Taunting the Libertarian Bull

There's an old saying my dad taught me as a kid: Don't fool with the bull or you'll get the horns. It appears Washington state GOP chairman Chris Vance missed that day in Life's Lessons 101. And a Republican candidate is now paying the price.

Of course, I'm talking about Dino Rossi, who now appears to have LOST the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election by just 130 votes out of darn-near 3 million cast. The Fat Lady hasn't finished her aria on this one yet, but she's choking out the final chorus. Rossi will need to complete the political equivalent of a "hail Mary" pass to pull this one out.

When you lose an election this close, you face a flood of "what ifs" and second-guessing. So while acknowledging that a miracle is still possible, if unlikely, I say let the Monday Morning Quarterbacking begin.

In light of this loss, Rossi and the Republicans will do what they always do. First they'll ask if there was anything they could have done to get more votes from women. Then they'll ask what more they could have done to attract black votes. Then they'll question if their outreach to Hispanics was up to snuff. And then, "could we have done more to turn out evangelicals"? Oh, and how about the union vote? You get the drill.

But there's one critically influential voting bloc which Republicans, if they stay true to form, will somehow neglect to consider. And it cost them dearly in 2004...again.

Let me first point out that there is no Woman Party which runs candidates in elections. There is no Black Party. There is no Latino Party. There is no Fundamentalist Party. There is no Labor Party. None of those constituencies have their own political operation running their own candidates who have the ability to siphon off votes from one or both of the two major parties.

But voters who want the government to get the hell out of their wallets, their bedrooms, their businesses and their hair; voters who just want to be left alone; voters who still embrace the Founders' notion of limited-government and good, old-fashioned freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness...they DO have their own party.

And while the LP comes in for plenty of criticism for its own political short-comings (they too often run "fringe" candidates with no hope or even intent to win, but rather put themselves on the ballot merely as "spoilers"), Republican candidates and party leaders who dismiss and/or ignore them do so at their own peril. Just ask Slade Gorton.

Back in 2000, incumbent Republican Sen. Slade Gorton faced a challenge from Democrat Maria Cantwell, not coincidentally in Rossi's state of Washington. Gorton reveled in his well-established "moderate" Republican record and blew off the limited-government, libertarian-leaning voters, including many in his own party. And because his hubris, Cantwell snatched away his senate seat...by a scant 2,229 votes out of almost 2.5 million cast.

The LP candidate in that race pulled 64,734 votes...a whopping 62,000-plus more votes than Gorton needed to keep his seat (and the GOP majority in the U.S. Senate as it turned out, by the way).

Now, the LP tries to deny that they throw races to the Democrats. Their "spin" is that they pull equally from both parties. But ask yourself this question. The candidate of a party which espouses strictly limited government is more likely to pull voters from which of the major two parties: The party which actively and openly promotes bigger and more intrusive nanny-state government or the party which talks the limited government talk but all too often fails to live up to its rhetoric and walk the limited-government walk?

You would think that a party which lost such an important and close U.S. senate race due to the "LP factor" just four years ago would have learned a lesson. Gee, do you think the GOP maybe ought to consider adding libertarian-leaning voters to their "outreach" programs?

Fat chance. Instead, GOP state chairman Chris Vance made the incredibly foolish political decision to taunt the LP bull by constantly waving red flags in its face. Frankly, for his bone-headedness Vance deserves that set of horns now firmly implanted in his backside.

In August 2001, a conservative Washington state senator "joined" the Libertarian Party. A quirk in how things work here means a person can retain their official voter registration with the GOP while "joining" the LP. It's kinda like registering as a Republican but joining the Chamber of Commerce...only in this case the "Chamber" also fields its own candidates, as well.

From a practical political perspective, the senator's move was merely symbolic. It simply sent a message to Republican leaders that many conservatives were more than a little concerned, if not angry, with Republicans wandering so far off the limited-government reservation. It was a serious, but ultimately harmless shot across the GOP bow.

But when questioned about the state senator's action by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Chairman Vance exclaimed, "You're kidding!" Libertarians are "a bunch of radical extremists" who "have a lot of kooky ideas," he told the paper.

Ah, how to win friends and influence people. Dale Carnegie, please call your office.

A few months later, the Post-Intelligencer ran a generally positive story about the Libertarian Party gaining some credibility at the ballot box in Washington, though primarily in non-partisan races for obscure offices. Nevertheless, Vance couldn't help but rain on their parade. "The Republican Party is running a little campaign this year...trying to get out the message that the Libertarian Party is the party of the loony left, not the conservative party," he told the paper. "What Libertarians believe in is small government carried to the most ridiculous extreme."

Hmmm. Small government carried to the most ridiculous extreme, huh? Let's consider the words, then, of some other "extremists."

How about starting with that "extremist" Barry Goldwater who famously noted that "extremism in defense of liberty" was "no vice." Which, by the way, was a take-off from the words of another "extremist" of his day, Tom Paine, who wrote that "moderation in principle is always a vice."

Or how about this "extreme" belief articulated by that 21st century Republican "extremist" Ronald Reagan who said, "Government is not the solution, it's the problem."

Or how about that "extremist" Thomas Jefferson who wrote that "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." Or that "extremist" James Madison who wrote that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Or Paine, again, who wrote that "Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil."

OK, I digress...but you get the point. As far as "extremism" when it comes to small government is concerned, the Libertarians are in pretty darn good company.

Unbelievably, and with not just a small amount of foreshadowing, Vance also acknowledged in this 2001 interview that "in a very, very, very close race, the Libertarians hurt us."

Gee, you mean like in a gubernatorial race where the Democrat wins by 130 votes out of almost three million cast...and the Libertarian Party candidate chalks up over 63,000 votes? Duh. Vance reminds me of Ray in "Ghostbusters" who ended up naming the means of his own destruction by thinking of the Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man.

Let's now fast-forward to 2004. As it turns out, no Republican candidate filed to run for Washington State Auditor by the normal deadline. Under current law, the party itself then had one week to fill the vacancy if it so chose.

Now, a Libertarian Party candidate DID file in that race by the original deadline. So this could have been an interesting statewide race between a Libertarian running head-to-head against a Democrat candidate. But Vance just couldn't let it go. So he scraped the bottom of the barrel and came up with a GOP candidate...who turned out to be a political loon who had been arrested 19 times for disrupting Tacoma City Council meetings. Boy, there's a candidate to make you proud, huh?

In an internal GOP memo issued after the embarrassing appointment was exposed by the media, Vance tried to justify his decision to the party's membership. His intent, he explained, was solely to deny the Libertarian Party any shot at getting even 5% of the vote in any statewide race because that would enable the LP to enjoy automatic ballot access for the next four years.

You see, Vance doesn't want to compete with the LP in the arena of public opinion; he wants to choke off any opposition. And if that means tapping a melon-head from the Planet Zircon to run for state auditor rather than let the LP have a clean shot at a Democrat, well, that's just a price Vance was willing to pay.

There's another old saying in sports: If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. What kind of political victory is achieved against a non-existent opponent? True, it really IS a lot easier to win the game when you never face any opponents (just ask Saddam). But then...what's the point? Power for power's sake?

All of which is to say that Chairman Vance in particular, and national GOP leaders in general, have handled the Libertarian Party "problem" in recent years foolishly, if not stupidly. Rather than admit they have serious trouble in their own glass house, they resort to pointing out that the other guy's glass house is dump, too. The problem here is that the GOP's glass house is MUCH bigger...so they have a LOT more to lose if it comes crashing down.

Truth be told, the Libertarian Party isn't so much of a "problem" as it is a reality and a challenge. The GOP needs to find a way to deal with it in a competitive manner...or continue suffering expensive and embarrassing losses such as Gorton's and Rossi's.

That means GOP leaders need to factor in not just how to pander to...er, "reach out" to women, minorities and other special interests, but how to reach out to voters who have imbedded in their souls the extremist notion that government isn't the solution, it's the problem. That means competing against the LP instead of slashing its tires so the bus can't make it to the game. That means competing for limited-government voters instead of ridiculing their principles and taking their votes for granted.

And that means replacing Chris Vance as the Grand Imperial Pooh-bah of the Washington State Republican Party, post-haste. It's one thing for the LP to serve the role of electoral "spoiler." It's another thing altogether for the Republican leader to throw kerosene on the fire through childish taunts and bush-league machinations to keep them off the ballot. Vance fooled with the LP bull...and his party and his candidate got the horns. Stupid is as stupid does.

"Look at the European countries, especially the Netherlands, that have adopted LP philosophy. Personally, I don't think that heroin parks and red light districts are the high water mark of civilization."

I've never seen or heard of anyone advocating what you present here. If we are free, we own our bodies and we should decide what to put in them and do with them. If I want to (and I DO NOT) sit at home tonight and smoke a joint, why should that be a crime? We tried to criminalize liquor too and you saw what happened there. Are you suprised that there are drugs rings, corrupt cops, and rotten judges now?

Now along with 'allowing' people to use drugs, the LP also advocates personal responisbility for one's actions.

Do you really think that your friends and neighbors will rush out to start doing drugs if their use becomes legal? Do you really thing that anyone who wants drugs now is having trouble getting them?

Neither I, nor the LP, is saying that drug use is a good thing, but people have been altering their reality and mood for hundreds of years and they will for hundreds more. What we want is the attack on the 2nd and 4th Amendments and all of the expense and concomittant problems with fighting a war that cannot be won to end.

Think about this. Is there drug use in prison? If we cannot keep illegal drugs (and guns) out of the secure walls of a prison, how do you propose that we keep them out of a free society? With the emphasis on FREE.

"Look, any party that thinks that government has no role in stopping infanticide has forfeited its moral credibility from the get go."

Okay. The Democrats are gone then, right? The GOP? They are in the doorway and the door is about to hit them on the ass on the way out. Granted, they have stopped (at least for now) the horrible practice of PBA, but there are many 'pro choice' pubbies.

Are you advocating one party rule? Are you offering a solution?

I am pro life. I just became a grandfather and I cannot imagine how anyone could snuff out the life of such a wonderful little blessing and promise from God, but the way to win this "war" is one to one, face to face, and heart to heart. Laws prohibiting it ain't gonna git the job done. Sorry, but that's the harsh truth.

"Hmm. Declining crime rates came as a result of government policeis, i.e. incarcerating criminals. The fall of Communism came about as a result of government policies. Home ownership, and the consequent stabilizing effects of property ownership, have been increased by mrtgage tax credits."

Interesting that you named two things that ARE the proper province of government. But even there, prison population is at an all time high, crime is still high, including violent crimes such as rape and murder.

Communism may be dead in the old USSR, but it, more accurately socialism is alive and well in the good old US of A due to government policies too. Please, don't even try to deny it.

Your third example is social engineering to solve a problem that resulted from another government action -- the Federal Income Tax -- which denied people the ability to keep the fruits of their labor and the death tax, that kept people from passing on their wealth to the next generation. So, I wouldn't be bragging about the success of this program.

"I don't blame the LP for society's decline. However, I recognize that if they ever achieved anything like real power, we would not be slouching towards Gomorrah but sprinting."

I 'overspoke'. Sorry. But if the LP does ever gain power, it will not be one party rule. Anything that they do will be moderated by others in Congress.

Give liberty a chance. Try it.Live life today without the hand of government guiding you. It's like your first roller coaster ride. You'll like it, even if it's a bit scary at first.

Here it is in a nutshell: libertarians (with a capital "L" or without) support FREEDOM. On ALL subjects, ALL the time. This makes them some enemies on the Right as well as the Left. Opposing gun control, economic regulations, incessant taxation and the welfare state creates some overlap between "conservatives" and "libertarians"... Opposing the drug war, military adventurism, "obscenity" laws and other infringements of free speach creates some overlap with so-called "liberals" (a term that has been pretty much despoiled by now, alas)on the left.

Some would take these apparently opposite tendencies as a sign of political schizophrenia, but with a little more attention you'll see that (whether you agree with them or not) there is in fact a common thread: the individual's right to live his/her life the way he/she chooses provided (s)he does not harm the person or property of anyone else, or threaten the liberty of anyone else to live THEIR life as they choose. It's real basic, and it's the American ideal in shorthand. As a political philosophy, libertarianism is the only truly consistent philosophy... aside from, say, total socialism, at the other end of the spectrum, that is. The notion of what's "conservative" or "liberal" at a given point in history changes, sometimes drastically, as time moves on, but if one knows the basic tenets of libertarianism, one can ALWAYS determine the libertarian position on any given issue.

Remember, it was the "Conservatives" of 1776 who opposed this upstart revolution. Those radical libertarians (already quoted above by "logician2u" I believe) were in fact "traitors" to the crown, and about as politically "kooky" as it got back then.

So how does this translate to the idea of ammending our Constitution to ensure that Steve and Bob can never be legally married (ie using the coercive power of government to prevent an essentially peaceful, voluntary union that does not threaten the person, property or liberty of anyone else)? Well, what do you think the libertarian position is?

Believe it or not there is often a great deal of disagreement among libertarians (big "L" and little) over specific issues, usually which ones to emphasize in the greater battle for freedom, and the gay marriage issue is no exception. The best idea I've heard so far is also (unsurprisingly) the most radical: why don't we simply get government out of the marriage business entirely? Discontinue the notion of "legally recognized" (ie government sanctioned) marriage in favor of a simplified legal contract regarding property, etc. and leave the "matrimony" aspect to whatever religious or social organizations currently endow the REAL marriage anyway. Your church can still refuse to marry Laura and Lisa, while my church may opt to... as far as the government is concerned, two citizens have entered into a contract, THAT'S IT. Stay out of our lives. For a religious person, it is the blessing of the Allmighty that makes the marriage, not the godless State. That piece of paper from the Justice of the Peace is just that. The social phenomenon of marriage (whether religious or not) is what defines it, not some bureaucratic file number.

Can I get and "amen"?

"'ve never seen or heard of anyone advocating what you present here. "

Well, experience shows that those are the actual effects of libertinian philosophy put in action. Sorry to have reality intrude on the ideology.

"Do you really think that your friends and neighbors will rush out to start doing drugs if their use becomes legal? Do you really thing that anyone who wants drugs now is having trouble getting them?"

I knew plenty of folks in school who did not use drugs because of the criminal penalties associated with them.

"I am pro life. I just became a grandfather and I cannot imagine how anyone could snuff out the life of such a wonderful little blessing and promise from God, but the way to win this "war" is one to one, face to face, and heart to heart. Laws prohibiting it ain't gonna git the job done. Sorry, but that's the harsh truth."

You just made the argument for repealing the laws against all murders, if 100% observance is required to make a law effective.

". But even there, prison population is at an all time high, crime is still high, including violent crimes such as rape and murder."

Untrue., Crime rates have been steadily declining.

"Communism may be dead in the old USSR, but it, more accurately socialism is alive and well in the good old US of A due to government policies too. Please, don't even try to deny it."

Up until now, I have seen you as simply wrong but reasonable. But if you are seriously comparing our government to Soviet totalitarianism, you are simply insane.

Because many of the debates of the policies of the Founding Fathers would be anathema to the LP. Off the top of my head, there was the use of tariffs to protect American industries. The debate between Jefferson and Hamilton was not about whether to have the government make it a policy to develop the economy but in what way the government would act.

Secondly, there are obscenity laws. you specifically posted that as as a "libertarian" philosophy. However, obscenity and blue laws existed and were enforced at the time of the Founding. None of the Founding Fathers argued against them.

Indeed, the First Congress went so far as to re-authorize the Northwest Ordinances. These ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches that would specifically be called for to teach religion. This is quite a step away from the LP call for "the complete separation of education and State."

This is just off the top of my head.

"Well, experience shows that those are the actual effects of libertinian philosophy put in action. Sorry to have reality intrude on the ideology.

You're right. With our present system we have no prostitution and no drugs. Yeah, right.

"I knew plenty of folks in school who did not use drugs because of the criminal penalties associated with them."

You should hang out with a better and smarter class of people. I don't know anyone waiting for them to be legal that doesn't already use them.

"You just made the argument for repealing the laws against all murders, if 100% observance is required to make a law effective."

How did I do that?

Not many people believe murder is okay. But for over 30 years abortion has been legal and many have come to believe that it is just another form of birth control and that there is nothing wrong with it. Rather than put resources and effort into writing a law, we'd be better off providing education, counselling, and alternatives to abortion. A lot of people decry abortion -- and rightly so, but will do nothing to give the mother an alternative. Yes, I know she is responsible for her own actions, but if she doesn't see any other option but abortion or a life of misery for herself and her baby, how can we logically expect her to continue a pregnancy. A bit more reality, abortions were performed before Roe v. Wade and they still will be after it is repealed.

"Untrue., Crime rates have been steadily declining."

Really? Then why are prisons so over crowded? Why don't we have enough prisons? If they are declining (and that's not the smell of books being cooked) then it's not declining fast enough to aleviate the prison crisis.

"Up until now, I have seen you as simply wrong but reasonable. But if you are seriously comparing our government to Soviet totalitarianism, you are simply insane."

Read what I said. Soviet communism is dead, but socialism is alive and well. What do you call the imposition of the income tax, social security, medicare, the prescription drug program, etc, etc, etc, if not socialism?

I am not insane, but you are delusional and in denial if you don't believe that socialism has a grip on us.

"My problem with the JBS is that they are linked to anti-Semitism,..."

They ARE NOT LINKED to anti semitism. They have been accused of it in an attempt to discredit them. In my interactions with them, I have met several Jews in leadership positions (and Blacks are members and leaders too, so don't try the race card).

"and any group that starts talking about conspiracies involving the tri-lateral commission, the illuminati and the freemasons regulates themselves to kookdom, IMO - YMMV."

I agree that most people cannot wrap their heads around anything like a world wide conspiracy -- whether it is true or not, and I don't know if it is. But if true, even the people who believe it would feel overwhelmed and out numbered. It's non-productive, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist.

"The LP is against the Iraq war, calling it unjustified and claiming Iraq poses no threat to the US ."

I disagree totally with them here. Even if we didn't actually declare war or that we were involved in the Middle East for all the wrong reasons, right now the terrorist threat must be exterminated. If anything, I'd be more agressive than Bush.

"This makes them unfit to run the country."

Don't set your sights so high. They add to the debate and bring some interesting and useful ideas to the table, but they are no where near ready to win on a national basis.

"If they would lose the leftists and engage in an active, aggressive defense of the country and its borders, they would attract a great many people. As of right now, they serve as the party you vote for when you are pissed at the real party's candidates."

What leftists?

Read the post just a few posts above this by neoconjob. It will explain the libertarian mindset better than any other explanation that I've seen. It can seem contradictory and seem to include some left wing ideas, but it's not. Liberty, individual liberty is the thread that runs through every aspect of their philosophy.

You wrote:

Trying to equate the Founding Fathers' philosophy with modern day libertianism shows either woeful ignorance of history or simply wishful thinking.
166 radicalamericannationalist

Off the top of my head, there was the use of tariffs to protect American industries.

What makes you think libertarian philosophy would prevent our government from Constitutionally using protective tariffs if needed?

Secondly, there are obscenity laws. you specifically posted that as as a "libertarian" philosophy.
However, obscenity and blue laws existed and were enforced at the time of the Founding. None of the Founding Fathers argued against them.

Why would they? The original States had just ratified a Constitution/BOR's that stipulated they would support those individual rights as the "law of the land".
The fact that State & Fed officials do not do so is not proof that they shouldn't.

Indeed, the First Congress went so far as to re-authorize the Northwest Ordinances. These ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches that would specifically be called for to teach religion.

If memory serves, congress was trying to use religious missions to pacify Indian tribes.
It didn't work.

You wrote:

What makes you think libertarian philosophy would prevent our government from Constitutionally using protective tariffs if needed?

The libertarians do not make a Constitutional argument against tariffs.

They do, however, "support abolition of all trade barriers and all government-sponsored export- promotion programs."

Some do, some don't. Big deal.

As the founders did not advocate such measures,

BS. -- The founders were far from agreement on many issues, and tariffs were a big one.

it is obvious that they differed from libertarians on this issue.

Which proves what, even if true? You really need to get a grip.

First, you fail to show that obscenity and blue laws violate the Constitution.

And you've 'shown' they don't? Gradually, the worse of the old blue laws are being flushed, as sanity returns to the republic.

Secondly, were such violations occurring, you would think that the Founders would have expressed their displeasure.

They too were politicians.
At one point Jefferson claimed we should pierce the noses of adulteresses. You approve?

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.