why the orphaning of libertarians, seems a reasonable question

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
February 2, 2006


Libertarian Orphans
by David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute.

The Gallup Poll's annual survey on government found that 27% of Americans are conservative; 24% are liberal, up sharply because the poll was taken after Katrina, which boosted support for the proposition that "government should do more to solve our country's problems." Gallup also found -- this year as in others -- that 20% are neither liberal nor conservative but libertarian, opposing the use of government either to "promote traditional values" or to "do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses." Another 20% are "populist" (supporting government action in both areas), with 10% undefined. Libertarian support, spread across demographic groups, is strongest among well-educated voters.

So where are the libertarians in politics and the media? Since the Clinton impeachment and the Florida recount, there's been a polarization: Congressmen and TV pundits define themselves as red/blue, pro-/anti-Bush, partisan Democrat/Republican, and take rigid liberal/conservative positions on Iraq, tax cuts, Social Security reform, gay marriage, abortion. But polls tell us that Americans aren't quite so partisan.

With big-government conservatives spending money like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store, and big-government liberals supporting the Patriot Act, even pro-government populists are represented in D.C. It's the libertarian voters who are orphans. Democrats stand like a wall against tax cuts and Social Security privatization. Republicans want to ban abortion, gay marriage and "Happy Holidays." It's not just Congress -- in Virginia's recent elections, all the Democrats were tax-hikers and all the Republicans were religious rightists. What's a libertarian to do?

The worst aspect of all this is the oracles who appear on TV. You'd think they'd be thoughtful, independent. Yet they're as partisan as the pols. The typical cable show brings viewers two guests, a liberal and a conservative. You can count on conservative writers to defend everything President Bush does, and on liberal editors to denounce the GOP -- no matter what.

Of course, it could be that most Americans are, in fact, liberals and conservatives. Maybe Gallup is wrong, every year. But the exit polls on election day 2004 offer some confirmation. According to those polls, 17 million voted for John Kerry but did not think the government should do more to solve the country's problems. And 28 million Bush voters support either gay marriage or civil unions. That's 45 million who don't fit the polarized model. They seem to have broadly libertarian attitudes. In fact, it's no secret that libertarian voters make up a chunk of America. But you'd never know it from watching TV -- or listening to our elected politicians.

This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 31, 2006.
 
This is oversimplified, perhaps, but Gallup and the MSM make their money from a trumped up liberal vs. conservative battle. And they tend to be statists, since they are linked to academia so they favor a top-down government coercive approach to citizens and business. They want the debate to center on HOW to rob us of our liberty, not WHETHER to do so.

Coke ads might mention Pepsi and vice versa. It's in their interest to try to limit the perceived alternatives to their products. If they mention other competitors, it undermines their whole duopoly.
 
The libertarian party suffers from a paradox. It goes around on net discussion boards incessantly.

Essentialy, the Libertarian Party may never achieve "critical mass" needed to actualy win elections. Voters with Libertarian leanings are presented with a dilemma: Vote Libertarian, and get nothing you want when they lose and act as a spoiler (usualy for Republicans), or, vote Democrat/Republican, and get "half" of what you want. Depending if you're more interested in social freedom as a left-libertarian, or economic/gun freedom as a right-libertarian.

The recent narrow defeat of CCW here in WI is a direct result of a Libertarian candidate for Govenor in the '02 race. Ed Thompson, ironicaly, the brother of Repub. Gov Tommy Thompson, who departed in '00 to serve as Bush's Sec. of Health, ran as a Libertarian. Ed received 10% of the vote. The majority of which was taken from the Republican Lt. Governor Scott McCallum. This allowed our Democrat, anti-gun Attorney General Jim Doyle to win the Govenor's race.

Doyle has since vetoed CCW twice, each legislative session taking approximately 1.5 years for this to happen. The outgoing Republican Lt. Govenor Scot McCallum would have signed it, given the chance.

Assuming Ed Thompson actualy had a chance, which he didn't, would I rather have the first Libertarian govenor, who really would have been little more than a curio, like Jesse Ventura was in Minnesota, or would I rather have a CCW permit?

Other Libertarians can call me all the names they want, I'd rather have the permit.
 
As an aside--I absolutely detest the term "populist" as applied to people who believe in absolute government control of people's private lives. That has nothing to do with populism. "Authoritarian" or even "communitarian" would be more accurate descriptions.
 
Unfortunately voting libertarian means weakening the Republican candidate and strengthening the Democrat candidate. I'd rather work to move the Republican party in the direction I want them to go then try to build the libertarian party if it means helping the Democrats into office to destroy the country while I'm trying to build a viable libertarian party.

I just wish the Republican party would get off the abortion bandwagon. Abortion should be between a woman, her husband, her family, her doctor and her spiritual advisor, NOT be mandated one way OR the other by any government agency.

I think the Republican party is hurting themselves by taking the opposite extreme on this issue, as well as other issues. Let the liberal Democrats be the extremists, the Republican party should take the course of common sense, that it's NOT the government's job to mandate morals or take the place of a spiritual advisor or doctor. But I guess that's the libertarian in me talking!
 
No doubt, had to read that bit twice! Populism is a trait of LEADERS who make a habit of appealing to the majority of the population on the majority of issues. Like the governor in 'The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas'. That was the best politician portrayal ever.
 
I got tired of the aweful taste that was left in my mouth after I voted 04 pres election (My first time to vote...I turned 18 in april '03). I voted for the lesser of two evils in my mind...I should have voted how I truely felt. And you know what? I won't EVER vote for the lesser again. I may hurt the republican party, or the dems, but it matters not to me. I just want what I view as right, done.
 
People are afraid to vote libertian because they think that we will get the greater of two evils (bush and kerry) if they do.

Supposedly its throwing away your vote, but i dont see how showing that ultra-republicrats and super-democins dont have your support anymore is throwing away your vote.

And im sure it wouldnt hurt if the libertians party actually campaighned.
 
It's not that people are afraid to vote libertarian

It's that the Democrats and republicans control the state legislatures and they make the election laws. Those laws are designed to keep anyone but Democrats and republicans off the ballot. They don't do this overtly, but they make it very difficult for candidates from any other party to have access to the system.

The entire system is set up for two parties. Every seen a redistrcting debate in a state legislature where they created a libertarian district? It's going to take serious reform of the election laws before any third party is viable. And since the Democrats and republicans would be the ones to write and pass those laws, there isn't much of a chance of that happening.

The only way there will be any change is for some group to change a party from within.

It's not about governing anymore, it's about the spolis of power.

Jeff
 
Given recent national elections, I wouldn't be surprised to see a large portion of the moderates from both parties voting Libertarian in the near future. Both major parties have lost any semblance of character, moral fiber, credibility or clear objective beyond getting reelected. IE both parties are owned by the highest bidders.

Our history shows that, when this happens, new parties have taken over. I think it's time.

Bob
 
Jeff White said:
It's that the Democrats and republicans control the state legislatures and they make the election laws. Those laws are designed to keep anyone but Democrats and republicans off the ballot. They don't do this overtly, but they make it very difficult for candidates from any other party to have access to the system.

The entire system is set up for two parties. Every seen a redistrcting debate in a state legislature where they created a libertarian district? It's going to take serious reform of the election laws before any third party is viable. And since the Democrats and republicans would be the ones to write and pass those laws, there isn't much of a chance of that happening.

The only way there will be any change is for some group to change a party from within.

It's not about governing anymore, it's about the spolis of power.

Jeff

Thats a clear thought process (not being sarcastic).

I wish it wasnt so, however.
 
KriegHund said:
People are afraid to vote libertian because they think that we will get the greater of two evils (bush and kerry) if they do.

Supposedly its throwing away your vote, but i dont see how showing that ultra-republicrats and super-democins dont have your support anymore is throwing away your vote.

And im sure it wouldnt hurt if the libertians party actually campaighned.


I agree......as a anti statist guy(I have seen the light after 2004) I realize a have just backed myself in to the smallest corner of american politics. OH well.
 
Jeff White said:
The only way there will be any change is for some group to change a party from within.
Jeff


I just dont agree with this statement. Most of your post explained (and rightly so) how these two parties will "set the deck" to ensure party favor. They will and have also done that WITHIN the party itself to prevent meaningful change from within. If the Cancer is too much....it needs to die on the vine. The birth of a new party/or a fresh thrid party is the only way to protect the voters from the "old guard/statist" just saying anything again for your vote and in a generation being right back where you started from.
 
Jeff White said:
...The entire system is set up for two parties. Every seen a redistrcting debate in a state legislature where they created a libertarian district? It's going to take serious reform of the election laws before any third party is viable. And since the Democrats and republicans would be the ones to write and pass those laws, there isn't much of a chance of that happening.

The only way there will be any change is for some group to change a party from within...

Very true, I like the idea of the "Liberty Caucus" within the GOP. Like Ron Paul from TX, now there's a walking argument for legalized cloning of legislators...
 
KriegHund said:
Ok, im near completely ignorant here-

But didnt the republican party start and have to compete against whigs and Democrats?

Yeah. But the events leading to the Civil War created a pretty unique environment for a new party to take root. Lincoln was the first significant Republican to be elected.

I'm an LP member. But, all idealism aside, here's how I see it.

This country has a governmental structure as defined by the Constitution. It also has two parties which formed and which have become a significant part of that structure over time. We have a de facto 2-party system that is as important as the official governmental structure, and about as unlikely to change any time soon.

To think one will become a Representative in Washington without being a part of that system is almost as ridiculous as thinking one will become a Representative without running for Congress. That just isn't how things work.

So, in order for ideas to win, first the ideological battles are fought at the party level, then in official government after the party has accepted an idea as part of its platform. That's how it works.

A dose of reality: GOP platform includes a lot less hostility to gun rights than the Democrat platform, which opposes gun rights overtly. You vote in ANY way that keeps a Republican out of office, you are voting against your gun rights. The only exception is if you're in Lieberman's state. Pick anything else, and a similar statement can be made.

If you want to get libertarian ideals to get traction in Washington, work on a party -- you pick which one, but only one of two -- to embrace those ideals and candidates. Ron Paul is in Congress. Harry Browne, a very charismatic speaker and someone who could easily be a successful politician, is still publishing books. Ron Paul was willing to put an R by his name.

These guys believe that the Republican Party is the best bet: http://www.rlc.org

These guys think the Democrats are:
http://www.progress.org/dfc/

Since I don't have a Marxist bone in my body, I prefer the RLC. But go read both and decide for yourself.

Remember, each party has changed platforms 180 degrees many times to stay around. They are NOT ideological like the third parties. If the Libertarians start to win, popular parts of their platform will be adopted, and the D's and R's will continue on. This happened with the original Populists 100 years ago. It will happen again, barring another catastrophe as large as the Civil War, and I'm neither banking on, nor wishing for that!
 
KriegHund said:
And im sure it wouldnt hurt if the libertians party actually campaighned.

If you're referring to the presidential candidate, the Libertarian candidate in the last election -- Michael Badnarik -- campaigned harder than either Kerry or Bush. He basically spent every waking moment of his life campaigning leading up to the election. Which was well over 16 hours per day. The major media outlets might not have put him in front of their cameras or microphones, but don't mistake that for a lack of campaigning. The debate commission wouldn't let him into the presidential debates, but don't mistake that for a lack of campaigning.
 
Live Free Or Die said:
If you're referring to the presidential candidate, the Libertarian candidate in the last election -- Michael Badnarik -- campaigned harder than either Kerry or Bush. He basically spent every waking moment of his life campaigning leading up to the election. Which was well over 16 hours per day. The major media outlets might not have put him in front of their cameras or microphones, but don't mistake that for a lack of campaigning. The debate commission wouldn't let him into the presidential debates, but don't mistake that for a lack of campaigning.

Aside from a single yard sighn i never saw news of him.

More testament to Jeff White's words, in a sense.
 
Live Free Or Die said:
If you're referring to the presidential candidate, the Libertarian candidate in the last election -- Michael Badnarik -- campaigned harder than either Kerry or Bush. He basically spent every waking moment of his life campaigning leading up to the election. Which was well over 16 hours per day. The major media outlets might not have put him in front of their cameras or microphones, but don't mistake that for a lack of campaigning. The debate commission wouldn't let him into the presidential debates, but don't mistake that for a lack of campaigning.

I worked on the campaign of the Libertarian for mayor here in San Diego. If you've read about the disaster the city government has become, you'd know why we figured he'd have a chance. He got a lot of air time, got into all the debates (and there were MANY -- the thing turned into a spectacle far bigger than any national campaign, around here). He was popular, his platforms were popular, we got positive feedback from a lot of people. Great guy, too. Honest as the day is long, with well-known 20+ year history of volunteer leadership in local reform efforts.

Got 1.5% of the vote, because, in the end, people voted R or D (in an officially non-partisan election) because that's just how things work. Reality.
 
3rdpig said:
But I guess that's the libertarian in me talking!

Or the secular conservative, the supporter of rather strict separation of church and state, concerned mainly about essential government and no more of it than necessary.
 
xd9fan said:
I just dont agree with this statement. Most of your post explained (and rightly so) how these two parties will "set the deck" to ensure party favor. They will and have also done that WITHIN the party itself to prevent meaningful change from within. If the Cancer is too much....it needs to die on the vine. The birth of a new party/or a fresh thrid party is the only way to protect the voters from the "old guard/statist" just saying anything again for your vote and in a generation being right back where you started from.

Damn right. Well said.

Bob
 
Jeff White said:
It's that the Democrats and republicans control the state legislatures and they make the election laws. Those laws are designed to keep anyone but Democrats and republicans off the ballot. They don't do this overtly, but they make it very difficult for candidates from any other party to have access to the system.

The entire system is set up for two parties. Every seen a redistrcting debate in a state legislature where they created a libertarian district? It's going to take serious reform of the election laws before any third party is viable. And since the Democrats and republicans would be the ones to write and pass those laws, there isn't much of a chance of that happening.

The only way there will be any change is for some group to change a party from within.

It's not about governing anymore, it's about the spolis of power.

Jeff
Absolutely, I'd settle for some ballot changes where you could say vote for multiple candidates, but short of that theres always going to be people voting for the lesser of 2 evils (and still getting evil) if you can even get your 3rd party on the ballot.
 
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will ever voluntarily relinquish their power. If freedom-loving people cannot win at the ballot box, then freedom will come from only one other source, if it comes at all.

~G. Fink
 
mcooper said:
I got tired of the aweful taste that was left in my mouth after I voted 04 pres election (My first time to vote...I turned 18 in april '03). I voted for the lesser of two evils in my mind...I should have voted how I truely felt. And you know what? I won't EVER vote for the lesser again. I may hurt the republican party, or the dems, but it matters not to me. I just want what I view as right, done.

I completely agree. I voted Libertarian in '04 for the 1st time as a straight ticket and I'll never look back. I'll vote my conscience every time. I voted Republican in '00 and '96 and independent in '92. If I hurt the Republican Party, maybe they'll take a look at why they're losing votes and straighten up. As it stands now, I'd almost favor a Democrat over a Republican, because at least I know what to expect from the Dem. The Republicans have dropped the ball so badly in the last 6 years that I no longer consider them the party of small government. Not even close to that, in fact! And I refuse to support a party who extolls the virtues of an expanded government. Ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top