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. 

[gogogodzilla]

What I see is someone who can't see past his nose.

If you had bothered to read their platform completely, you'd have also seen this:

2.0 Economic Liberty A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Which would end our government's freebies to illegals, thereby eliminating the biggest reason that illegals have for coming here. As for the rest, I *WANT* those who would gladly work their butts off to make a better life to come to America.

[bamahead]

Here's the problem...

Much like the GOP has been co-opted by non-conservatives, the Libertarian party has long been co-opted by (for lack of a better term) neo-liberals...who's sole purpose is to use the party's platform to advance drug legalization.

Now I am all about ending the War on Some Drugs. This farce has been used as a vehicle to strip the basic rights of privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and property rights (read: Civil Asset Forfieture) from Americans for almost 40 years. It should be ended immediately, and all non-violent drug offenders freed from prison immediately in conjunction with that end.

The problem with the Libertarian Party, is that to a lot of the party high ups, this is the ONLY issue, and serves as the PRIMARY criteria by which they choose their candidates. Dozens of recent LP candidates have had absolutely NO small government credentials on their resume', but somehow they manage to be nominated solely based on their stance supporting legalization / end of the drug war.

A perfect example: Kevin Zeese. Does that name sound familiar? See this thread from a couple of days ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2402460/posts

Three years ago, this guy was the Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. Senate from the state of Maryland, based solely on his anti-drug war stance. The Green party (hardly small government) also gave him their nomination in the same election. He chose to run on the Green ticket.

If you look at the Libertarian Party platform, you'll see a lot of things....small, efficient government is also still there. However, like another major party we're all currently very familiar with....the so-called platform doesn't mean diddlum squat - when you look at the candidates they've been nominating. I'd hold up Bob Barr as another prime example - big government statism didn't phase him a bit when he was a drug warrior.

The party is totally out of touch with those of us who believe in liberty above all other things. That's why it basically has no base, and won't, until it is taken back by those who actually do believe in the principles of Libertarianism - which is actually better described as 'Classical Liberalism':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

An excerpt: Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. The ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy "for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law...classical liberals believe that "an unfettered market" is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses: they "are more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government...Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

The above describes my political philosophy almost perfectly.

[gogogodzilla]

If you want the federal government to intrude into your life... then I’d propose federal legislation to force ansel12 to post comments that only agree with my point of view.

You would gladly follow such a law, if it were passed, as it would involve the federal government intruding into your life.

Right?

[gogogodzilla]

Not to mention that should drug use become legalized, that does *NOT* mean that people will suddenly be allowed to use drugs at work.

Businesses would still be able to ban drug use as a prerequisite for hiring.

So if you want to make money and actually not be a bum on the street, you *STILL* wouldn’t be able to use drugs.

Unfortunately for the die-hard social conservatives, that level of thought is too difficult for them to think through. If there isn’t a Father Government there to beat you with a law, then people’ll suddenly just go ape-sh@t and do the most immoral things possible.

[ansel12]

Much like the GOP has been co-opted by non-conservatives, the Libertarian party has long been co-opted by (for lack of a better term) neo-liberals...who's sole purpose is to use the party's platform to advance drug legalization.

I can testify that the LP was pushing dope legalization in 1974 in it's efforts to recruit members, so it was there from the beginning.

[ansel12]

Unfortunately for the die-hard social conservatives, that level of thought is too difficult for them to think through. If there isn’t a Father Government there to beat you with a law, then people’ll suddenly just go ape-sh@t and do the most immoral things possible.

To quote Jim Robinson:

"But I'm a conservative. That means I'm a social conservative, fiscal conservative, small government conservative, national defense conservative and traditional American heritage conservative. And I will support the conservative candidates who best represent my conservative principles and values. In the very least, my conservative candidate will have a strong pro-Life and Liberty record. And he will have an unblemished fiscally conservative, small government, pro-national security, and pro-national defense record!
Will I sit out the race if a socially liberal RINO is nominated? You betcha. I will not participate in the further destruction of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party continues moving left, it will have left me.
That automatically rules out Romney, Rudy, Paul and any other whacked out fools or RINOs. And thank God the old warhorse McCain is too old and feeble to run again. Please, Arizona, put the old guy out to pasture before he does any more damage to party and country.
Would I support Sarah Palin if she decides to run? You betcha! And I would enthusiastically welcome and support Governor Barbour, Senator Sessions, Congressman Pence or Duncan Hunter, et al. Don't know enough about Jindal to say but I'm willing to listen.
And I'm sure there are other conservatives we should consider. Would like for FReepers to post their favorite presidential hopefuls here and list their conservative credentials for our consideration.
RINOs or social liberals need not apply. Enough with the Swartzeneggers, Giulianis, Romneys, McCains, et al. They NEVER work out for us!! Thanks, Jim "

[bamahead]

I can testify that the LP was pushing dope legalization in 1974 in it's efforts to recruit members, so it was there from the beginning.

I won't deny that. It's on the platform too. Not everybody believes it should be the state's say on what substances you ingest recreationally, which is also the tyrant's view, according to Thomas Jefferson. So, not everybody is a statist tyrant, like you.

[bamahead]

You seem to know Jim's views about libertarians so well...

Please explain then, why FreeRepublic is home to the Republican Liberty Caucus forum, which has long been referred to as 'the libertarian wing of the GOP'?. I mean, you seem to know so much....surely you were aware of this?

[ansel12]

Which would end our government's freebies to illegals, thereby eliminating the biggest reason that illegals have for coming here.

That is ridiculous, remove the Border Patrol and the INS and (truly) open the borders, and America would be flooded with hundreds of millions of third worlders.

Why live in Africa, or Asia or Latin America as a non welfare receiving peasant, if you could live in shiny, new, great infrastructure and institutions, and politically stable America and not receive welfare either, yet still live better than your thirld hell-hole?

[ansel12]

You seem to know Jim's views about libertarians so well...

You made that up.

I posted his quote that he is a social conservative, why don't you show me where it is false.

[rabscuttle385]

Not everybody believes it should be the state's say on what substances you ingest recreationally, which is also the tyrant's view, according to Thomas Jefferson. So, not everybody is a statist tyrant, like you.

Not to mention that the last time such a course of action was tried, i.e., the Prohibition of the '20s and '30s, it not only failed spectacularly but spawned all sorts of unpleasant and unintended side effects, e.g., rampant organized crime.

The end result?

Folks today are still drinking alcohol.

If you want to conduct a "war on drugs" that's actually effective, the best way to do so is to encourage regulation similar to that of alcohol and tobacco: at the State and, even better yet, the local (county, parish, borough, city, etc.) level. Remember, in some States, there are "dry counties" and "wet counties," while in other States, all local jurisdictions are "wet."

Unfortunately, that might require you to stomach the idea that people might in fact have the God-given right to make decisions for themselves and the corresponding, God-given responsibility to accept the consequences of those decisions. It might also require you to accept that somewhere in this world, someone might elect to do something that you disapprove of. It might also require you to grow some empathy and realize that others might not want to be controlled by you, just like--and I'd wager--you wouldn't want to be controlled by another.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

In U.S. Senate races, third party candidates played King Maker in 7 races from 1998 to 2006.

Sounds more like the electorate excercised it's choices, and YOUR preferred candidates lost.

Want to win, select better candidates. Libertarians aren't obligated to support your causes any more than you're obligated to support theirs. Their vote didn't belong to you in the first place.

[Blue Collar Christian]

Hey Triple E, you’ve nailed the problem with the GOP, and this is the same message the Palin supporters are trying to bring home to the GOP: “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”

It is painful to vote in such a way that it appears to allow the MOST liberal party to win, but how else can conservatives either get the GOP back to conservative values or get a party that will represent conservatives?

There are many, or rather, most points of the LP platform that I personally disagree with, and I will not vote for their candidate. I will, however, write in the name of the person I would like to see hold the office in question. This tendency probably represents a larger total of votes than the GOP accuses the LP of “siphoning” off their candidates.

I’m with you that the GOP will continue to lose votes until they return to solid small government policy.

[wendy1946]

America needs a voters’ bill of rights, and the first item of that bill needs to be runoff or instant runoff elections for all public offices. Without that, we are legally locked into the present 20party (or 1.5-party) system. Nobody should ever hold any public office with less than 50% of the vote and nobody should ever need fear to vote his first choice, at least on a first ballot.

[bamahead]

I don’t deny that Jim is a Social Conservative either.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

That is the libertarian position

Au contraire
That is the Libertarian Party position.
Candidates who are running as libertarians do not adhere to the party's platform.

[rabscuttle385]

Why live in Africa, or Asia or Latin America as a non welfare receiving peasant, if you could live in shiny, new, great infrastructure and institutions, and politically stable America and not receive welfare either, yet still live better than your thirld hell-hole?

The LP opposes the welfare state (Platform 2.0, "All efforts by government to redistribute wealth...are improper in a free society.") and supports "the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution" (2.4).

But it is rather amusing to watch your feeble attempts to cherry-pick items out of the LP platform as a means of falsely portraying them as supporters of taxpayer-funded welfare for the entire world.

In fact, come to think of it, the GOP might support some sort of taxpayer-funded welfare for the entire world, given that the Party has officially failed to repudiate the Bush-McCain-Graham amnesty and has also recently engaged in a defense of the Medicare entitlement (which was put into place by LBJ--a Democrat--under Great Society in the '60s).

Actually, wait, the GOP does support welfare for the entire world, in the form of un-Constitutional foreign aid (which the LP opposes at point 3.3 in its official platform)! Obama's predecessor in The White House, in fact, was quite noted for expanding Federal giveaways in Africa and on other continents; if you would like, I'm sure I can pull links from news publications of repute to illustrate this example.

[ansel12]

Of course not, if they put Maria Cantwell in office then it is their right to crow about her anti social conservatism and strut their third party strength to move the country left.

[ansel12]

You miss the point, truly open America to the world by ending the Border Patrol and INS and throwing the immigration restraints and obstacles, away and this nation would be flooded with hundreds of millions of third world people.

It has nothing to do with welfare, it has to do with being a flight away from a less nasty place.

[ansel12]

Well, I was posting to someone attacking “social conservatives” for being too stupid to be libertarians, that was why JR’s statement on himself being a social conservative, was relevant.