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.

With hind sight it is easy to criticize, while only offering that some undescribed strategy needs to be developed. But what strategy, at what cost? While Chuck Muth, may cite a couple of instances where the Republicans could have handled the situation differently, he did not give any examples of a strategy that could have been taken or should have been taken. To do so, would have brought up the question of political costs.

As I see it, the Republican Party is between a hard spot and rock. The dilemma of having the Libertarian Party engaging in cavalry operations in the Republican Party's rear, on behalf of the Democratic Party, does not provide opportunity for solutions. Chris Vance is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. He was in a set up position to be reasonably criticized no matter what he had done.

If I am going to start throwing rocks, I'm going to aim at those who are really at fault. That is the current Libertarian Party. Its campaign to win votes is not only hurting the Republicans, but is also hurting the LP itself.

Now I understand the LP doing all they can to gain ballot positions, including chasing votes where primaries are necessary for general election positions. But after that has been achieved, the focus must return to an informational campaign directed at defending the undefendable, and teaching libertarian values to those who would not otherwise listen.

Doing this, would turn off most of the potential libertarian voters, while reaching out to those who would be most susceptible to becoming future activists and cadre. Which is what the LP needs in its current stage of development.

"Republicans could get a lotta Libertarian votes, if they just come out in favor of open borders and legalized drugs, too."

For someone seeking the truth, I'd think that you'd employ some in your posts. While some LPs may want drugs legalized to make their personal use of them easier, the majority of them want the unconstitutional war against our liberties stopped.

Let me ask you this, if in the course of my pursuit of happiness, I obtain a substance that I have paid for with money that I have earned, and I enjoy that substance in a manner that harms no one, why should I be subject to my door being kicked in by masked thugs with badges? Why should YOU be subjected to the same thing happening to you because some informant or lazy cop didn't bother to get the information right and the masked thugs kick in your door by mistake instead?

If I steal from you, I should be punished regardless of why I stole from you. If I steal from you to give to orphans or to supply myself with my favorite substance, it's still stealing, right? We punish the crime -- stealing -- not the motive.

If I imbibe in my favorite substance and then drive my car and run you over, are you any less dead than if I ran you over while tuning the radio or falling asleep or hurrying to my church meeting? Punish the crime -- the death of someone -- not cause. All of those factors may explain what happened, but none of it should excuse me from punishment, nor enhance it.

And if I imbibe, drive, and hurt no one, what crime have I committed? Who has been hurt? Why should I be punished?

I just read the Northwest Ordinance at this site:

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/ordinanc.html

I saw nothing about what you refer to about schools or education other than that it is important. The document really sets forth a framework for government and how people in that territory will interact with the several States.

Your comment:

"The Northwest Ordinances regulated Federal Territories over which Congress has the power to legislate. That is the Constitutional basis for the ordinances."

That's pure garbage and circular reasoning.

Congress has enacted many unconstitutional laws. Just because they acted unconstitutionally still doesn't make them lawful.

"I am reluctantly a Republican in the hope of pulling the party to the right or at the very least, to stop the drift to the left. I am proudly a member of the PA Chapter of the Republican Assembly that holds and defends conservative principles. Our goal is to take back the GOP in PA so that we are not just a paler shade of Democrat."

Very good objectives. Yes, work within the GOP to make it what is should be.

My point has been that the libertarian party because of it's wacko platform is not the best vehicle to enact conservative principles.

"Wow! A libertarian thread and look whose here!"

Who? Who's here? Did I miss someone important? ;-)

"You're insane!"

Well, that's just a rumor. But you have to know that it is tricky typing in this nice white jacket that they gave me. It has these really really long sleeves.

"I haven't gone throught the thread yet---or read the article yet...but it seems to me you did not respond to post #171. You answered with a question. I'd like to hear a response to #171."

#171 was not directed to me and I don't think that I responded at all, let alone with a question. However, in a subsequent post, I did address his assertion in my post #207. It's hard to respond to a post that doesn't contain much factual information like #171.

"I'm going to get a beer while I wait....."

OMG. I've been away from this discussion for about 8 hours. I hope that you didn't run out of beer waiting for me. ;-)

"Given that the ordinance was one for the Federal government's running of the territories, common sense says it would be funding those schools."

Common sense? What are you talking about. The federal government wasn't involved in education then. Why would it be common sense?

"I apologize for thinking that you would have common sense. Forgot I was dealing with libertarians here."

Further proof that you are losing the argument -- insults and attacks.

ran, I've read a lot of your posts on other threads in the short time that you've been here. You aren't a bad guy and I agree with you on a lot of things. One of them is that the LP has image problems. The theory and philosophy really are all about personal liberty. A lot of people are afraid of liberty and don't trust themselves with it and are not at all willing to trust others with it. That's human nature, I guess. That we (L & l) libertarians advocate your right to control your body doesn't mean that we think that drug use is a good idea. It's just that our experience with prohibition tells us that the 'cure' is worse than the disease.

There are many other issues, some I agree with and some I don't. I've limited my comments to drugs since that is brought up most often. BTW, I rarely even take an aspirin and have never and will never take drugs (other than in my favorite liquid form) for recreational purposes.

So these are the opinions of lunatics?

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

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."

It is a good thing you were not around 230 years ago. We would be singing Rule Brittania rather than The Star Spangled Banner.

"Very good objectives. Yes, work within the GOP to make it what is should be.

My point has been that the libertarian party because of it's wacko platform is not the best vehicle to enact conservative principles."

Good morning.

The GOP can be, and is, so infuriating to conservatives that many go elsewhere and for years, the LP was the only place to go.

The LP does have an image problem and a PR problem. They are not good at getting their ideas out and when they do, they scare as many people away as they attract. Same thing with money. Until the GOP steers more to the right and the LP falls to the wayside, they will be relegated to the role of spoiler and the GOP had better not take anything for granted. That's Muth's point.

"The LP does have an image problem and a PR problem. They are not good at getting their ideas out and when they do, they scare as many people away as they attract."

It's not an image problem and it's not a PR problem. As you point out, "when they do (get their ideas out), they scare away as many people as they attract." IMHO, they scare away more than they do attract by about 50:1.

I'm fascinated by the similarities between arguments made by the libertarians and the wack left. They both claim there is a huge number of disaffected voters. They both claim their problem is the fact that they can't get their message out. They both claim that if only they could get this message out, then they would be swept into power. Both fail to grasp that their message is their problem.

Well, I was at first enamoured with the LP about 10 years ago. Then I actually began to encounter actual LP members, mostly in my local USENET group, pgh.opinion. They were okay personally, but politically I decided they were nuts. For example, there used to be a ballot measure to raise taxes for new stadiums for Pittsburgh. 2 groups, the Allegheny Institute of Pittsburgh and our local LP, led the grassroots effort against it. The AI asked the LP to combine efforts to make for a more effective push, but the LP preferred being a big fish in a small pond. Other local bozo behavior - marching with the ACLU in a demonstration against the Pittsburgh police (to give support to the ACLU's class action lawsuit against the police). The lawsuit was later denied class action status because the ACLU basically pumped too much hot air into it. The majority of the little money that did end up changing hands went from the Pittsburgh taxpayers into the pockets of ACLU lawyers. Way to stand up for small govt, LP! They also ran Harry Browne Part I by campaigning AGAINST Bob Dole, not Bill Clinton. That sure made me want to vote for them.

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.