In the Fashion and Style section of Sunday’s New York Times, a brief profile of Libertarian vice presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root will appear under the headline “The Life Of The Third Party.”
At one point, Root says, “The Libertarians have been a debate society since 1971. No one ever thought about winning. And then I came along. … Bob Barr and I are going to get a million to three million votes this year. In 2012 I expect to duplicate Ross Perot’s number of 19 million. In 2016 I expect to be a credible third-party candidate, and in 2020 I plan to win.”
92 responses so far ↓
1 Thomas M. Sipos // Oct 4, 2008 at 3:55 am
I thank God this will not happen.
2 Sivarticus // Oct 4, 2008 at 3:57 am
Libertarians had better take back their party by 2010 so that this joker doesn’t even bother to vie for the nomination in 2012.
3 Andy Craig // Oct 4, 2008 at 4:14 am
The idea that Root will be nominated in 2012 is laughable. Even the Barr and his people consider Root an embarrassment to be kept hidden away.
4 Andy Craig // Oct 4, 2008 at 4:15 am
err, just Barr rather.
I believe “*the* Barr” properly refers to the mustache.
5 Richard Shepard // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:23 am
Whether or not it may be OK to make fun of WAR, he raises an important issue. Is the LP a debating society or a political party whose objective is to win?
6 Hugh Jass // Oct 4, 2008 at 10:04 am
And how does he plan to achieve this, military coup?
7 Eternaverse // Oct 4, 2008 at 11:20 am
Hugh Jass: in order for one to have a coup, one must first have an army (or at least a group of supports) and WAR does not have that. If he does run in 2012 I doubt he will get more votes then Daniel Imperato did this year.
8 Thomas M. Sipos // Oct 4, 2008 at 11:56 am
Whether or not it may be OK to make fun of WAR, he raises an important issue.
Root does not raise an issue, so much as he parrots a cliché.
Half the LP has been whining about the other half being a “debating society” since the party began.
That’s the thing about Root. He has no original thoughts about libertarianism, because he knows and feels nothing about the philosophy or history of the movement. He only picks up talking points from those who coach him, which he parrots, and then adjusts, according to how well his parroting is received.
Anyway, the “debating society” faction has never stopped the “vote getters” from winning elections. If the “debating society” faction disappeared tomorrow, the “vote getter” faction still wouldn’t win any elections.
9 Michael Seebeck // Oct 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Whatever Root’s been smoking, it must be pretty strong. Perhaps he can sell it as a fundraiser!
10 Mike Theodore // Oct 4, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“(or at least a group of supports) ”
Unfortunately, a few fools did support him.
There’s even those frightening pictures of the few supporters holding Root banners in restaurants, disturbing customers and what not.
11 johncjackson // Oct 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Even if Root were a credible candidate, I don’t think running the same guy for 12 years is going make a breakthrough, never mind victory.
12 Thomas M. Sipos // Oct 4, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Root’s changed his tune. He’d promised a minimum of TWO MILLION votes were he the presidential nominee.
Now he’s saying Barr/Root will only get ONE to three million.
Sure, Root’s not the presidential nominee. But if Barr only gets one million, Root can’t credibly claim that he’d have gotten two million were he on top of the ticket.
I wonder what Root will say if the LP gets under a million?
13 Thomas M. Sipos // Oct 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm
And at the convention, Barr promised he’d raise at least FORTY MILLION DOLLARS by November.
Root promised TWO MILLION votes.
Barr promised FORTY MILLION DOLLARS.
If they fall short, they fail by their own standards. Never forget to remind everyone of that over the next four years.
14 darolew // Oct 4, 2008 at 1:13 pm
His arrogance and stupidity is baffling.
15 SEXYJC // Oct 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm
DEBATING is very different than SMEARING:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5004.html
16 AnthonyD // Oct 4, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Thomas Sipos says,
“That’s the thing about Root. He has no original thoughts about libertarianism, because he knows and feels nothing about the philosophy or history of the movement. He only picks up talking points from those who coach him, which he parrots, and then adjusts, according to how well his parroting is received.”
I would totally disagree with the idea that Root knows and feels nothing about the philosophy of libertarianism. As an entrepreuener and home-schooler, I would say his life indicates he lives the philosophy.
Other than that, Tom, your paragraph pretty much describes a successful politician. Someone who finds that fact offensive probably should not be involved in politics. Its like someone who hates violence and the sight of blood wanting to be involved in the sport of boxing.
Part of the game, man.
17 Jared // Oct 4, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Root’s favorite philosopher is Yogi Berra because he said “If you come to a fork in the road, take it.”
Root 2012.
18 ElfNinosMom // Oct 4, 2008 at 3:36 pm
WAR said, “The Libertarians have been a debate society since 1971 ….. And then I came along …. in 2020 I plan to win.â€
The LP is indeed a debating society. Right now, we are debating whether Root is clinically insane, or merely crazy.
19 Hugh Jass // Oct 4, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Milnes/Root 2012?
20 pdsa // Oct 4, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Root is just being a tout, and attempting to slant the Intrade contract in a favorable direction, when it gets posted, so he can make a killing.
21 songster7 // Oct 4, 2008 at 5:19 pm
this has gone beyond the bizarre to the truly pathetic … even those who voted to nominate these two schlubs are backing away in disgust.
but the demise of the LP predates either man’s entry into the ranks …
Phoenix rising from the ashes? Well it would be an appropriate image (and homeland) at least
22 Catholic Trotskyist // Oct 4, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I would like to invite Root to join the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America, where such flights of insanity are more appreciated.
God bless Steve Fossett. God bless Sam Reed, the greatest Republican of our time. God bless the pope and God bless Root’s old classmate Barack Obama. Amen.
23 Thomas L. Knapp // Oct 4, 2008 at 5:54 pm
“the demise of the LP predates either man’s entry into the ranks”
Bingo. The vultures swooped in because the victim was already prostrate.
24 svf // Oct 4, 2008 at 6:08 pm
yeah, Root’s kind of a joke, to say the least.
then again, when’s the last time an LP VP candidate was profiled — much less even mentioned — in the New York Times?
hm.
25 der // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:10 pm
then again, when’s the last time an LP VP candidate was profiled — much less even mentioned — in the New York Times?
Someone gets it.
However, Root will not be our nominee ever. He was hoping to learn from a professional politician like Barr and hoping to be tapped to carry the LP flag.
He is right about the debate society though. We need to start attracting more Americans rather than pandering to the few radicals who have no intention of actually making a change.
26 pdsa // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:15 pm
der - We need to start attracting more Americans rather than pandering to the few radicals who have no intention of actually making a change.
Code for: I don’t like REAL libertarianism, and what I don’t like, should be tossed from the LP Platform as excess baggage.
27 der // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Code for: I don’t like REAL libertarianism, and what I don’t like, should be tossed from the LP Platform as excess baggage.
Code for: I understand nothing about politics and would rather keep getting .001% of the vote rather than putting out a message that will attract non-Libertarians to the philosophy.
28 der // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Yeah it would be easy to preach a straight libertarian message to Americans if everyone was libertarian.
This is the key point purists don’t seem to understand: not everyone is a libertarian.
Thus, you need to attract them with a message of freedom and then further educate them about the philosophy when they become libertarian. You can’t go around preaching I want to legalize heroin and not expect to get laughed at by the majority of Americans.
29 Hugh Jass // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:19 pm
der,
No one is preventing you “reformers” from getting more than .001% of the vote and attracting non-Libertarians to the philosophy. Ron Paul didn’t seem to have a problem doing this without alienating the radicals. There is no reason why you can’t either, unless your brand of “reformist libertarianism” is just as unappealing to the public as hardcore libertarianism is.
30 Hugh Jass // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:20 pm
der,
How do you expect to convert the majority of the public into thinking that heroin should be legal if you don’t put those views on the forefront?
31 der // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Hugh Jass,
I’m not necessarily a “reformer” as much as I am political realist. I dare you to run for office and go tell an average group of Americans that heroin should be legal. See what they say to you.
I haven’t been a libertarian my whole life so I understand this. In my high school and early college years I was a Democrat. I would have laughed in your face if you told me flat out that all drugs should be legal and everyone should walk around with guns.
Basically it should be played exactly as Barr has did it. Saying we need to end the War on Drugs without specifically stating that everyone should be able to do drugs.
These views only made sense to me once I had joined the party and immersed myself in libertarianism.
Again, we must realize Americans love quick talking points and not in-depth philosophical discussions. This is why its better to remain vague and attract people to the party. You must realize that it is highly unlikely all drugs will ever be legalized. Nor would most Americans even want them to be legal. But we can start with something like legalizing marijuana and try to work our way up from there.
32 Richard Shepard // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“Anyway, the “debating society†faction has never stopped the “vote getters†from winning elections. If the “debating society†faction disappeared tomorrow, the “vote getter†faction still wouldn’t win any elections.”
Huh? Are you saying the LP will never win elections? If so, why does it exist?
33 Hugh Jass // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“Huh? Are you saying the LP will never win elections? If so, why does it exist?”
I often wonder that myself.
IMHO, it seems like the best way to achieve individual liberty would be to form coalitions with other third-parties and factions of the major parties to decentralize the government. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, Ron Paul Republicans, and Blue Dog Democrats all agree that political power should be on a more local level.
34 der // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:47 pm
it seems like the best way to achieve individual liberty would be to form coalitions with other third-parties and factions of the major parties to decentralize the government.
No third party even comes close to representing the views of the LP though. The CP are borderline theocratic statists, and the Greends are socialists. The only ones I could see are RP Republicans, but even they will diminish.
A 3rd party coalition is good but we would severely sacrifice principle and I thought we weren’t supposed to do that?
35 Andy Craig // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:49 pm
The problem with the LP is not the specific ideology of its Presidential candidate failing to attract people, the problem is that you can’t build a political party from the top down, with a Presidential campaign. Yeah, we should have a Presidential candidate, but it’s absurd to expect that to be the main way to build the party. The party has to be built from the ground up, and that means putting out talent and resources primarily into getting and electing good candidates to local, state, then maybe Congress. We’ll never have a Libertarian President without having first seen Libertarian city councilmen, and Libertarian mayors, and Libertarian state legislators, and Libertarian governors, and Libertarian Representatives, and Libertarian Senators.
36 Hugh Jass // Oct 4, 2008 at 9:54 pm
der,
If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you would see that such a coalition would be based on decentralism. Hopefully, the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, and major-party factions would learn to put aside their differences to work toward giving the federal government significantly less power. Then, once political power is greater at the state level than at the federal level, all of our ideologies will be better of. The Greens and Constitutionalists would be able to implement their socialism and Moral Majoritarianism without the entire country being affected, while the Libertarians would work toward further decentralization at the community level.
37 Andy Craig // Oct 4, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Hugh-
First, the Greens don’t believe in decentralism. They advocate a powerful Federal government. Much like big government conservatives, they just want that power turned towards their purposes.
Second, if our hypothetical coalition, in the process of gaining control of the Federal government (a necessary first step, obviously) in order to reduce its power, brings Greens and CPers to power at state and local levels, it will NOT be a step forward for liberty. Both the Greens and the so-called Constitutionalists would be a dramatic step backward in many regards. And that’s assuming that the Greens and CPers would go along with reducing Federal power once they’re in control of the Federal government (unlikely, since whatever decentralist tendencies they have stem from the view that the centralized Federal government is bad merely because it’s obstacle to them using government power how they want to).
38 Steve LaBianca // Oct 4, 2008 at 10:37 pm
AnthonyD -
“As an entrepreuener and home-schooler, I would say his life indicates he lives the philosophy.”
This is like saying that adhering to the phrase “don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax the man behind the tree” is living the philosophy.
W.A.R. wants to be outside of government’s reach, but those towelheads deserve to die at the hands of the U.S. military though.
39 Steve LaBianca // Oct 4, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I am actually pleased that W.A.R. is getting this publicity. At least the general population now gets to see how much of an idiot he is, just like we Libertarians have for the last 1 1/2 years.
40 Steve LaBianca // Oct 4, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Andy Craig at post # 35 has very nearly hit the nail on the head. I would only disagree that a third party like the LP wouldn’t have to be so pervasively elected at ALL the levels he indicates to be successful in getting a presidential candidate elected.
41 pdsa // Oct 4, 2008 at 11:42 pm
der - a main problem with the contemporary LP is that too many of the members do not actually believe in natural liberty. Presently, these individuals appeal to the right-side of the political bipolarity, because they preach the economic side, while attempting to suppress the the social implications of libertarian theory. The two are opposite sides of the same coin, and ignoring one or the other mints a counterfeit ideology.
42 Hugh Jass // Oct 5, 2008 at 12:14 am
Andy Craig,
One of the ten key values on the Green Party is decentralization. The Constitution Party supports returning most power to the states.
43 der // Oct 5, 2008 at 12:18 am
pdsa,
I agree, but there can also be different thoughts within libertarianism as long as you support the basic principle of freedom. Just like their are moderates in every philosophy. For some reason the LP is the only party who not only endroses, but almost requires a candidate to be from the most radical fringes of the party. We finally elected a more moderate with Barr.
Right now, I think any type of libertarian is a great start and will be a good turn around for this country.
44 Richard Shepard // Oct 5, 2008 at 9:34 am
For those of you who think philosophy is what determines elections, I beg you to look up and research Duverger’s Law. There is a good introduction on Wikipedia.
45 Jason_Gatties // Oct 5, 2008 at 11:42 am
Root just made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.
46 Steve LaBianca // Oct 5, 2008 at 11:42 am
der // Oct 5, 2008 at 12:18 am
We finally elected a more moderate with Barr.
I’m not going to comment about the “moderate part” (personally, I believe that true libertarianism is the real “moderate” position on all things political), but make no mistake about it, Barr is disqualified from meeting reasonable criteria as a libertarian because he doesn’t fall within “different thoughts within libertarianism as long as you support the basic principle of freedom.“, simply because Barr doesn’t support “basic principles of freedom”.
47 Steve LaBianca // Oct 5, 2008 at 11:44 am
der // Oct 5, 2008 at 12:18 am
Right now, I think any type of libertarian is a great start and will be a good turn around for this country.
I agree 100%! Too bad Barr/W.A.R. aren’t “any type of libertarian”.
48 Steve LaBianca // Oct 5, 2008 at 11:56 am
svf // Oct 4, 2008 at 6:08 pm
yeah, Root’s kind of a joke, to say the least.
then again, when’s the last time an LP VP candidate was profiled — much less even mentioned — in the New York Times? hm.
I think that any mention of W.A.R. in the New York Times (other than an advertisement) is an attack piece on the LP. W.A.R. is such a buffoon, that he is mentioned, quoted, etc for the good laugh he will spur with his idiotic statements.
Harry Browne, a long time libertarian, as the LP Presidential nominee, someone who had his books on the New York Times Bestkseller list years back, wasn’t mentioned in the New York Times, simply because he was a serious, knowledgeable, credible person who was to be ignored because he spurred serious consideration. W.A.R. invokes no such response from people. Laughter abounds with him!
49 der // Oct 5, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Steve,
Unfortunately your personal bias against Barr has clouded your opinion of him.
Barr is constantly in the media promoting the LP and the ideas of libertarianism. I’m sorry if he isn’t purist enough for you, but he is libertarian enough to appeal to average Americans.
50 Thomas M. Sipos // Oct 5, 2008 at 4:08 pm
der: For some reason the LP is the only party who not only endroses, but almost requires a candidate to be from the most radical fringes of the party.
You’re mistaken. There is no “radical fringe” in the LP. The radicals are at least half the party, perhaps more (they were just under half at the last two conventions).
I keep hearing this complaint about the radical “fringe.” Calling the radicals a “fringe” is at best ignorant, at worst dishonest.
Richard Shepard: For those of you who think philosophy is what determines elections, I beg you to look up and research Duverger’s Law.
Whoever said philosophy determines elections? Are you new to the LP? If not, then you should know that the disagreement is not between those who think elections are won by principles vs. those who think elections are won by compromise.
The disagreement is between those who think the LP is about education (because principles are more important than winning elections), and those who think the LP is about winning elections (because they’ve confused the LP with a major political party).
A major political party is about winning elections. Political third parties have never been about winning elections. Sorry. Never will be. Can’t be, no matter what it does.
Unfortunately, some people think that if they call the LP “a political party” that it will become a major party, if only those pesky radicals would leave.
51 der // Oct 5, 2008 at 4:11 pm
A major political party is about winning elections. Political third parties have never been about winning elections. Sorry. Never will be. Can’t be, no matter what it does.
Then why are you wasting your time if you want the party to keep talking to 1% of the country?
The goal of any political party should be to be elected to office. Thankfully the LP has finally decided to move in that direction.
52 paulie cannoli // Oct 5, 2008 at 4:16 pm
How’s that working out?
53 Steve LaBianca // Oct 5, 2008 at 4:35 pm
der, again as I’ve said to so many in the past . . . if the LP nominee isn’t putting out a libertarian message, it matter not one iota, a-the # of votes received, b-how much exposure/media is received, or c-how good a “politician” the candidate is.
The message must be strongly libertarian for the debate to be moved in the direction of liberty. Barr nor W.A.R. provides that (and no I am not going to go into the many areas where EACH of them provides a non-libertarian message), so liberty is lost in the mix
54 der // Oct 5, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Steve,
Liberty is not lost with Barr. It just isn’t the type of Liberty you want.
Again, I must reiterate that there are very few Americans who are Libertarian. Thus, you must put out a message that will appeal to them. You cannot say “I think you should be able to go shoot up any day you want.” You have to talk about the negative effects of the war on drugs.
You start small, and work up from there. All or nothing approaches are failures. Politics is compromise and nothing more. If you aren’t willing to compromise on some thing you will never succeed.
I prefer to compromise because growing the party and possibly getting libertarians elected to office is more important than worrying about if they scored a 100% on the ASG quiz.
55 Steve LaBianca // Oct 5, 2008 at 4:52 pm
der // Oct 5, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Steve,
Unfortunately your personal bias against Barr has clouded your opinion of him.
I only need to look at his stances on issues. On balance, he is a typical conservative who has a slightly better than average position on privacy.
The LP is not a “conservative party” with sprinklings of “civil” rights on the agenda. If it was, Barr would be perfect for it. No, the LP is about liberty, promoting liberty, with no apology for being statist in any manner. However, the agenda can be tempered with a timetable to reach a libertarian society . . . this is just strategy though. With Barr/W.A.R. the strategy has substituted for the principle. Thus you no longer have a “libertarian” party. That’s where we are today.
56 Steve LaBianca // Oct 5, 2008 at 4:55 pm
There are no “types” of liberty, man. Either it is liberty, or it isn’t.
When folks like “der” START their position in compromise, there is no way to go but down. Sad, but these are the type of people who pass for “libertarians” today.
57 der // Oct 5, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Steve,
Again, people like you prefer your utopias rather than living in reality. This is why none of your ideas will ever succeed in politics.
Politics is compromise. If we were working with all libertarians we wouldn’t have to compromise. Since we aren’t then the need is there.
Barr is promoting far more liberty than either of the other two candidates are willing to give us.
Sad that people don’t understand the difference between personal utopias and political reality.
58 Thomas M. Sipos // Oct 5, 2008 at 6:06 pm
der Then why are you wasting your time if you want the party to keep talking to 1% of the country?
The answer was contained in my post. Because I believe in the educational mission of the LP.
The goal of any political party should be to be elected to office. Thankfully the LP has finally decided to move in that direction.
Wrong again. The LP moved in that direction 37 years ago. From its inception, the LP has has had a “vote getter” faction.
The current state of the LP is the result of 37 years of pursuing your “vote getting/winning elections” philosophy.
Not much to show for yourself, huh?
You see, there’ve always been educationists and “vote getters.” No educationist ever stopped a “vote getter” from practicing “successful” election tactics. But they’ve never worked.
Then the “vote getter” blames the educationist radical for the vote getter’s failure at the polls.
59 paulie cannoli // Oct 5, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Maybe I mumbled?
The goal of any political party should be to be elected to office. Thankfully the LP has finally decided to move in that direction.
How’s that working out?
60 Hugh Jass // Oct 5, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Thomas Sipos,
It seems that a good compromise to this would be for the educationalists and the vote-getters to go their seperate ways; that way, the vote-getters will have nobody to blame but themselves when they lose election after election. That is why I joined the Boston Tea Party.
61 paulie cannoli // Oct 5, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Or, how about we take the LP back and they join the Republican Party?
62 pdsa // Oct 5, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Der - you come in here on your high horse preaching about moderating core libertarian principles. You pontificate about compromise for political gain. If I wanted to be compromised, I’d still be a registered member in one of the two main parties. The LP gains nothing if they win through selling-out. Even if this strategy were to be successful (it will not), and the LP were to find itself a player in the political landscape, the only change to the weed-filled playing field would be that the odious games would have become a triopoly instead of a duopoly.
If you win a marathon because you took a short-cut through the sewage treatment plant, you may have won the race, but you’re still covered in shit. There is no value in winning by concession, if what you have surrendered is human liberty. Please take your Republican-light sermons of inane salvation back to the Party of Public Potty-Peepers, where it rightfully belongs.
63 AnthonyD // Oct 5, 2008 at 7:12 pm
This here debate is being framed improperly.
The problem that all of you, (and the reformers in this thread, for that matter) are making is in thinking that our party has some choice in the matter as to whether or not to be in the “education” industry or in the “vote getting” industry. A political party is, by definition, in the vote getting industry. Whether it wants to be or not is irrelevant.
The fact that the LP has had little success in its 37 years is almost exclusively because the american electorate, by and large, are satisfied with the choice of, “Democrat or Republican.” It really would not have mattered who the LP nominated in past elections, the results would have been pretty much the same.
Now, we have a situation where the R3VOLution and the selection of Bob Barr as the LP nominee might be the “canaries in the coal mine,” harbingers of of the fracturing of the coalitions of the major parties in this country. The theory that this situation may be upon us is debatable. The fact that this will eventually happen is a metaphysical certitude. Entropy dictates it.
If we are witnessing the beginning of the break up of the current party system, and if the LP is properly situated to take advantage of it, trying to stop it would be a futile excersize, one similar to trying to stop air from moving into a vacuum.
The more fed up the electorate gets with the current party system, and the less effective the two major parties become at holding together their coaltions, the more the LP will morph into a traditional political party. There is no way to stop it. Its not a matter of trying to keep the LP an “educational tool.” Its a political party. We are not changing the party, it is being changed. The LP doesn’t act as much as it is acted upon. You cannot create a political party and expect anything but that to happen.
Libertarians who have a problem with Barr, who call his switch to the LP 2 years ago “not genuine” should consider what would actually happen if the current party system in this country breaks up. We will be welcoming members to our party who were not Libertarian two MONTHS ago, two WEEKS ago, or two DAYS ago, and there won’t be anything any “educationist” can do to stop it.
64 der // Oct 5, 2008 at 7:35 pm
pdsa,
You are another person who does not live in reality. Care to tell me what difference you are making by preaching to the same .01% of people every year. You can sit back in your chair though and feel good about it. Meanwhile the other two parties will continue to laugh at people like you who are keeping third parties out of the picture.
Nobody is talking about selling out the principles of Liberty. I am talking about starting small like legalizing marijuana and then maybe working your way up to complete decriminalization.
Again, all or nothing does not work it politics. It never has and it never will. The responses in this thread perfectly describe the type of political illiterates that have been controlling this party. I suggest a political science course to find out how decisions are made in government.
I’m not a “republican-lite” as you call it because I’m educated as to how politics work. I realize my personal desires need to be compromised as there are 100 million other personal desires to deal with also.
65 der // Oct 5, 2008 at 7:37 pm
How’s that working out?.
It seems to be working out well as the LP is gaining more national attention than any other point in its history. Its being covered by major media outlets around the country, and our candidate is constantly on tv preaching the message of Liberty.
Membership (I don’t know about dues paying) appears to be quickly growing, while Barr could be considered a spoiler.
Its a small start, but this change is happening and it will continue to take place instead of fading away to the background.
66 paulie cannoli // Oct 5, 2008 at 8:12 pm
It seems to be working out well as the LP is gaining more national attention than any other point in its history.
A) Metrics?
B) If the goal is “being elected to office” and the claim is that we are moving in that direction, the way to measure that should be …being elected to office.
If your claim that we are getting more attention than ever before is even true (prove it), it would still not demonstrate your claim, since you said the goal was to get elected - not to get media attention.
C) Media attention for what message?
D) Can we take the ability or inability to elect more Libertarians to office than ever before, and/or to higher level office than ever before, this year, as proof or disproof of your claim?
67 paulie cannoli // Oct 5, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Membership (I don’t know about dues paying) appears to be quickly growing,
It usually grows in presidential election years. How quickly are we talking about? Will that growth be sustained, or will we lose members next year (usually happens the year after a presidential election)?
68 Ross Levin // Oct 5, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I’m reading an interesting book called “Third Parties in America.” It was written by a few people to form a theory about how third parties form, succeed, and fail. Unfortunately, the copy from my library is from 1984, so it barely has any info about the LP. However, if you haven’t read it already, it would be worth reading if you’re having a discussion like this.
69 pdsa // Oct 5, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Der - you are the one living in a surreal world. It the LP would actually practise real libertarianism, they’d find the left-side of the political bipolarity was a much more fertile ground for proselytising.
Where was the LP in the 2006 midterms, when I was standing up in dissent to the nilitary commissions act, and it barbaric theft of habeas corpus? Not one word of this could be found on the Party’s website. Instead they were hawking eminent domain initiatives, which were sponsored by self-interested entities, and had remedies hard-wired into them, which were worse then the illness. They were give-aways to collectivst property holding entities, which would end up burying the individual land-holders. Where is the liberty in this?
All the while they were preaching the goodness of these initiative, every-one with an intellect higher than a gastropod knew that the Bush administration was involved with human torture; was imprisoning humans as criminal actors, who had never been convicted of a criminal act in a tribunal process that adhered to due process of law. It’s about Life, Liberty and property. You cannot choose just one.
This is why so many perceive the LP membership to be greed-headed arses. Instead of harvesting what could have been a large number of dissatisfied Democrats, who were appalled by the passage of FISA, and arrogant disrespect for humanity, the LP has continued hammering on economics, while dancing an under the bathroom stall soft-shoe routine about what the Bush tyranny has done to our Natural Rights, only shrieking loudly about the citizenry’s privacy.
Bob Barr has weaseled on the Drug War, supporting continued imperialism in Columbia using false cocaine predicates, he proposed that a blank check declaration of war, against enemies to be named at a later date, be given to Mr. Bush on September 13, 2001, he flipped-flopped on DOMA, he supported the PATRIOT Bill before he was against it, and he led the right-wing 90s Contract On America’s theft of habeas corpus.
This is your moderate? You support compromising the LP with hypocrisy!
70 paulie cannoli // Oct 5, 2008 at 9:24 pm
It the LP would actually practise real libertarianism, they’d find the left-side of the political bipolarity was a much more fertile ground for proselytising.
Too true.
71 pdsa // Oct 5, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I seem to recall that the Reform Party failed by nominating a new-righty to be their presidential candidate in 2004 . Anyone see any parallels with the LP’s choice in 2008?
72 paulie cannoli // Oct 5, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I thought they nominated Nader in 2004?
73 AnthonyD // Oct 5, 2008 at 10:07 pm
“It the LP would actually practise real libertarianism, they’d find the left-side of the political bipolarity was a much more fertile ground for proselytising.”
Say. wasn’t the LP founded by ex-Republicans? Hmm…
Anyway, try telling someone from the left side of the political bipolarity that you want to end social security and turn health care and education completely over to the free market, and see what happens. That so-called fertile ground dries up real quick
My experience has been that when you talk to conservatives, there is still a tinge of awarness on their part that they have, in effect, “lost their way.”
Its far easier to find a socially tolerant republican than a democrat who understands free market economics.
74 paulie cannoli // Oct 5, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Say. wasn’t the LP founded by ex-Republicans? Hmm…
Big part of the problem.
Although there were quite a few countercultural elements.
Anyway, try telling someone from the left side of the political bipolarity that you want to end social security and turn health care and education completely over to the free market, and see what happens.
It depends on the person, the terms you use, etc. Try telling someone from the right you are for legalizing drugs, ending immigration quotas, bringing all the troops home from around the world, keeping abortion legal, having equal marriage rights for gay and straight people, or even that you oppose torture and domestic espionage in the “war on terror”.
My experience has been that when you talk to conservatives, there is still a tinge of awarness on their part that they have, in effect, “lost their way.â€
Your experience is far different from mine.
Its far easier to find a socially tolerant republican than a democrat who understands free market economics.
It’s much easier to teach economics than tolerance.
75 Hugh Jass // Oct 5, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“I seem to recall that the Reform Party failed by nominating a new-righty to be their presidential candidate in 2004 . Anyone see any parallels with the LP’s choice in 2008?”
You’re confusing 2004 with 2000. Pat Buchanan was the nominee in 2000, and Ralph Nader was the nominee of what was left with the Reform Party in 2004.
And, while I do see similarities, it isn’t exactly the same situation. Buchanan went to the Reform Party in 2000 because Perot’s performance in ‘96 (8% of the vote) qualified the Reform nominee for matching funds. The Libertarian Party has never qualified for matching funds and the last time it got even 1% of the vote was almost 30 years ago. So, either Barr was hijacking the LP for revenge purposes after they cost him his seat in Congress, Barr is actually sincere about his motives, or Barr is an idiot. But, there are parallels, in that neither Buchanan not Barr really fit their party’s platform very well, both fell very short of their fundraising goals, and both seem to be doing a bad job at getting votes (Buchanan’s safe-state strategy, Barr’s dissing of the r3VOLution).
76 paulie cannoli // Oct 5, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I did not know Buchanan had a safe states strategy. Do you have anything more on that?
77 darolew // Oct 6, 2008 at 12:20 am
I don’t think the LP will ever being politically successful (i.e. win notable elections). It probably won’t have much luck with education either; however, it will have (and has had) some educational success, which is worthwhile in itself.
Education, though, only goes so far. Most people are not educable. Even a party which excelled at education would only have a potential to reach a minority of the population. No education will ever reach a majority of the population, or even a plurality.
Really, no serious change is likely until the time is right; perhaps when the current system finally collapses. At such times, it is always a small minority that rallies the masses and lays down the foundation of the new system. After the American revolution, this minority created a system based on classical liberalism. The collapse of Imperial Russia went the opposite direction, with the minority composed of Bolsheviks.
Thus, the most important function of principled political organization and literature (be it third party or a faction of a major party) is not political success. It is to educate those it can, which besides being inherently good, will also create a minority which might be able to forge a new system in a time of crisis.
At least, that’s my opinion, which might be a little odd. At any rate, even without winning elections, even without educating more than a handful, libertarian parties and libertarian factions have value. Such is fortunate, otherwise there’d be little point to them.
(On the vote-getting pragmatists, even though I consider their quest hopeless, I admire their perseverance.)
78 Hugh Jass // Oct 6, 2008 at 12:32 am
paulie,
I recall reading somewhere (probably Wikipedia) that Buchanan campaigned on a safe-states strategy on the basis that “his biggest fear was that he would cost George W. Bush the election”.
darolew,
As you mentioned, it only takes a minority of the population to make great change. We already have about 5% of the voting public.
79 paulie cannoli // Oct 6, 2008 at 12:45 am
I don’t think the LP will ever being politically successful (i.e. win notable elections).
Winning elections is not the only form of political success. By holding the balance of power in some races, creating competition in some races where incumbents would otherwise go entirely unchallenged, and participating in debates in both of these types of races as well as others, ideologically based alternative parties can move the ball to advance their cause(s).
The incentive such parties create for mainstream politicians is to adopt some of their demands in a watered down fashion in order to keep the alternative parties from becoming too popular or coming to power and implementing sudden radical change, which would upset the status quo.
When an alternative party waters down its message, without having achieved a seat at the table, it does not thereby earn such a seat. It merely insures that if any of its ideas are adopted, they will be further yet watered down than they would otherwise have been.
It also achieves several other undesired side effects, such as losing the support of some of its most dedicated, committed and hardest working members; splitting/factionalism; and opening itself up for wholesale takeover/cooption, since it is no longer firmly rooted in principle.
It is entirely true that single issue organizations are more effective at lobbying, but they do not lead to issue cross-fertilization among activists, nor do they do much for (say, in the case of libertarians:) government expansion in numerous small areas that do not alone by themselves invoke much passion/interest.
Educational organizations can certainly be much more effective outside the direct political arena, but do not provide those whom they have educated with ready means to implement their new ideas, and fail to reach those who pay attention to the realm of political ideas only in the context of elections (a larger group than those naturally inclined to pursue intellectual studies in political philosophy).
An ideologically based political party can succeed in all these areas.
Any alternative party, whether ideologically based or not, will have great difficulty in achieving sustained large scale success within a winner take all political system. If the party is not ideologically based, it is far less likely to sustain prolonged existence of any sort.
80 paulie cannoli // Oct 6, 2008 at 12:56 am
I recall reading somewhere (probably Wikipedia) that Buchanan campaigned on a safe-states strategy on the basis that “his biggest fear was that he would cost George W. Bush the electionâ€.
Just took a look at wikipedia and so no such thing. Are you sure you are not thinking of the Greens in 2004?
81 paulie cannoli // Oct 6, 2008 at 1:00 am
Ah - found it at politics1.com. Thanks.
82 VTV // Oct 6, 2008 at 1:14 am
If our party is stupid enough to nominate Wayne Allyn Root after this election cycle and all it’s blunders, I will probably burn my membership card.
83 Spence // Oct 6, 2008 at 1:21 am
You know, part of me hopes the LP is stupid enough to do this, so the failed institution can be tossed into the ash heap of history.
84 darolew // Oct 6, 2008 at 1:37 am
paulie,
I agree that it is possible for third parties to influence major parties, and I agree this works better when the party is ideological, especially very much so. However, for libertarians, in the long run, any such influence is inconsequential.
The Populist Party and the Socialist Party had great success because both were agitating to increase the size and scope of government; this is the natural tendency of government anyway, so the Populist’s and the Socialist’s successfully influenced the major parties and created long-term change.
Libertarians do the opposite. Because government naturally grows, any concessions libertarians force from the major party politicians will tend to be minor, and generally temporary. (Not to say that temporarily improving the situation is without value.)
I’m sure you can point to a few victories that have not yet faded, but overall, looking continued growth of the size and scope of government, it’s clear that libertarians have made very little headway, and aren’t likely to do so anytime soon.
Thus, I don’t think the LP will ever be politically successful, in elections or otherwise. It may seem unfair to say that just because the LP hasn’t had success so far means they won’t ever, but I’m not really referring to the performance of the LP at all. It’s basic principles of human behavior and instinct that doom the LP’s political aspirations. Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion; as long as an extensive government apparatus exists, Man will
turn to it for this goal; until a breakdown of the system occurs, few will realize the problems with such a system as few have the capacity to understand. Thus, government will continue to grow — both by its own volition and by popular demand.
Education, through parties or factions, think tanks or institutes, speeches or books, etc., is probably the best libertarians can do. Then, when economic realities finally expose the fallacy that is statism, there will be a libertarian minority that will agitate toward a free society rather than more and greater fallacies. (This education, necessarily ideological, can be purist or of a more moderate variety.)
I’m not sure what my point is. It doesn’t really matter why this education is undertaken, as long as it is. Since education and running serious political campaigns are not mutually exclusive, it’s fine for the LP and other libertarian groups to have aspirations of political success. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.
85 Thomas M. Sipos // Oct 6, 2008 at 1:49 am
Hugh Jass: It seems that a good compromise to this would be for the educationalists and the vote-getters to go their seperate ways;
Compromise? Okay, so then one half gets ballot access and the budget for half the states, the other half gets the other half?
No, I didn’t think that was your “compromise.”
The educationists and “vote getters” are married. The party infrastructure is the house. If we divorce, who gets the house?
We both helped build the house, and we each want it for our own uses. We say the party should be used for education. The “vote getters” say that’s not what parties are for. Tough.
Sorry, but the educationists aren’t leaving the LP. If the “vote getters” want to go their separate way, they’re welcome to leave. If they insist on staying, they’re stuck with us.
They can blame us for losing elections, or blame Saturn for moving into the 5th House. I don’t care who they blame.
86 Thomas M. Sipos // Oct 6, 2008 at 2:03 am
AnthonyD “A political party is, by definition, in the vote getting industry. Whether it wants to be or not is irrelevant.
I can “define” my table lamp as a political party. That doesn’t mean it can get votes. The definition would be erroneously applied.
A “major political party” is by definition in the vote getting business. A “third political party” is by definition and reality not in the vote getting business. The LP has no choice in this. Calling itself a political party, or a table lamp, won’t change what it is.
Now, we have a situation where the R3VOLution and the selection of Bob Barr as the LP nominee might be the “canaries in the coal mine,†harbingers of of the fracturing of the coalitions of the major parties in this country. The theory that this situation may be upon us is debatable. The fact that this will eventually happen is a metaphysical certitude.
Sorry. No “metaphysical certitiude,” however much you may wish it.
Why? Because the major party coalitions have been fracturing and regrouping for over 150 years.
The GOP was once opposed to the New Deal. When their free market coalition fractured, they embraced the New Deal. The Democrats once opposed racial integration. That coalition fractured, so they regrouped under Civil Rights.
The major parties stand for nothing, thus they can always reform coalitions, whichever way the voters go. Any new and significantly popular movement will be absorbed and integrated by the major parties.
Most voters will always go the major parties, because the major will offer whatever most voters and, and they have the political power to deliver the goods.
Third parties can offer anything they like. But if it’s truly popular, the majors will offer it too, and be able to deliver on it. So voters will go there.
87 Mi