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. 

[neverdem]

In other words: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[neverdem]

After 1994, I thought the rats were toast. Thought made a fool of me.

[ansel12]

Here is the Libertarian position on immigration as revealed in their 2004 party platform which is almost word for word, their 1990 platform.

Immigration
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

[rabscuttle385]

If this is some pathetic, lame attempt to get libertarians and Libertarians to bow down before the RINO Party, it ain't workin'.

Now, the TEA Party is a different story...

Of course, judging by the recent Rasmussen polls, it appears that the RINO Party, formerly known as GOP, is now the newest third party on the block.

[BGHater]

I see, the GOP uses conservatives on election day. Now they want Libertarians to join them as well.

[A CA Guy]

Democrats love them. They take away some conservative votes from Republicans so Democrats can win.

[rabscuttle385]

Here is the Libertarian position on immigration as revealed in their 2004 party platform which is almost word for word, their 1990 platform.

So what?

Not all libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, much less support the Libertarian Party platform down to the letter and its entirety.

Just like not all conservatives are members of the Republican Party.

[ansel12]

” 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.”

---

The question is, which party best represents these libertarian goals?

Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.

Libertarian Party Platform:

Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.

Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.

Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.

Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.

Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.

Military Strength; minimal capabilities.

[La Enchiladita]

Libertarian is for disillusioned democrats who don’t want to become Republicans.

[ansel12]

This article is about the libertarian party.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Individual libertarians are the polar opposite of the LP.
I consider myself a conservative-libertarian and I sure as Hell don't agree with some of the LP's philosophy such as open borders, ending the war on drugs, free trade, and reducing the size of the military.
I would say that the independents who have left the GOP are libertarians frustrated at the GOP's inability to limit gov't and simply stay out of people's lives.

[ansel12]

See post 10.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

There's no such thing as "taking away" votes.
If the Republican candidate stinks to high heaven, that's his problem, not the Libertarian running.

[ansel12]

I would say that the independents who have left the GOP are libertarians frustrated at the GOP's inability to limit gov't and simply stay out of people's lives.

Which of course describes the libertarian party. It also describes people that leave the GOP for being too conservative for them.

[ansel12]

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

For instance, Washington State Democrat Maria Cantwell eked out a 2,229-vote victory over Republican incumbent Senator Slade Gorton in 2000 as Libertarian Jeff Jared siphoned off nearly 65,000 votes.

A Republican incumbent was similarly burned by a Libertarian in Montana’s 2006 U.S. Senate: Democratic challenger Jon Tester upended Republican Conrad Burns by 3,562 votes as the Libertarian Stan Jones won over 10,000 votes.

[truth_seeker]

The issues closest to agreement between libertarians and republicans are limited small government, and free enterprise.

Reagan was more libertarian than many on this site know or will admit. (Goldwater, too)

Reagan, July 1975 Reason Magazine:

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

See post 10.

And what about the party itself?
The author's premise is false. If the party isn't an influence on national elections, what makes him think it'll have influence by contributing to the GOP?
The LP is just that - a paper-mache facade. It is a party in name only in which many libertarians don't belong to.
Unfortunately, you want to keep repeating falsehoods and stereotypes about libertarians, which only fractures the Republican base some more.

[A CA Guy]

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

[ansel12]

Reagan was more libertarian than many on this site know or will admit.

No he wasn't, even when being interviewed by libertarians in that 1975 interview, which is the only source for a couple of quotes that I have ever seen anyone bring up about Reagan and Libs, he proceeds to defend social conservatism and gambling and prostitution laws, and strong national defense, even while bending over backwards to not offend the group that he was speaking to.

That interview is slim pickings.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Which of course describes the libertarian party.

Which is supposed to describe the GOP as well, right?
Does the GOP still believes in limited gov't, low taxes, and staying out of people's lives? Because at least the LP does.

It also describes people that leave the GOP for being too conservative for them.

Pure horse vomit. 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. Those wackos you refer to in post #8 are not libertarians. So keep maligning libertarians because those are the Tea Party folks and the folks who support Governor Palin.