Posted on 12/12/2001 12:57:13 PM PST by Timesink
THIRD WHEEL: My friend Nick Schulz of TechCentral Station marks the 30th anniversary of the Libertarian Party with a call for the party to "grow up." As a small-l libertarian who occasionally votes Libertarian, I'd rather the party just go away. As satisfying as it may be to cast a protest vote, they're bad for the cause. Their 30th-anniversary press release eliminates any ambivalence I might feel. It's not enough that the party's rules have defined "libertarian" to exclude every major libertarian thinker except Murray Rothbard (who was really an anarchist) and that they have a foreign policy that amounts to defending America on the beaches of Santa Monica. They also have to spin their way through their celebratory press release, desperately claiming credit for trends they played little or no part in. That spin operation pretty much proves that they are, indeed, just what they claim: an honest-to-God political party. The most ridiculous paragraph details this supposed accomplishment: "Started to win over America's celebrities." Best of all, they had Bill Maher on the list this morning, but they've taken him down. P.S. All you pissed-off LPers, do not call Reason and try to get me fired. It wouldn't work, and I've already quit. [Posted 12/11.] Over the past decade, public figures including movie star Clint Eastwood, humorist Dave Barry, comedian Dennis Miller, actor Kurt Russell, magician Penn Jillette, author Camille Paglia, TV reporter John Stossell, author P.J. O'Rourke, Rush guitarist Neil Peart, country star Dwight Yoakam, and former 20/20 newsman Hugh Downs have all described themselves as "libertarian."
The LP didn't "win over" these celebrities. Calling yourself "libertarian" is no more partisan than calling yourself "republican" or "democratic." Clint Eastwood is a former Republican mayor. P.J. O'Rourke calls himself a Republican Party Reptile. Camille Paglia is a self-proclaimed Democrat who voted for Ralph Nader and who heaps patented Paglia-style scorn on the LP. John Stossel spells his name with one l. If they knew him, they'd know that.
In my limited experience, LP gatherings have a few people with some good ideas, plus a whole lot of hangers-on who were anti-draft during the '60s, or who want drugs or prostitution legalized, etc. As single-issue voters go, those tend to be most unattractive. It's one thing to reluctantly tolerate deviant behavior (as long as it's confined to consenting adults), but it's quite another to build a political movement around such behavior. But that's the tendency I've seen; and LP events tend to be freak shows rather than gatherings of enlightened philosophers. Still, there'a a core of good thinking burried in there. But I think the Republican party is the way to go.
The direction of our nation and its laws can be changed. But the only way that works is to take over one of the two major parties. The Republican party of Teddy Roosevelt was pretty liberal and the Democratic party of that time was pretty conservative. The Deomcrats were dominated by the South where states rights, low taxes, and very limited federal goverment was quite popular. It was the Roosevelt type liberals of the north that dominated the Republican party in the first two decades of this century. But by the mid 1920's conservatives had taken over the Republican party too. As someone said their was not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.
But the left under the mantle of FDR took over the Democratic party. Using party loyalty they got FDR elected president. Twenty years of FDR made the conservative Democratic party into the liberal Democratic party.
In the South the consrvative Democrats started to move to the Republican party and in new England the liberal Republicans started to move to the Democratic party.
For the first 30 years of the last century the Progressive party tried to make an impact. It Failed. It tried to move the nation to the left and it failed. FDR figured out how to do it and made the Democrats a Leftist party.
But third party people for the most part are afraid to try to move into control a major party. They don't think they could succeed. But the fact is no movement goes from a party with one or two percent support to a party with over 50 percent support in an instant. What they do is take votes from the major party most like them, thus electing the major party least like them. The third party never gets enough votes to win. If the party least like them fails, that results in the dominance of the party most like them and it takes their voters back. That takes them out of the game completely.
But the splinter parties never learn. They keep thinking that they can go from next to nothing to over 50 percent in one election cycle. It has never happened. It never will.
What does a major party do when a splinter party takes a few million votes from them? They look at the few million the splinter party got and say we need all those plus some of the other party to win. Geting the splinter party votes will make some of our voters move to the other party. So that is not a solution. They conclude that the thing to do is to move closer to the other major parties positions. What would happens in real life if the libertarians ever get enough votes to take down a Republican, the Republicans will just move to the left as a result. They will figure getting 6 percent of the Democrat votes would be enought for a Republican victory while getting 100 percent of the libertarian votes would not.
The solution to change is what it has been for 140 years. Get in one of the existing party and change it to your liking.
Barry Goldwater tried it in the Republican party and failed. Reagan did it in the Republican party and succeeded. Back when the Demcocratic party was still dominated by Conservatives, Reagan was a Democrat. But he saw the liberals were well on theway to total control of the Democrats, so he became a Republican and took that party away from the Jerry Fords and other left leaning Republicans.
Will libertarians be astute enough to try a wining approach? Not likely. Third parties just never seem to learn.
Isn't there a difference between realizing that one group cannot or should not try controlling vices of others and actually advocating those vices?
________ in excess can harm an individual and if ______ begins to control that one's life and the individual acts irresponsibly, ________ can contribute to harm to others.
But does that mean that ______ should be banned or that those who don't want to ban it are advocating it? No.
We disagree on the drug issue, but I am correct that it is the MAJOR reason why most people do not see any of the other views in the LP. Do you, or do you not agree with that?
In the end, if the LP changed defense related views, noone would know. I'll bet that 99% of the American public can't even tell you who was the VP candidate for the LP in 2000, or any other year.
Just a little honesty will go a long way.
By the same token, many opinions of religious conservatives require that people accept "self-evident" truths such as that the Bible is the literal word of God. Every philosophy has to start with fundamental assumptions.
I doubt we really disagree. I don't use illegal drugs or advocate abuse of any substance. I'm thoroughly opposed to the WoD because I think it does more harm than good. We're probably not far apart on that.
But you are 100% correct that the drug/WoD issue is the one that gets the attention. You are also correct that the defense issue gets no time except when someone claims that the LP is pacifist.
And to be honest, I don't remember who the VP candidate was, so you are 3 for 3.
In the aftermath of the Cold War, the purpose of America's defense and foreign policy should be to defend the United States, not to act as the world's policeman. Europe and Japan no longer face a Soviet threat and should be expected to bear the cost and responsibility for their own defense. At the same time, the United States should strenuously resist any attempt to coopt U.S. forces into United Nations controlled "peace keeping" efforts. This more realistic defense policy would enable the United States to dramatically reduce its defense spending.
Click Here for more info.
The LP (if it is to survive) needs to go conservative and get off the freedom of abortion kick (never did like that part...).
Fine, so long as we accept that the Libertarian party is a revealed religion, like Christianity and Judaism, this reduces the argument level considerably. If we view the LPers as religious fundamentalists, spreading their gospel, I would be more respectful of their efforts. It is when they try to pretend that their positions are the inevitable result of reason and logical thought that they become annoying.
About as far as you can get from being a libertarian.
Hitler claimed to be a Catholic but that didn't make him one.
Tator, your statements are right-on. You pick on the same kinds of observations I've made (and been flamed for) many times in the past. Keep up the great philosophising!
:) ttt
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.