Posted on 10/29/2004 2:07:39 PM PDT by swilhelm73
There's a good argument, to which I'm somewhat sympathetic, for small-government types in non-swing states to vote Libertarian this year; Jeremy Lott laid out the case last week. But while I do consider myself a small-l libertarian, the big-L Libertarians cannot expect my support.
In 2000 I lived in New York, solidly in Al Gore's column according to every poll. So I pulled the lever for Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate. For months afterward, I kept hearing that President Bush lacked a "mandate" because of the popular vote/electoral vote mismatch. It seemed that, the Constitution aside, the popular vote makes a political difference after all, if only by virtue of the fact that some people are willing to argue that it does. Perhaps this isn't as big a concern this year, as President Bush seems safer in the popular vote than in the electoral college, but then again some people said the same thing about Gore in 2000.
I might have gotten over that annoyance if it weren't for the trauma that came the following fall. I'd known that Harry Browne, like much of the LP, was a bit... non-traditional in his foreign policy views; in his 1996 book Why Government Doesn't Work he laid out his case against every American military action from the War of 1812 forward ("war is just another government program," he wrote repeatedly, quoting Joseph Sobran).
What I'd written off as relatively harmless kookiness in an election where foreign policy was barely an issue seemed a much bigger deal on September 12, 2001, when Browne wrote that the attacks were the result of our "insane" foreign policy, which made it "only a matter of time until Americans would have to suffer personally." His prescription was to "resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future," and by "terrorist acts" he meant "any military response" (he went on to vigorously oppose the war in Afghanistan). Heaping ignorance upon isolationism, he rested his case in part on the historically illiterate assertion that "Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business."
There's nothing inherently libertarian about any of this -- libertarians come at foreign policy from every conceivable angle -- but, because of a history too dull to get into right now, there are those believe that it is, and this sort of blame-America-firstism is the norm among LP activists. Michael Badnarik's campaign website perfectly echoes Browne.
Of course, Badnarik won't become president, so perhaps his foreign policy doesn't bother you. But if you believe, as I do, that a second term of President Bush would be preferable to a first term of President Kerry, then consider that the LP officially disagrees with you. Under "Operation Wisconsin Blue," the Badnarik campaign has openly raised money from liberals to run ads in Wisconsin targeted at conservatives, the idea being to swing the state for Kerry. "We don't want Bush to win in Wisconsin any more than you do," said a page on the Badnarik.org website (which has disappeared sometime since last week). And Jamin Raskin reports that vote-pairing websites, wherein a swing-state Naderite agrees to vote for Kerry in exchange for a non-swing-state Democrat's agreement to vote for Nader, now includes Libertarians making the same trade as the Naderites because, as Raskin puts it, they are "appalled by the Orwellian, antichoice, antigay, and repressive policies of the budget-busting Bush administration." (Only a hard-leftist uses words like "antichoice" and "antigay" often enough the he feels no need to hyphenate.)
If you're interested in registering a protest with a vote for that ideological coalition, be my guest. As for me, I'll be casting my vote for Bush, in protest of all of those fools in the other parties.
Bottom line:
The substantive issues the Libertarians raise are never
going to get a hearing, much less productive debate,
until the menace known as the Democrat Party is reduced
to its various warring constituent groups.
If the Dems ever get majority control of the US again,
elections will become 100% shams.
The Big Ls are targeting swing states. ....it's their only hope of "making a difference."
It is greatly annoying that Bush has tried to placate the left by over spending on social programs. But we are talking about putting the survival of this country in the hands of those who care more about trying to sucking up to the Socialist cliche at the U.N. then defending American lives.
Well said.
I question the timing of this article. LOL
Kinda stupid article -- if everybody who'd voted Libertarian in losing states had voted for W, it would have been less than 1% -- not enough to swing the popular vote to Bush from Gore.
Everyone with a functioning brain knows that all conservatives voting for the GOP and living with the results is the only workable option. Voting LP, voting Constitution Party, sitting on your buns on 11-2, etc, all sound wonderful, but are totally and completely counterproductive. For you flakes out there, this post is not for you--I'd be surprised if you've read this far--but is instead for those who want the most results we can achieve. For the rest of you, ignorance is certainly bliss.....
The primaries are infomercials. The candidates, speakers and platforms are chosen before hand by party insiders and presented to the delegates for a politburo style, made for tv, show of approval.
Try making a peep outside the party line during a primary and you'll find yourself outside just as fast as security can grab your arm.
When this changes, get back to me. Until then... Badnarik.
I suspect you and I can be considered "Ron Paul Republicans" - stomaching the less palatable acts of the Republican party in hopes that we can help the party its small-government ideals.
Uh...sounds like your talking about the conventions, not the primaries.
Aw shucks, I'm not sure the Bush wing of the Republican party really is for small government, though smaller the the Rat party to be sure. But none of it matters if we lose the war.
Pretty broad brush you got there, did you just paint over Ronald Reagan?
Its far easier to talk the talk, than it is to walk the walk.
The LP does NOT side with the democrats on the war on terror. They loathe the pacifism of the left and want to get the U.S. out of the UN as soon as possible. They believe in deterrance and direct strikes against terrorist groups. I happen to agree with them. I think the $200billion++ spent in Iraq would have been put to much better use by increasing the CIA and NSA budgets by 10,000%, creating the ultimate spying/espionage/counter-terrorism force on the planet. We could have infiltrated and destroyed them from within...This is the only way to defeat these people. We can't beat a worldwide network of terror cells by mounting a Normandy-esque invasion of a single country. I think most honest conservatives realize this now.
Oh please. Did you read the article?
The LP = Dems on foreign affairs.
Sadly, more and more the LP = Dems overall.
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.