We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose!
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.
Case in point. Democrats in '68 and '72. They didn't have anything to show for being hijacked by the far-Left for years. But they do now.
And now after the '02 elections, they will move even farther to the Left. I would think that every American who truly doesn't want any more of a Leftist slide in the nation would band together so that this Leftist strain, which is severely weakened, can be knocked out indefinitely.
It begs the question as to why this is not the case. Ideology is fine, but it doesn't pay the bills.
As a Libertarian who voted Republican, just what reality would you like me to wake up to? That Republicans like you and Mr. Medved are rude and clueless?
But had he used his veto, wouldn't the libertarian majority in Congress just overridden it?
I didnt miss the point you wanted to make. I simply refused to read the rest of your post unless you could give an answer without attempting to attach some misleading face saving addendum.
No Libertarian candidate has won a national office by being elected by the citizens of any state....ever.
We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose! We're gonna lose!
I asked how many Dopians have been elected to National Office.
I know that doesnt matter to you goofballs.
It is the elephant in every Loserdopian thread. ~Grin~
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.
Here we go again! Okay, I'll leave out some of the big words so none of the RINO's fall any further behind...
Rank and file Libertarians don't give a rats ass about porn or pot. Most Libertarians REALLY don't partake in either and, if allowed to somehow magically re-order the universe, would likely omit those two things when putting it all back together. We don't support anyone using pot or bedding-down with a hooker. Most Libertarians want no part of that. But something we want even less of is what the RINO's are willing to put you, me, and everyone else in the country through to try (and fail) to control those things and activities.
This damn "war" on drugs has resulted armed thugs with badges have the "right" to scream "Police, Search Warrant!!!" two seconds before breaking down someone's front door because some informant swears that there is a pot ring being run in said house. Never mind that in a lot of the cases the informant is lying, or that innocent people have their homes turned upside down while an automatic weapon is leveled at their heads...we have a "war" on drugs to fight!
Guess what happens if you actually save enough money to go a pay cash for a new car. The IRS will likely put you through an audit because your bank and the car dealer had to let the IRS know that you made a transaction that was $10,000 or more. Oh, by the way...with that agency you are guilty until you can prove otherwise.
Libertarians are not "Pro-Pot" or "Pro-hooker." We are against what you're willing to put all of us through to get rid of pot and hookers.
Actually no. I agree with all of those positions.
But hey, we made our point!
Wasting time? Hardly. Sometimes it just takes a while.
Interesting how some prime issues of the Libertarian party such as privatising Social Security, abolishing the IRS and income tax, and ending the WoD are starting to rise to the surface.
As far as being "anti-anti", the truth is that most libertarians on this forum usually promote small government, constitutional rule, and other positive ideals and usually offer alternatives to the ideas that they criticize. Those most ardently opposing libertarians, on the contrary, rarely do.
Ah, that's your problem, then: a wildly inaccurate memory. Perhaps you might do better if you remembered the Republican involvement in the past in cooperating with the Democrats to build up the leviathan gov't we now have. Perhaps you're too distracted by their ideas about a Presciption Drug Entitlement.
I am willing to work for incremental change in the short term.
Incremental change in the short term? Really? Perhaps you'd be interested in my Perpetual-Motion Brick. It was a gift from an inhibited porn star who created it last week, just over a century ago.
I actually work at making a difference. I sure don't waste my vote.
I see absolutley zero evidence of this
Well, for starters.... how about this reality that Michael Medved makes abundantly clear. I respect a lot of the small government positions of the "so called" libertarian philosophy. But when they cost this country a senate seat at a crucial time in history, that ticks me off. Especially as a Coleman supporter in Minnesota who fought like heck to get our guy squeaking in, I know what those poor Thune supporters must feel like in SD....
If 528 losertarians had done the responsible thing like you did, America would be in better shape right now....
Of course Republicans cheered on the Naderites, you dunderhead, because we know they draw from the left-wing of the Democrat party!!! That's why we despise the bong-boy party...because some addled conservatives mistake it for a limited governemnt party and cause the GOP to lose critical elections.
That's not hypocrisy...that's CONSISTENCY!!!!
You people defy all reason.
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.