Libertarian Party Hurts Libertarianism?
Dean
Randy Barnett says the Libertarian Party has hurt libertarians, and gives some excellent reasons for why he thinks so.
I find his analysis spot-on. This is why I think that libertarians really ought to be abandoning the pointless Libertarian Party and, at a local level, building up either the Democratic Freedom Caucus (if living in an area where the Democrats are in the majority) or the Republican Liberty Caucus (if living in an area where Republicans are in the majority).
By placing themselves where they are, Libertarians have essentially guaranteed that they will occasionally win local offices almost as a fluke, and nothing else--and their voices will otherwise rarely be heard in the halls of government.
Most of the bloggers on my blogroll are libertarian in the sense that they are for more individual freedom and reponsibility and for less government, opposed to socialism, gun control, and Political Correctness, and also opposed to censorship, drug laws, and "sodomy" laws. But very few of them vote for or identify with the Libertarian Party. Grover Norquist, the Cato Institute, the Institute for Justice, the National Rifle Association, the Pink Pistols, and the Log Cabin Republicans have all done more to limit government and to uphold the freedom of the individual than has the Libertarian Party. I regret the third-party votes I cast in my misspent youth, for Roger Lea MacBride in 1976, for John Anderson in 1980. President Gerald Ford and President Ronald Reagan, despite any imperfections or contradictions, both did a great deal in the noble cause of freedom, far more than has the Libertarian or any third party.
Ayn Rand never wanted anything to do with the Libertarian Party and neither has Leonard Peikoff, Peter Schwartz, Harry Binswanger, John Ridpath, etc., and I now agree with them. The Libertarian Party has largely been taken over by the Rothbard-Rockwell school, which consists of believing that America is always wrong and that the best thing to be is always to be on the enemy side of every great controversy, from the Civil War to World War II to the Cold War to the War on Terror. I disagree with that totally -- I'm on our side! They have even aligned with the "Christian Reconstructionists", who make Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson look liberal by comparison (as may well be their intent).
I'll stick with the Republican Liberty Coalition, the Republican Unity Coalition, and the other organizations I mentioned above in order to work with the President and our Republican-dominated House, Senate, and Supreme Court, and hold the Republican Party to its original principles. That's the best way. As it is now, the Birthday Party and the Halloween Party are more politically serious and effective than is the Libertarian Party.
Let's say, you are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-capitalism, not very religious, skeptical of government solutions.
Who you gonna vote for?
If there are lot of these folks, maybe they'll organize, maybe they'll call themselves the Libertarian Party.
Ain't this similar to how the GOP started in 1850's?
But, Barnett disagrees yada-yada-yada and I like Barnett, so what is one gonna do?
I also think we need to stop concentrating so much on our national campaigns - we need to concentrate our resources on local and state elections where our members actually have a chance of victory, that way we can win some more and get more recognition as a viable party for higher office. Until that happens none of our larger campaigns will pay off.
Concentrating on reforming the voting system would be good, too. The plurality system just sucks if you aren't one of the two major parties. I'm personally in favor of going to a system of approval voting.
This often put the Conservative Party in New York in the cat bird seat. They might endorse a Republican or even a Democrat and either sit out an election or even actively campaign for him. If on the other hand, the big party candidates refused to talk to them or the issues that mattered to them, they'd run their own candidate, and could sometimes act as spoiler.
If today's Libertarian (or Green) party would do that they'd have more power than they have now.
"Let's say, you are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-capitalism, not very religious, skeptical of government solutions."
As SMA and Dean know, I have a lot more than just that on my mind. For example, protecting the United States of America from all threats from any quarter. But it will do for starters.
I took the trouble to link to the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) and to the Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC). Damned if they don't both sound refreshingly similar. And both represent ideas that I could be glad to shake hands with.
Have I been a regular Republican for some 50 years? Yes indeed. But it's been a long time since a man like Harry S Truman represented the Democrats. Their leaders now act and sound like warmed-over revivals of the ghost of Thomas Dewey.
(I didn't think too many Republicans liked him, either, 60 years ago, otherwise "Give 'em hell" Harry wouldn't have whipped Dewey, Nenry Wallace and Strom Thurmond, all in the same election in 1948.)
And yes, Douglas MacArthur was one of my national heroes. A true American Caesar, as William Manchester described him in his biography. But so too was Harry Truman one of my heroes for firing that insolent and insubordinate bastard. Now if any of you can figure out exactly how a man like me could make a comment such as that, you will understand me some 75 percent better than if you didn't solve the riddle.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
There is everything admirable about that magnificent bastard MacArthur. Who was right in at least 90% of what he stood for.
Except for this: "Give 'em Hell Harry" was, absolutely without question, right to fire his arrogant ass. Any American President who could not summon the courage to do exactly that was never worthy to hold the title of "Commander In Chief."
In short: I knew there was a reason I liked you. :-)
Damn, reading your post was like reading my own personal political manifesto!
As a result, I visited your blog for the first time. Wow, lots of words….. Looks like I’m going to have to find the time to sift through them.
Dean:
That’s another benefit of comments. I am so glad to hear you’re keeping them.
I probably never would have stumbled across SMA other wise. I have read most of his comments here before, and liked them, but none of them resonated with me like this one.
I’m sure it’s a pain for you to deal with the trolls, butt heads, and dim wits. And even just skimming through the majority of posts which are just, well, average, must be a drain. But finding the good ones out of a hundred or thousand non-good ones keeps bringing me back for more.
I understand your thinking very well. Yes, a tough-minded plain-spoken man like Harry S. Truman would be your kind of Democrat, a most worthy opponent. I, too, also admire General Douglas MacArthur. He was a great General (like General George S. Patton, another of my heroes), and I think he would have made a great President.
Dean's strategy for third parties is a very good one and I wish they would do it. They would have a lot more influence that way.
Thank you!
Definitely agree. The purists within the party is another flaw I would like to change. They also refuse to hear anything about 'incrementalism' - no, everything must be done immediately, even though that concept scares away otherwise prospective members and voters.
Discuss...
And yes, I think I have a good case... :)