Libertarian Party: We’re Not Spoilers, But the Third Party Americans Want
Think of all the voters you’ve met over the recent years who describe themselves as having a libertarian streak — and it’s easy to understand why the country’s largest third party sees a bright future on its horizon. Not without a few obstacles, though.
As conservatives cry for smaller government, slashed spending, and balanced budgets, the libertarian philosophy has basked in the national spotlight with the grass-roots popularity of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — who ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988 and remains an honorary lifetime member of the party.
The 41-year-old party has arguably its most prominent ticket yet this year with former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who originally angled for the GOP nomination, and Jim Gray, formerly the presiding judge of the Orange County, Calif., Superior Court.
Party leadership — and the presidential nominee himself — hotly contest the suggestion that a vote for the GOP governor would “steal” the election from likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
“There seems to be this very perverse myth that Libertarians steal votes from Republicans,” former party chairman Mark Hinkle told PJM. With a focus on civil liberties issues, “I think it’s very likely we’re going to take far more votes from Democrats than Republicans this time around,” he added, calling President Obama a “third-term Bush” on the Patriot Act.
In a state like California, he argued, where there’s “no way in heck” that the Republicans would win anyway, “if we steal 100 percent of the votes it’s not going to have an impact.”
Executive Director Carla Howell argued that there is precious little difference between Obama and Romney on the issues that matter to Libertarians. “Every big government expansion that Obama has backed, Romney has backed, too,” she said.
“If you want smaller government, lower taxes, real stimulation of the economy, getting government out of the way, vote Libertarian,” she told PJM. “If you want more of the same … then vote either Democrat or Republican.”
“Voting for either one of them is going to make things worse,” Howell added. “It’s going to perpetuate big government. Things are getting desperate in this country. We can’t afford to keep big government politicians in office ruining this country. We must change things now. Gary Johnson proposes cutting in the trillions; that’s what we need to do to stop bleeding red ink.”
On socialization of health care, Hinkle said, another issue of importance to Libertarians in this election, “both Obama and Mitt Romney have bought into it.”
The candidate himself said that the only poll he knows of on the “spoiler” question, conducted in his home state, “actually showed that I took more votes away from Obama.” A new Reason-Rupe survey, released after Johnson spoke with PJM, found that the “difficult to categorize” Johnson voters could tip swing-state Wisconsin either way.
“I just don’t see support for Romney coming from pot smokers,” Johnson said, or noninterventionists, or budget-slashers, etc. “I think that I crush Obama when it comes to dollars and cents. … I think I crush Romney when it comes to civil liberties.”
He references a recent Reason-Rupe poll that found 80 percent of respondents saying they would or might consider voting for an independent or third-party presidential candidate in 2012. But, he added, “they’re not going to vote for a third party if they don’t even know who the third party is.”
Johnson switched to the Libertarian Party in December after his try at the Republican nod, and was nominated to the Libertarian ticket earlier this month at the party’s convention in Nevada. But Johnson told PJM that he’s always identified as Libertarian, much like the higher-profile Libertarian-leaning Republicans today.
“You’ll always be able to know where a Libertarian stands on the issues,” he said of his attraction to the party, which began by reading some books on the philosophy in 1971. He ran as a Republican, though, seeing “I was never going to get elected as a Libertarian — to this day, that really still is the case.”
Are there any true Libertarians in Congress today? Johnson cites Tea Party favorite Justin Amash (R-Mich.), and says he’s sure there are “dozens” that lean Libertarian such as Paul; Hinkle says “to a lesser extent” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is following in his dad’s Libertarian footsteps. Howell calls Paul “essentially Libertarian.”
“Beyond that, you have to drop way down the ranks to get some slight Libertarians,” Hinkle said, adding that Americans probably got their best taste of an independent candidacy when Jesse Ventura won the governor’s mansion in Minnesota. “I think the people up there were as frustrated as they are now,” he said.
Why are Libertarians trying to defend this at all? If their goal is to be a force of change, it seems like letting both parties think that they are siphoning voters is a great objective, myth or not.
Having talked to many libertarians for several years now, I can tell you that they hate both parties, but believe that the republican party can still be saved. The democratic party in their view is a lost cause and needs to be utterly destroyed. I think their defense is calculated not to alienate republican voters, many of whom are closet libertarians.
Dead on target.
Right on target. The roadblocks to a real third party are indeed too great but there is much support for libertarian ideals within the Republican party and the Tea Party. It seems to me that if we can bridge the differences between social conservatives and social liberals–and I think it is quite possible–then we will overcome what has up to now kept us apart.
If not, we’ll be bickering with each other as we are dragged down the road to serfdom.
I think their defense is calculated not to alienate republican voters, many of whom are closet libertarians.
I don’t think that many Republicans are closet libertarians. I don’t think that many Americans are closet libertarians.
If all these closet libertarians actually existed then Gary Johnson would have at least put up some sort of showing in the GOP primary. I’m not saying he should have won it, but he should have gotten some traction. Instead he disappeared without a ripple.
The typical “libertarian” in America is a clueless moderate who wants his taxes cut but wants all entitlement programs – or at least the ones he uses – to be beefed up.
I had coffee with Gary Johnson a year ago.He was a nice guy, fun to talk to. But he suffers for an excessive case of I’ve-Got-The-Perfect-Ideologyitis. I started to think he was the type of person who would be sitting in a coffee shop in the Sudetenland when Hitler was about to invade telling everyone just to be good libertarians and everything would be fine. A bit naive, I’d say. Also, he spent most of his time rehashing arguments for the legalization of pot as if that were the most significant issue facing our country. Zzzz…..
Mr. Simon with all do respect the Sudetenland comment is kind of harsh. Nobody knows how someone would act. Now, if you really, I mean really look into the hemp conspiracy, and why it is illegal today, you would understand why people are fed up with politicians and crony capitalist. For me it started in 1937.
Bull’s-eye, Mr. Simon. BUT… it would be a massive error to conclude (many do) that the idea of a third-party is nonsense. Modern democracies have a long history of new parties yet many here seem to conclude, conveniently, that the idea is absurd. Has there ever been a time in our history when a new party was more needed than now?
Taking over the Libertarian party is no more attractive than the notion of taking over the sclerotic GOP. There’s too much rot, baggage and sanctimonious self-interest/entitlement among party denizens. All the building blocks for a new center-right party are there; the name will possibly include some combination selected from the words American, Constitution, Liberty, Phoenix, Eagle, Renewal and New.
A winning new party would appeal across a broad spectrum that would include prominent Republicans and many others. The doltish GOP/RNC defense, such as it is, seems to be a combination of denial and continuing resolve to kick the can forward.
Very European, very Karl Rove and very stupid.
The fires light up after the election and the installation of the hapless Romney.
You don’t see new parties for much the same reason you don’t see abiogenesis. Any growing organization would simply be viewed as lunch for one of the existing parties. Extant parties have huge advantages of scale. There’s also the FPP system that provides incentives to established parties to cannibalize any upstarts. There is a reason we’ve only had one or two major parties throughout our history, and it isn’t some vast conspiracy (unless you think math is a conspiracy).
I would love to see a political system where Democrats and Republicans argue over silly things like gay marriage and contraception because all of the major issues have been settled.
Are we a “modern democracy” or still clinging to a constitutional republic? I sure get sick and tired of reading comments on this and other sites, articles here and everywhere, and especially elected leaders (supposedly our representatives) in every possible corner of the country cry from the rooftops that we must support democracy. What? Really? Tell a lie often enough and it then becomes a fact. It would be refreshing to have a candidate and a party that actually understood the evil of deceit and help the people to take off the blinders so that we could get back to true ‘REPRESENTATIVE’ government. We are in sorry shape indeed. Moreover, I would have more respect for libertarians if they would get back to espousing the basics of good government as originally instituted by the founders – wouldn’t that be something!
Are we a “modern democracy” or still clinging to a constitutional republic?
Well, seems to me that’s an academic distinction-without-a-difference in practical terms, despite what elderly civics teachers may have said long ago. Not trying to be rude, but it’s the kind of Libertarian ‘Ideologyitis’ that Simon’s talking about above, and it leads to blind-alley arguments about angels and pinheads. And it’s no way to win an election.
The rule of law applied under a constitutional framework should trump all, even though it obviously doesn’t (Holder). Instead, law is now reduced, mainly but not entirely by the left, to a weird kind of fungible thing like the change in your pocket, divorced from what some call ‘essential liberty’. The legal profession, BTW, is fully responsible and ought to be fully accountable.
Many ways to fix the mess, up to and including violent revolution (we’ve been there before).
Navel gazing won’t do it, though. Neither will Romney.
Ron Paul was popular on college campuses because of his isolationist-peacenik views. Ron Paul made Obama look like a hawk by comparison.
Does Gary Johnson agree with Ron Paul on issues like Iran?
I checked the foreign policy section of Johnson’s website (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy). It is the usual Libertarian collection of vague, naïve, and delusional bullet-points (anyone nostalgic for Ron Paul would feel right at home). Of course there is no mention of Iran, N. Korea, Russia or China and the threat they represent. On the other hand, there is fair amount of space devoted to smearing U.S. treatment of terrorist prisoners.
It’s really wonderful that as we approach Memorial Day, Johnson, who never served in the military but boasts of military themed macho accomplishments on his website (“Competed in the Bataan Memorial Death March, a 25 mile desert run in combat boots wearing a 35 pound backpack“), implicitly condemns U.S. soldiers for alleged mistreatment of terrorist prisoners. He also apparently wants to handcuff our soldiers’ future efforts by giving captured terrorists the same rights as a U.S. person arrested for violating the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Johnson seems to have no foreign policy. This is a matter for concern, since he is likely to believe whatever he is told by the first group of people to try to inform him of their perspective on things.
Having no foreign policy would be an improvement over what we have now.
The way I see it, both Romney and Obama have high negatives and Johnson is merely an unknown with gubernatorial experience. If he gets the hype and name recognition, he could get the votes of everybody who is unhappy with both Romney and Obama. That could win him the Presidency, but only if the public believes that he could win. His next biggest barrier to victory beyond name recognition is the modern practice of party loyalists mailing in votes months ahead of the election, so he could only attract a smaller share of the voting population in November. The Libertarians have a weaker chance in the congressional races where their candidates will mostly be kooks.
The Libertarians can pull people from both parties by arguing economic freedom to Republicans (as above) and arguing personal freedom and rights of the accused to Democrats, then telling Republicans that what they say to Democrats can be left to the states, and telling Democrats that what they say to Republicans does not mean that they would get rid of the Clean Air Act and the like. Or they could just say both parties are too corrupt, and they would be right.
Votes for Johnson will not win him the Presidency, but they very well may hand a victory over to Obama. I don’t agree that Johnson is more likely to pull from Obama; he is likely to pull from the independents and undecideds. Is that really what we want? Do we really want to take that risk? This election is too critical to take a chance on any third party – yes – spoiler, who is apparently not without a sizable ego. Is feeding that ego to the tune of even one vote worth it if it means an electoral vote victory with a plurality for Obama? The best chance to get Obama out of the White House and our country and Constitution back on track is to vote for the one man who stands the best chance of defeating him, and that person is Romney. I have yet to become a fan of Romney, but I will hold my nose if necessary, because my vote this year is, if nothing else, a vote AGAINST Obama. Conservatives, independents, Reagan Democrats, libertarians, all, cannot afford to dilute their votes by splitting them for a third party candidate. This election has to be as decisive a victory for the conservative cause as possible, even a mandate, if you will.
I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, but I’ve been registered libertarian since I turned 20 in 1976. I voted for Clark when my friends were voting for Carter.
My conscience is clean.
I voted libertarian for years to my everlasting shame. You had better be careful about wasting your vote on these guys .Because you could end up with another Clinton or Obama and then you only have yourself to blame.
When choosing between the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil.
Sometimes your decision space has collapsed to the point that your only options are evil. Not choosing the lesser evil is in fact choosing the greater evil. Welcome to the real world. It sucks.
False dilemma. Gary Johnson is not going to win, period. He’s not going to take one electoral vote.
Let me repeat that. He is not going to take
One.
Electoral.
Vote.
If you vote for him, you’re voting for Obama. Period. End of Story. Fini. Over. Class dismissed.
Your vote is not going to change the result in your state. Romney and Obama will not get the same number of votes or be 1 vote apart, so it doesn’t matter who you vote for.
If that’s the case, why should any one person vote at all? Isn’t the purpose of an election to tally up many individual votes and award the victory to the candidate with the greatest number? Are you saying that Johnson would only get one vote in each state? How many people would you say can safely vote for Johnson without affecting the electoral vote in that state? 10? 100? 500? Have you forgotten that Ohio was decided in 2004 by relatively few votes, and Florida in 2000 by only a few hundred?
No doubt, the Republicans who stayed at home in 2008 in protest eased their consciences with this rationalization. In case you’ve never heard, the best definition of “rationalize” is that it means to tell “rational lies”.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. You are *always* voting for the lesser of two evils.
This world was never made for one as beautiful as you.
Here in the real world we make choices between less then perfect alternatives every single day. I often get the impression that most libertarians would be much happier living in some sort of hippie commune, where their pure, clear principles could remain unsullied by messy reality.
I voted libartarian from 1980 through 2000. Then something happened the next year, and despite naivete by some, it was not our fault. Couldn’t keep wasting my vote.
Good decision. If you’re a libertarian who believes in strong national defense, stop wasting your vote and take over the GOP. The more there are of you, the fewer there will be of people who think that “Government needs to be big if people don’t order their lives correctly.”
Unfortunately, the Republican Party has already been taken over; taken over by the self-proclaimed social conservatives who want to control what happens in citizens’ bedroom as they try to impose the Christian version of sharia law on the country.
The complaint about taking over your bedroom is a false choice. For example, why does it matter if a victim is a homosexual or a black? He is a victim, and the law should treat his violator the same, regardless of what his bedroom proclivities are. If rejection of that is “Christian Sharia” law, you are seriously demented. I also recommend you go live under Sharia law if you think that ANYTHING from the social conservative is Sharia in nature.
The Christian deserves to be heard politically just the same as the atheist, the agnostic, and the Muslim. For you to single out the Christian on his values to me means that you support a “pure” vision of no belief, or possibly even the worship of the state. However you slice it, to dump on the Christian conservative for his beliefs and his willingness to vote his beliefs is either disingenuous or naive in your own stated beliefs.
Since you seem to think I should go live in a country where Sharia is prevalent, let me suggest in turn that you spend some time on this web site: http://www.au.org . Wake up. There’s not a whole lot that is “conservative” about social conservatives.
Or to put it differently, the more religion gets injected into political issues, the less conservative those issues become. I have no problems at all with persons who choose to have religious beliefs. It’s when they try to impose their beliefs on other citizens who don’t share their beliefs…….
The founder of the modern conservative movement is widely acknowledged as the late Senator Barry Goldwater. Among other things, his comment about abortion: “it’s not a conservative issue. It’s a matter between a woman and her doctor.”
The web site I suggest you visit is also full of scenarios where Christians try to suppress those who don’t share their views.
Ever wonder why you are using the term “social conservative”? Why not just “social issues” voters? That way, the Democrat fools who vote social issues can be placed in the same political demographic as the non-Democrat fools who vote social issues.
I intend to vote for Johnson. Obama and Romney have more similarities than differences.
President Obama thanks you for your support.
And the republican establishment is simultaneously thankful for your support and laughs at you for your unquestioning loyalty.
You are the republican equivalent of a conservative black person that votes for any idiot that runs with a d after their name. Hasn’t worked out so great for those black people. How’s it worked out for you?
Two words: Tea. Party.
The Libertarian party will never be a significant party. Our election laws, modern party structure, popular opinion, and basic math forbid it. There isn’t much practical difference between voting LP and not voting at all. If you want political influence you MUST work within one of the two existing parties. Now, that doesn’t guarantee you will have influence; if your position is held by a laughably small minority and you’re incapable of persuading others you will, rightly, be ignored. But even having most of your positions ignored beats the current situation where all of your positions are ignored.
As for me personally, the GOP can count on my vote for exactly as long as the Democrats keep electing Progressives. Relying on your opponent’s stupidity isn’t generally considered a strong strategy.
And thus you take a ridiculous on its face position and directly support a second term for Obama, including whatever justices he may appoint.\
Yeah. Because it’s arguable that all Perot ever accomplished was to put the scummy Clintons into the White House, where they could really screw things up good!
Gary Johnson should smoke less dope.
I am not worried about smoking dope, I am worried about being the dope. To me, to put a third party out there which will dilute the anti-Obama vote into a non-winning vote is being the dope, not just smoking it.
I’m lower case libertarian. I know, without a shadow of doubt, that government that governs least governs best. But I am not suicidal. I vote libertarian when I know my vote is totally unimportant. I (reluctantly) vote republican when I see a reason to think my vote may make a difference. In 2000 I held my nose and voted Bush. 1996, 2004, & 2008 I voted Libertarian. 2012 I’m voting republican because anyone, including a meth addicted whore, is better than BHO, Reid, and Pelosi.
Comparing Barack Hussein Obama to a meth-addicted whore is a terrible insult to meth addicted whores.
The Libertarian Party contains few libertarians; it’s dominated by college students pissed that they can’t get drunk at the titty bars, doctrinaire anarcho-capitalists with loud voices, and gamer geeks who inexplicably think that LP membership will get them laid.
When this changes, let me know. You may need to know a good necromancer to do so, however.
I am conciously a Libertarian, but if I were able to vote in the upcoming Presidential, I would hold my nose and vote Romney. The Augean stables must be cleaned before the Thoroughbreads move in. We have to clear the socialists out of the executive; then we on the right can fall amongst each other with knives, if we choose.
Let me be more explicit: On the right, in Canada, we went through several years of discussion between Libertarians, Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives. We resolved those issues and are now taking the place over, bit by bit; socialists are entrenched in Government.
In the US, the left is entrenched in federal agencies and entitlements. This massive government must be deconstructed, block by block … as Solzhenitsyn might say. To do this in Canada, it was necessary for me, a Libertarian, to say to Social Conservatives: “I will stand by you in your right to make these demands, to ALLOW the debate. I might not be on your side during that debate, but we will have it. You will not be shut out”. These sorts of discussions went on for three years.
So, Libertarians, hold your nose!
I couldn’t agree with you more. How anyone can not think a vote for some third party candidate just gives that vote to obama is beyond me. It’s time to swallow a huge dose of reality and use your vote responsibly.
“If you want more of the same … then vote either Democrat or Republican.”
Too many people trying to keep from wasting their votes is what is steering us off of the cliff. The two major parties are gaming us….flip flopney, captain zero….either will take us down the same path.
Any Republican leaning voter who wastes a vote on a third party candidate is aiding and abetting the small c communists.
Despite what Johnson says, there is no other way to look at it.
If he’s a patriot, there is a first order of business…and his ego isn’t it.
Ditto.
There is so much at stake November 6 that so transcends ego.
Spoilers should get out of the way
I cry for democracy every time I read the comment section of political blogs.Its amazing how ignorant & foolish my fellow citizens become when they comment on large,momentous issues.
Voting Libertarian to make some sort of statement of political anger may get us four more years of Obama!Libertarians claim that they are against big government &,according to Ron Paul,the Federal Reserve System of central banking.The Libertarians are having a temper tantrum over the injustice of the system,leaving reason & logic behind!They want to split the conservative ticket & make it a 3 party contest.A contest they can’t win!But they don’t care….as long as they can voice their anger.Most of the comments I have read,Libertarian & otherwise, suggest a belief that America’s economic problems are political.They imply that the right President with the right political philosophy will turn it all around by making a few great decisions & pushing a few political buttons.At this point it will all turn around & the good times will roll again!
It would be wonderful if this were the case…but that would be pure fantasy.The truth is that the problems are the result of 98 years of systemic abuse by the financial elites (central Bankers & Wall Street) assisted by corrupt politicians.This Frankenstein monster of a financial system we have may be terrible but it is all we have at this time.If in a fit of righteous indignation our political leaders quickly pulled the plug on central banking & Keynesian finances there would be terrible dislocations with riots & civil upheaval,the whole country would go up in flames.The authorities would be picking the dead bodies off of the street,civil society would disintergrate.The Republicans & Romney know this & would need years to slowly dismantle the current system.It took 98 years to reach this point & it will take a number of years to clean up the mess,it will not happen overnight.The hard fact is that if,in our anger,we flushed the financial elites down the drain we would all go down with them.
P.S.A 3rd party run got us into this misery to begin with!The presidential election of 1912 saw a split between President Taft & Former President Roosevelt.Roosevelt wanted to return to the White House & formed his Bullmoose party.He ran as a 3rd party candidate taking votes away from Republican Taft.Because of this split Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the election.Wilson was a puppet of the banking interests & presided over the establishment of the Federal Reserve & the Revenue Act of 1913(Federal Income Tax).If Roosevelt had not run a 3rd party campaign Wilson would not have been able to win.If Wison & the Democrats had not come to power we might not have gotten the Fed.& the income tax that the Libertarians hate so much.Let the people who want to split off from the Republicans think about the election of 1912 before helping Obama & the Democrats to stay in power.
LI
I cry for paragraph breaks.
Lets not forget that the same people that educated Wilson also bank rolled the union buster to hedge their bets because they were not 100% sure about Taft.
Either way we libertarians have come to fully realise why F.A. Hayek dedicated his book “The Road to Serfdom” to the socialist of all parties.
One side says the state should anoint gay marriage valid, the other says it shouldnt anoint it valid; both feel a promise/contract between my wife and I need any validation from the all mighty state to begin with. The left wants the state to force the church to accept gay marriage, the right wants the state’s approval of their own. ??? Two sides of the same coin…. FORCE.
Gary Johnson made a big deal of drug legalization when governor of New Mexico.
I think he even worked for (and achieved) obtaining psychotropic meds (e.g. Prozac) without a prescription from a medical doctor.
I’m a libertarian in spirit, but when it comes to drug legalization, I really don’t equate that with “civil liberties” or commensurate with the job of a national, or even a state, leader.
The record shows that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any real interest in demanding adherence to the US Constitution, as the Libertarians have done. Those who truly desire freedom and liberty and the restoration of the Republic understand the appeal of Libertarianism. Libertarians have nothing to apologize for; rather, the Democrats and Republicans should apologize for crapping on the US Constitution at every opportunity and bringing this country to the brink of catastrophe. It is they who are responsible for the collapse, not the Libertarians.
A label is only as good or as bad, as just or as evil, as the person sporting it.
I am inclined to distrust anybody who identifies the essence of him or herself through attaching a label.
I wouldn’t say its democrats and republicans who’ve screwed the pooch in terms of a healthy, functioning, constitutionally driven federal government.
I’d say its self-serving egomaniacs who see their government gigs as entitlement as opposed to service.
And they come in all flavors of labels.
What makes you think that Libertarian pols are any less vulnerable to the corruption that typically accompanies the intoxicating effects of the power that comes with serving in public office? It’s only by mere virtue that so few of them make it into office that we don’t see such evidence with regard to the Libertarians.
So a guy who tried to run as a Republican and lost is now claiming that Republicans and Democrats are equally bad? Interesting. Ron Paul is the hero of Libertarians who claim the same thing yet he is also a Republican. I think these people have smoked too much pot.
Libertarian views on immigration alone are enough to disqualify them completely. If we ever followed their advice of having wide open borders, people like them would be the first to be voted out of office. We would have rampant Socialism even more than we already do.
Evidently, we have yet to suffer enough from this out of control government’s idiocy to do anything about it. Looks like ’08 all over again. After the crash, and it IS coming, I hope we will learn to value liberty again.
The third largest political party is eclipsed by the other two by a large margin.
If one guy has two-hundred followers and the other a hundred then the guy that has 20 is still technically the third largest.
And keep in mine that while the top two enjoy MILLIONS of members the Libertarian party at last check has less the five-hundred-thousand.
He ran as a Republican, though, seeing “I was never going to get elected as a Libertarian — to this day, that really still is the case.”
He should take his own advice.
The United States spends 40% MORE than it earns and there is no real political will in either party to put the gluttonous beast on a diet.
Obama wants to fundamentally change the United States into a nation of multi- trillionaires whilst Romney would like to cut spending, but gosh, it’s so hard and unpopular that it will just have to wait until it’s politically convenient which will be NEVER…
When the can finally slams up aginst the wall, just like it has in Greece, then Congress will be forced to get serious. If not, total economic collapse will force their hands anyway.
That’s the change your getting…
you’re getting, blowhard.
Obama will be reelected.
There was a time when I too thought that a third party was a good idea. I did vote for Perot allowing Clinton to do his damage.
If we want to see what our electoral proces will look like with three or more parties we need look no futher than our European friends. Do we want to have a President elected with just 30% of the vote? Or perhaps even less. What kook could win if it was divided among five candidates as is often the case in Europe?
Let’s focus on repairing the GOP which I believe can be done over the next 3 or 4 house cycles.
The Libertarian Party has got to be the biggest political misdirection in history. The article says it’s been around for 41 years and it has accomplished nothing in that time despite being a natural fit for most Americans. I happen to believe that that’s by design, that the Libertarian Party is a joint venture run by Democrats and Republicans to marginalize the vast majority who still believe in freedom. Libertarians are always made out to be kooks, heck just read the above comments, and rightly so because the message isn’t so much Libertarian as it is “Hippie”.
The Libertarian Party exists to prevent the formation of a viable 3rd Party. It exists so the Democrats and Republicans can say “3rd Parties can’t win”, “3rd Parties are for kooks”. It exists so the major parties can say “you have to vote for one of us if you want your vote to matter”. But if you’re a Conservative or Libertarian then you vote hasn’t mattered for 25 years. We’ve voted for a steady stream of politicians who’ve boldly proclaimed their “conservativeness” and yet we’ve moved steadily leftward and are now encroaching on Socialism. I agree with Tom Coburn who said recently that the GOP may not exist in 2016 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/cronies-r-us_645187.html) because, at some point, you have to decide that if you can’t win voting for a 3rd party and you lose by voting for a major party then you might as well take a chance on winning rather than the certainty of losing. Sorry #1, the old mantra of “you’ll lose more if the Dems win” is getting rather stale. Sorry #2, saying the election is all about the Supreme Court is equally pathetic.
Ross Perot taught me all I need to know. Both parties are parasites, but I go with the one with the smallest teeth. Plus, besides John Stossel, every Libertarian I’ve ever met, ALWAYS, began the conversation with ‘legalizing drugs’.
Why not go the other direction,…….death penalty for ALL pushers, above a kilo of pot.
“Why not go the other direction,…….death penalty for ALL pushers, above a kilo of pot.”
Now that’s some serious Hope & Change I could get behind! I’ll vote for that -
No, no, no . . . don’t execute them! Instead, lock them up until they’re all cleaned out and then harvest them for transplant parts.
#24 Chris S. “I agree with Tom Coburn….” I don’t agree with all the positions taken by the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma. But he is one of the few in D.C. who is saying that there can be no “sacred cows” when it comes to cutting spending. The left wants to keep all their myriad of duplicative social programs. The right wants to increase defense spending while gutting Medicare.
Coburn also said in an interview in Bloomberg Business Week a couple weeks ago that his party ought to be working more with the President. Not many conservatives have the guts to say that.
I think it’s possible to make gains in cutting back on the welfare-handout complex. But I have greater doubts about trimming the military-industrial complex. If Johnson is on the ballot in Colorado, he will have my vote.
#23 Paul: “Let’s focus on repairing the GOP which I believe can be done over the next 3 or 4 House cycle.” Paul: you’re not paying attention. Paul Ryan comes somewhat close to being an across-the-board spending cutter. But even Rep. Ryan supports increasing defense spending. Others in the Republican leadership; like Cantor, Hastings, McCarthy, Bishop; never met a corporate subsidy that they didn’t like.
Boehner is a hopeless case. Citizens voted for jobs in the 2010 election. In early ’11, Boehner led the way to passing HR 3, to restrict womens’ rights to abortion. What happened to those jobs?
Nice job SteveB/Colorado. Do you also want spending cuts for your beloved EPA? Do you just think that trashing Republican leaders for not wanting to cut defense spending will somehow translate into a justification for no spending cuts in other areas. Spending cuts don’t have to be “across the board” in order to accomplish a balanced spreadsheet. They just have to amount to enough. If we could eliminate the EPA and the Education Departments, return the CDC to disease control, stop buying up all the private property we can with taxpayers money, eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and PBS, reform Social Security and, and get the government out of the health care industry, we could lower taxes and still maintain the most powerful military on the planet. I suspect these are the reasons that you fear Paul Ryan’s budget plans.
Ahhhh; Jim, thanks for weighing in. First, where in my comment did I make any reference at all to “beloved EPA.” Oops, it’s not there; mistake by Jim.
I fear Paul Ryan’s budget plans?? My implication is that it doesn’t go far enough in that Ryan wants to preserve sacred cows like the horrendously expensive F-35 fighter plane. Oops, another goof by Jim.
Eliminate the EPA? No way, altho having reasonable regulations could return the EPA to that type of agency envisioned by the Republican president who created it. Or let the states deal with environmental regulations? Ohio did a real good job of that way back when that river caught fire. Or look at West Virginia’s record on protection of citizens’ drinking water from the crap put in streams by removal of mountain tops for mining.
“stop buying up all the property we can with taxpayers money….” So what, if there is a willing seller and the federal government ends up as the buyer. Are you criticizing private property rights?
Eliminate waste in the federal government? I think Senator Coburn’s point is that all waste has to go, not just the “favorite whipping boys” of the right wing like the Department of Education, PBS, endowment for the arts, etc.
I didn’t know I implied handing over EPA duties to the states. Was it important for you to mention the “Republican vision” for the EPA, when Nixon basically created the EPA in order to avoid a losing battle with the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate and you know that. Did you want someone to believe that a Republican had that vision? I doubt it. I didn’t know the government could be private property owners? If so, what would actual private property owners be called? And why do we bother say there is such a thing as public property? After the government buys out someone’s private property, said property becomes said public property, you follow? And, you failed to address my final assertion about your need to push for defense cutbacks. Whether you say I am right or I am wrong about that, I stand by that assertion because you are public property kind of a guy.
Perot was absolutely the best candidate, Bush lost all on his own and those who’ve looked at the statistical breakdown know this, Perot did not cost Bush the election, Bush cost Bush the election.
The biggest issue was jobs and Perot was the only one who admitted that NAFTA would (and in fact did) cost the US jobs. The one’s who “wasted their vote” and “helped Clinton” were the ones who put party before country and voted for good ‘ole “read my lips”. What really cost Bush my vote was taking his foot of the throat of Iraq before finishing the job (at the behest of Colon Powell), as soon as the famous “100 hours” press conference concluded I told the wife our kids’ generation would have to finish the job. Had my son gotten killed (home safe after two tours thankfully) it’s Bush 41 I’d have blamed first.
Say JustAl @ 27 “The one’s who “wasted their vote” and “helped Clinton” were the ones who put party before country and voted for good ‘ole “read my lips”.”
.
Mike responds:
Not only is that nonsense, it is insulting. Those of us who voted for Pres. Bush in 1992 most certainly did not put “party before country”.
Pres. Bush Senior lost support because the country fell into a recession. Why did the country fall into a recession? Because the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate forced Pres. Bush to raise taxes and thereby break his campaign promise in exchange for Senate approval of the Gulf War. The Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate knew well that raising taxes at a time when the economic growth teetered would throw the country into a recession and cost Pres. Bush vital support. Pres. Bush knew that the USA would be in for a world of pain if Saddam could consolidate his control over almost half the world’s proven petroleum reserves. Moreover, Saddam was around a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Those of us who’ve looked at the statistical breakdown know that Perot very likely cost Pres. Bush Sr. the 1992 election. But that blame can be duly shared by those faithless ‘conservatives’ and Libertarians who would not understand how Pres. Bush Sr. put national security before his re-election chances.
Unlike Pres. Clinton and Obama who have followed, Pres. Bush Sr. put national security and the long-term economic well being of the country before party politics in the 1992 election cycle. And Libertarians and myopic conservatives punished him for doing so by abandoning him.
Say JustAl @ 27 “The one’s who “wasted their vote” and “helped Clinton” were the ones who put party before country and voted for good ‘ole “read my lips”.”
.
Mike responds:
Not only is that nonsense it is insulting. Those of us who voted for Pres. bush in 1992 most certainly did not put “party before country”.
Pres. Bush senior lost support because the country fell into a recession. Why did the country fall into a recession? Because the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate forced Pres. Bush to raise taxes and break his campaign promise in exchange for Senate approval of the Gulf War. the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate knew well that raising taxes would through the country into a recession and cost Pres. Bush vital support. Pres. Bush knew that the USA would be in for a world of pain if Saddam could consolidate his control over almost half the world’s proven petroleum reserves. Moreover, Saddam was around a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Those who’ve looked at the statistical breakdown know that Perot very likely cost Pres. Bush Sr. the 1992 election. But the blame can well spread around to those faithless ‘conservativeness’ who would not understand how Pres. Bush Sr. put national security before his re-election..
You posted it twice and guess what? It is wrong both times. Bush lost because of Bush. That little dot means PERIOD. You got suckered on NAFTA and a whole raft of crap regulations and spending that to this day has not gotten smaller nor less onerous on the common man nor his boss.
Pay attention will ya…
I posted that twice because I inadvertently posted a woefully unedited copy. As I’m dyslexic any first draft of what I write will need substantial editing.
So Mr. Sanders you are bitter and resentful about NAFTA? NAFTA? NAFTA? I can understand opposition of opening up trade with China but NAFTA? NAFTA has been good for the USA. I’ve got my issues with Pres. Bush Sr. but the spending problem was structured into the US political-economy by FDR and LBJ. It is entrenched and extremely hard to reform. So unless you are going to give Pres. Bush Jr. praise and recognition for having the cojones to make a serious effort to reform Social Security in 2005, you are part of the problem Mr. Sanders because you don’t understand the problem. Increased regulation under Pres. Bush? Meh. Bush Sr.’s appointment of Justice Souter to the SCOTUS troubled me far more because that’s something Pres. Bush had control over. I was also troubled by his efforts to open trade with China without obtaining human rights and pro-democracy reforms in exchange.
President Bush signed NAFTA on December 17, 1992, after the election. Ya might want to pay more attention, Mr. Sanders because not withstanding your bitterness about NAFTA you did little to contradict what I wrote.
President Bush Senior lost support because the country fell into a recession. Why did the country fall into a recession? Because the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate forced Pres. Bush to raise taxes and thereby break his campaign promise in exchange for Senate approval of the Gulf War. The Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate knew well that raising taxes at a time when the economic growth teetered would throw the country into a recession and cost Pres. Bush vital support. Pres. Bush knew that the USA would be in for a world of pain if Saddam could consolidate his control over almost half the world’s proven petroleum reserves. Moreover, Saddam was around a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Those of us who’ve looked at the statistical breakdown know that Perot very likely cost Pres. Bush Sr. the 1992 election. But that blame can be duly shared by those faithless ‘conservatives’ and Libertarians who would not understand how Pres. Bush Sr. put national security before his re-election chances.
Unlike Pres. Clinton and Obama who have followed, Pres. Bush Sr. put national security and the long-term economic well being of the country before party politics in the 1992 election cycle. And Libertarians and myopic conservatives punished him for doing so by abandoning him.
You’ll always be able to know where a Libertarian stands on the issues…
Because, at the most fundamental and important level, they believe in the rule of law, to include the enforcement of the law instead of the “benign” non-enforcement of key laws that we see all around us these daze.
***
At this juncture, looking at our limited options, the Libertarians look like the only way to take the problem on, even despite their blind spots around social foreign policies.
I disagree about them taking on the third party role. There is an urgent current day need for an honest opposition party, one with a better formed organization of ideals and policy program. But, in the absence of that, it’d be best if the Libertarians became the second party, a true opposition to the globalists and socialists, instead of the faux opposition made by the RINOs, who are nothing more than hapless triangulators of the every leftward moving geometry we’ve been left to call our national discourse over the last several decades.
I think my message was lost in the ether.
Well, if you all are not excited by a Romney Presidency, I surely am. He like Reagan has moved from left to right. There is a youtube with Charlie Rose (CBS) interviewing Jeff Benedict who wrote a book – “Doing Business the Mormon Way.” Rose asks him about Romney and why with all the good deeds he has done all of his life why he doesn’t talk about them. It is the best answer and surely makes a stark contrast between obama and Mitt Romney. I think it’s called, “who is he when no one is looking?”
This guy will return honor and integrity to the white house and he will be someone our children can look up to and NOT because he smoked pot and did cocane. The entertainers will not be asked to perform if their language is the same as the obama’s tolerate.
If we don’t all get behind Gov Romney our country is doomed. What kind of a deal will obama make with Russia (since he said he would)after the election? How much will our electric bill etc., “skyrocket” (obama’s words) after the election if he is left in?
We have to stand for something, and we know where obama and the people supporting him will stand.
Besides it will be nice not to see bare arms etc., all the time!
A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.
The rest is mere noise. I’m not a fan of Romney. I would low-crawl a mile over broken glass to help remove the current occupant of the White House.
The Democrats most love this tactic. When behind in tight races and facing high ‘unfavorables’ Democrats oft promote or arrange for spoiler candidates as they got caught doing in 2010 in a New Jersey Congressional race. It seems to me that Gary Johnson comes across as something of a low-tax liberal. His role in this presidential race reminds me of that of Chris Dagget in the 2009 New Jersey governors race. In October 2009, when it became clear that Chris Christie (R) might very well win the election against Gov. Jon Corzine (D-Corrupt), third party candidate Chris Daggett (a former regional administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) was endorsed by New Jersey’s largest circulated newspaper, The Star-Ledger. Recorder Newspapers, the parent company for 15 newspapers throughout central New Jersey, rescinded their endorsement for Chris Christie and issued an endorsement for Chris Daggett. Clearly these generally Democratic aligned newspapers sought throw the election to the unpopular Jon Corzine by splitting the anti-Corzine vote.
Shorty after the election Chris Daggett was rewarded for his efforts with a position of CEO of the left-wing Dodge Foundation.
One must wonder, how will the Obama administration reward Gary Johnson in 2013?
You know what? I am at the point that I just may vote for Obama, because folks just don’t get it that we are going down the same road to perdition. Either in a plane flown by the Choom team or in a cage on top of the family station wagon. But in no way shape or chance are we not going to hell in a hand basket by voting either R or D. So go right ahead and crawl over that broken glass and vote for perdition my friend. But it don’t make you smart nor does it make you sane.
Respectfully yours,
Cooder dunn Bedder
The Tea Party is all of 3 years old, the Contract with America was two decades in the past, and the Reagan Revolution was over 30 years ago. They’ve still managed to do more than the Libertarian party has in 41 years. Look, it took us about a century to get to this point. It is insanity of the first water to think things are going to turn around in one election cycle.
Libertarians are not the third party I will ever want because I don’t want one. I believe in the power of the two party system. Political parties get very intransigent when they are based on a fixed ideology rather than the desire to have the mandate of the majority to govern. All of you Libertarians can go ahead and get your panties in a big wad, but your government is not parliamentarian in form. It is republican and a working majority can only be achieved by a big tent political party. ABO2012
The libertarians have some really good ideas, although a few really critical points will always cause them to stay just as they are. The concept of making all drugs legal is a liberty loving one, and I don’t care who wants to fry their brains with it, but I see disaster if they just make them legal. You will have a huge surge of idiots go out and try it “now that it’s legal” …many will get permanently hooked and progress right up to heroin, coke and meth. They will be newbies, who will think they can drive, cause they aren’t used to it. How many innocents will they murder on the roads? They will quickly lose their jobs, become unemployable because they now have a criminal record….how will they support themselves and or families? The same is true for foreign affairs, I do think we should be involved much less, but when we do that, dictators tend to swallow entire regions. And on and on, fine ideas, but the clash of reality forces a conservative directions more than a purely libertarian one. But thats just me….. and apparently a HUGE number of other conservatives…..
Who believes Romney is electrified by liberty?
There’s not a dime’s difference between you Repubs and Dems.
The government grows and grows as the two parties alternate figureheads.
Frankly, there’s more similarity between Libertarians and Progressives than there is between Republicans and Democrats. Both subgroups cling mindlessly to an ideology that bears little to no relation to the real world. From a practical matter Obama and Ron Paul are identical.
Your fetishistic ideation of “liberty” marks you as an unthinking ideologue. Much like Obama and his calls for “fairness.”
Far too eager to throw their apparent natural allies under the bus to the cheers of Progressives, Libertarians it seems are little more than low-tax small government Progressives.
And that “fetishistic ideation of “liberty””? It does well to remember that much of the extreme rhetoric Libertarians cite derives from Thomas Jefferson, a racist slaveholder, who refused over and over again to extend his ideation of liberty to Black Americans. Thomas Jefferson who played the role of foremost American apologist for the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, the forerunner of all modern Progressive movements.
And the forefather of American Libertarianism, was he not John Locke? The same John Locke would wrote the institution of slavery into the founding Royal Charters of the Carolinas? John Locke’s “ideation of liberty” excluded Roman Catholics as Locke made sure that Carolinas imposed the death penalty upon any and every Catholic priest setting foot in his colonial Carolinas. John Locke also provided the intellectual justification for the genocidal anti-Catholic Irish Penal Laws. John Locke’s “ideation of liberty” did not extend to the native Catholic population of Ireland.
My take: The Democratic Party has been completely taken over by the hard left, leaving the blue dogs out in the cold. Where did they go? The Republican Party establishment. This has been happening gradually over the years, IMO, with pols “reading the tea leaves” & acting accordingly. NTS, this creates a very difficult situation for the conservatives who are working hard to elbow their way somehow to a place at the table of the arena of ideas & policies. It’s no small wonder they are so frustrated.
How so? I am tired of hearing these mindless appraisals of the political parties in this country. This kind of drivel usually comes from the far left.
from my comments on my website about this and Carla’s FOOLISH statement!
http://truthandcommonsense.com/2012/05/27/gary-johnson-and-the-third-party-run-it-is-a-set-up/
….Oh, darlin’ Carla, you are SOOOO wrong! Only political hacks compare Romney (or anyone for that matter) to Obama and his radical, crony ridden, oppressive, criminal administration! Do you think Romney would allow for the theft from the national treasury like Obama? Do you think Romney’s AG would ignore the New Black Panthers? Do you think he would say Trayvon, a thug, was like his son? Do you think he would agree to allow weapons to “walk” into Mexico, kill Mexicans and Border Patrol agents, in order to pursue a liberal anti-Second Amendment agenda? AND THAT’S JUST THE HIGHLIGHTS!!!
Like I said, a political hack.
I’m long past thinking Libertarians are anything more than a piss-ant bite on the national election’s leg, they are a serious disruption that gave us Clinton (which gave us war, gave us corruption, gave us Hillary, gave us Lewinski, gave us anti-gun legislation..and on, and on). This time, THIS TIME Libertarians will give us a second uncontrolled Obama administration that will try to “remake” our nation into Venezuela or worse.
Right now we enjoy the Internet- but it is under attack. Right now we have the right to pick our insurance- until 2014 at least. Right now we can protect ourselves against violence with guns- for now. Right now we have hope things will get better if Romney gets in, a second term for Obama will almost surely seal our economic fate. Right now we can argue openly against the administration without being assigned a “domestic terrorist” title by Obama (see the new executive order). Right now it is bad, but not horrible.
Don’t think for a second that it won’t get worse if the Libertarians get one vote nationally.
Libertarians are to the right what Chomskyites are to the left: fools deluded by absolutes.
At this point, after a century of progressive and leftist indoctrination, can we please, please have a conservative political movement that recognizes how long it’s going to take to detox this country from leftism? Figure three generations at a minimum.
This is a war you’ll be fighting for the rest of your life.
That’s how the lefties did it: relentless pushing on all fronts (especially culture and education), plus an infinite capacity to endure endless meetings. They realized a long time ago the need for the Long March through the institutions, and have carried it out successfuly.
But the libertarians wall themselves up in their Compounds of Ideological Purity, disdaining all who don’t quite measure up and either staying home or voting for people who will never get elected to office.
This, they fondly imagine, is “warning them” and “teaching a lesson” and “sending a message.” Here’s the Big Secret: parties respond to those who stick around, hammer home the same message, and never go away.
Grass-roots are everything, and the Tea Party looks like a good start. But for a third party to do anything constructive, it has to break extremely big in a general election. Such an outcome have never yet happened in this country. Instead, what we get are an endless series of spoiling actions in which the worse of two major-party candidates gets elected.
As for Romney, if he’s as flexible as many say, then the job of keeping him on track is easier — just keep him flexed the right way. Won’t be hard; he’s pliable.
Obama on the other hand is a committed leftist ideologue. While he’s not very good at politicking, he really believes what he believes. And since what he believes is anathema to the constitution and all this country stands for, that means he makes tactical retreats only and the target remains the same — subverting the US into some bastard clone of Europe.
(In my view, BHO is the living exemplar of the phrase “book-smart, life-dumb.” He should never have wandered more than two blocks off-campus.)
Anyway, Romney’s flexible? Not a bug, that’s a feature.
Anyway, Romney’s flexible? Not a bug, that’s a feature.
LOL! Actually, it’s even worse: Romney’s a bug in search of a windshield.
This notion that large numbers of Americans are libertarians is really charming, but not particularly supported by the evidence. Yes, many Americans think marijuana should be legal, but are not so willing to go along with legalizing meth, heroin, cocaine (powder and crack). Many Americans don’t want the government wasting money on stupid forms of welfare–but are not particularly keen on abolishing all governmental assistance to the poor.
I worked on Ed Clark’s 1980 campaign, and I was active in Libertarian Party politics in the 1980s. But eventually I went back to college, finished my BA and MA in History, and discovered that many of the historical claims of libertarian ideologues really did not have much factual basis–especially in the foreign policy area.
Libertarianism is certainly a useful direction for the country to take, but like most ideologies, it is better suited to a species that does not live on this planet: intelligent people capable of long-term planning. Computer geeks? Sure. Humans as a species? No.
And many American are not particularly keen on cutting back on the middle class welfare benefits they’ve come to depend upon as they do not understand how those benefits are fiscally unsustainable. The ubiquitous libertarian focus on legalizing marijuana, meth, heroin, cocaine (powder and crack) suggests that a self-serving ideological agenda which can not translate into viable solutions to America’s $138 trillion to $212 trillion entitlement crunch.
I agree many of the historical claims of libertarian ideologues really do not have much factual basis–especially in the foreign policy area.
I appreciate the Libertarian emphasis on smaller government and rollback of the regulatory state however given the mindlessly selfish and clearly destructive Libertarian efforts to legalizing meth, heroin, cocaine (powder and crack)it is hard to imagine how Libertarianism is a useful direction for the country to take.
The Democrats most love this tactic. When behind in tight races and facing high ‘unfavorables’ Democrats oft promote or arrange for spoiler candidates as they got caught doing in 2010 in a New Jersey Congressional race. It seems to me that Gary Johnson comes across as something of a low-tax liberal. His role in this presidential race reminds me of that of Chris Dagget in the 2009 New Jersey governors race. In October 2009, when it became clear that Chris Christie (R) might very well win the election against Gov. Jon Corzine (D-Corrupt), third party candidate Chris Daggett (a former regional administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) was endorsed by New Jersey’s largest circulated newspaper, The Star-Ledger. Recorder Newspapers, the parent company for 15 newspapers throughout central New Jersey, rescinded their endorsement for Chris Christie and issued an endorsement for Chris Daggett. Clearly these generally Democratic aligned newspapers sought throw the election to the unpopular Jon Corzine by splitting the anti-Corzine vote.
Shorty after the election Chris Daggett was rewarded for his efforts with a position of CEO of the left-wing Dodge Foundation.
One must wonder, how will the Obama administration reward Gary Johnson in 2013?
I was in the LP for several years. I quit because I could never get the Party to seriously consider devoting most of its effort toward changing the voting system to eliminate the split vote problem. The best approach would be Condorcet Voting (look it up) but it suffers from being a ranked system that is (1) easily confused with inferior ranked systems (such as instant run-off) and (2) would require that all voting machines have to change at considerable expense. Instead, I’ve long advocated Approval Voting (AV). It involves voting for as many candidates as a person likes in a given race, with the candidate receiving the most votes winning. Utter simplicity. AV could be implemented with no special effort on extant voting machines – it would have the look and feel of at-large voting except only one candidate is chosen.
There is a book titled Approval Voting (http://www.amazon.com/Approval-Voting-Steven-J-Brams/dp/3764331240) written by Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn. Highly recommended.
A final note. Social Choice Theory/Voting Science, seems to have attracked cranks by the bus load. There is no perfect voting system but there is a best – Condorcet. A close second is AV, which is very simple and easy to implement. If you want to eliminate the two party system in the simplest fashion, push for AV.
Forget trying to change the voting system — the one we have is the one we’ll for all the forseeable future.
You’ll have far better success taking over one of the major parties (GOP presumably) via grassroots/Tea Party efforts. But this takes time and effort, and every libertarian would much, much prefer to sit back and demand his instant one-fix-for-all-time.
The only piece that makes sense about Third Parties is called “Nobody For President” which with the help of W.Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas primaries have made evident the best third party candidate.
Unusual piece, to say the least with an unusual solution. At http://www.AmericasChronicle.com
Thy hypocrisy in this thread is thick enough make the air stale. Let me summarize and paraphrase many of the above comments:
1. Libertarians are fools to hold their principles. . .above mine.
2. Any vote is wasted if it isn’t for . . . mine.
3. Ending prohibition doesn’t limit government? But it would limit the money received by drug councilors, police, and lawyers, now wouldn’t it? (Be honest) how many here get money to promote the government’s war on liberty?
4. Libertarians are the one’s “throwing allies under the bus” (LOL).
5. NAFTA didn’t really cost jobs, all of those US manufacturing plants in Mexico and all those companies who used Mexico as a stepping stone to China are imaginary. . .
I will not resort to the sort of name calling prominent from the left (and only slightly less prominent from elements of the “right” here). But, I will say, I’m damned proud not to be one of “you”.
Where libertarians are hopelessly foolish is their pursuit of absolute purity. You sneer at hypocracy, but there has never been a human society without it, and in the right tactical situation I’d shamelessly use it, plus compromise, to break the grip of leftism on this country.
Look, I happen to think the 10th amendment meas exactly what it says — but I’m not silly enough to think we’ll get (back to) there in my lifetime.
The rest is just details.
Foolishness is abandoning the search for the best and “settling”. Once you decide and openly admit that you will “settle” for whatever the caucus crowd gives you the scale only slides in one direction: Bush 41 left of Regan, Dole about the same, Bush 43 to the left of Dole, McCain to the left of Clinton, Romney about the same.
All I’m urging is that conservatives use the same “ratchet” approach that the left has used since the beginning. The left didn’t manoeuver this country to where it is in a single step — and we won’t take it back in a single step either.
Libertarians are fixated on finding and implementing The One Perfect Way, which will restore everything good and true in a single bound. You see this in all their hair-splitting doctrinal disputes. Pure utter childishness.
A republic in one step? Not gonna happen — too many people with too many agendas.
On the other hand, you are living right now in a system which the left created incrementally over about a century, moving the US from a republic to a squabble of competing identity groups. The only road back to anything close to a republic is just as incremental. And will likely take decades to accomplish.
But that requires libertarians to think strategically, and to act like grown-ups instead of bratty children (“If you don’t play MY rules right now, I’m taking the ball and going home”). To be honest, I don’t think libertarians can act like adults — if they could, the movement would show some achievements.
We’ll see. But if libertarians are useless for restoring the republic, they should at least have the decency not to make it worse.
If the libertarians were serious, they would first secure positions in congress and the state houses, running as Libertarians. Then if they ran for the big one they might just get it, instead of re-electing Obama.
Their behavior clearly shows they’re not at all serious, or they’d be engaged in the process you mention.
With libertarians or without them, restoring the republic is going to be like building a cathedral (and probably take about as long).
I see no evidence that libertarians have the mental toughness for the job. They get bored, they drift away — it’s so much easier to sit back and carp about all the imperfect candidates out there…
Children.
Just like the socialist of the left hit a big government neocon with a fact and the reaction is the same, just call someone a name.
I’ll refrain, children are innocent, you and your ilk are complicit in losing the Republic you speak of.
End the Fed?
Are you kidding? These people will just invent another monster. Its the fact that the state is allowed (allowed) the power to initiate ‘legal tender law’ into a make believe free economy. A money monopoly by force.
John Mynard Keynes said “the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Yet Nixon said “We’re all Keyneans now.” a republican
To counter
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
― Friedrich von Hayek “The Fatal Conciet”
And dont give me the Dr. Robert Stadler of the libertarian party Milton Friedman, or Alan Greenspan.
Anyone seen the new anti smoking psa-s? Well we ask were are the anti sky-diving adds, motorcycle adds, automobile adds, highschool football adds? etc…
oh but the statistics show…. who decides the threshold? The STATE?/YOU
Regan was right… “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-S
enjoy a cool economics rap??? be sure to watch round 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-S
enjoy a cool economics rap??? be sure to watch round 2 or youtube hayek vs keynes