Meet the Losertarians!

America's Libertarian Party services only one purpose: Distracting and confusing the determined combatants in all our critical national struggles. Consider the preposterous Libertarian role in the just concluded midterm elections. South Dakota represented ground zero in the struggle for control of the Senate, and Republican John Thune and incumbent Democrat Tim Johnson fought to a virtual tie--with only 527 votes (less than 0.2 percent of the vote) dividing them. Meanwhile, 3,071 votes went to Libertarian Kurt Evans, a 32-year-old teacher who listed as one of his prime preparations for the Senate that his father is a known Country & Western musician.

Not all the purists and odd balls who vote Libertarian are actually conservative, but polls show that most of them are--and that most such voters would, if pressed, prefer Republicans over Democrats. Imagine if a third--only one third!--of Kurt Evans' voters had thought seriously enough about the importance of the election to cast their votes for Republican Thune. Would the fact that the Libertarian received 2,000 votes instead of 3,000 have detracted in any way from the "success" or impact of his campaign--or somehow compromised its metaphysical meaning? Yet the shift of that thousand votes to a real, grown-up, candidate could have altered U.S. political history.

Unfortunately, South Dakota wasn't the only state where the self-indulgent madness of Libertarian jokesters interfered with the serious business of politics. In the Alabama governor's race, another virtual tie between Republicans and Democrats, the Libertarian nominee drew 23,242 lost souls (2 percent) to his campaign--more than seven times the margin between the two serious candidates. In Oregon's contest for governor, the gap between the Democrat and Republican stood at 33,437 votes (2.73 percent) in unofficial counts, while the Libertarian jester, Thomas B. Cox, drew 56,141 votes (almost 5 percent). Mr. Cox, by the way, listed among his spotty qualifications for the governorship his "five years on the Math Team in grades 8-12."

This might all be amusing were it not so irresponsible. Libertarians win no races of any significance anywhere in the United States. The Pathetic Party's press release acknowledged that they "emerged from Election 2002 with decidedly mixed results," boasting that "Bob Dempsey was re-elected as San Miguel County coroner" (in Colorado) and "in California, Eric Lund was elected to the Cordova Recreation and Park Board."

Despite such glittering triumphs, the party's national standing continues its relentless (and richly deserved) decline. The Libertarians reached their feeble high water mark more than 20 years ago, when Ed Clark won 1.06 percent of the vote in his race for the Presidency (against Ronald Reagan). More recently, Harry Browne scored less than half that percentage (0.5 percent) in 1996, and then fared even worse (0.37 percent) in 2000. The Libertarians claim they are influencing the debate, but how can you honestly believe you are succeeding in your cause when you win no important victories and your vote totals only decline?

Harry Clowne and other Losertarian ideologues insist that their ceaseless, useless campaigning will magically, miraculously push Republicans (and/or Democrats) in the direction of libertarian ideas, but this forlorn hope rests on shakier evidence than faith in the Tooth Fairy. It ought to be obvious that you can only change a major party by participating in it and joining its internal struggles, and that you can't influence a political organization by walking away from it. There is simply no historical evidence to support the idiotic cliché claiming that third parties influence the nation by forcing the major parties to adopt their ideas. Populists only managed to take over the Democratic Party when they dropped their independent campaigning and decided to hitch a ride on the donkey; Socialists remained a suspect fringe operation until they, too, made common cause with the Democrats during the crisis of the Great Depression.

The appalling record of Libertarian electoral rejection doesn't mean that libertarian ideas are worthless--in fact, those values and innovations significantly can enrich our political dialogue if promoted in the appropriate manner. Ron Paul a one-time Republican representative from Texas, Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988, got the right idea after his frustrating race (0.47 percent of the vote) when he re-joined the Republicans, ran for Congress, and won his seat back--playing a courageous and constructive role representing his Texas district.

The refusal by other Libertarians to follow this successful example represents a demented eccentricity that condemns them to life on the political fringe. Isn't it obvious that, in today's political world, an outsider candidate stands a better chance of capturing a major party nomination through the primary process, than building a third party movement from scratch to beat the two established parties? Obviously, challenging the establishment in a primary requires less money, and a smaller base of support, than building a new political apparatus to win a general election. Insurgents and outsiders win party primaries all the time--as Bill Simon proved in California, defeating the anointed gubernatorial candidate of the GOP establishment.

And even when they don't win, primary challengers often play a significant role. When Pat Buchanan ran for the Republican Presidential nomination (twice), he made some serious noise and exerted a powerful influence on his party; when, on the other hand, he abandoned the GOP and sought the White House as the nominee of the Reform Party he became a painful (and ultimately irrelevant) embarrassment. Libertarians who seek to advance their challenging agenda will meet with far greater success within the two party system than they have achieved in all their weary decades of wandering in the fringe faction wilderness.

Dante is generally credited with the statement that "the hottest circles in hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." In the wake of the recent elections, we should reserve some space in those inflammatory precincts for those who in time of moral crisis--and hand-to-hand political combat--cast meaningless votes for Losertarians.

—Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated, daily radio talk show focusing on the intersection of politics and pop culture. He is also a well-known film critic.

The fact is that the rate of federal spending has increased in the 2001-2002 period.

Oh Wait, didn't SOMETHING happen on Sept. 11, 2001?

CLUE: The U.S. is at war.

Medved is an elitist snob. The only distinction is that he is on the right instead of the left with most of the elitist snobs. Mister "My family is better than yours because I don't have a TV in my house" can go stuff his swelled head into whatever orafice he can find nearby. Whenever he used to sub for Rush, I'd change the station...the same way I do Fox News whenever they give that lying sack of crap John Kasich an hour of airtime.

Ridiculous. Where does it say that there should only be 2 parties in politics.

Fact is, here in PA I voted for Fisher for gov, (Repub), but specifically voted Constitution Party vs. Republican in the other races. WHY? Because the Repub. state candidate supports the destruction of property rights in the form of "farmland preservation" and other socialist crap.

Another house repub sent out a mailer about how "we are protecting Social Security for seniors" and similar crap.

Why should I vote Repub in cases where they are indistinguishable from Demoncrats?

And stop presuming that my vote belongs to you and your Party; it doesn't become you...

Every Libertarian vote cast here in California HELPED THE DEMOCRAPS AND HURT THE GOP - as if we didn't already have enough problems.

since Libertarians on the whole are Leftists

And here I was, thinking leftists were people who advocate a government solution for every problem. I guess I had that one wrong.

So, lets see if I have this correct now:

Leftists want small constitutional government.
Therefore, rightists want large government???

Thanks for clearing that up! I learn something new here everyday.

Man, it's a b!tch to have a political party that consistently stands for a set of clearly articulated ideas . . .

Rather, it's unfortunate and bone-headed stupid to have a gaggle of perpetual losers who would rather sacrifice the good in the feckless pursuit of the the weird and the marginal (e.g., dope and porn).

While you and the other losertarians are playing political pattycake in the wilderness of your self-obsessed minds, life--real life--goes on around us all.

We already have three losertarian senators: Cantwell, Reid, and Johnson. How many more can we afford? Losertarians don't care. They would rather throw tantrums and be useless than actually engage the world head-on and try to change it incrementally (which is the only way lasting political change will ever come about).

I find it pitiful when a major party whines about how if all the people who voted for third party candidates, or even a portion of them, had voted for them they would have won. As if the power and number of seats they have in Congress isn't enough compared to that of third parties.

The answer, of course, is for major parties to speak to the issues that third-party voters care about in order to convince these voters that the major parties have earned their votes. If the major parties don't want to do that because of various political concerns of their own, that's fine, but then they shouldn't complain when they haven't earned the votes they want.

Your stand against voting for a candidate not belonging to one of the two "major" parties would have kept us from having Lincoln in 1860- and there would be no Republican Party today.

I personally think that a major re-alignment of American politics is going on right now, and the Democrats are due to be replaced by a more centrist and inclusive Party (which will not be the Libertarians). Check with me in 10-15 years, and I'll let you know which party arose from this meltdown.

It amazes me how people on both sides of the political spectrum are completely unwilling to consider any opinions other than their own and those who think exactly like them. I find it hard to believe that every republican believes in everthing the republican party spews forth much like all libertarians do not agree 100% of the time, and may have differnt reasons when they do agree. If you dont agree with the libertarian ideals, try to have a civil discussion. Somehow i can talk to my roommate, who is the most liberal creature god ever created, about politics and not resort to name calling. Nothing is ever going to be able to be discussed if the first thing written is an insult. I dont agree with some republican ideals, that doesnt make republicans "sell outs" or retarded. Are allowed to have differing opinions, or are some of these posters so right wing that they are becoming facist?

Well this should be an interesting thread . . .

Not really...just more of the same senseless name-calling and lame jokes by the republicrats who masquerade as conservatives here.

Let the derrogatory "drug induced militia lovers" comments begin. Not all libertarians are wackos, i for one consider myself to be libertarian largely because i feel that the war on drugs has failed and the money spent could be put to better use and because i feel that social welfare is unconstitutional. To those who would bash libertarians, if we are supposedly so insignificant, why does it upset you so if we vote for a libertarian candidate?

Thanks for stealing my thunder and saving me the trouble of typing what you posted! I suppose that these Libertarian bashers think that Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were "drug induced Militia lovers" because they didn't come up with "the war on drugs" when they helped build this nation. The SD Senate race was impacted by two things...vote fraud and the republican's lack of appeal to an additional 600 registered voters. They need to quit looking for someone to blame and get their own act together.

Exactly. As long as the Greens siphon off more Dem votes than the Libertarians siphon off Repub votes, there's not too much for Republicans to care about.

But I don't really disagree with Medved either. If you're happy that the Greens (aparently) threw Florida from Gore to Bush, then you should be unhappy that the Libertarians (apparently) threw the S. Dakota Senate seat from Thune to Johnson.

It would be nice if elections were whittled down to 2 candidates at the end (e.g., after an open primary) so that we could come up with a more pure preference system and didn't have these 3rd party dilemmas (which entrench the 2 parties).

You losertarians can stay where you are. You and me have absolutely nothing in common.

You got that right!

I am not a lemming.

Every Libertarian vote cast here in California HELPED THE DEMOCRAPS AND HURT THE GOP - as if we didn't already have enough problems.

Your statement is based on the assumption that I would have voted Republican if I hadn't voted libertarian. You are thereby guilty of gross presumption, as I stated previously.

I would never vote Libertarian, but I really think that this line of argument is seriously misguided. We have a perfect right to vote for anyone we wish- and if that means that a "mainstream" candidate loses, well, so be it.

Maybe if the Republicans took their oath to the Constitution seriously, I would be persuaded to vote for them again.

As it stands now, especially after the passage of the hideous Homeland Security beuracracy, I don't see how the pubbies are any different that the dims.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.