A Third Party on the Right

New York Times ^ | 16 Nov 2002 | John J. Miller

[Joe Bonforte]

WOODBRIDGE, Va. — The decision this week by John Thune, the Republican candidate for senator from South Dakota, to concede to his rival, Tim Johnson, the Democratic incumbent, virtually guarantees that Mr. Thune's narrow defeat will go down in conservative lore as the one lost to voter fraud on an Indian reservation. This charge probably won't ever be proved, but people on the right will continue to believe it — just as many people on the left think corruption in Florida cost Al Gore the presidency.

In both cases, however, there's a better explanation for what happened. George W. Bush is president today because of Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, whose liberal supporters almost certainly would have preferred Mr. Gore in a two-way race. In Florida, Mr. Nader attracted some 97,000 votes, dwarfing the 537-vote margin separating Mr. Bush from Mr. Gore.

There's a similar explanation for Mr. Thune's 524-vote loss: a Libertarian Party candidate, Kurt Evans, drew more than 3,000 votes. It marks the third consecutive election in which a Libertarian has cost the Republican Party a Senate seat. If there had been no Libertarian Senate candidates in recent years, Republicans would not have lost control of the chamber in 2001, and a filibuster-proof, 60-seat majority would likely be within reach.

The Republicans' Libertarian problem became apparent in a race than ended in victory. A decade ago, Paul Coverdell, Republican of Georgia, nipped the incumbent Democratic senator, Wyche Fowler, 49 percent to 48 percent. A Libertarian candidate, Jim Hudson, took 3 percent of the vote. Under Georgia law the winner must achieve a majority, so Mr. Coverdell and Senator Fowler were thrown into a runoff without Mr. Hudson. Virtually all the Libertarian's votes transferred to the Republican, and Mr. Coverdell won, 51 percent to 48 percent.

{excerpt - go here for full article}

[Joe Bonforte]

Miller is a lot more concerned about the negative effects of libertarians than I am, and echoes many of the arguments put forth on FR about the LP hurting their own cause (look towards the bottom of the article for that discussion). But I think he misses a major point. Without some factor pulling the Republicans away from "Democrat lite", I'm afraid our entire political system would increase its socialistic drift. Given the generally spineless attitude of many Republican leaders, is anyone willing to deny that possibility?

What's the point of electing sixty senators with the label "Republican" if they are expanding the welfare state to prescription drugs, wasting lives and resources while simultaneously eroding the Bill of Rights with the War on Drugs, etc. etc. and generally being scared of their own shadows any time they get criticized by the liberal press?

Before we get off on a tangent, I'll say outright that I disagree strongly with the LP stance on foreign policy generally and going to War on Iraq specifically. And yes the LP is rather amateurishly run. But libertarians are at least willing to stand up and fight for preserving our freedom, and there are a lot of people with an (R) besides their name who can't make that claim with a straight face.

Let the libertarian bashing begin, I suppose. Though I'd rather see a discussion of how Republicans could get serious about protecting our freedom and our money, so that an LP would be unnecessary.

For those who say that's impossible, how much did you hear about the LP during Reagan's term?

[ezone]

too many dead indians and dogs are voting in these elections . maybe we should recruit them as Republicans .

[Founding Father]

Good points. I'll go one step further and say that republicans treat conservatives like democrats treat blacks---where else are you going to go.

The cure for what ails the republican party is simple--conservatives sit out ONE election and let the party get wiped out in most races, come back two years later with a party that listens to conservatives and put an end to these unconstitutional programs. It would be a tough two years, but in the long run good for the country.

[exnavy]

Better yet come back with true conservative candidates, and our woes will be few.

[WhiteGuy]

There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of the gop bringing back all the "Libertarian" votes.

All they must do is govern like true conservatives.

Drastically smaller government.
Drastically lower federal spending.
Drastically lower taxes.
Respect for the constitution.
Respect for personal freedom.

George W. Bush has a mandate. He has proven himself to be a dynamic leader. He exhibits an ability to get things done through leadership.

We will all have front row seats.

Which direction will he choose?

[GraniteStateConservative]

Thune lost because 23,000 greedy Republicans wanted to keep Daschle in power as Majority Leader so he would send pork to the state. Of course, had they known how 11/5 would have turned out, Johnson would have lost in a landslide.

I'm very bitter about this one stupid race. I'd like to punch every last one of those Johnson Republicans.

[Beenliedto]

Which direction will he choose?

None of the above.

[steve50]

Many of our founders saw the rise of political parties as a danger to the republic. One day Party would become more important than principle was their concern. Nah....never happen

[xm177e2]

some factor pulling the Republicans away from "Democrat lite", I'm afraid our entire political system would increase its socialistic drift.

Don't libertarians have more influence inside the Republican party voting in primaries than they do outside it, acting as saboteurs?

[Reo]

One of my brothers lived in South Dakota for 7 years, and came up with the theory that SD voters conciously elect liberals to national legislative offices to get them as much pork as possible, and conservatives to state offices to be sure that the pork obtained is well-managed. Over the long haul, his theory seems to be generally true. It sure applies to the 23,000 fools who blew it this time.

[Bubba_Leroy]

I am far more upset about the many Republicans who do not bother to vote than I am about the few Libertarians who do.

[Common Tator]

When third Party members tell you there is not a dimes worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans they want you to believe they are dirty rotten liars

They are not. When they say that,they are telling you the truth.

When they say if a major party does this or that they will vote for the major party, they are lying.

Ask Al Gore how "Earth in the Balance" works with Greeenies.

Every study shows the following. If a third party does not field a candidate about half the third party members don't vote. The remainder split their votes. If the Libertarians had not fielded a candidate in South Dakota 1,500 of the 3,000 Libertarians would not have voted. 750 of them would have voted for Johnson to teach Thune a lesson, and 750 would have voted for Thune to teach Johnson a lesson.

When a party says there is not a dimes worth difference between the major parties, they do not make a dimes worth of difference in which major party candidate gets gets elected.

[org.whodat]

Wrong, dashtail bought the farmers vote's with his give away farm bill.....

[aristeides]

Of course, had they known how 11/5 would have turned out, Johnson would have lost in a landslide.

The media made sure that those voters expected the Senate to stay DemocRATic. Come to think of it, enough of them would probably have known in time if VNS had not cancelled its exit polls.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Here we go again. John Miller, like many other myopic FReepers here, sound like whiny DemocRats when blaming Libertarian votes for reason why Thune lost.

GOP dues-paying loyalists wrongly assume that these voters would have voted for Thune when it's likely that they would have just stayed home in disgust. They never mention the more than 60,000 SD conservatives who stayed home or didn't go out and vote. But somehow, 3,000 Libertarian voters are to blame, where I highly doubt that there are 3,000 Libertarians in SD to begin with. Can you Republican-lovers say "protest vote?"

What Miller, and many other people here on FR, are trying to say is that people shouldn't have the right to vote for the candidate of their choice because it might cause the loss of THEIR candidate.

[BlkConserv]

I can never understand the logic of the Libertarian party. They are forever spoilers and will never get elected to positions higher than the village sanitation committee or the town water board.

In a nutshell, here's what the Libertarians are saying: "Gee, let's vote for the candidate who has no chance of winning, which will cause the candidate who's more likely to follow my beliefs to lose to the candidate who will never, ever agree with me or pass my agenda."

[ServesURight]

Thune lost because 23,000 greedy Republicans wanted to keep Daschle in power as Majority Leader so he would send pork to the state.

Yup, a lot of Republicans crossed-over and voted for the Rat so they can stay on the federal dole.

A dirty little secret about the Dakotas: Once upon a time they were conservative to the bone until they needed money to pay for public projects to attract new businesses. When their Republican Congress critters balked, they simply decided to vote DemocRat instead.

I'm not a Libertarian, but blaming them for Thune's defeat is like blaming conservatives for James Byrd's death.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Of course, had they known how 11/5 would have turned out, Johnson would have lost in a landslide.

The media made sure that those voters expected the Senate to stay DemocRATic. Come to think of it, enough of them would probably have known in time if VNS had not cancelled its exit polls.

By design the Constitution worked without the presence of broadcast journalism and without polling. Broadcast reporting of election returns is immoral and should be illegal.

[RJCogburn]

The maddening defeats began in 1998, when John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, came 428 votes shy of ousting the Democrat, Senator Harry Reid. Michael Cloud, a Libertarian, collected more than 8,000 votes in the same contest.

The peripatetic Cloud (who used to be Michael Emerling) was the Libertarian candidate for Senate in Mass. this time around. He also has a little bit of fundraising controversy which follows him around to his various homes.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I'll say outright that I disagree strongly with the LP stance on foreign policy generally

The LP stance on foreign policy is one of non-intervention. Yes, we would have went after al-Queada and terrorist after 9/11. Yes, we would have included Hussein in the war on terror. But mainly, we would use the military to protect America instead of having troops scattered across the globe.

What we wouldn't have done is pass a stupid Homeland Security Dept that does nothing but increase the federal bureaucracy and strip the freedoms of Americans. Libertarians, unlike most Republicans, strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment, which is homeland security enough.

And yes the LP is rather amateurishly run.

How so? Because we don't accept taxpayer money to run our conventions and host our website?