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.
There can be only one proper solution to this problem: since the libertarians aren't going to exercise their right to vote in the way that Republicans want them to, then the Republicans should immediately set about passing laws that will see to it that libertarian voters be denied that right to vote altogether.
Right?
And God Bless America.
Here in Colorado the last Libertarian Senate candidate endorsed Allard, his former opponent, knowing how close the race was predicted to be.
We did indeed. But we did not form a govenment that is anything like the one that is in place today.
I admitted that. You are missing the point.
Why are you so threatened by the idea of someone voting for a libertarian and blaming them when one of your guys loses.
After all, doesn't the LP hold it's conventions in a phone booth somewhere? I read that here, so it must be true.
I agree, 100 percent. There's no such thing as a "wasted" vote, and to blame another party for "stealing" said votes is the act of a whiner.
I know about your obsession with all things narcotic, why the cheering over this?
As my point has been made earlier....Loserdopians apparently cant win any. Hahaha
I am fed up with you calling me and others with whom you disagree homos, sodomists, porn mongers, pedaphiles, witches, warlocks, (remember how your thread on that got pulled?), socialists, drug abusers, and drug pushers.
Kevin,
From where you stand you have concluded that we all must work through the GOP to get limited government and anything outside of that is not realistic. Others have concluded that these goals are not obtainable through the GOP and that it is you who is unrealistic. Without getting too caught up in the specifics of limited government I think we can all agree that our goal is not in the near future. From your perspective the GOP is moving in that direction. From where others stand they see something quite opposite. What we have here is too differing world views. Neither view of working from within or without the GOP is unrealistic as either could be achieved, theoretically. That said we should consider what is the probability of success for each. In the context of the period for the rest of our lifetimes I would say 100% chance of failure either way under present conditions. Conditions are fluid however but the probability of change to more favorable conditions for either route are not good and trends indicate our chances of success will only continue to diminish. Instead of calling names why don't you just wish others well in their endeavors and enjoy the road to surfdom.
cordailly,
The remainder of your plate holds goals common to most conservative Republicans. I agree with them. Yet you are a libertarian and I am a fairly typical conservative Republican. How, then, do we differ? What items are exclusively on your plate that serve to distinguish us? Dope, porn, sodomy, and prostitution . . . maybe gambling. That's about it.
We also differ in that I have realistic and practical understanding of how difficult it will be to implement the conservative agenda. I tend to remember that most of my fellow American citizens are not quite ready--nor is the nation able--to dismantle overnight the mammoth welfare state that the liberal democrats had 60 years to design and build. I am willing to work for incremental change in the short term. I actually work at making a difference. I sure don't waste my vote.
In other words, there's no point for Mr. Medved to be whining about the difference between not getting 3,000 libertarian votes or not getting 27,000 Republican votes.
Medved's unhappy because he perceives that the libertarians and the Republicans ought to be on the same side. What he fails to perceive is that to the libertarians, both the Republicans and the Democrats are seen as being just two slightly different flavors of the Socialist party.
When the Republicans stop being Socialists is when the libertarians will come back to being "on their side".
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.