Or else, I’ll be putting a response to darolew’s last comment on my blog; we can go over there if you prefer. I’ll try to get to it later today.

“I can “define” my table lamp as a political party. That doesn’t mean it can get votes. The definition would be erroneously applied.”
If your lamp starts running candidates for office, then it will start getting votes, whether you like it or not. If you don’t want to get votes, if you don’t want to be affected by the chase for votes, then for chrissake don’t start or be a part of a political party.
“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.”
Sorry, Tom. Metaphysical certitude. If it wasn’t we’d still be talking about the Whigs, or the Democrat-Republicans, for that matter.
Of course, you are right that major party coalitions fracture and regroup over time, but eventually, one or both parties become unable to hold their coalition together. Hence, you have the birth of the Republican Party, an event whose details I am quite sure you are aware of. Don’t let the fact that it hasn’t happened for some time lead you to believe that it will NEVER happen again. Like evolution, the changes in the electorate may be small, almost imperceptible, but eventually, they add up to the point where the coalition cannot hold.
Your assertion that the major parties will always form coalitions overlook the fact that we are talking about people here, and sometimes people will be averse to be grouped with certain other people. It may eventually prove impossible, for example, for the Republicans to hold the neocons together with the Old Right.
In addition, your analysis leaves out the largest faction not included in either party right now: the nonvoters. Get them involved to any significant degree, and you’ll have yourself a realignment.
When I was living in Florida, I had a friend who was a free market anarchist, who didn’t vote, told me “If you vote, don’t complain.” He objected to the inherent force in the voting process. There was a quiet dignity to his position, his absence from the political process altogether. Purists, or educationist, or whatever you want to call them, who are a part of the Libertarian Party perplex me. Their position is akin to a person who sees no point in competitive sports forming a softball team and joining the local recreational league so they can stand on the baseball field at game time and argue about why competitive sports are a waste of time. I don’t have a problem with folks who see no point in competitive sports. For those people to make their point on a ball field at game time is just plain silly.

There is of course, much more to this, but I’ve placed enough ravening within this thread already, and may add more. This is not the place to add a yawing thread drift.

If he was a divisive figure before, he’ll be doubly so next time.

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.

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.

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.

Just took a look at wikipedia and so no such thing. Are you sure you are not thinking of the Greens in 2004?

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.

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.

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.)

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).

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.”

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.

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.