuses for both parties; they learned that very little policy is heard at the local level. Often they said that policy came from the top down, not the bottom. Years ago here, the national republican party decided who would run for governor and who would run for senate before locals could decide.

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.

[Dannyboy]

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. 

[Antibubba]

Werewolf said:

Libertarian leadership is the Libertarian party's own worst enemy.

Yup.  Sums it up nicely.

[Strings]

fistful, just a quick question:

>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...

[Perd Hapley]

Hunter the Rose,

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.

[Waitone]

The bone I pick with Libertarian Party is really quite simpleminded.  LP is not interested compromise.  It is therefore destined for political irrelevance.  Combine that with the inability of local candidates to engage in personal hygiene and votes won't even consider LP as a viable candidate.  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.  Kinda odd for a physician not to get the need for a way of fixing a previously identified problem.  Bob Barr may be the signal that someone has figured it out.  Being a politician Barr will be inclined to think in terms of solutions rather than analysis.  He is also experience in accepting something less that the full loaf. 

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.