Libertarian Harry Browne on George Bush

World Net Daily ^ | April 18, 2002 | Harry Browne

[Koblenz]

The LP bitches and moans that George Bush hasn't done anything, and then it proceeds to run LP candidates for Senate in various states, ensuring that Democrats get elected, who fight George Bush at every turn. Of course Bush cannot do everything with a hostile Senate. And yes, there are a few RINOs that don't make it easy either.

If Harry Browne were President, but Congress was the same as it is now, would things be any different?

[Yardstick]

It's too bad the LP can't win, at least not in my lifetime.

Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be much popular demand for smaller government these days. It's going to take a massive change in the way Americans think about government before they demand leaders who are seriously committed to getting Leviathan back on its leash.

[SolitaryMan]

I would have to say in fact that libertarians actually hurt their own cause more than helping. Case in point, at least two senators lost enough votes to libertarian candidates to loose their elections in 2000. If those 2 senators had won, we would have maintained a republican controlled senate. Conservative constitutionalist judges would have been confirmed; unconstitutional laws would have not been passed.

But it seems to me Libertarians could care less for their ideas and more for the notoriety of their party of getting elected, or at least hurting another party.

[WhiteGuy]

I would have to say in fact that libertarians actually hurt their own cause more than helping. Case in point, at least two senators lost enough votes to libertarian candidates to loose their elections in 2000. If those 2 senators had won, we would have maintained a republican controlled senate. Conservative constitutionalist judges would have been confirmed; unconstitutional laws would have not been passed.

Hmmm...I belives that legislation like CFR, & the patriot act would have been passed regardless. The republicans show no interest in reducing the size & scope of government.

the Libertarian cause is not to support conservative republicans, but to drastically change the way our government operates by winning election to office.

[Tauzero]

bump for Harry and truth -- and you, brave sir, for posting this

[Tauzero]

"great emphasis on me, me, me"

You say that like it's a bad thing.
(Not that I agree with your assessment of emphasis.)

[Tauzero]

"Browne and most libertarians have a simple problem of wanting all or nothing, their way or the highway."

Incrementalism in all things is doomed to failure, because it concedes to the left principle. You cannot win a victory for constitutuional government by seeking a smaller, but non-zero dollar amount for an unconstitutional program. That is an argument over degree, not kind.

All I would like to see is one -- just a small one -- one victory for constitutional government, argued on constitutional principle. CFR would've been a great opportunity. Get the first, small victory on principle and all else becomes possible.

[FreeTally]

I believe Libertarians are marginalized because most Americans are scared to death of what their lives would be like if they had the freedom and responsibility as stated in the constitution. This is the true reason I see little difference between the dems & the gops.

You are too correct, sir.

BUMP for a good article. Everyone should note that everythng that Harry pointed out has been pointed out by many (libertarian)freepers on this site as well.

[palo verde]

I'm not into telling anyone how to vote
each person chooses what values she puts first
for me I'm voting Libertarian from now on
I don't understand why Harry Browne doesn't realize this past election
if we didn't get George Bush in, slickwilly would have ruled as a cruel tyrant behind puppet Al Gore
power had to be removed from slickwilly
but in future elections I'll vote Libertarian
I am small l libertarian
and want freedom for myself and others
Love, Palo

[palo verde]

Hi freetally
I think Harry misunderstood the central issue of last election
but other than that I find his ideas have common sense
Love, Palo

[SolitaryMan]

So what did voting for a Libertarian get you in 2000? What do you think is going to happen in 2002? Harry Browne swept into power with a popular mandate? Dream on, the only way for the Libertarian party to get national power is elect conservative candidates from the republican party. Or are you hoping for a national uprising against the dominate parties lead by the military?

[NMC EXP]

Bush cannot do everything with a hostile Senate.

Consider this hypothetical: your party has a lock on the house, a veto/filibuster proof majority in the senate, and the WH. In this situation, where will you place the blame when government continues to grow and your liberty shrinks?

"There is none more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free!" -- Johann W. von Goethe

Regards

J.R.

[jimt]

Browne and most libertarians have a simple problem of wanting all or nothing, their way or the highway. Until they start playing the game by fighting for the hearts and minds of the people, and realize that the change they want will take years, they will remain a marginalized party.

There are a few reasons for that.

Many of the positions in the platform don't make sense as single issues. An example would be open borders. Without complete elimination of the welfare state, and repeal of any laws not allowing individuals (not governments) to make choices about their property and associations, and a few other items, open borders would be idiocy.

Another is that libertarians tend to be idealists rather than pragmatists.

But Harry's article brings up a good point. Government is GROWING, not shrinking. That's bad.

[Protagoras]

Browne and most libertarians have a simple problem of wanting all or nothing, their way or the highway.

"There are never any compromises in our favor – producing smaller reductions than we might want. "

This statement from the article belies your statement.

[donozark]

Harry is a two-time loser. Didn't exactly fire-up the masses on either occasion. He believes Ho Chi Minh was a "democrat" (small 'd')and unfortunately, has been able to inculcate this false belief in a few Libertarians. He immediately jumped on America in the post-9-11 environ.

The LP was started in Colorado 31 years ago and apparently reached it's zenith with the successful takeover of the Leadville City Council. First order of business? "Hey DUDE! Roll one up and let's go climb a mountain!"

The most famous libertarian is Ron Paul, and he has been a Republican for some time now. I get his cookbook. I am a $upporter of his. But Harry Browne? LP needs to put him out to pasture. Why wait for the third strike?

They have some good ideas. Pro-Second Amendment, anti-tax, favor smaller gov. etc. But their ability to convince others is sorely lacking. Perhaps the liberty Caucus inside the Republican Party is the way to go? You know, take over the Republican P. from within? Hell, it worked for the Communists. I mean the look what they have done to the once proud Democrat Party!

[rottweiller_inc]

Dream on, the only way for the Libertarian party to get national power is elect conservative candidates from the republican party.

or the result could be conservatives splitting off from the republican party who abandoned them.

[Rule of Law]

If you don't ask for what you want – if you don't demand what you want as the price of your support – you shouldn't be surprised that you never get what you really want.

But principles don't matter. Remember? All that matters is getting a Republican in the White House. Who cares if he acts as bad or worse than Gore? We just want to win. Win at any cost.

Or at least that was the GOP mantra during the election.

[Rule of Law]

As long as its expanding the way they like, they're happy.

I don't think they even care what way it expands -- so long as "their team" is in charge.

[GSWarrior]

in ancient rome
there was a poem
about a dog
who found two bones
he picked at one
he licked the other
he went in circles
he dropped dead

freedom of choice
is what you got
freedom from choice
is what you want

[Rule of Law]

Browne and most libertarians have a simple problem of wanting all or nothing, their way or the highway. Until they start playing the game by fighting for the hearts and minds of the people, and realize that the change they want will take years, they will remain a marginalized party.

As Browne points out, Republicans are willing to settle for nothing. All the "Compromises" seem to end up in leftists getting what they want and conservatives getting nothing.

Until conservatives are willing to demand that politicians give them what they want, they will never get anything.

Another way of putting it is that politicians should have to earn our support.