Posted on 11/20/2008 9:07:47 PM PST by MovementConservative
It's hard to remember now, but back in the spring and summer, some libertarians were optimistic about Bob Barr's presidential campaign under the Libertarian Party banner. Barr's eventual failure exemplifies the flaws of the LP as a vehicle for promoting libertarianism.
As a former prominent Republican congressman, Barr was probably the best-known politician ever to run on an LP ticket. And libertarian-minded voters might have been expected to flock to his standard in a year when the Democrats nominated a highly statist candidate like Barack Obama, and the Republicans went with John McCain - a nominee whom most libertarians and pro-limited government conservatives viewed with great suspicion. Supporters hoped that Barr would win many more votes and raise much more money than previous LP nominees, and would effectively spread the libertarian message.
As Brian Doherty documents in this interesting recent article, Barr and the LP didn't even come close to meeting the high expectations. Barr only got about 500,000 votes, and his percentage of the total vote was lower than that achieved by three previous LP nominees, including the lackluster Harry Browne in 1996. Barr's fundraising results were also disappointing.
Brian's article discusses numerous possible causes of Barr's failure that were specific to his particular campaign. Some of these theories may be correct. In truth, however, Barr's failure is of a piece with the more general failure of the LP throughout its entire 36 year history. In that time, the Party has never gotten more than a miniscule share of the vote, and has failed to increase its share over time (the LP's best performance in a presidential election was back in 1980, and its performances in state and local races have also stagnated over time). The LP has also failed in its broader mission of fostering greater acceptance of libertarian ideas. There is little if any evidence that its efforts have increased public support for libertarianism to any appreciable extent. Such consistent failure over a long period of time can't be explained by the personal shortcomings of individual candidates. Barr's performance undercuts claims that the LP can do better simply by nominating a candidate with greater name recognition and more political experience than its usual selections.
For reasons that I explained in this post, the truth is that third party politics simply is not an effective way of promoting libertarianism in the "first past the post" American political system. That system makes it almost impossible for a third party to win any important elected offices. And such a party also can't be an effective tool for public education because the media isn't likely to devote much attention to a campaign with no chance of success.
Libertarians have had some genuine successes over the last 35 years. These include abolition of the draft (heavily influenced by Milton Friedman's ideas), deregulation of large portions of the economy (of which libertarians were the leading intellectual advocates), major reductions in tax rates (facilitated by libertarian economists, libertarian activists, and the legislative efforts of libertarian-leaning Republicans), the increasing popularity of school choice programs, increases in judicial protection for property rights, gun rights, and economic liberties (thanks in large part to advocacy by libertarian legal activists), and heightened respect for privacy and freedom of speech (promoted by libertarians in cooperation with other groups). Libertarian academics and intellectuals have also done much to make libertarian ideas more respectable and less marginal than they were in the 1960s and early 70s.
What all these successes have in common is that they were achieved either by working within the two major parties or by efforts outside the context of party politics altogether. The Libertarian Party didn't play a significant role in any of them.
Libertarians often emphasize that failed enterprises should be liquidated rather than kept going on artificial life support. That enables their resources to be reinvested in other, more successful firms. The point is well taken, and it applies to the Libertarian Party itself. For 35 years, the Party has consumed valuable resources, both financial and human. The money spent on the LP and the time donated by its committed activists could do a lot more to promote libertarianism if used in other ways.
In the current economic and political environment, libertarians face many difficult challenges, including a potential massive expansion of government. Now more than ever, we can't afford to fritter away our limited resources on failed political strategies. The time has come to admit that the LP is a failure and spend our precious time and money elsewhere.
Bumped for truth.
bob barr the libertarian. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
the libertarian candidates can claim success this time.
So far they have prevented Ted Stevens from winning. Possibly Norm Coleman. And probably Saxby Chambliss.
And instead, they will have handed a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate to the party who has an out-of-the-closet Socialist in their caucus to rubber stamp our first Marxist President.
Thanks Libertarians!!!! You’ve really proved your point to the rest of us. The GOP isn’t perfect so you are ensuring that until they become perfect they will be punished by watching marxists getting elected instead of them. Boy, we’re really going to learn our lesson THIS time!
The Republicans continue to sell out with people like Arnoolld and Chuckie Hagel.
I believed Barr would do much better, I think if he would have stuck to a few libertarian ideas after his nomination and campaigned more as the guy who was in Congress years ago he would have raised more money and done much better in the election.
Chuck Baldwin was better on the issues but had no name ID and got 190,000 votes. The analysis seems correct, he collected about $1.3 million dollars.
We need a 3rd party but either the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party will have to be run by more than just a few activists. They should make their principles a few things and don’t get into 100 different issue positions.
Dean Barkley is not a Libertarian, Ted Stevens lost because he committed felonies and the Democrats in DC engineered his verdict to come out days before the election.
In Georgia, there will not be a Libertarian in the runoff. It’s up to the Conservatives in Georgia to go out to vote for him to make sure Obama doesn’t have an 60 votes in Senate.
The point is there would not have been a runoff if the libertarian hadn’t been on the ballot.
Exactly. Even if I *were* inclined to vote for a Libertarian candidate (which, as a Neo-Ciceronian, I wouldn't be), I would not do so because not only is it a wasted vote, but it is also a POSITIVE vote for the full, both-barrels-for-socialism Democrat candidate. Frankly, the best thing that can happen in an election under the system we currently have is for the Libertarians (and other pissant little pseudo-conservative parties) to fail to even get ballot access.
Notice - the greatest actual successes that libertarians have achieved (and they have many things going for them, ideologically speaking, even though I rag them hard) is when they have worked THROUGH the Republican Party. Maybe they need to take a clue from this, and help conservatives take back the Party for smaller government, and help kick the big-gubmint RINOs out?
Libertarians - on paper, nice ideas. In reality, stupid as dog crap. They helped the Democrats make the Libertarians into useful fool and now an irrelevant political footnote and accessory to the downfall of our way of life.
Thanks guys, said Caesar to Brutus and the gang!
first get rid of the democrats and then we can have a 2 party system of republicans vs libertarians
Was there ever a success?
Blame Stevens for his own problems. ANd if RINO Norm couldn’t take out the clown POS Franken, that too is a reflection on Norm. Chambliss will win easily.
It probably didn’t help much when shortly after 9/11/2001 Harry Browne, 2000 LP Pres. candidate, blamed the muslim attack on America.
He said America had it coming.
That took this party out of my consideration, convincing me it was too often populated with kooks, out mostly for rebel status.
“Hey, see me, see me!! I’m different, see me, see me”
The big fish in a small pond strategy for fame and recognition.
I am just a Paleo-con doing some major repair to that “R” behind my name. I cant see how switching to a wounded and insignificant (in votes and money) 3rd party could ever get the Dems out of power.
It’s funny to see this. The Libertarian party is the best of us, and because the Republicans nominate a democrat instead of a Republican- you get upset with who? Don’t blame the Libertarians because you nominate a guy who could pass for Joseph Lieberman with makeup.
As for Bob Barr, he’s as Libertarian as the Patriot Act he voted for. No Libertarian I know wanted him- just like nobody wanted McCain. They just played the “we’ve heard of that guy” card, and forgot to check his voting record.
We both got screwed in this election. And the Libertarian vote would not have mathematically made a difference in the Republicans favor.
I think you need to take your dull tools and focus on changing your party from within yourself. Even as careless as Bob Barr was, he’s still better than any Republican, save Ron Paul. Why is it the Libertarians responsibility to make Republicans suck less? I don’t understand this argument.
Was there ever a success?
I use Michael Medved's term, "Losertarians".
You are correct. The only thing libertarians are good at is taking Senate seats away from Repubicans, thus padding the Democrat majority.
The Libertarians aren’t responsible for Ted Stevens losing. Ted Stevens and the GOP are responsible for that. He should never have been allowed to run under the GOP banner.
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.