Meet the Losertarians!

The American Enterprise ^ | November 14, 2002 | Michael Medved

[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.

[tnlibertarian]

The fact is that the rate of federal spending has increased in the 2001-2002 period.

Oh Wait, didn't SOMETHING happen on Sept. 11, 2001?

CLUE: The U.S. is at war.

How does the U.S at war explain the Farm Bill, or the increase to the department of education, giving ole Ted everything he wanted on that? What department had their funding actually decreased? And that doesn't count the upcoming prescription drug "benefit"

[The Other Harry]

Libertarians don't have to "hold their nose" when they vote

Exactly!

[VaBthang4]

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

Ron Paul ran and won [I know that last part doesnt matter to you guys] and still is a Republican not as a Libertarian Candidate.

So your answer should simply say..."None".

[jimt]

Seems like an easy question to me.

Anybody...

~Crickets chirping~

....hello! Is anyone here?

~Grin~

It's a longer list than the number of national, state and local budgets cut (and repressive laws eliminated) by Republicans, bubba. Grab a clue. Negative numbers are smaller than zero.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

But without his leadership, there would be no United States of America. The Union was falling apart over slavery and other economic and geographic divisions- secession was going to happen; the only question was whether there would be a national leader strong enough and determined enough to prevent the country from falling apart (and being basically re-colonized by the Europeans).

Sounds like you are a devotee of Joe Sobran and Charlie Reese on this one- I'm not.

[VaBthang4]

"Libertarians don't have to "hold their nose" when they vote"

No...but they can only vote with one hand...because the other one is...

Masterbatory voting.

All that work and accomplishes nothing.

[Eagle Eye]

Most Libertarians are 1960s hippies who discovered that they still love dope and free sex, but don't like paying taxes. Or, if younger, you have been indoctrinated into these patterns by the hippies. Most of you are cultural extreme Liberals, geopolitically naive, and marginally Rightist on economic and governing matters. That makes you overall Leftists in my book.

LOL!

You'd be shocked to find that in some parts of the country libertarians are frequenlty clean cut Gen X, Y and boomer military veterans who have kids in school, attend mainstream churches, are employed, LOVE firearms, and do not smoke dope at all.

Another common thread among these people is the disillusionment with the status quo of the Republican party that talks the talk, but fails to walk the walk.

Your ignorant stereotype only covers the dopeheads who only know one issue and join up under the mistaken notion of what libertarian philosphy is all about.

If you wish to discuss/debate issues, fine, if you cannot get past labels and namecalling, don't bother me.

[Howlin]

Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:00AM EST

Libertarian spoilers

After a week of reflection, I have come to a decision. I do not feel the Libertarian Party is the best way for libertarians to advance their cause. The party itself will not actively support its candidates, financially or with volunteers. A Libertarian candidate is looked upon as a "success" if they can get 3 percent of the vote or if they can spoil an election.

A perfect example of this is the District 16 state Senate race, where the Libertarian candidate had more votes than the difference between Democrat Eric Reeves and Republican Paul Coble. I ask the Libertarians, why is this a good thing? Coble's views are a lot closer to a libertarian's than Reeves' are. How can you look at this as a victory? How does this in any way advance your ideas?

It is for this reason I have come to the decision to leave the Libertarian Party.

It is also very disheartening as a candidate who answered all surveys and put a picture in the paper to see fellow candidates refusing to do that. It makes the entire party look bad, and takes away from the validity of those candidates who tried to run competitive races. If you're not serious, don't run. If the party isn't serious about helping candidates, don't encourage them to run.

If this continues, I fail to see how the Libertarian Party can recruit candidates who want to win. Libertarians do offer new and progressive ideas to the political debate, but the party itself needs to learn a few lessons in how to support those candidates who go out and try to win.

Ken Nelson

Holly Springs

[The Other Harry]

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?

To me, libertarianism is not about being in favor of any specific freedom. It is about being opposed to government in general. It is where this country started.

[monday]

huh?

I suppose you are trying to be clever? You need practice if that is the case.

BTW, its considered bad form to misquote someone. I guess no harm done since your post is almost incomprehensible anyway.

[The Other Harry]

Masterbatory voting.

Leaving how to spell would be good -- but then you might become a Libertarian.

[VaBthang4]

Yet somehow you managed a witty retort. ~Grin~

[Kevin Curry]

You'd be shocked to find that in some parts of the country libertarians . . . do not smoke dope at all.

The ones that don't, suffer horrible psychic agony over being denied easy and lawful access to something they have never indulged in and have no intention of indulging in.

They feel the same way about sodomy and pornography. Not that they actually indulge, you understand, but they cannot sleep at night knowing that if the wanted to indulge, there are laws on the books that might make their lives unpleasant if they did.

[Catspaw]

It is about being opposed to government in general. It is where this country started.

Isn't this a bit revisionist? We were rebelling against British rule, but as soon as we gained our freedom from the Brits, we formed our own government.

[VaBthang4]

"Leaving"

LOL

[xrp]

Some of the things on my plate include:

Smaller government, something the Republicans have not accomplished nor really push for.
Elimination of the federal Dept of Education, something the Republicans have not accomplished nor really push for.
Elimination of Social Security, something the Republicans have not accomplished nor really push for.
Elimination of Medicare, something the Republicans have not accomplished nor really push for.
Elimination of moral legislation, something the Republicans have not accomplished nor really push for.
Elimination of the income tax, something the Republicans have not accomplished nor really push for.

Since the Republicans have not accomplished nor really pushed hard for these things on my personal agenda (and BTW, I am morally opposed to abortion[aka murder], prostitution and drugs, I just dont care if someone else does the latter 2) I have decided to stop throwing away my vote by solely voting Republican.

Blow on that duck call, boy.

[The Other Harry]

I kinda screwed that one up, didn't I?

Oh well. Can't win 'em all.

[John Lenin]

It doesn't matter, you go about it in a losing way. It's great to be anti-anti but if you can never get a majority behind you ,you are just wasting your time.

[xrp]

Uhm...I believe Jim Jeffords' lameness gave the Senate to the Democrats in 2001 (not 2000). Maybe you should check your own RINOs before trying to put the blame on others. BTW...how's McCain doing?

[Catspaw]

You have a moral objection against abortion, but you don't want any laws regulating abortion--is that correct?