Posted on 11/14/2002 10:23:51 AM PST by arual
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.
And wanting to smoke some "medical marijane" to heal it no doubt.
Actually thats all you care about. Most Libertarians have a wide range of interests.
I suppose if you look hard enough you can find a libertarian who only cares about dope and porn as well. You two can be happy arguing together. For the rest of us your spiel is pretty tiresome.
I thought for a long time before I switched from the Republican to the Libertarian party. I, first and foremost, am a Conservative. Therefore, for the majority of my life, I voted mainly Republican. (Being from Tennessee, there was occassionally a conservative Democrat in some local election that received my vote, but I digress)When I realized that the Republicans were beginning to endorse "Big Government" ideas, I had to reevaluate my voting habits. I did not leave the Republicans. They left me. You are right when you say that the Republican party doesn't represent 100% of what I believe. Neither does the Libertarian Party. However, when the Republican Party abandons the essence of my philosophical political belief, that of a smaller, less intrusive, Constitutional government, how can I vote for them? I would like to vote for a party that has true political power and influence, but I refuse to lend my support to that party if it uses that power and influence in ways that I am diametrically (sp) opposed. When the Republican Party returns to its senses and becomes the Conservative party, the smaller government party again, I will once again support the Republican Party. In cases where the only choice between a Dem and a Rep, I will vote for the Republican, but in the instances when I have the oppurtunity to make my voice known that I am someone, granted one of the few it seems, that wishes for a Constitutional government, I will take that opportunity every time. If you see that as wasting my vote, so be it. To me, it is the most wonderful expression of a free republic that I could imagine.
You won't find a more staunch support of the 2A on this forum than I.
You will only find a handfull who hate the IRS and income tax more than I.
You won't find many who support individual freedoms more than I.
You won't find many who will more vigorously support YOUR right to live as you want to as long as you harm no one else.
You won't find many harsher critics of Big Government and federal socialism than I.
I am a libertarian. And you have stated that we have NOTHING in common. Interesting that you would admit that.
This is the way you thank Libertarians for voting Republican? hmmm....... why was it I voted Republican this election? The reasons don't seem so important anymore. Jerks like you make me wonder if Republicans are better than Democrats after all?
It is about wanting less government. Less regulation.
Get a clue. There are limits to the power of the majority called individual rights. Those limits have been long and vastly overstepped, komrade.
As far as I know, Ron Paul is the only one, and he ran as a Republican but still espouses libertarian ideals.
Other than that, probably none, and that was my point.
You pubbies have a majority in the House and Senate, and a Republican President, but you're still bitching about what you call an insignificant minor player in the political arena.
You have the power to actually make good on your promises of smaller government and more freedom and liberty. Repeal unconstitutional gun legislation. Seal the borders. Privatize Social Security. Scrap the IRS. Show me all of the wonderful things the Party will accomplish.
I don't honestly believe that you will do any of those things, since the only motivation for those in power is to remain there.
Republican, Democrat, it doesn't really matter.
Then of course there's this. Homeland Insecurity: Deconstructing the Constitution
I guess this is something to take pride in.
Everyone understands this, but why is this OK for Republicans and not ok for L/libertarians who may differ from some planks on the platform?
The Libertarian party advocates open borders. Most of us do not, especially in light of 9-11.
However, the Republican President actually practices open borders! Not a word from the R's except Tancredo.
The RLC has been around since the '80's. I peronally know some of the founding converts. I have seen ZERO effect from their efforts on Republican policy or issues. You can argue that Ron Paul is more meaningful as an R than as an L, but a caucus of one isn't exactly a majority either.
Libertarians don't have to "hold their nose" when they vote, as one R poster recently said.
"You jerk!
How dare you ask how many Libertarians have been elected to national office. Like that has anything to do with life. Libertarians alone wear the mantle of truth and freedom.
So what if we havent been elected to any office of consequence. That doesnt mean anything! Inside of every American is a Libertarian dying to get out. Walk towards the light! The light I say!"
Ugh.
~Grin~
How does someone paying someone else for sex violate your civil rights? Exactly! It doesn't!
I hope you aren't married or date.
So....how much are you paying for sex these days? Is it a set price for certain activities or does it depend upon the quality of the merchandise?
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.