Article: "Why the Libertarian Party Is Worthless"

[MODU]

This is posted for discussion purposes only, and not because I support the subject title, so don't give me any lip over it. 

"Why the Libertarian Party Is Worthless"

In a recent column, I discussed the disaffection of libertarians within the conservative coalition, suggesting that many might be more at home on the political left. A number of readers wrote to say that they agreed with my analysis and had left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. Among these is former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who officially joined the Libertarians last week.

Of course, people are free to do what they want to do, and if they want to join the Libertarians, that's their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, then they are making a big mistake, in my opinion. The Libertarian Party is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than it has done to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the Libertarian Party to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.

The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.

(Cont...)

[minionofmidas]

Here you are:

HOW DARE YOU

[John Dibble]

Well, I would agree that as things stand the LP doesn't stand much of a chance of making a difference. For this reason I support the Libertarian Reform Caucus - we need to be serious about winning and do what it takes. We need serious candidates who pick where they run carefully in order to maximize our chances of success, we need to get rid of the idea that the purist libertarian mentality is the only one we'll accept, we need positions and solutions that enough people can agree with that they'll be willing to vote for it, and many other things need doing.

What I disagree with is the notion that we should just disband and join up with the Reps or Dems. Sorry, but they pretty much ignore us outside of lip service for votes come election time, and I doubt that would change even if we had an organization like the NRA. It's an idea worth pursuing if the LP continues it's incompetence, but seeing as the LRC is making progress it might be worth staying together.

[Alcon]

Dibble, as much as I respect the reform, can you really see much of anything turning the LP's 0.7% (or whatever) in the vote into anything but a 5% (at best), which the LP can probably only manage if they don't burn the bridges entailed in being a major political swing force?

[John Dibble]

Dibble, as much as I respect the reform, can you really see much of anything turning the LP's 0.7% (or whatever) in the vote into anything but a 5% (at best), which the LP can probably only manage if they don't burn the bridges entailed in being a major political swing force?

I'm under no illusion that we'll win any presidential, guberntorial, or senatorial races as things stand(unless we got some major celebrity on our side running, and even then that's an exception and not a rule), and even with reform it would take success at lower levels first as well as a change in the electoral system. (which is one of the reasons I support approval voting) Of course such a change would likely require we have some modicum of power since the current parties know the system is advantageous to them.

Our campaigns should concentrate on state level races and House races, preferably in areas where there is only one major party candidate running. These races should be running moderate libertarian candidates who aren't going to be considered crazy. We should concentrate our funds on such races - hire campaign managers, hold events, ect. If we can we need to make it so our candidates can run as full time candidates, not only on weekends. Finding areas friendly to libertarianism is also a plus. Basically the strategy would be to find races we can potentially win in order to get a foothold. We need to go from the ground up, not from the top down.

[David S]

Libertarians believe in individual freedom, personal responsibility and limited government. We can vote for a Democrat who will happily take our rights and increase the size and power of government, exactly the opposite of what we want. Or we can vote for a Republican who will take our rights and increase the size and power of government, also the opposite of what we want. Or we  can vote for a Libertarian candidate who actually stands for the things we believe in.

Elections aren't horse races. You don't win money if your candidate wins. You vote for the candidate you want and let the chips fall where they may.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Libertarians believe in individual freedom, personal responsibility and limited government. We can vote for a Democrat who will happily take our rights and increase the size and power of government, exactly the opposite of what we want. Or we can vote for a Republican who will take our rights and increase the size and power of government, also the opposite of what we want. Or we  can vote for a Libertarian candidate who actually stands for the things we believe in.

The sad thing about this is that Barry Goldwater wanted the Republican party to go that way and it has lost course over the past 40 years.  In the past 6 years, I seriously think the Republicans have lost a huge base to the Libertarian movement because of what David S has pointed out.  Sadly, the old Republican values have been lost by the Religous Right and simple mismanagement of the federal budget.

This is exactly why, I've woken and smelled the coffee and became a libertarian.

[Saxwsylvania]

What the Libertarian party and other third parties need to do is start supporting instant runoff voting, or some other voting reform.  As long as we have the first-past-the-post system, people will vote against people rather than for them.

They also need to start being more active at sending candidates to Congress and nominating higher-profile candidates.  Michael Badnarik?  Come on.  I agree with him on a lot of things, but nobody wants to trust the Presidency of the most powerful nation in the world over to a former electrician.

The Republican party is terrible.  The Democratic party is just plan awful.  You'd think in this year, we'd actually have some Libertarians being elected to Congress.  But nope.  Still more of the same.

[MaC]

The article fails to understand the point of why the LP exists.  They think that 'winning elections' is a priority-like many people think of the Libertarian Party.

No, the Libertarian movement is that of making as many individuals 'libertarian' as possible.  Only by winning this uphill battle philosophically can we thus use this movement to install our values into the Democratic and Republican Parties.

 The Democrats and Republicans will be around forever as long as I'm concerned.  However they are adaptable to whatever the current social movement may be.  In the early 1900s both parties were often non-interventionist and stongly pro-statesrights.  However the progressive and socialist movements moved the 'liberals' to the far left, then at some point they elected Franklin Roosevelt to be President.  The Republicans avoided the change initially, but it wasn't until the 1940/50s until they also became adherents to Keynesian theories and supportive of a bigger government.

If Eugene Debs won a million votes in 1912, and other like-movements changed the parties in the past, then there's no reason to believe the libertarians cannot change the parties in the new century.

[Bacon King]

I really think the libertarian party would work better if, in more small scale races, they just endorsed the major party candidate with the most similar views rather than running their own 'nobody'.

That way, the party could actually help their ideology by, say, giving the support a small-government candidate in a Republican primary needs to pull ahead. The other alternative is to nominate some guy off the street with a funny last name who hates the government so much he boycotts post offices.

[KEmperor]

Personally what I would like to see is fusion voting to be extended to more states.  It helps make the New York third parties have some clout with candidates and vice versa.

[MaC]

That way, the party could actually help their ideology by, say, giving the support a small-government candidate in a Republican primary needs to pull ahead. The other alternative is to nominate some guy off the street with a funny last name who hates the government so much he boycotts post offices.

You can really set up a false dichotomy, can't you?

[RBH]

The Libertarian Party's #1 flaw is not having more rich people to fund their campaigns.

[Bacon King]

That way, the party could actually help their ideology by, say, giving the support a small-government candidate in a Republican primary needs to pull ahead. The other alternative is to nominate some guy off the street with a funny last name who hates the government so much he boycotts post offices.

You can really set up a false dichotomy, can't you?

I was trying at humor, actually, though in retrospect I guess it wasn't really that funny.

My point remains a valid one, however- quite a few Libertarian candidates for office aren't really of high calibre. I mean, the VP candidate in '04 was proud of the fact he bought a PhD from a 'diploma mill.' Last election cycle, I recall reading on my state LP website that in order to run with Libertarian support you just had to pay for your spot on the ballot. With a situation like that, you could easily have some crazy running under the libertarian party.

Now, I'm not saying every Libertarian sucks. In fact, had I voted this year, I would have voted for the Libertarian in most state races. I'm merely implying that the number of nutjobs running under the LP is greater than in the two main parties.

[MaC]

That way, the party could actually help their ideology by, say, giving the support a small-government candidate in a Republican primary needs to pull ahead. The other alternative is to nominate some guy off the street with a funny last name who hates the government so much he boycotts post offices.

You can really set up a false dichotomy, can't you?

I was trying at humor, actually, though in retrospect I guess it wasn't really that funny.

My point remains a valid one, however- quite a few Libertarian candidates for office aren't really of high calibre. I mean, the VP candidate in '04 was proud of the fact he bought a PhD from a 'diploma mill.' Last election cycle, I recall reading on my state LP website that in order to run with Libertarian support you just had to pay for your spot on the ballot. With a situation like that, you could easily have some crazy running under the libertarian party.

Now, I'm not saying every Libertarian sucks. In fact, had I voted this year, I would have voted for the Libertarian in most state races. I'm merely implying that the number of nutjobs running under the LP is greater than in the two main parties.

Yeah, 2004 was a major f**k up by us.  Best to not speak of it, just learn from the mistakes...

[HardRCafé]

Way too short an article.

[adam]

A severe lack of qualified, respectable, and , above all else, WEALTHY candidates have been the achilles heel of the LP since the parties formation. I mean good god, they were seriously toying with the notion of running Drew Carey for president in 2004. They probably changed their mind when they found out that Carey had no experience in web design and thus wouldn't be able to set up his own website like most Libertarians are forced to do.

Their candidate for Montana's US Senate seat this year accused our government of taking part in a communist conspiracy in which they were going to combind the North and Central American countries into one, similar to the form of the EU. Complete with our own currency, the Amero. What's worse is that HE DID THIS ON NATIONAL TELEVISION! What's sad is that he isn't alone...quite a few of these conspiracy nuts are projecting this whackjob "ideology" as that of the Libertarian Party.

They are not without accomplishment however! After the 2006 midterm elections, one of their candidates for some School District Superintendent seat in Georgia...finished with 8%!! WOW!

For the time being, the LP is a total joke. It would be nice if they could get it together...but I am having a hard time seeing it happen.

[HardRCafé]

Their candidate for Montana's US Senate seat this year accused our government of taking part in a communist conspiracy in which they were going to combind the North and Central American countries into one, similar to the form of the EU. Complete with our own currency, the Amero. What's worse is that HE DID THIS ON NATIONAL TELEVISION! What's sad is that he isn't alone...quite a few of these conspiracy nuts are projecting this whackjob "ideology" as that of the Libertarian Party.

Papa Smurf?  Do they have anyone else?

[Storebought]

The sad fact is the LP candidate usually receives fewer votes in bottom-ticket races than the even the self-identified "joke" candidate, let alone real third parties like Greens, CP, etc.