Posted on 12/20/2006 3:27:19 PM PST by neverdem
In a recent column, I discussed the disaffection of libertarians within the conservative coalition, suggesting that many might be more at home on the political left. A number of readers wrote to say that they agreed with my analysis and had left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. Among these is former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who officially joined the Libertarians last week.
Of course, people are free to do what they want to do, and if they want to join the Libertarians, that's their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, then they are making a big mistake, in my opinion. The Libertarian Party is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than it has done to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the Libertarian Party to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.
The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Ah I see. The existence of the Libertarian Party is what made Republicans move to the left since 1994. Because they existed to forward the idea of limited government and less bureaucracy, the Republicans had to move to the left to counter the effect...It's so clear now.....
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
And how does it do that again? Oh, because you say it does and don't offer any corraborating evidence to prove your point.
At times, serious people have tried to get control of the Libertarian Party and make it a viable organization. But in the end, the crazies who like the party just as it is have always run them off.
And this would be different from the Republican party who has to deal with threats from social theocrats who desire to impose morality at the federal level each and every election? And he wonders why people are leaving the party?
There are quite a few social conservatives out there that also believe in limited government (like myself). That believe the original intent was to leave moral issues to the separate and sovereign states, not advocate passing an Amendment anytime someone wanted 'their' cause standardized. And if the only choice is voting for Sen. Nutball who wants to involve the federal government in what are clearly state decisions and Rep. Spend-a-lot who's never seen a program he didn't like, I'll continue to vote Libertarian or write in a candidate.
Contrary to this author's view, the Framers did not necessarily see nor intend a division of only two parties. Washington warned against it and yet this 'conservative' is saying if you don't buy into it, you're hurting the cause. Although the cause of getting his 'team' to top of the hill is about the only 'cause' you're hurting
As a libertarian, I do not personally care as deeply for the social issues as the fiscal/economic issues. When it comes down to it, though I am "pro-choice" on many issues you all might find objectionable, I am MUCH more inclined to vote for a fiscally and socially conservative republican if I can count on him/her being TRULY fiscally conservative.
In other words, I want lower taxes, smaller government and robust national defense WAY more than I want legalized pot and abortion. Those issues pale in comparison.
Problem is, true fiscal conservatives are as rare as hens teeth these days. So all I can say to you republicans, is get your s&!t together so I can happily vote your asses back in.
Maher's a member of the Idiot party. We already know about the "Stupid Party". Bruce Bartlett is carrying water for them.
What's that smell? Is that... irony?
Tomorrow, I shall keep a lookout for pigs on the wing.
Witness the change in the rhetoric and attitude toward libertarianism from Reagan to what we have today.
That's hilarious! If you're looking for sensible and efficient services from the government you're looking in the wrong place. The libertarians have no problem with you now though, because you do want the gov to be smaller. Libertarians only have real problems with RINO's and "conservatives" who want BIGGER government. It's bad strategy for libertarians and real conservatives, who both want smaller government, to be at each others throats. It's also bad strategy for the Libertarian party to divide the small government vote and thereby help elect HUGE government Democrats. Real conservatives and libertarians should work together to make the government smaller than it is now rather than argue over how small is small enough- we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
A conservative buddy and I had a discussion with a guy who runs for office in the Libertarian party.
I asked him what Libertarians believe. He let us know he's not one of these legalize-recreational-drug guys. Everything he espoused as a foundational belief, we said that's exactly what we believe. Finally, we asked what the difference is between conservatives and libertarians. He couldn't come up with a single thing that was different. I finally told him it sounded like Libertarians (party members, that is) are either dopers or they are conservatives who are afraid of winning.
He had no response.
No. The reason Libertarians can win is because 97% of America and holding knows better.
tell me, can you live without those services? Maybe I need to get out more or my chapter of the Libertarian party is an anomoly. no liberals there, well, one old man in the group said he hates that the left high jack the terminalogy of liberal, he considered himself a 1940's liberal. we did have one NORML dude however pot was rarely discussed. At one meeting I was surprised there was HUGE support of Bush, that was in mid 2003, I went off to Iraq soon after and havent had time to attend any meetings but during the 2004 elections most of them emailed me saying they were voting for Bush. If I could lable myself anything its a Christian Conservative Nationalist!
ping
ping
as if the Presidential office is the only one.
Well, there are some differences between conservatives and libertarians, but they're probably closer to each other than to most "Republican" politicians.
One thing I am proud of is being part of the party when we tried to rid my state of food tax in 2002 and we nearly WON! that is until RINO Huckabuck said if we removed the food tax it would hurt.....who else.....THE CHILDREN, then this other group APPLES(some socialist anagram coalition of teachers,cops and firemen) really came out big against removing the tax.oh but hellllllllllllno fwd to 2006 and there a 500million surplus.and Arkansas is one of a few states left that TAXES ITS FOOD AND MEDICINE!
Ain't that the truth.
Also, it kills me how a lot of Conservatives take so much pleasure in pissing on us libertarians. With out us, the GOP would be perpetually a minority party made up of evangelicals and country club types.
our next endover is get rid of "special" elections, or at least make it null and void due to low turnout. that is one of the sneaky ways they pass stupid things. I have seen things get turned down in a general elections, the rats turn around whisper there is a special election in the spring, 3 people show up to vote and it passes.
He was on Boortz this morning. I think he said that he has changed his view, but I wasn't listening too closely.
I can respect that. It's refreshing to hear a (former) politician admit that he is capable of changing his views given new information.
Especially when taking into consideration one of the iron rules of politics and bureaucracy: "Never admit you're wrong, and never apologize."
That axiom goes a long way in explaining the asinine behavior of our government.
Seriously, your post makes the debate more concise, IMO.
I consider myself a libertarian and what I want is, less government control and interference in my life. I really don't give a damn what someone else chooses to do with their life.
If your actions harm no one else and you don't expect someone else to foot the bill, for either your actions or the consequences. Go for it.
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.