Meet the Losertarians!

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.

"Whoops. I forgot. I'm not a pot-head."

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.

Thanks for the invitation, but I think I'll pass. I'm sure you've got the best, though.

Aren't you rather proving his point?

No, the slant is incorrect. The point to me about drugs is that the war on drugs is completly counter-productive, and it is not the federal government's responsibility in the first place. I mean, what the hell is the government's right to prohibit me from ingesting something that occurs in nature?

Same with prostitution. Not seeking to leagalize it as much as saying that the government has no role in deciding about sex between consenting adults.

These guys are all about attempting to impose their values on others. They're very small and unthinking.

"and if you win, you can join the conservative repubs that you helped get elected in cutting down government. "

When does the cutting down government part start? I have been holding my breath, (You know the Republican promises), but if something doesn't happen soon I am going to pass out.

In Alabama the LP got $100,000 from the Dems during the election. Right now, the Libertarian loser is calling for an extra-legal recount so that the Democrats will have another chance to steal the election.

Your hedonistic philosophy gets all gummed up when you try to establish a basis for authority or morality. The current crop of shallow FR LP types cannot get past the "anal" phase of "what does it matter if it doesn't hurt anyone?"

Where's your data, man? Or are ad hominems all you've got?

And why the zeal to attack the Libertarians all of a sudden? Is it because we're not properly goose-stepping to "Republikans Uber Alles"?

It's telling that the libertarian highwater mark in a presidential election was 1.06% against Ronald Reagan. If Reagan wasn't attractive enough and anti-government enough for these people, there's no way they'd be voting Republican on a regular basis.

Someone should do a study, though, to see how many would seep back and vote Republican if a libertarian didn't run. My entirely random and uninformed guess is maybe 30%. Some might even back the Democrat.

No, delusions of grandeur here....but the LP will continue to make the difference (and agitate Mr. Medved and his ilk) in many close races as long as the GOP creates an opening for them by pursuing me too policies.

Here in Massachusetts the two other parties widened the debate in the governor's race

Whatever that means. At least you're not claiming the Libertarian actually had a chance to win, like some of the looney Libertarians like to claim.

More libertarian successes will probably come about through "Fabian tactics," that is by convincing public officials outside the party of the wisdom, practicality, and necessity of their ideas than by the actions of the LP. A generation ago small "l" libertarians had great successes influencing members of both parties to get rid of price regulation in transport and to lower federal tax rates. When such victories can be won, the result is far better than the endless chatter about the libertarian's maximalist program, which will never be achieved.

LOL!

IOW, libertarians will continue to elect liberal democrats.

That'll show us conservative Republicans. That'll win our hearts to your whacky point-of-view.

With the liberals, at least you can look forward to the decriminalization of dope (and the rise of the nanny government rehab state).

But that's probably been your goal all along.

the LP will continue to make the difference (and agitate Mr. Medved and his ilk) in many close races as long as the GOP creates an opening for them by pursuing me too policies.

As near as I can tell, the core Libertarian voters seem to regard anything less than adopting the entire wacked out Libertarian agenda as "me too policies". If a Republican candidate was to do so, he'd lose far more votes than the tiny number of Libertarians he'd pick up. Any Republican would have to be as retarded as the core Libertarian voters to start crafting his positions to attract the core Liberatarian voters.

I am merely describing the political realities. If the GOP adopts a me too policy, it will lose votes to the LP. If it embraces smaller government, it will deflate the LP vote totals. If you it makes you feel superior to stand on a soapbox and beat your chest against those evil libertarians, be my guest...but that doesn't change the political realities.

Well...then what are you complaining about? If all LP voters are wacked out anyway, why do you care whether those whacky libertarians exercise their right to run such wacky candidates.

The awful truth is that many LP voters are not wacky (even Medved concedes this). These voters will vote GOP if the Republican party remains true to conservatism. If it doesn't, LP vote totals will be higher. Like it or not, the "hard-core" LP will continue to run candidates whether you like or not. Whether they get votes or not, is entirely up to conservatives.

Sorry to let you in on a secret. Conservatives have no power to control whether the LP runs candidates. Just maybe, however, they can take action to deflate LP vote totals. The only way to do this, however, is to put pressure on the Republicans to avoid me too policies. You can attack the LP till you're blue in the face...but these are the simple political realities.

The "as long as the GOP creates an opening" mantra is a false argument from the self-absorbed-please-pay-attention-to-us LP. The LP types run because they want to be different and because they are self absorbed...like democrats, they care only about defeating republicans.

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.

Testify!

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.