Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Meet the Losertarians!
The American Enterprise ^ | November 14, 2002 | Michael Medved

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS: johnthune; kurtevans; liberdopians; libertarian; libertarians; losers; medved; medvedshow; montereyjackboots; politics; thirdparties; timjohnson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-345 next last
To: arual
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 wants to send us to Hell for exercising our right to vote our conscience!

21 posted on 11/14/2002 10:39:02 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arual
I'm not a libertarian, but if the Republican Candidates would adopt some of the libertarian's issues such as violently slashing taxes, eliminating the Department of Education, and taking a literal translation of the Constitution, maybe they'd get those libertarian ballots.  Maybe the ballots of a lot of apathetic Republicans too.

Owl_Eagle

" WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH"


22 posted on 11/14/2002 10:39:04 AM PST by End Times Sentinel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arual
Over at DU they vilify the Green Party in exactly the same way - their platform is silly, they're stealing votes from our candidates...

Here in Massachusetts the two other parties widened the debate in the governor's race and the Libertarian party nearly got their ballot question passed. The two candidates (and a third Independent) addressed several issues the two mainstream candidates didn't want to talk about. Both candidates were serious people, there wasn't anything "silly" about them running.
23 posted on 11/14/2002 10:39:20 AM PST by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arual
"America's Libertarian Party services only one purpose: Distracting and confusing the determined combatants in all our critical national struggles."

The first sentence is so stupid, whay read anymore?

24 posted on 11/14/2002 10:39:34 AM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Paging Willie Green... Paging Willie Green...

Owl_Eagle

" WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH"


25 posted on 11/14/2002 10:40:35 AM PST by End Times Sentinel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Ok, so how does someone smoking a joint in their house violate your civil rights? Exactly! It doesn't!

How does someone paying someone else for sex violate your civil rights? Exactly! It doesn't!

By wanting that outlawed, YOU are enforcing YOUR morals upon me, using the lethal force of the Imperial Federal Government.

BTW, marriage and dating are two forms of prostitution just by different names.
26 posted on 11/14/2002 10:40:58 AM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: arual
Why not just pony up and say that the republican candidate lost because the democratic candidate got more votes? I get tired of hearing that libertarians cost elections. If by some miracle the entire republican voter base was motivated and had 100% turnout, and the republican candidate still lost, then, and only then could the blame even possible fall on libertarians. And even though, i was under teh assumption that we live in a democracy where i can vote for whoever i want. Im sorry that i dont agree 100% with the republican party. Maybe if the Republicans had motivated 600 more registered republican voters to go out and vote, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Let the derrogatory "drug induced militia lovers" comments begin. Not all libertarians are wackos, i for one consider myself to be libertarian largely because i feel that the war on drugs has failed and the money spent could be put to better use and because i feel that social welfare is unconstitutional. To those who would bash libertarians, if we are supposedly so insignificant, why does it upset you so if we vote for a libertarian candidate?
27 posted on 11/14/2002 10:41:47 AM PST by WashingtonCollegeofLaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
libertarian trolls.

on the fr---wow!
28 posted on 11/14/2002 10:42:01 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MRAR15Guy56
Why this arrogant baseline assumption that Libertarian candidates 'steal' votes from the GOP?? Presumptive idiocy.

I remember when the Republicans and their followers were cheering on Nader because he was drawing votes away from Gore.

Utter, rank hypocrisy....for Republicans to somehow get angry at voters for not voting for THEIR entitled candidate of choice makes them no better than the DemocRats.

29 posted on 11/14/2002 10:42:17 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rye; All
That and this "CONSERVATIVE" board is full of libertarian posters. Listen I switched from the Democratic party to the Green party after the Democrats failure to appeal to my extreme leftist position and I told all my Democratic friends to do the same and sent them the link to the Green party website. I suggest all of you other discouraged Democrats do the same with your friends. In 2004 lets stand on PRINCIPLE not common sense!

Don't flame me if you don't understand the humor in what I've written. Just accept it as humor and move on.

30 posted on 11/14/2002 10:42:20 AM PST by Naspino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: arual
Someone will invariably post a comment that voting Libertarian is simply voting one's conscience...as if one's conscience requires them to throw away their votes, which is what voting Libertarian results in.

In the Libertarian mindset, there is no room for pragmaticism. I doubt the Republican Party represents 100% of what anyone wants it to represent -- everyone is going to have an issue with something in the Republican Party. But the issue is this: Practically speaking, there are only two viable parties in this country. If you don't want Democrats elected, one needs to vote Republican.

If I agree with Republicans more often than not, I'm satisfied, because I agree with the Democrats about 0% of the time, and even if I could swallow what the Democrats were serving, they are such a corrupt and bankrupt political institution, they should be opposed for that reason alone. "Voting one's conscience" without acknowledging the consequences that failure to vote for the only real alternative to the Democrats isn't noble -- it's irresponsible.

31 posted on 11/14/2002 10:42:21 AM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Most Repressivecans barely understand what guidelines that set out for a MUCH smaller and less powerful central federal government

Give me a call when Libertarians win anything but a token seat here or there. Your base is made up mostly of drug addicts and wackos.
32 posted on 11/14/2002 10:42:34 AM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
Bump (to read when my life returns to normal). I love Michael Medved...most of the time.
33 posted on 11/14/2002 10:42:52 AM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: arual
This kind of article always makes me shake my head. The funny thing that people like Medved don't realize is that perhaps 75% of Libertarians hold their noses and vote Republican nearly every election.

Even though we see little difference in the tax and spend authoritarian impulses of the Republicans or the Democrats, we usually will vote for the lesser of two evils so as not to waste our vote. Guys like Medved make us wonder why we bother.

34 posted on 11/14/2002 10:43:37 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers
Your points are well-taken. But I would say that Jesse Ventura's success in Minnesota was due more to the fact he was Jesse Ventura than to the fact he was the Reform Party candidate. John Doe, running as a Reform candidate, would have gotten nowhere.
35 posted on 11/14/2002 10:43:58 AM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xrp
It's just such a damn shame that the Repressivecans message didn't appeal to the 3000 some voters in South Dakota. Maybe if it had, they would have voted for the Repressivecan candidate :)

By appealing to those 3,000 voters, they would have alienated 30,000 voters. Libertarians cannot, will not, are incapable of accepting the fact that the vast, vast majority of the populous do not agree with them. So instead of making progress towards their principles where and when they can, they prefer to have "purity" in their principle and vote for candidates that cannot progress their principles. "Purity before Progress"

36 posted on 11/14/2002 10:44:02 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rye
Possibly because Libertarians take a consistent small gov't position and the GOP claims to be the party of small gov't.

If the Republicans had cut the rate of federal government growth, maybe the Libertarians and/or a few more conservatives would have voted for Thune. The fact is that the rate of federal spending has increased in the 2001-2002 period. If the Republicans would defund the Left, at least 100 billion could be cut from the budget.

37 posted on 11/14/2002 10:44:19 AM PST by markfiveFF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Congrats on your new medications. You seem a bit more lucid today.
38 posted on 11/14/2002 10:44:37 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Who represses more? The Rightists or the Leftists? You want to go back to Hitlery and Bubba? That's why you and your ilk are losers. 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.
39 posted on 11/14/2002 10:46:58 AM PST by GOP_1900AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: arual

40 posted on 11/14/2002 10:47:32 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-345 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson