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.
Government is a necessary evil. As such libertarians would like it to be as small as possible while still fulfilling it constitutionally mandated functions.
No libertarians are against all government. People who are would be called anarchists. There is a big difference.
Point taken, although I do remember Harry Browne's pronouncements in opposition to attacking the Taliban, which did not impress me. But I entirely agree that (for example) giving billions of dollars in aid to both Israel and its enemies is immensely stupid.
Well said.
The anarchists start with the same assumption and run in the opposite direction. personally, I think a Constitutional Republic trumps both of the other views...
It would seem that if one is indifferent whether or not someone else partakes, then one would not be "pro" that activity.
I, too, prefer not to mind my neighbor's private affairs. That hardly makes me "pro" dope/sodomy/pornography/presbyterian.
I am highly in favor of the law of gravity however. Some laws are just meant to be obeyed, and if it takes federal intervention to make us all obey it, too bad. It's for the children, you know.
You do a very good impression of one though. Perhaps you should take it up? I am sure your fellow pot heads would enjoy your witty since of humor.
Republicans rarely do. They are often in favor of a more intrusive government than the Dem's.
They talk about smaller govenment, but they don't drive the mule there. Given the reins, they go the opposite way.
Gimme the wackiest political party there is - it's got views, positions, stands that are better than the milquetoast persona of Trent Lott and this week's newly milquetoast persona of that Pelosi woman.
To quote our illustrious hero Orrin Hatch: "My great friend Ted Kennedy!" 'Nuff said!
If it requires third party voices to make the Republicans remember that they claim to be the small government, lower tax, pro- individual party and they then act accordingly, that, too, is a victory.
Can you point to an instance where this has happened? Usually one of two things happen.
1) The Republican wins and therefore the "voice" of the Libertarian campaign is muted.
2) The Republican loses and the "voice" of the Libertarian campaign is seen as harmful.
Unfair as it may be, you don't view your opponents as allies under most circumstances. The Libertarian party has certain goals. The most effective way to reach those goals is to gain the power (i.e. get elected) and progress towards those goals. Unfortunately, 95% of Americans are opposed to large portions of those goals. So, the most effective way is closed off. The next most effective way is to support a candidate who can win an election and progress at least partly on at least some of your goals. But that's not understood.
Candidate A is 100% right in his views and can pull 5% of the vote.
Candidate B is 60% right in his views and can pull 47% of the vote.
Candidate C is right in 5% of his views and can pull 48% of the vote.
Now, will it be more efficient to try and get an extra 4% of the electorate to vote for Candidate B and get progress on 60% of what you wish, or is it more efficient to try and get 46% of the electorate to vote for Candidate A and get 100% of what you wish?
Doesn't matter, does it, because either 60% or 5%, it doesn't reach the magic number of 100%.
"Purity over Progress"
I think there's a song by that title. It was a big hit for Robert Goulet.
Like I said, drugs and sex are what you're primarily about.
Noble? High-minded? Self-effacing? Lofty? No.
Selfish? Narrow-minded? Childish? Yes.
IMO, the reluctance to attack Iraq stems from a couple of points: first, Congress should declare war. They know how, they can do it if they want to. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes to me. Even a strongly worded resolution retains ambiguity and escape clauses for politicians. A massive attack is an act of war, therefor Congress should declare war. Our troops deserve undivided, unambiguous support.
Second, Iraq is still a soveriegn country. Like it or not, we must respect that. If the President cannot convince Congress to properly declare war, even with all the intelligence he says he has and can share with those who have the "need to know", then is heon the right track, or is it personal? The Constitution gives the power to congress for just this reason, to prevent the president from making war all over the world at his whims.
George Washington warned of foreign entanglements. We have gotten ourselves in trouble by forgetting his advice.
What do you do when you get hungry? Run down to the Jiffy Mart?
Me?
If so, I don't intend to.
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.