TheAgitator.com
More on the LP
Monday, November 1st, 2004Will Wilkinson would like me to respond to Jim Henley’s defense of an LP vote.
Jim writes:
I also suspect that it’s not the case that if the Libertarian Party produces better Presidential candidates it will get more votes. I think it’s the other way around: if the Libertarian candidate starts getting more votes it will attract better candidates. Right now the prize is not worth the effort to claim it. That would change with the increase in prestige of a higher vote share. Yes, the LP sucks ass in a thousand ways. But during our quadrennial magic show it’s a handy way to signify general preferences.
I think Jim’s point is valid, but that my point still stands.
The LP can’t find a single congressional district in 435 in which one of its candidates can poll in double digits, much less win. So the odds of us ever having an LP president, I’d say, are slim.
My thinking is that the way we’re going to get libertarian ideas made into policy is by finding similar-thinking people already elected to sign on to them — piecemeal if need be. Hit the Republicans up on Social Security reform while they’re in power. Get sympathy from the Democrats on medicinal marijuana and taking gay-bashing out of the penal code while they have the reins. Tiny victories. Then, hopefully, larger ones.
We may one day get a libertarian president, but it won’t be from the LP. It’ll happen one of three ways. We’ll either get a GOPer who understands that economic freedom without personal freedom isn’t really freedom, or we’ll get a market-oriented Democrat who pays more than lip service to civil liberties. The third (and most likely, I think) way it could happen is we get a charismatic libertarian celebrity (a Schwarzenegger type — though he’s not all that libertarian) or a multimillionaire who can bypass the two-party system and command legitimacy based on his success or celebrity alone.
I think the odds of the LP ever getting 10% of the presidential vote in our lifetime are near infinitismal. The odds of them ever electing a president are worse.
What the LP can do, however, is win enough votes to get some attention from the media. And all that really does is make it more difficult for the rest of us to draw a clear line of distinction between libertarianism and Libertariansm — or between the ideas of Smith, Jefferson, Mill, et.al and the, well, the blue people.
I know lots of my readers vote LP, or are members of the LP. And many of you take it personally when I criticize them. It’s not personal. And not only do I understand why you support the LP, I have respect for why you do. But when polls show that most Americans are socially laissez-faire and fiscally conservative, and the party that most represents those very ideas can’t muster 1% of the vote, you have to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why. Yes, the way the two major parties use the perks of power to shut out competitors certainly has something to do with it.
But mostly, it’s because most people think you’re nuts.
Ultimately, I think the LP is bad for libertarianism. I think that when the LP embraces an otherwise good idea, it often attaches an air of wingnuttery to that idea, which makes the idea more difficult to sell to the people in power who actually make the decisions.
And my own thinking is that I’d rather not contribute to the taint of otherwise good ideas.
Lots of LPers have called me elitist, or snobbish, or “a weasel.” I don’t know. Maybe I’m all of those things. But there’s no arguing with the facts. Zero-point-three-four percent of the vote in 2000. In a country that polls issue-by-issue libertarian.
Clearly, there’s a perception problem. And there’s more to it than just the fact that Beltway libertarians won’t publicly support the Libertarian Party.
Harry Browne (Libertarian)
384,431 .36
not “zero point three four percent of the vote” as you said but a huge “zero point three six” source= fec.gov 2000 results
I agree 100%. The LP has a couple of big problems. The first is kind of a vicious-cycle PR problem - most people think libertarians are nuts, so they mostly ignore the party, which means that most of the people who run for nomination (and most of the people who vote for the nominees) are usually kind of weird, which reinforces the “nutso” image of the LP.
The second problem is that way too many libertarians, just like way too many Greens and Socialists and other third party types, reject the idea of incrementalism as not ideologically pure enough. The idea of compromise is seen as capitulation in the minds of most libertarians I meet. The fact is that most people are inherently “conservative” in the sense that they don’t want things to change quickly. If you run for office on a platform of radically changing government, abolishing the majority of departments and agencies and so on, even people who agree with you on a point-by-point basis are going to be scared off by the whole picture. Most people are pretty comfortable with their lives, and other than in times of major crisis, are going to vote for at best minor changes in the status quo, because they’re afraid of what a big shakeup might do to their comfortable lives.
A lot of libertarians I meet don’t seem to want to recognize this or deal with it - they prefer to rail against the people who won’t vote for the LP candidate as blind or deluded or stupid or what have you. The fact is that you don’t get elected to office, and you don’t create change in a country, by telling people that they’re stupid for disagreeing with you, especially when you’re working at a third-party disadvantage. You can dislike that fact all you want, but it won’t change it.
Short of a major crisis spawning some sort of revolutionary-type change, libertarians need to clean up their PR image and work on getting credible candidates (who won’t say crazy things in public places) to run for and win offices in order to make gradual changes to the political discourse in this country, if they ever want to get anywhere.
The most effective way to have libertarian ideals implemented is (sadly) to have a Supreme Court justice that, for example, actually reads and applies the Commerce Clause. For all of the backward, damaging things the Republicans do, they’re still our best shot at this. Thus my switch from Badnarik to Bush. The Supreme Court issue is by far the biggest one in any arena in my mind. And we know Kerry won’t nominate anyone that has actually read the Constitution and thinks it should be used to limit government in some way.
I think the only way that the libertarian party, indeed any of the marginal parties, are going to get any success is through the marginalisation of the tiny number of thoroughly stupid, uninformed voters in key swing states that the whole system is currently geared up to pander to…
You’ve got to get some kind of electoral reform, and try and halt the debasement of democracy that sees not a gnats whisker between the positions of the two candidates, and where the election is decided by voters choosing who looks best holding a gun or posing by a truck.
Libertarians will not get a look in, while they are trying to make reasoned, rational arguments and persuade people through actual debate, not while the election remains a beauty contest.
Could libertarians contemplate a coalition with greens, socialists and the like in a quest for electoral reform?
The marginal parties won’t ever pick up any more votes until they are willing to compromise on their ideals. That’s what makes them marginal. Pubs and Dems sell their souls to the devil for power.
Two major problems for the LP:
First, I have my doubts that this is really “a country that polls issue-by-issue libertarian.” The country probably polls somewhat more libertarian than either current law or the Republicrat platforms, but my experience doesn’t bear out the idea that there is majority support for the (non-incremental) positions of real true-believer libertarians.
The other problem is the lack of a real coherent libertarian set of political positions. Leave aside the deep pro/anti split on the war. It seems to me that those who think of themselves as libertarians are primarily motivated by very different issues (drug laws, strict free market economics, social/lifestyle freedom etc.) and don’t necessarily care much about or even agree with each other on the other issues that didn’t bring them to table in the first place. That becomes a problem when it comes time to actually chose and support a specific candidate who will often support parts of the basket of “libertarian issues” and oppose others, or at the very least will attach wildly varying priority to different pieces of the broad agenda.
The same thing happens with Republicrat candidates, of course, but those are understood by all involved to be coalitions where such compromises are expected. It seems to me that libertarians aren’t necessarily compromisers by nature, so any actual flesh and blood candidate tends to drive a significant portion of the libertarian faction off in a huff.
What RB’s strategy lacks in ideological purity it makes up for in spades in practical results - find your allies in power where you can and don’t let the perfect (but unobtainable in any foreseeable timeframe) be the enemy of the good (or at least marginally better) that’s achievable now.
Amen brudder
The fact that the Libertarian VP candidate, Richard Campagna, lists on his resume (http://badnarik.org/campagna.php) a PhD. from “American College of Metaphysical Theology” (http://www.americancollege.com/)…a DEGREE MILL, which will issue a PhD for the quaint sum of $249, says much about the party. AND their campaign spokesman said that even though Campagna didn’t finish “the course work” the degree is still valid. What a pile of crap. It’s just this kind of thing that will keep the Libertarian Party in the back, in the corner, in the dark. The party itself is a joke.
I still find it vexing how, for a party that wants to limit the size and scope of the federal government, the LP essentially hangs its state parties out to dry. Why not focus more on getting state legislatures and governors’ offices sympathetic to the cause before running a Presidential campaign? Does the LP believe that Lincoln was the first Republican ever elected to office? The party could pick 4 or 5 states each election cycle and throw their support in getting every LP candidate elected in those states, then move on to 4 or 5 other states the next time, rinse, lather, repeat. Build a groundswell of support over time, instead of just crawling out from the metaphorical remote log cabin in Wyoming every 4 years to run a Presidential campaign…
While both Radley and previous comments raised many good points, all of them miss one fundamental problem the LP has to overcome: Lack of press coverage. During the 2000 elections, one polling organization (Rasmussen, I think) used the World’s Smallest Political Quiz in a poll and found that the largest group were centrist, the next largest was libertarian, then liberal, authoritarian, and conservative. But of the people that mapped to libertarian, only 5% had actually even heard the term ‘libertarian’ before.
If the press refuses to cover our candidates, they’ll never win, no matter how good they are.
In today’s election, in FL, there are 8 people on the ballot for president. I hadn’t heard of 3 of them before I saw the ballot. How can we make an informed choice if we’ve never heard of a candidate prior to reaching the polling booth? We can’t determine someone’s policy choices from just their name.
So I blame the press for letting us down when it comes to informing us of our choices. They say that they’ll cover third party candidates once they poll high enough. But that is a viscious circle: the press won’t cover the candidates until enough people will claim to vote for them, but the people won’t know enough about the candidates to decide to vote for them until the press covers them.
I ask the following not as a dig on any party in particular, but honest curiosity:
How did Perot get 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and why can’t any other “3rd” party achieve the same or better? I voted for him, but don’t honestly remember the specific reasons why.
Didn’t he too have a looney VP candidate?
I have been a Libertarian Party member for 15 years and side with their platform on everything except immigration. And I plan to keep supporting them. But Joe Sims is right: the LP should stop squandering its meager resources on national campaigns. Instead, focus all funds and efforts on just a few states or congressional districts. Electing a Libertarian Party congressman, and then a couple more, is the way to go. Imagine an LP Congressional Caucus holding the balance of power in a closely divided House…
Perot had a buttload of money, which bought him massive name recognition. He also was a two issue candidate, the deficit and jobs. Since Bush the Elder helped to tank the economy, and everyone was afraid of the great sucking sound from Mexico, he got a huge populous following.
Is it, just maybe, that libertarians don’t do well because they don’t offer to kiss the voter’s asses with entitlements all over the place?
Use your heads. You can argue the pro and con of libertarian philosophy all you want to, but it’s the ass kissing that gets the job done.
I share a lot of views with libertarians. But when I vote I want a candidate who agrees with me. I do not vote for the one who wants me to agree with him. If you take an honest look at our society, you’ll find out that my bottom line is the bottom line for every voter.
Make all the high minded arguments you want to. But the ass kissers are winning the elections. You have to find out what the largest blocks of voters want, then shamelessly offer it to them. That’s the whole point of, and problem with, self government.
Roy, that was my sentiment exactly.
MPH has a valid point. I had not heard of LP until I came across Balko’s article on Foxnews.com a year or 2 ago. I didn’t realize how LP I was until I saw it defined.
Truth is there are lots of good reasons why the LP does not win elections, and for the most part I agree with most of what I read here…especially about the lack of press coverage
but it comes down to this…I am an informed voter and I vote for who I think is the best candidate…I know when I pulled the switch on Badnarik it was a wasted vote, but if enough people waste their votes, maybe, just maybe the major parties will get our point.
my concern is that so many libs vote dem or rep, or no vote at all…it’s like saying the current two party system is o.k.
Mike N.
A two party system is a natural consequence of a majoritarian winner-take-all election system. I don’t consider it any better or worse than the more European way of proportional representation. In either system, the better solution is simply a decentralized government of limited powers. The number of political parties is a non-issue.
If libertarians are serious about getting political power, then I suggest trying to get control over the schools. If you can indoctrinate the children, then you have a good chance of keeping them as adults.
On the other hand, this will take decades of careful and very dedicated work. I wonder if you’ll find enough people willing to work on it for as long as it’ll take.
Take your time to take a look at some helpful info in the field of bonus … Thanks!!!
xenical online Xen-770009122-345566
viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22