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.

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.

219 DugwayDuke

I'm fascinated by the similarities between arguments made by the anti-libertarians and wacko socialists.

They both claim there are huge numbers of voters attracted to the statist quo.

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 in power forever.

Both fail to grasp that statism itself is the problem. -- When it seriously affects individual liberty, people rebel.

I'm fascinated by the similarities between arguments made by the anti-libertarians and wacko socialists.
Both fail to grasp that statism itself is the problem. -- When it seriously affects individual liberty, people rebel.
221 jones

The difference is republicans win arguments and elections. The libertarians and the wack-left win neither.
222 Dug

There is no real difference between statists of the left & right. That's why frustrated voters keep alternating their turns at power. -- And why nobody is "winning".

We are all on the road to serfdom, and some 'Republicans' are crowing that they've won the argument on which side of the road to drive on.
Rational libertarians want to reverse course, - back to liberty for all.

"As the founders did not advocate such measures [trade barriers / tarriffs], it is obvious that they differed from libertarians on this issue."

Yes, there are specific point-by-point issues wherein modern libertarians differ with the libertarians of 200 years ago. One glaring example is slavery. Of course, this is one that pretty much all modern Americans, regardless of political stripe, take exception with and many find it hard to countenance the fact that the freedom-loving radicals who signed the Declaration of Independence and adopted the Bill of Rights would tolerate such OBVIOUS hypocrisy.

In fact,it's troubling still, especially for someone such as myself who practically (though not LITERALLY) worships the ground Thomas Jefferson strolled upon... But these hindsight "errors" by Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et al do not negate the essential righteousness, the unequivocal truth of the political experiment called the United States, contrary to what many angry leftists might claim. It simply means that the human concept of freedom had - at the time - only evolved so far... In some ways, this concept has evolved much further since, as more and more freedom-seeking thinkers from all over the world converge in forums like this, and are finding common ground and working out non-coercive non-governmental alternatives to the institutions we take for granted. In some ways, however, we have lost some of those freedom values, or are in danger of losing them. It's a constant dynamic tension betwen the individualist tendencies in the human animal and the perhaps equally powerful collectivist leanings, on both the "right" and the "left".

The only places where the Founders "got it wrong" in my humble opinion are those where they did not go far enough in the direction of freedom. This is not a negative reflection on the incredible achievement they made; this Constitutionally-framed democratic republic is STILL the best system going and the best yet created by humankind. But the game isn't over yet. And the threats to freedom come from all directions, in all sorts of packages, even - believe it or not - in "conservative" clothing.

How does this relate to the Constitutionally adopted tarriffs and trade barriers of the founders? Some things are simply taken as "givens" by even the leading radical thinkers of an era, and are only questioned later, in hindsight, by the leading radical thinkers of a later time. This was true then and continues to be true now. The Founders were not working in a vaccuum; the concepts of natural law and limited government existed before these men were born, but no one until then had shown the moral, political and downright spiritual cojones to actually stand up to the Powers That Be with the goal of starting a new political entity based on these preconditions.

We have them to thank for taking this giant leap forward in the quest for maximal individual freedom (and its corollary - minimal government); it's up to the thinkers and doers of today and tomorrow to take the next steps down that path.

"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."

Are we back to this? Claims can be made by anyone. Take a look at the history and integrity of those making the claim. The far left lies when it would be easier and more beneficial to tell the truth.

I'm not saying that we (the right) can't get our message out. I'm saying that there is a lack of candidates who will uphold their oath and won't cave to pressure especially when the pressure comes from the GOP leadership. There is nothing wrong with the conservative message. I am a conservative Republican with libertarian leanings. I work with the LP when possible and when I agree with them. Likewise, with the GOP. If they put up a bum, I don't help.

For now, we'll agree to disagree on the image/PR thingy.

We know some of the same people and we may have even met. I helped in a small way on that campaign against the stadiums and it was a huge success. Then the GOP shoved Plan B down our throats.

I wasn't aware of the LP working with the ACLU on that issue, but depending on the issue, I would align myself with them to shut down an abusive government program. Like I told Bob Casey in his primary against Fast Eddie -- If you get elected, I will work to help enact your pro life and pro gun agenda, but I will work twice as hard against just about anything else. I will take my allies whereever I find them, except with the KKK or any neo Nazi group.

Re Bob Dole: It was awfully hard to get excited about him, wasn't it? I do understand why they went after Dole. That's where they could get some votes. Attacking Clinton wouldn't have garnered as many and that is how they differentiate between the GOP and the LP. The GOP and Dole were just Democrat light. I held my nose and voted for Dole or rather, against Clinton.

"You have broken the law. The law is intended to deter folks, from operating a dangerous motor vehicle, while in an impaired state."

I know that I may have broken the law, but who have I hurt? The state allows me to drink and then drive. If I am operating my vehicle without weaving or other signs or impairment, what harm have I caused?

"Are you suggesting that drunk driving not become a "crime" until the driver injures somebody? That is the implication of your comments."

No. I am suggesting that until I demonstrate (by driving erratically) that I am drunk or impaired to the degree that I cannot drive, then arrest me. I have no problem with arresting people based on how they operate a vehicle. I have a real problem with checkpoints. If I had my druthers, they'd be gone tomorrow.

More people die at the hand of stupid and careless drivers than drunk drivers -- about 2 to 1. Do you have a checkpoint to check for stupid careless people? Are you gonna just let them drive until they kill someone?

Further, do you personally know somebody that has been a meth user? Folks like that are dangerous. To others, to their children, etc."

No, I don't.

you wrote:
"Some do, some don't. Big deal."
ah, and here lies the problem. The 'some do' and the 'some don't' camp......in fact it is a big deal but that's for another discussion.

[regarding, if memory serves, the homosexual marriage issue and the Libertarian Party's ambivalence on the subject]

There is difference of opinion on this subject between Democrats within the Democratic Party, even though the party proper has hesitantly supported it. There is also difference of opinion, believe it or not, within the Republican Party... you are familiar I assume with the Log Cabin Republicans? [see PS below] They are not alone in feeling a bit uncomfortable with their fellow minimal-government conservatives embracing the notion of more government involvement in this sacred and personal sphere of decision-making.

The Libertarian Party therefore is not the sole repository of the "Some do, some don't" demographic, but there's no denying that, with a party whose idealogical base is all about individuality, Libertarians are probably more prone to disagreement amongst themselves than any other political party on the map, and God bless em for it. Just look at the party proper's position on abortion: officially the party is "pro-choice" (but does not in any way support the public funding of abortions) yet every official declaration I've ever seen comes with a caveat that there are significant numbers of LPers who do NOT recognize this "right", and for clearly delineated "libertarian" reasons. There will always be impassioned, animated difference of opinion between thinking people... at least I hope so.

PS: Now, granted, not all Log Cabiners support legally recognized same-sex marriage, but clearly it is an issue of some import to those conservative Americans whose life partners are of the same gender, just as it is to the more visible rainbow-flag-waving "liberal" Americans in the same predicament. I have trouble seeing why it's such a pulse-pounding potboiler on either side... I mean, MY heterosexual marriage is in no way threatened by Mick and Mike tying the knot, nor by Sue and Sally. On the other hand, why someone would put so much stock in having their life-commitment recognized by the gub'mint is kind of beyond me as well. It strikes me as a deliberately polarizing subject that once again serves the Powers That Be by keeping otherwise like-minded freedom lovers focused on their minor differences instead of concentrating their energy on real reform. The old "divide and conquer" campaign... somehow we keep falling for it.

I have long left these arguments behind. I was drawn in by Badray's posting and decided to 'flame' him as a joke. An old passion flared up a bit when I read the 'some do' and 'some don't' comment. For the most part, I no don't care to recycle the same 'ol same 'ol arguments. There is nothing fresh in them. On either side.

There is little I don't agree with you concerning opinions expressed here by you. Having read your comments on the Democrat party and the Republican party vs libertarians and the differences held in each, I still believe the two main parties are able to come close enough to a concensus to have a unity. The issues have become deeply polarized that it takes very little to hold a constituent to one or the other party. Libertarians operate outside of that box. Not that that is a bad thing but it does present a problem in getting them elected.

I do want to respond to an opinion you expressed on another post. #164 I believe.

You said:
"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 Almighty 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.

I have heard this argument before. Some conservatives give this one too. I don't agree it.
You diminish our nation's role in recognizing marriage as valuable and worthy to a 'notion'. As though 'government sanctioned' is a bad thing. WE are the government aren't we? We should be sanctioning and promoting healthy and time honored institutions such as marriage. You would like to reduce the government's role and reduce it to legalities and properties and such-- making us even more secular than we already are. As though acknowledging God is a bad thing. It was alright for our founding fathers to acknowledge God back in the 1700's but it is no longer acceptable to do so now. When a nation acknowledges God and honors Him with laws that are respecting to His commands--it will be a blessed nation. Why do we have laws concerning murder and stealing? Do you think it because from the birth of this nation they wanted to hold onto libertarian philosophies or rather could it be that murder and stealing and the like go against God's will and commands. Likewise, marriage was created by God Himself and so our government upholds marriage between a man and a woman because this is God will and command. Or would it be that we should mearly acknowledge Him with our words and let our deeds go as we please? There is purpose and meaning that runs deep when a nation collectively acknowledges marriage consisting of one man and one woman. To set ones ideals, contrary to God's, above our Almighty God is arrogant and not suggested. ;)
It is not libertarian philosophy and theories that will bring this nation back where it should be. The answer lies in humbling ourselves before a God we used to acknowledge.

"You would like to reduce the government's role and reduce it to legalities and properties and such-- making us even more secular than we already are. As though acknowledging God is a bad thing."

Yes, I would reduce the government's role the way you describe and see absolutely no conflict between that and my own religious beliefs. Acknowledging God is not a "bad thing"; it is - for those who believe, as i do - the greatest thing there is. But true acknowledgment of the supreme creator can only come from individual persons, not the political institutions that represent them, and must be given freely... when the institutions of coercion (ie government) become involved, that acknowledgment rings hollow... even to the point of blasphemy.

I don't know if this is a subject worth discussing even, important as it is, because most people already know where they stand on it and will not be moved by any logical or emotional appeal. Suffice to say (and I reiterate from another post on another topic) that the separation of church and state is a good and necessary thing, from BOTH sides of that coin, ESPECIALLY from the "church" side... Secularists and sophists point out the dangers of religion creeping into politics (with the Taliban as an extreme example) but not enough people recognize the corollary dangers of politics creeping into religion... Politics are the principles upon which the individual interacts with other individuals and with society in aggregate. Religion is the method thru which the individual interacts with God.

"...making us even more secular than we already are."
I don't believe that our laws and our government define WHO WE ARE as a people, and certainly not WHO I AM as a person. They are simply the basic necessities of civilized society, for the believer and non-believer alike; the rational, mutually agreed-upon MEANS for achieving a free, non-aggressing society within which each individual member is likewise free to worship and manifest the Divine as (s)he sees fit. A secular political system means greater religious freedom, without which religious belief becomes pointless.

sorry, didn't quite cover everything in that last message.
from your recent post:
"Why do we have laws concerning murder and stealing? Do you think it [was] because from the birth of this nation they wanted to hold onto libertarian philosophies or rather could it be that murder and stealing and the like go against God's will and commands."

I don't see why these two propositions are at odds with each other. Libertarians believe we are free to live as we choose PROVIDED WE DON'T HARM THE PERSON, PROPERTY OR LIBERTY of anyone else. Murder and stealing obviously fall into this proscribed category. Does "remember[ing] the Sabbath Day and keep[ing] it holy"? This sort of religious commandment does NOT extend beyond the personal realm and can NOT - in a free society - be the jurisdiction of government.

Agree or disagree: Even if the Bible had never been written, or had been lost in the ensuing generations of Middle-Eastern upheavals, humans would know instinctively that murdering and stealing from each other are WRONG. One does not have to be a proponent of any particular religious philosophy or of religion at all to recognize the basic, fundamental need to prohibit aggression.

For the most part I disagree with your post but I don't want us to go back and forth--neither of us will change our minds. We can agree to disagree. I hope.

I find this comment of yours interesting:
"I don't believe that our laws and our government define WHO WE ARE as a people",

Brilliant men with abiding faith and trust in God wrote the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the Untied States.
Those God fearing men defined our nation and defines us as a people--Americans. We as a people and nation have acknowledged God and sadly through the years our laws and our corrupted anti-Constitution government officials have taken away that very definition.

Though we disagree, I'm glad you are here at Free Republic and I welcome you.

Boxsford wrote:

The 'some do'camp vs the 'some don't' camp finds its way in the larger more important issues (large to me anyway) and can be confusing on what the party will really stand.

The "party"? By & large [as a rule] libertarians could care less what a political Party says. -- In fact, that individual independence IS the "important issue" .
198 jones

An old passion flared up a bit when I read the 'some do' and 'some don't' comment. For the most part, I no don't care to recycle the same 'ol same 'ol arguments. There is nothing fresh in them. On either side.

Yet here you are again today recycling the 'ol same ol'.. -- You seem to be insisting that all libertarians want: --
" --- To set ones ideals, contrary to God's, above our Almighty God is arrogant and not suggested. ;) It is not libertarian philosophy and theories that will bring this nation back where it should be.
The answer lies in humbling ourselves before a God we used to acknowledge.

To me your above lines brand all libertarians & all their philosophies/theories as contrary to your God's ideals. -- Again I say, - 'some do', 'some don't'. Tarring all libertarians with the same broad brush used by the LP is the 'same ol' tactic. -- You wrote:

Why do we have laws concerning murder and stealing? Do you think it because from the birth of this nation they wanted to hold onto libertarian philosophies or rather could it be that murder and stealing and the like go against God's will and commands.

Do you really think that "libertarian philosophies" oppose or reject laws against "murder and stealing"?

Please advise.

You wrote:

Brilliant men with abiding faith and trust in God wrote the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the Untied States.

We agree, brilliant. History disagrees as to their 'faith & trust'. Some had it, some didn't.

Those God fearing men defined our nation and defines us as a people--Americans.

From the way they framed our Constitution, I'd say they feared governments more than they feared God.

We as a people and nation have acknowledged God and sadly through the years our laws and our corrupted anti-Constitution government officials have taken away that very definition.

We agree that corrupt officials have infringed on our liberties. We've let them do so [not because of a lack of piety], but because we've allowed them to work for the 'good of society'.

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.