The Libertarians' Chance to Matter

American Thinker ^ | December 09, 2009 | Lee Cary

[neverdem]

The Libertarian Party is stuck in a loop that sustains its electoral irrelevance. Now is the perfect time for a strategy change.

America has long used third parties as forums for statements of dissatisfaction with the big two. But while Theodore Roosevelt, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and Ross Perot generated considerable heat, they were populist flares who soon burned out.

Every four, years the Libertarian Party picks a presidential candidate who tallies meager vote totals. In 2008, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr received 523,686 votes -- 0.4% of the national total. Clearly, the purpose of the exercise isn't to win. The candidate aims mostly to advance Libertarian principles. It's the sole option for victory.

For Libertarians, satisfaction comes in exercising free speech in support of their beliefs, even when the inevitable results are inconsequential in the greater balance of national events. In short, although all their votes are counted, Libertarians don't count.

So at the risk of causing offense, it stands to reason that the if victory is the Libertarians' intent, then their particular method of running candidates is a repetitive example of collective delusional behavior. But if liberty is their ultimate cause, then there may be a better way to advance it in the early 21^st century -- a way that sidesteps enduring yet another defeat. 

Under the heading of "Principles," The Libertarian Party platform reads, in part:

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

Even as the topical content their Platform changes, the Libertarians' tone remains constant: They promote liberty. A more descriptive name for them would be the Liberty Party. Not all of their applications of liberty, however, are acceptable to those who consider themselves conventional conservatives. But "the challenge of the cult of the omnipotent state" looms ever larger in the minds of libertarians and conservatives alike. Both groups feel the nation is at a critical juncture. Will we turn "the right to exercise sole dominion" of our lives over to a constantly expanding, intrusive, and controlling government? Or will we reclaim the right to live as we choose in areas where citizen rights are and have been dissolving?

Will the soft tyranny of socialism further dull the entrepreneurial and innovative edges of American capitalism? Or will Americans decisively vote as capitalists in 2010? In the future, will government or private enterprise fundamentally control our markets?

Is there not a consensus among Libertarians and conservatives that the liberals and "moderates," who are often lite-liberals, of both main parties share responsibility for the expanding complexity and size of government at all levels? But even if that's true, are conventional conservatives likely to swear allegiance en masse to the Libertarian Party and help elect their presidential candidate any time in the foreseeable future?

No, that won't happen.

There's no reason to expect that in 2012 the Libertarian candidate will do anything more than preach to another small-percentage choir. So maybe it's time for Libertarians to shift their strategy and address the realpolitik of early 21^st-century America -- where both conservatives and liberals are hardening their opposing positions.

As the political arena becomes more polarized, Independents are on the move. The maneuvering space between the political poles is narrowing. The progressive movement has up-shifted from an incremental advance of its socialist agenda into high gear. The Obama-promised fundamental transformation of the America is well underway, with no signs of abating.

Meanwhile, public opinion feels captive to the 2008 election results as the victors claim the spoils of their conquest. Some who voted for change feel helpless to slow a transformation for which they unknowingly or unwisely voted. The collective mood is replete with tension and anxiety for the nation's future. Turbulent times.

In this environment, business as usual doesn't make sense for the Libertarian Party. The most effective path to "challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual" is to align in the presidential election with the major political party that most closely shares Libertarian aims. They can then use that alignment and their strength -- albeit limited in numbers and funding -- to influence that other party toward Libertarian principles. If you can't beat them, then align yourself to influence them in your direction.    

We know where Democrats stand. The Republicans are in an internal battle to identify their credo. If the GOP continues to move toward a solid conservative stance, it will be simpatico at many touch-points with the Libertarians platform. Libertarians face a choice. They can wait and hope that alignment will just happen, or they can help make it happen.

It's not only their half-million votes or the several million dollars in donations they have to offer that makes the difference. The most valuable contribution Libertarians can bring the GOP is the premise of their beliefs. The parties will always differ on platform details. But if in the next general election, the fundamental battle of ideas falls between liberals and conservatives, Libertarians would benefit themselves and the nation by giving up their quest for the White House and shifting their support to a conservative candidate.

If, on the other hand, their final choice is between liberal and lite-liberal, then there's no reason for Libertarians to avoid falling on their swords yet again. 

[ansel12]

It matters because the libertarians manage to throw close elections to democrats, Maria Cantwell for instance, and libertarians serve as the left’s fifth columnist within the conservative movement as they war against American values and culture with their radically leftist views on homosexuality and immigration and abortion and national defense, etc.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2404074/posts?page=15#15

My statement still stands.
No politician is entitled to anyone's vote. It is the Republican's job to attract voters with a message funny how libertarians are spoilers in the election but they're insignificant and will get .0001% of the vote before the election.

BTW both Gorton and Burns were RINOs

[ansel12]

Those wackos you refer to in post #8 are not libertarians.

Those whackos in post 8 are THE libertarians, they are the people that dropped the conservative and/or republican facade and actually joined the libertarian party.

[A CA Guy]

No party that in the end helps out Democrats through their voting deserves IMO anyone’s respect or attention. They can be a bigger part of the problem than the solution.

[Skywalk]

The Drug War (and I include Prohibition) has led to an expansion of government power throughout society, then the follow-up demonization of THOSE objects/substances has led to not only the erosion of our basic liberties (perhaps even more than regulations or taxes) but has led to the demonization of weapons and the same type of logic used to ban them—which changes our power in relation to the State and eviscerates our right to self-defense.

You should be for ending the War on Drugs, even if you’re not for open borders (which can never work, even if we DID destroy the Welfare state.)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

It matters because the libertarians manage to throw close elections to democrats, Maria Cantwell for instance

You're not comprehending
All the Republican candidate has to do is run on a solid conservative message mixed in with some libertarian goals, and there wouldn't be a libertarian candidate to piss and moan about.
The Republicans did this in 2006 over the online poker ban. Yeah, yeah I know you don't believe people should gamble because it's evil and they'll be struck down by God, but it highlighted the GOP's hypocrisy on limited gov't. Libertarians saw that and the GOP paid the price at the polls.

and libertarians serve as the left’s fifth columnist

When have you seen the libertarian candidate get tons of news coverage and the MSM breathlessly reporting on how the GOP is losing it's principles and the libertarian should win? Please by all means post links of this occurring.

within the conservative movement as they war against American values and culture with their radically leftist views on homosexuality and immigration and abortion and national defense, etc.

They're NOT promoting any of this. C'mon now Ansell. Libertarians believe that gov't should get out of social issues and let local communities deal with them, and I agree 100%. They support rampant immigration but you fail to realize that there would be no welfare state or anchor baby status or enormous taxes and regulations on businesses that are forcing them to hire illegals in the first place. More than likely illegals would go through the proper channels to become legal citizens, and while I oppose that too and support a border fence at least their stand on immigration is still much tougher than most of the GOP.

[Billg64]

I have been changing my opinion on drugs lately; and I don't even take asprin. If the federal government were out of the drug enforcement business and allowed states to decide for themselves, it seems possible that the street gangs would lose their funding (illegal drugs).

I do not think legalizing drugs could make the problems any worse than they are presently.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Those whackos in post 8 are THE libertarians, they are the people that dropped the conservative and/or republican facade and actually joined the libertarian party.

Sorry I'm not buying it.
The GOP is trending left and libertarians are abandoning it because it's too conservative?
ROFL

[ansel12]

You just pointed out how libertarians are fifth columnists, all the conservatives have to do to get the lib vote is too give up conservatism. No thanks.

The libers like the conservatives economics but they want them to abandon the rest of conservatism, that makes them liberal tools.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

No party that in the end helps out Democrats through their voting deserves IMO anyone’s respect or attention.

They're being funded by Dem operatives to purposefully split the GOP vote? But I thought they were irrelevant pot-smokers and was going to get .00001% of the vote anyway. So which is it?

They can be a bigger part of the problem than the solution.

But when they're called a bunch of kooks by hoity-toity tight-assed Republicans what do you expect them to do? Cheerfully vote Republican? Just limit the gov't and cut the taxes, and stop pandering to "moderates" all the time, and you'll get their votes. Sheesh

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Secure the borders, and defund agencies such as the DEA and ATF, and the drug war & problem will go away.

Drugs should not be legalized except for marijuana and even that should be up to the states.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Good luck. I have a feeling that this, like pretty much else, will fall on deaf ears with the Thirdpardation faction here on FR.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Drugs should not be legalized except for marijuana and even that should be up to the states

Sure thing, Mr. Statist Lite

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You just pointed out how libertarians are fifth columnists, all the conservatives have to do to get the lib vote is too give up conservatism. No thanks.

Wrong
The problem is that Republican candidates try to appease the "moderates" by downplaying or being liberal on social issues. That's how they lose.
At the same time, no one's going to vote for an Alan Keyes' fire and brimstoner.
McDonnell of VA is a perfect example of someone who balanced this beautifully. He is a social conservative who didn't back down from his faith but didn't make it an issue either. He won handily, and the independents that voted for him were the libertarians you like to malign.

Your generalization of libertarians being immoral degenerates is simply false.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Sure thing, Mr. Statist Lite

Cocaine, meth, LSD and heroin should be freely purchased at Walgreens?

[HangnJudge]

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

I believe that efforts to control the behavior of others is generally counterproductive, and a waste of time and energy, UNLESS the behavior materially damages another person, without their consent.

Abortion, IMHO, is the material damaging of another human without their consent, and hence should be punished by law.

The application of justice toward damaging behavior should be swift and severe. The use of jails as a form of punishment is a waste of time. If one is found guilty of materially damaging another one of three things should happen.
1) Fined, including loss of all material goods
2) Punished - whipped, public humiliation, etc.
30 Death penalty.

Under the old British law system, the operant definition of a felony was a crime to which the punishment was death. I do not see the current penal system being an improvement on this. The crime for perjury in court is precisely the same as that give to the criminal, so perjury in a capital case results in the death penalty, so does wanton judicial malfeasance.

The consistent application of these rules would stop the vast majority of the horrible behavior in this country. Perjury, and judicial malfeasance would also be greatly diminished

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here | DONATE to FreeRepublic NOW!

[HangnJudge]

The Republican Party has shrunk because it has
abandoned fiscal conservatism, states’ rights,
and a pro-America foreign policy,
which caused the small-libertarians to ditch the party.

Agree entirely
Most Libertarians are very comfortable with Republicans,
until Republicans act like Big Government types
that use the Federal Government to
regulate individual behavior

Most Libertarians I know are actually quite, personally, conservative. They just believe it is a waste of energy to regulate personal behavior, unless that behavior materially damages another human, without their consent.

[ansel12]

Cocaine, meth, LSD and heroin should be freely purchased at Walgreens?

That is the libertarian position, they also want unlimited advertising of the products.

[oneamericanvoice]

Who one associates with speaks volumes. Third parties don’t work. There are two major parties. I would rather change the party (GOP) than jump ship when the going gets tough. While I have some libertarian points, that party goes too far and is very unrealistic. Ron Paul is a great example.