America's Libertarian Party services only one purpose: Distracting and confusing the determined combatants in all our critical national struggles. Consider the preposterous Libertarian role in the just concluded midterm elections. South Dakota represented ground zero in the struggle for control of the Senate, and Republican John Thune and incumbent Democrat Tim Johnson fought to a virtual tie--with only 527 votes (less than 0.2 percent of the vote) dividing them. Meanwhile, 3,071 votes went to Libertarian Kurt Evans, a 32-year-old teacher who listed as one of his prime preparations for the Senate that his father is a known Country & Western musician.

Not all the purists and odd balls who vote Libertarian are actually conservative, but polls show that most of them are--and that most such voters would, if pressed, prefer Republicans over Democrats. Imagine if a third--only one third!--of Kurt Evans' voters had thought seriously enough about the importance of the election to cast their votes for Republican Thune. Would the fact that the Libertarian received 2,000 votes instead of 3,000 have detracted in any way from the "success" or impact of his campaign--or somehow compromised its metaphysical meaning? Yet the shift of that thousand votes to a real, grown-up, candidate could have altered U.S. political history.

Unfortunately, South Dakota wasn't the only state where the self-indulgent madness of Libertarian jokesters interfered with the serious business of politics. In the Alabama governor's race, another virtual tie between Republicans and Democrats, the Libertarian nominee drew 23,242 lost souls (2 percent) to his campaign--more than seven times the margin between the two serious candidates. In Oregon's contest for governor, the gap between the Democrat and Republican stood at 33,437 votes (2.73 percent) in unofficial counts, while the Libertarian jester, Thomas B. Cox, drew 56,141 votes (almost 5 percent). Mr. Cox, by the way, listed among his spotty qualifications for the governorship his "five years on the Math Team in grades 8-12."

This might all be amusing were it not so irresponsible. Libertarians win no races of any significance anywhere in the United States. The Pathetic Party's press release acknowledged that they "emerged from Election 2002 with decidedly mixed results," boasting that "Bob Dempsey was re-elected as San Miguel County coroner" (in Colorado) and "in California, Eric Lund was elected to the Cordova Recreation and Park Board."

Despite such glittering triumphs, the party's national standing continues its relentless (and richly deserved) decline. The Libertarians reached their feeble high water mark more than 20 years ago, when Ed Clark won 1.06 percent of the vote in his race for the Presidency (against Ronald Reagan). More recently, Harry Browne scored less than half that percentage (0.5 percent) in 1996, and then fared even worse (0.37 percent) in 2000. The Libertarians claim they are influencing the debate, but how can you honestly believe you are succeeding in your cause when you win no important victories and your vote totals only decline?

Harry Clowne and other Losertarian ideologues insist that their ceaseless, useless campaigning will magically, miraculously push Republicans (and/or Democrats) in the direction of libertarian ideas, but this forlorn hope rests on shakier evidence than faith in the Tooth Fairy. It ought to be obvious that you can only change a major party by participating in it and joining its internal struggles, and that you can't influence a political organization by walking away from it. There is simply no historical evidence to support the idiotic cliché claiming that third parties influence the nation by forcing the major parties to adopt their ideas. Populists only managed to take over the Democratic Party when they dropped their independent campaigning and decided to hitch a ride on the donkey; Socialists remained a suspect fringe operation until they, too, made common cause with the Democrats during the crisis of the Great Depression.

The appalling record of Libertarian electoral rejection doesn't mean that libertarian ideas are worthless--in fact, those values and innovations significantly can enrich our political dialogue if promoted in the appropriate manner. Ron Paul a one-time Republican representative from Texas, Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988, got the right idea after his frustrating race (0.47 percent of the vote) when he re-joined the Republicans, ran for Congress, and won his seat back--playing a courageous and constructive role representing his Texas district.

The refusal by other Libertarians to follow this successful example represents a demented eccentricity that condemns them to life on the political fringe. Isn't it obvious that, in today's political world, an outsider candidate stands a better chance of capturing a major party nomination through the primary process, than building a third party movement from scratch to beat the two established parties? Obviously, challenging the establishment in a primary requires less money, and a smaller base of support, than building a new political apparatus to win a general election. Insurgents and outsiders win party primaries all the time--as Bill Simon proved in California, defeating the anointed gubernatorial candidate of the GOP establishment.

And even when they don't win, primary challengers often play a significant role. When Pat Buchanan ran for the Republican Presidential nomination (twice), he made some serious noise and exerted a powerful influence on his party; when, on the other hand, he abandoned the GOP and sought the White House as the nominee of the Reform Party he became a painful (and ultimately irrelevant) embarrassment. Libertarians who seek to advance their challenging agenda will meet with far greater success within the two party system than they have achieved in all their weary decades of wandering in the fringe faction wilderness.

Dante is generally credited with the statement that "the hottest circles in hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." In the wake of the recent elections, we should reserve some space in those inflammatory precincts for those who in time of moral crisis--and hand-to-hand political combat--cast meaningless votes for Losertarians.

—Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated, daily radio talk show focusing on the intersection of politics and pop culture. He is also a well-known film critic.

Libertarians always ignore the fact that they can be very effective as a Republican candidate.

Libertarians also ignore the fact that they can be appointed to office. Dubya appointed the libertarians Gayle Norton at Interior and James Ziglar at INS. These two have hired other libertarians. In the case of Norton, she hired bigwig libertarian Lynne Scarlet, aka "LINO".

Bush has also recently hired Allan Fitzsimmons to head up the "Healthy Forests Initiative". He is best known as a writer at Cato and also served both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

By appointing these libertarians, Bush has lost some support from other groups. The Property Rights people fear the libertarians at Interior. The anti- immigration groups hated Ziglar. After Fitzsimmons gets thru negotiating with the Sierra Club, ...............

There is a place in the Republican party for Libertarians.

Why are liberdopians glum in the wake of Republican victories on Novermber 5? The most recent issue of Human Events has a spread that gives some clues:

Issue, State, Result, % For/Against:

1. Marijuana, Arizona, Rejected, 43/57
2. Drug Rehab in lieu of jail, Ohio, Rejected, 33/67
3. Hemp as Legal Crop, SD, Rejected, 38/62
4. Ban smoking in public places, Florida, Approved, 71/29
5. Juror Nullification, SD, Rejected, 22/78
6. Legal Pot, Nevada, Rejected, 39/61.

Could someone please list for me all of the Loserdopian Party Candidates who have been elected to a national position in the Government?

Then why are you so threatened by them? You have control of the fed.gov now, why does an insignificant percentage of people frighten you so much?

I'll apologize first (to hopefully avoid being flamed), but as a Republican, I just don't see what danger the Libertarians pose to the Republicans, because Libertarians weren't responsible for the loss in SD, crossover Republicans were! And Libertarians DO generally put conservative issues as their priority. I say that we should welcome articulate and intelligent conservative voices to the debate, and earn their support with stellar conservative candidates. And just remember, when you complain about third parties: it cuts both ways. Nader Greens drew off enough votes in Florida from Gore to ensure Bush's victory. (Nader: God's answer for Ross Perot)

(Donning fire-proof suit now)

I like much of what the Libertarians have to say. Having said that, I think many if not most libertarians support the party because they want drugs and prostitution. If you support true Libertarian principles (right to bear arms, free speech, right to privacy NOT ABORTION, minimum regulation of the economy) join the RLC. Drugs and prostitution are not a real Libertarian's biggest issues. If all you want is drugs and prostitution, you are a LIBERALtarian. There is a difference.

There was a time (recently) when I was considering registering as a Libertarian, but from most of the posts I see from such ilk on FR, the Libertarian Party's main appeal (despite all the glowing rhetortic) is to people who want weed and prostitution legalized.

There was a time (recently) when I was considering registering as a Republican, but from most of the posts I see from such ilk on FR, the Republican Party's main appeal (despite all the glowing rhetortic) is to people who want to control the lives of others, increase government spending and silence those who disagree with them.

Kind of like Democrats.

4. Ban smoking in public places, Florida, Approved, 71/29

Funny, I thought smoking bans were the product of liberal weenies from places like California. And convervatives were concerned with the property rights of business owners. Looks like you've adopted yet another issue from liberals...

Once upon a time, Republicans were cigar smoking capitalists. Now, they're holding hands with sissified control freak liberals. The both of you make such a cute couple when you aren't bickering...

It's quite amusing to see some people around here completely dismiss and belittle both the voting percentages attributed to Libertarians and their stated political ends on one hand, and then simultaneously whine, snivel and pout about the very same Libertarians costing the Republicans an election.

Then the next one claims that they are all leftists and vote Dem. anyway, go figure.
Strict Constructionist myself, but I've voted exclusely R for 30+ years. It's clear they no longer have any respect for the document, I wash my hands of em

most of the posts I see from such ilk on FR, the Libertarian Party's main appeal (despite all the glowing rhetortic) is to people who want weed and prostitution legalized.

Then beenliedto wrote: Wrong. We want the war on drugs ended, and consensual sex between adults, regardless of the motivation, should not be the government's business.

Aren't you rather proving his point? I actually agree with you, but I bet that, as with me, those are not the two most important reasons you vote Libertarian.

You have control of the fed.gov now, why does an insignificant percentage of people frighten you so much?

It isn't fear. It's annoyance and disdain. Losertarian nincompoopery was responsible for giving the Senate to the Democrats in 2000. Losertarians are insignificant except in close races, where they invariably tip the advantage to the more liberal candidate.

They are annoying and small--like an angry pus-filled boil.

As soon as the

RINOtarians

quit speaking out of both sides of their mouths, then there will be no need for Libertarians. But face it, the best ideas of the Republican Party are Libertarian ideas. Low taxes, school vouchers, home schooling, self regulation, privitization of Social Security - those are really Libertarian ideas. And the "fixation" with the drug issue is because it is blatantly an overreach by the Federal government, and once you admit that unConstitutional remedies are okay for Conservatives, you have lost the moral ground to preach against the leftists for the same thing.

Losertarians are insignificant except in close races, where they invariably tip the advantage to the more liberal candidate.

I'd be inclined to vote straight Republican if I could be sure that they wouldn't sell out the second they got to Washington.

So far none have disappointed me in that respect.

"Then why are you so threatened by them? You have control of the fed.gov now, why does an insignificant percentage of people frighten you so much?"

Apparently you missed the question. I asked for a list of all of the Loserdopian Candidates that have been elected to National Office.

Seems like an easy question to me.

Anybody...

~Crickets chirping~

....hello! Is anyone here?

~Grin~

Most Libertarians... are cultural extreme Liberals, geopolitically naive, and marginally Rightist on economic and governing matters

I agree with you that most libertarians are culturally "liberals" and many (especially the large-"L" Libertarians, and those at LewRockwell) are geopolitically naive, but it's grossly innaccurate to say that libertarians are "marginally Rightist on economic and governing matters." Libertarians do really believe in getting rid of 80% to 90% of government.

I, like I think most libertarians, believe that the only important functions of the federal government are maintaining the military and the criminal justice system (and a smaller criminal justice system at that, that leaves most such work to the states). Those 2 functions should amount to maybe 98% of federal expenditures and employees.

Libertarians do disagree on whether the current armed forces are of a suitable size (as I do), or whether we should become more isolationist and cut the armed forces as well. That question makes the difference between cutting total federal expenditures by about 75%-80%, or by 90%-95%.

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.