Meet the Losertarians!

The American Enterprise ^ | November 14, 2002 | Michael Medved

[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.

[CapedCrusader]

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.

Same could be said for the GOP.

[CapedCrusader]

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.

"Geopolictically naive"? That's an outrage!

[My2Cents]

Same could be said for the GOP.

You're trying to make a case on the moral equivalency of the Dems and the GOP? Only an amoralist would fail to see the ethical differences in the two parties.

[CapedCrusader]

And only a fool would fail to see their blatant similarities.

[My2Cents]

I should say, "Only a deluded extremist would think they were similar," but I won't. That would be name-calling.

[CapedCrusader]

I know you are but what am I? : )

[seanc623]

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.

I disagree. I've been a Republican, Libertarian and American Independent. I believe people in all 3 parties are motivated by sincere conviction. I've also decided after this election that the best way to move the GOP in a more libertarian direction is by challenging (and hopefully beating) RINOs in primaries.

Let's all move beyond name calling and find common ground against the real enemies, Democrats and Greens. They are willing to work together to achieve their socialist goals. I'm willing to do the same to achieve goals consistent with limited government and individual responsibility. Who's with me?

[yoswif]

It's hard for Libertarians to attract votes because most voters know that the Republicans and Democrats will pass massive annual spending increases and most voters, including the ones who always vote Republican, like massive annual spending increases. I oppose massive annual spending increases so I don't vote for a Republican or Democrat.

[PresbyRev]

I disagree with Medved. Civil libertarians are the only thing standing between an erstwhile free republic and a police state under Gestapo leader Ashcroft.

Everything Republicans feared would occur under Clinton - the erection of a totalitarian police state - is well under way, yet because Bush (R) is in the White House they are cheerleaders for the loss of their own freedoms and rights.

[Austin Willard Wright]

The LP ain't going away. Since that is a fact, you and other conservatives have to deal with it if you want to minimize LP vote totals. Whether or not it makes you to feel good to beat your chest, and cry about the injustice of the LP running candidates, will not change this fact one way or the other.

[lasereye]

I don't begrudge anyone the right to run outside the two major parties. My point is that it's virtually impossible for a Republican to get the votes of those who are really into Libertarianism as an ideology and he'd be stupid to try, as opposed to those who may be using it as a "None of the Above" vote.

[hinckley buzzard]

"Why this arrogant baseline assumption that Libertarian candidates "steal" votes from the GOP?"

I think you are right about this. Indeed, anyone obtuse and self-absorbed enough to vote libertarian would probably be too stupid to vote GOP even if there were no other alternative.

[Revolting cat!]

Libertarians, whatever one thinks of them, will continue to attract (a few) votes, will continue to act as spoilers to the two major parties incumbent shell game. It's amazing that commentators as intelligent as Medved keep missing the essence of the phenomenon. People are attracted to the Libertarians (and to Ross Perot and to other minor parties,) because, as Medved himself would admit (since it is one of conservative cliches), ideas do matter.

Unfortunately, the two major parties do not present ideas, they present "messages". There is a difference. Already, commentators are saying, and many FReepers are nodding, that the RAT party didn't have a "message" last week, or that it had a wrong "message", and that it needs to develop a "message". Botox Pelosi appears to agree, judging from her latest statements. No ideas, mind you, just "messages", developed with the help of focus groups, consultants and such. Beware, because the RATS will do it, and it will work as it worked for Bubba in 1992!

Message. An article in yesterday's paper celebrates a "legendary adman", one Hal Riney, who developed successful campaigns, i.e. messages, for Gallo Wines (the Bartles & Jaymes campaign), and General Motors (the Saturn campaign.) The message man, an intellectual hero of our times.

The movies shown inside our multiplexes no longer concern themselves with ideas as they once did, they present "messages" developed with the help of focus groups. Throw all the insults you want at the sincere goofball Libertarians; they'll be here and they'll continue spoiling your petty gamesmanship.

[mysterio]

Will passing around a doobie while we watch pornography, waiting in turn for the next available prostitute do?

In eight years, you will have a President who is a democrat. Instead of bashing libertarians, you will be on here whining about the democrat president who is abusing all of the authority that Bush has given to the government in the name of the war on terror. Make sure and send me a freepmail so we can talk about it. However, you will probably have been declared a terrorist by then for having a more right wing view than the administration would like. While you are languishing under the government persecution that you endorse, you can think about what you could have done to bring in libertarians. Then you will think about your cute little quip. I hope it amuses you then.

[mysterio]

Are You a Terrorist?

From a brochure called, "If You encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force,” by the FBI in Phoenix.

Right-Wing Extremists

* "defenders" of US Constitution against federal government and the UN (super patriots)
* Groups of individuals engaged in para-military training

Hate Groups

* Skinheads, Nazis, Neo-Nazis (usually recognized by tattoos)
* Black Seperatists
* KKK
* Christian Identity
* White Nationalists

Common Law Movement Proponents

* Fictitious License Plates
* No license plates
* Fictitious Drivers Licenses
* No drivers licenses
* Refuse to identify themselves
* Request authority for stop
* Make numerous references to US Constitution
* Attempt to "police the police"
Left Wing Terrorists
* Political motivation is usually Marxist/Leonist philosphy

Single Issue Terrorists

* Targeting of law enforcement and emergency personnel
* Animal Rights
* Eco Terrorism
* Violent anti-abortion extremism
* Urban riot agitators
* Cyber penetration
* Non-aligned terrorists
* Doomsday/Cult Type Group
* Insurgents/Rebels
* Lone Individuals

Weapons of Mass Destruction

* Nuclear
* Chemical
* Biological
Call a member of the Phoenix FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is attempting to identify criminal activities with domestic terrorists. In this regard, the purpose of this information sheet is to assist uniformed patrol officers in identifying potential domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism is defined as: Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the US, attempting to influence the US government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity. In the event questionable activity is encountered, contact the individuals named in this brochure for clarification.



Uh oh. I guess we are terrorists for posting here, at least according to the pamphlet.

[Moby Grape]

The LP is going away..over time. As Medved pointed out in his column yesterday, they are getting a progressivley lower percent of the vote, and this trend will continue as more canidates who dye themselves blue, who have campaign photos holding their pet ferretts, and are arrested for running illegal "law" schools, make the LP known to the public to be the assortment of knuckleheads and malcontents that it is.

[A2J]

In eight years, you will have a President who is a democrat.

That's quite a prediction.

Unless the LP plans to run a credible presidential candidate (Is there one?) in order to syphon off votes from the Republican.

[Egregious Philbin]

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.

That means that there were plenty of subjects that neither the Democrat nor the Republican wanted to discuss and the Green and Libertarian candidates brought them to the table and forced the two mainstream candidates to talk about them - privatization, the death penalty, etc..

The robotic Libertarian candidate didn't have a chance. She was, however, quite articulate regarding the bill the party put on the ballot this year, to abolish our income tax, and it nearly passed. She was an effective 3rd party candidate even though she didn't win.

[Eagle Eye]

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?"

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt THIS TIME for mischaractarizing my motives and those of libertarians in general.

NOWHERE at any time can I recall anyone claiming that there is never any harm, real or potential, in vices. It is extremely ignorant on your jpart to make that claim.

Your assertion that I have a hedonistic philosophy betrays that you either don't know me well enought to make that assertion or that you don't know what the word means.

The problem YOU seem to have, is that you cannot rightly claim ANY moral authority to ban alcohol, tobacco, or marijauna, etc. The Bible doesn't call for a ban on any of that and the Bible is the highest moral authority there is.

What role do you see IN A FREE COUNTRY for the government (esp the fed) to regulate what one does to themselves in their own homes? How does government censorship square with freedom? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, nobody harms another or perpetrates fraud on another, what role do YOU think government should have in regulating intake, ingestion, or behavior?

now read the above carefull. Did I advocate ANY sort of personal behavior? Did I advocate excess in any sort? Did I advocate any sort of "anything goes" behavior? No. Did I advocate any sort of hedonism? No.

If you think someone is sinning, go preach to them. If you cannot get them to repent, go on to another. Neither Christ nor Paul advocated getting the government to enforce their doctrines.

[Eagle Eye]

This is not a contradiction, this is not hypocrisy -- it is common sense.

I'm not going to criticize your decision, but I will point out that if a Libertarian had said the same thing or something similar, the howls of "hypocracy" would flood the thread from the Lib-bashers. You can choose to suport a pro-choice candidate, but it is ghastly for pro-life people to be in a party that claims neither position.