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.
They did not impress me either. The Libertarian leadership is largely out of touch with many libertarians. They are very ideological while many perhaps most of us are more pragmatic.
Personally, I wouldn't care if Howard Phillips or Harry Browne never won an election if certain parts of those parties agendas were implemented. And they will be.
I think it is a mistake to limit influencial power to only those in office. Considering how many Democratic positions that W embraced, I think it would be obvious that a party need not attain the high office or even majority status to make major gains.
Would yo care to explain to us your views of what is the government's role in one's private sex life? Or in one's consumption of intoxicants or medications on their own property?
Care to show those delegated powers to me in the Constitution?
Are you one of those who only tolerates those acts of which you approve? If you do not smoke cigarettes, do you thnk that thegovernment should ban or control them? How about alcohol? Gambling? Prostitution? Overeating?
Note: Here is the required caveat where I must, once again, state that although I enjoy alcohlic beverages and cigars, I do not smoke dope, drop pills, snort coke, etc. and I do not advocate abuse of ANY substance, presently legal or not.
Damn, dude, that statement should have a C&C* warning.
Coffee & Cats (i.e. swallow the former, and shoo the latter off your lap, before reading)
Will passing around a doobie while we watch pornography, waiting in turn for the next available prostitute do?
With Government comes power over citizens lives. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we give absolute power to our Government it will be just as corrupt as Soviet Russia was.
Are you saying that this country began as an anarchy?
Sounds like a healthy diet. You think there is enough game, nuts, and berries, for all of us to live like that?
I guess without electricity we would have to.
Of course, to some, freedom means that the government controls what you, as an adult, can eat, drink, smoke, read, or with whom you make love.
What kills me is how the irony is lost on so many on this forum.
Either the jobs are proper functions of government (in which case the government should be doing them itself), or they are not (in which case it contracting them out is simply putting the pea under a different shell).
LOL... don't you hate it when you have to wait?
kidding..just kidding
Then San Francisco would be the perfect representation of what a libertarian country would look like.
Homosexual brothels, rampant street drugs, huge numbers of immigrants (many illegal), huge numbers of homeless people, urine-drenched streets, environmental worship, etc.
Is that really what you want?
I doubt it. But then the deer herd in my daughter's backyard in New Jersey is up to 12 and there's only one of her....
I suspect that this crap would gravitate toward its own just like it does now. I have no reason to believe that you would begin these practices, why do you seem to think that Americans all across the country would?
Homosexual brothels, rampant street drugs, huge numbers of immigrants (many illegal), huge numbers of homeless people, urine-drenched streets, environmental worship, etc.
All these currently exist under two party rule, or hadn't you noticed. You have addicts now, even with the WoD. You have homeless vagrants partly due to welfare. You have general decay due to the lack of respect for property rights (enforcing private property rights is a valid use of government force.) Prostitution as a contract between two consenting adults should not have goverment interference. And it is not the goverment's place to tell people how or what they can worship, whether it is a tree or a stone statue of a mother and child.
Obligatory caveat: I do not advocate any of the above activities, yada yada yada.
why do third parties run candidates for positions they KNOW they can't win?
Answer: No good reason.
It isn't to make a statement. How many people on the street know who Howard Phillips is? I can't remember who ran on the Libertarian ticket. The only presidental third party candidates that people might remember would be Ralph Nader, Pat Buchannan, and Ross Perot.
Buchannan didn't do much except fool some stupid voters in Florida (which any candidate in that ballot position could do). Ralph Nader helped cause the defeat of Al Gore by taking the envirowacko vote. Perot is known for taking enough votes from Bush in 1992 to put in power our hero bILL cLINTON.
The bottom line is if your going to run for office as a candidate for the Constitutional, Reform, Libertarian, other less government third parties, don't run against a republican. Even if he is a rino, he can give the majority to the many in the party that are not. Don't shoot the "less government movement" in the foot. There's several positions from state to federal level that you can find an unoppossed Dem to harrass. You might cost them a little money, and if you win, you can join the conservative repubs that you helped get elected in cutting down government. Also, if you can, try to run for a position that you can win. Lets say that Howard Phillips had enough money to run for US Congress and there wasn't a republican in his district already. Instead of blowing it on a useless presidential race, he could have given a demoncrat a run for his money! If he wins, he would decrease the "D" power in congress and be in a position to make and vote on legistlation. In addition, he would gain more popularity for himself and his party regardless of win/lose!
On the flip side, we should encourage the greens to run! They can take away enviromental/other wacko votes away from the party that can do the most damage to this nation, the socialist in disguise Dems. I hope to see Nader in 2004!
If you hear of some saying their sick of the Dem party, try to have them switch sides, but if you can't, have them join a third party, even the greens.
Whatever disagreements Repubs, Constitutionalist, Reform, Libertarian, etc. have with each other; is not worth letting the Dems win!
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.