LOLPIMP!
Posted on 11/14/2002 10:23:51 AM PST by arual
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.
Exactly. How can I justify voting for Republicans who promise to cut government growth, but when they get in office actually outspend the Democrats? Forget the war on drugs, I don't do drugs, so even though it is stupid, I can't get too worked up about it.
I do pay taxes though, lots of them, and the Republicans say they cut taxes, but I haven't noticed a difference. Meanwhile Federal budget growth has shifted into overdrive under the Republicans.
Thrive?
LOL
Could someone please list for me all of the Loserdopian Party Candidates who have been elected to a national position in the Government?
Thrive?
You would get a Tim Johnson re-elected just to make your principled stand on whores and dope?
Bwa ha ha ha ha.
His intellectual abilities and level of honesty are somewhat lower than what's left on used toilet paper.
So did every vote for the Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, the Greens, the Reform Party and write-ins, for that matter.
It's quite amusing to see some people around here completely dismiss and belittle both the voting percentages attributed to Libertarians and their stated political ends on one hand, and then simultaneously whine, snivel and pout about the very same Libertarians costing the Republicans an election.
Logical consistancy is our friend.
These people would never vote GOP, for bigger government.
We don't really care who makes it bigger. We won't empower or advocate, through our votes, no matter how few we have, anyone who makes government bigger. If there's no one on the ballot who will reduce the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of government, many of us simply won't vote. And voting for someone who will make government even the slightest bit larger is simply out of the question.
It's really not all that hard to figure out.
Medved wrote this? Damn, I usually agree with his views, maybe 50-50 on the movies, but this time he's wrong.
The root word is liberty, not liberal.
That makes you overall clueless in my book.
LOLPIMP!
Uh, speaking of senseless name calling and lame jokes. . .
Agreed. Louisiana's system might be worth looking into. Libertarians wouldn't have to worry about indirectly allowing a Democrat to be elected because they could vote for their first choice in the "primary", and then vote for the Republican in the runoff. (Of course, the same is true for Greens).
That about sums it up.
I believe the correct reply to that kind of statement is "Hey, pal, those votes were never YOURS in the first place!" Why should people who are alienated by a party feel obliged to vote for their candidate? What is their next campaign slogan going to be ? "Vote for us, we're a little less repressive than the other guys!"
I believe that voting for a candidate that does not have principles to be a vote that is thrown away.
When the republicans start being the party of limited government and staying true to their principles once again, maybe I will consider voting for them again.
Legal dope, porn and prostitution aren't what tempt me to vote Libertarian. It's the fact that few Republicans actually do believe in small government (remember, e.g., more than a few promises to eliminate the Education Department?) or federalism or even the separation of powers.
That said, I live in Massachusets, and so I often have the luxury of entering a "protest" vote for a 3rd party candidate. But in an election that's close between the 2 major parties, you really owe it to yourself to vote for one of them, unless you really do have no preference between them. I just voted for Romney (R) for Governor; most people thought he would lose by a significant margin, but I felt strongly that it would at least be close.
And 2 years ago I voted for Nader!!! I knew that Gore would win Massachusetts, and I thought, "why not split the left, and maybe help the Greens hit the 5% of the vote needed to give them major-party status?"
Wrong. We want the war on drugs ended, and consensual sex between adults, regardless of the motivation, should not be the government's business.
Can I borrow that wide paint brush when you're finished? I need to finish painting my house by tomorrow.
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.