why the orphaning of libertarians, seems a reasonable question

[peteinct]

Reality trumps ideals

Armed Bear has it right. The two parties are not strictly ideological they are more like coalitions in the sense of multi party systems. Niether party is ideologically consistant and all you have to do is look at their bases of support to find their bias. That is why there is no action on illegal immigration. The Democrats want hispanic voters and a group that believes it needs government services and the republicans want cheap labor and bodies to drive down the cost of all labor
There are 2 ways that Libertarians could become a major player not just a spoiler. One is to concentrate in an area and vote their principles. That is the Free State idea. The other is to take over the mechanism of a party. That would require compromises and incremental change, work and dedication which makes it unpalatable to most idealogues.
The final reason that Libertarians can't win elections is that their central idea that there should be a much smaller government isn't popular with the american voters. Most people want rules from Washington if only for the other guy. Any politician who said that people would have to really pay for what they get from the government would never be elected. That is why neither party wants a more limited government because we the people don't.
pete

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

As much as I'd love to vote libertarian, they don't compromise on anything (the party, not all the individual members). If they played differently, they could take many Western states seats, and some districts in the South, Midwest, and New England, but the party would have to change radically. The 1st thing they would have to do is compromise.

Instead of cutting gov to 1/10th it's size, how about cutting off 1/100th. I know, it's not much, but we didn't get this bloated, dangerous, government thing we have right now over night, it took time. Taking back our country (I am often Libertarian in my views) won't happen overnight either.

If we got seats we could really mess up the Dem/Rep structure, allying with Dems sometimes, Reps others. Eventually, to cater to us, they might actually consider laws which get rid of some of this unnecessary waste.

But not while we operate the way we do now

 

[KriegHund]

As much as I'd love to vote libertarian, they don't compromise on anything (the party, not all the individual members). If they played differently, they could take many Western states seats, and some districts in the South, Midwest, and New England, but the party would have to change radically. The 1st thing they would have to do is compromise.

Then they would no longer be libertians. They would be like slightly less socialist republicans.

 

[tulsamal]

OK, some of you have wandered off course from what the article was actually talking about. He wrote about how a significant portion of the electorate has political ideologies which would label them as "libertarians." That's a small "l." But most of the posts here have gone off to argue about whether you should or shouldn't vote for the Libertarian Party. That's a big "l." These are two totally different things.

The point is, many Americans have libertarian leanings if you give them a simple multi-question test for their preferences. Most of these people have no intention of ever voting for the Libertarian Party. So what has happened in the past is that both parties try to convince people with those views to vote for them. Reagan was the most successful with the whole "big tent" analogy for the Republican Party. The religious right, the libertarians, the free traders, the economic conservatives, and the small government/less taxes people would all join together in one party. And that strategy has been very successful for the GOP. The problem is, most of those groups are unhappy. It's basically a coalition government. Think of Israel or some other country that is ruled by a coalition. You are a PART of the government but you never really seem to get the policies you really want. The GOP has been fighting since 1980 to reconcile the difference between people like the religous right and the libertarians. It isn't easy!

But the Cato Institute (which is the number one libertarian think tank) is pointing out that, in fact, the GOP seems to be mostly selecting candidates who are social conservatives. It is quite possible to be a social liberal and an economic conservative and consider yourself a Republican. But people like that have a hard time getting the support of the GOP leadership. Or the support of the more motivated members of the GOP that work and vote in the primaries.

Trying to win by voting for and supporting the Libertarian Party is probably not going to work. Not unless one of the parties becomes so critically wounded that they go into a long decline and become vulnerable. (That's what happened to the Whigs.) Otherwise the "road to victory" is to try and promote libertarian ideas within the GOP. Encourage and support those rare candidates that are pro-choice but still favor a limited government. And the good news for the Republican Party SHOULD be that candidates with libertarian ideas should draw more votes in a general election. But somehow they have to survive the primaries against the religious right and other social conservatives.

Gregg

 

[DRZinn]

Twenty percent of Americans, if you beleive the poll are libertarian. Twenty percent. If all of those people could be (1) made to see that they are libertarian (ie made to see that being libertarian doesn't mean you just want to be able to smoke pot legally) and (2) made to grow a pair and vote their conscience, ALL AT ONCE, the Libertarian party would be a force to be reckoned with, and might quickly grow to rival or replace either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Since that isn't going to hapen, I vote pragmatically as well. Here in California, in a presidential election, that means the same thing as voting my conscience, since this state's electors are voting Democrat. If I lived in a swing state, I'd consider voting Republican, depending on the candidates.

 

[jeff-10]

The thing is when someone says there conservative they are generally conservative on all the issues as we understand being conservative today. When someone says they are liberal they are usually liberal straight down the board on all political issues. When someone says they are libertarian they are all over the place. It is almost a euphemism for someone who doesn't want to be wrong in picking a political candidate. People will say "I am a libertarian EXCEPT I don't support <insert your pet issue here>". For a modern political party to function, it needs uniformity on all issues, or else it self destructs.

 

[RealGun]

Twenty percent of Americans, if you beleive the poll are libertarian. Twenty percent. If all of those people could be (1) made to see that they are libertarian (ie made to see that being libertarian doesn't mean you just want to be able to smoke pot legally) and (2) made to grow a pair and vote their conscience, ALL AT ONCE, the Libertarian party would be a force to be reckoned with, and might quickly grow to rival or replace either the Democrats or the Republicans.

I don't believe all those so called libertarians would buy into the LP platform. Republican libertarians don't either. It is not fair to say that one who doesn't accept that uncompromising platform is not libertarian. What turned my stomach was finding the RLC platform verbatim LP. At the convention they go off in a corner and don't even try to integrate with the GOP. That is not going to advance anything. No, I think libertarians as they chose to define themselves will have to settle for being on the fringe with numbers to reflect that.

Libertarians will have to appeal to both the black vote and the church vote or they will go nowhere. Unfortunately they aren't selling what people want to buy. The LP wants people to come to them.

 

[DRZinn]

I don't believe all those so called libertarians would buy into the LP platform.

Why not? So many of them buy into the Republican or Democrat platform.

I think the problem is that so few of them are aware of what the Libertarian party represents, or what it means to be a libertarian.

 

[Jeff White]

I think one of the reasons that the libertarian party isn't more popular is because people don't want to mind their own business any longer. We don't really have a live and let live society anymore. There are too many people who push a social agenda that involves controlling other peoples lives. There are simply too many Americans who think the world would be a better place if everyone else lived their lives to the standards that they do. And they see government as a way to make that happen.

Don't think that the Taliban is limited to Islam. We've had people who saw the government as a way to make everyone else conform since the first colonists landed in North America. We've had laws that discriminated against religious beliefs, race, drinking, drug use, pornography etc. since we had a government. We've had the Supreme Court uphold laws putting limits on political speech.

We've never really had a live and let live attitude in this country.

Jeff

 

[RealGun]

Why not? So many of them buy into the Republican or Democrat platform.

I think the problem is that so few of them are aware of what the Libertarian party represents, or what it means to be a libertarian.

Why not? Because they would have to become radical Libertarians, accepting all of a relatively goofy, uncompromising, cultish platform, instead of libertarian inclined, something that doesn't make your brain explode.

 

[peteinct]

Good Shot

Real Gun, that was great! The illustration is krieghund's post "they will become less socialist republicans"

But isn't that the point. If you could incrementally change the platforms of our major parties the goals of freedom would be advanced. It doesn't matter to me what it is called.
pete

 

[telomerase]

In Costa Rica the Libertarians are a major party.

But they don't have gerrymandering (they use proportional representation) or Diebold machines in CR.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

No third party has ever won the Presidency without first winning seats in the House of Representatives. No third party ever will win the Presidency without first winning seats in the House of Representatives.

Parties that aren't willing to compromise their platforms to meet the local demands of whatever district they are running for will never get elected to the House of Representatives.

If you want a different culture in government, you have to create that culture where you live first.

Costa Rica has a unicameral legislature with proportional representation. If you ran the same system in this country, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Chicago would set policy for the rest of the country.

 

[DRZinn]

Because they would have to become radical Libertarians,

That'd be less of a stretch for many than supporting the Statist parties.

a relatively goofy, uncompromising, cultish platform,

That's just childish.

 

[Robert J McElwain]

...................Parties that aren't willing to compromise their platforms to meet the local demands of whatever district they are running for will never get elected to the House of Representatives...............

Do you think compromising principles is a good idea, for citizens or politicians? Do you think the Democrat or the Republican party, as they function now, represent anyone other than the deep pockets?

Bob

 

[RealGun]

a relatively goofy, uncompromising, cultish platform

That's just childish.

Then there are many childish folks who have rejected the LP platform.

 

[Robert J McElwain]

Why not? Because they would have to become radical Libertarians, accepting all of a relatively goofy, uncompromising, cultish platform, instead of libertarian inclined, something that doesn't make your brain explode.

Really????? I've been a registered Republican all my life and I certainly don't buy into all the crap they shovel. It's just that they used to be closer to my thinking than the Democrats ever were. Now, I'm getting ready to change my registration to Libertarian, not because I buy every word, but they make a helluva lot more sense than either of the other two parties. And, at least right now, they aren't owned by the deep pockets.

Bob

 

[strambo]

"A journey of 1000 miles starts with a step" How is focusing on a small issue first a compromise? You can't have everything at once. Like the above posters (#27) example of cutting the .gov by 1/100th instead of down to 1/10th. The ideal is smaller government. The long term goal may be 1/10th the current size. So run under the ideal of smaller govt and set and announce a near term goal of cutting it by 1/100th in a six year term. Very reasonable, electable proposition and with enough local and federal (HR) successes, the tide can slowly turn towards less govt.

Putting up a Pres candidate every 4 years and not much else isn't gonna cut it. As far as the platform is concerned, you don't have to announce the "master plan" for all the world to see. You don't hear Dems saying they want the government to control everyone. They talk about heathcare etc... So Libs could focus on say tax reform (an idea that has a lot of legs and attention in the repub party) and run on that, not scare folks off trumpeting a govt 1/10th the size.

Many Libertarian stances are too radical for me, but I would vote for Libs at every level except for Pres. I want a lot of libertarians elected at all levels local, State and Federal to start really turning the tide back towards smaller government and personal responsibility. The big parties would definitely take notice to Libertarian inroads and adjust their views for the better, to re-capture those votes. The only way for Libertarians to win is by focusing on the most reasonable and short-term attainable beliefs and speaking about the rest in general terms.

 

[Robert J McElwain]

"A journey of 1000 miles starts with a step" How is focusing on a small issue first a compromise? You can't have everything at once. Like the above posters (#27) example of cutting the .gov by 1/100th instead of down to 1/10th. The ideal is smaller government. The long term goal may be 1/10th the current size. So run under the ideal of smaller govt and set and announce a near term goal of cutting it by 1/100th in a six year term. Very reasonable, electable proposition and with enough local and federal (HR) successes, the tide can slowly turn towards less govt.

Putting up a Pres candidate every 4 years and not much else isn't gonna cut it. As far as the platform is concerned, you don't have to announce the "master plan" for all the world to see. You don't hear Dems saying they want the government to control everyone. They talk about heathcare etc... So Libs could focus on say tax reform (an idea that has a lot of legs and attention in the repub party) and run on that, not scare folks off trumpeting a govt 1/10th the size.

Many Libertarian stances are too radical for me, but I would vote for Libs at every level except for Pres. I want a lot of libertarians elected at all levels local, State and Federal to start really turning the tide back towards smaller government and personal responsibility. The big parties would definitely take notice to Libertarian inroads and adjust their views for the better, to re-capture those votes. The only way for Libertarians to win is by focusing on the most reasonable and short-term attainable beliefs and speaking about the rest in general terms.

Well said.

Bob

 

[telomerase]

Ask anyone what the Libertarian Party stands for, and if they have any clue they'll most likely say "drug legalization" first. Not freedom, not liberty, not core Constitutional principles, but tearing down all barriers to anyone (including their kids) getting any kind of crack/dope/weed/smack/etc. any time.

As you know, the US had no Federal drug laws until 1918. You could buy cocaine and opium in any drugstore. You could also buy guns in any hardware store with no ID ("what's an ID"?).

But for some peculiar reason there weren't any kids in drug gangs back then. Is it just possible that Prohibition is what causes drug-related crime, criminal gangs, and the growth of "anti-drug" bureaucratic armies? Of course not. And Chiang Kai-Shek supported Drug Prohibition because he was such a nice guy.

Most people are for legalization of at least some drugs, just because they know that it would make children safer. The drive to maintain Prohibition comes from the entrenched interests (and is maintained by very expensive tax-financed propaganda), not from the public.

(Personally, I think most libertarians would say "size of the Federal government" if you asked them what the most pressing issue is. The kind of people who get on platform committees, on the other hand... well, have you ever read the Democratic platform? Makes Sendero Luminoso sound downright conservative).

 

[ctdonath]

many Americans have libertarian leanings if you give them a simple multi-question test for their preferences.

Libertarian leanings, yes ... but at core people still vote FOR people who promise to DO something - usually in terms of controlling other people more stringently. Libertarians, coarsely put, harbor a DON'T policy: "vote for me, and I won't do much about anything, which means I'll generally let people do what they want." That's great to most people ... until they realize that includes emotional hot-buttons like allowing (!) drug abuse, prostitution, machineguns, and a host of other things that freak most people out. While "libertarian leaning" people may, academically speaking, be brought 'round to agreeing with the favorable policies that have objectionable side effects, it's those side effects that are focused on and ultimately marginalize the party.

Ask anyone what the Libertarian Party stands for, and if they have any clue they'll most likely say "drug legalization" first. Not freedom, not liberty, not core Constitutional principles, but tearing down all barriers to anyone (including their kids) getting any kind of crack/dope/weed/smack/etc. any time. Realistically, for most voters, the LP starts and ends here: drugs.

When faced with choosing between their pet libertarian and pet tyrranical leanings, the latter wins with most voters. Allowing people to do "bad" (albeit generally harmless to others) things just doesn't fly in the voting booth.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

...................Parties that aren't willing to compromise their platforms to meet the local demands of whatever district they are running for will never get elected to the House of Representatives...............

Do you think compromising principles is a good idea, for citizens or politicians? Do you think the Democrat or the Republican party, as they function now, represent anyone other than the deep pockets?

Bob

Our political system is built on compromise. The Republicans compromise within the party to build a large enough coalition to share power; just as the Democrats do. They don't do this because they like to. They do it because otherwise they achieve nothing.

Of course, if you don't like compromise then you can have all the nothing you like.

For that matter, look at the massive deregulation supported by Libertarians. Most of that would be a wet dream for the "deep pockets" you mention. Why do you think it is that the Libertarian party is completely unable to get money to promote its platform when it would almsot certainly give these groups more than they would ever get from the Republicans or Democrats?

 

[DRZinn]

Ask anyone what the Libertarian Party stands for, and if they have any clue they'll most likely say "drug legalization" first.

That's both the biggest strength and greatest weakness of the party.