http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/brian-holtz-responds-to-ilya-somin

That’s been my point all along. There are psychological and/or material rewards for parties and candidates to keep running for office. It could simply be the need to draw attention to oneself. Bob Barr is the perfect example. He used Monica Lewinsky to get his fifteen minutes of fame on any TV show that would have him. When his constituents got tired of his act they booted him from office so he found another way to make a name for himself by hijacking the Libertarian Party. My guess is we haven’t heard the last of Bob Barr and like many other Republitarians he’ll resurface in a GOP primary somewhere in Georgia, or perhaps run for office there as a Libertarian but either way whatever gives him the most advantage.

Also the material motives have to be considered. While most candidates are not in it for the money (they’re probably losing money but the psychological rewards make up for that), their handlers, consultants, and party officials do receive significant material compensation. Case in point, in New Jersey ten years ago the LP ran a candidate (Murray Sabrin) who raised enough money to qualify for public funding and debates. He polled as high as ten percent but got less than five in the election. He raised about one million dollars but most was spent on the usual suspects; consultants, managers, office expense, etc. Aside from a few silly ads on radio and cable TV that nobody watches anyway his campaign was practically invisible. But a few well-connected insiders made lots of money, and that is my point.

BTW Murray did pretty well by promoting himself as a financial expert, and I’m sure he’s gotten material compensation in that regard. Since then he has run twice for statewide office as a Republitarian (most recently last Spring in the GOP primary for US Senate where he was endorsed by Ron Paul), raised lots of money for consultants and managers, spent little on ads and always ends up in last or near last place.

Again, if all the money pissed away on Libertarian campaigns in New Jersey had been spent lobbying and advertising for decriminalizing medicinal marijuana, which Governor Corzine said he would sign if passed by the Legislature, thousands of cancer patients would have directly benefited by now.

1). Winning a statewide or national race or even a race for a Congressional District is most likely out of the question. However such parties can affect the outcome and which can influence the major parties’ direction and choice of candidates.

2). Non-major parties can provide the lone alternative to the majors in districts that essentially been abandoned by one of the major parties. Somebody has to be the opposititon.

3). Using the party apparatus to run candidates for local or district offices where the chances of success are much greater (especially in non-partisan races) to promote your parties’ policies from the ground up.

4). Using non-major party activists to help the campaign of a friendly major party candidate (the Ron Paul approach)

5). Non-major parties could influence national politics if they were willing to work together to create a new national party they were willing to contribute to, thereby separating national from local politics. They could keep their independence locally why running in the same party nationally.

6). Realistically realizing that statewide and national campaigns are about recruiting new members and ballot access for said party and not about winning.

Entirely possible, if by that he means to improve his team’s stats. If a high school team got 100 chances to practice against the NFL, shouldn’t they take the opportunity?

Also, there’s every possibility that a long-standing losing streak will eventually break…it’s happened before. And, there are numerous reasons why smaller parties run for office besides winning the office itself.

Even if the unlikely were to happen human nature, power and greed would more likely corrupt the reformer rather than reform the corrupted.

Maybe a little of both.. also, you ignored this part:

the appearance of climbing the ladder to get inside is sometimes a good place to find people interested in dismantling it from whatever angle.

There are numerous people in all aspects of the libertarian movement who were brought to the movement by the LP, even though most of them are no longer in the LP.

Rather than become a part of and try to play the system from the inside, there’s a better chance to achieve an anarchistic society by waiting for Martians to attack and destroy everything so the human race could start over (see the final scene from the 1996 movie “Mars Attacks”).

Good luck with that.

“Because from within might be a good place to dismantle it, and from the appearance of climbing the ladder to get inside is sometimes a good place to find people interested in dismantling it from whatever angle.”

That’s the same bunker mentality I’ve been listening to for years now. It’s like a football coach with a 0-100 win/loss record promise to do better in the next game.

Even if the unlikely were to happen human nature, power and greed would more likely corrupt the reformer rather than reform the corrupted.

Rather than become a part of and try to play the system from the inside, there’s a better chance to achieve an anarchistic society by waiting for Martians to attack and destroy everything so the human race could start over (see the final scene from the 1996 movie “Mars Attacks”).

Yea and I’m on a one man crusade to change that.

MHW

Who has made such a claim? Where?

Stop the wars.

M.W.

I’m not too sure who you were refering to when you wrote the above. I certainly hope it wasn’t me because I doubt that comment would represent my opinions, or ideas.

BTW a number of people in the top ranks of the party need to be made aware of the party’s history, much of which they have no knowledge.

MHW

Professor Somin Publicly stated his preference for McCain just before this past election, and tirelessly Pimps the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition myth.

I was deconstructing the ridiculous inferrence that you made from Holtz’s statement,which were clearly meant to compare expectations between the Radicals (represented by David Nolan) and the Reformers (represented by Barr/Root).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×7589850

…Regardless of what others may think of the LP’s future, the LP itself needs to rething it’s tactics and strategy. We ask people to think about government and how we are governed.
>MG: The 3rd and continuing strategic plan was developed while including international activists so as to serve as a universal toolkit:
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/spt/report-20011220-xs.html
also
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/spt/

…the toolkit is fairly comprehensive and includes about any bright idea the critics or anyone else might have.

The first was Nolan’s 7-point founding plan
http://elfsoft.home.mindspring.com/politics/nolan.htm
which still obtains as a fine guideline for new groups and is effectively incorporated in the Mission (below); the 2nd, more of a para-strategic plan that involves other entities, is sealed except for some philosophical comments by Rothbard and the LIO ALTER approach.

…We claim to be bringing new ideas about government to the public discussion, but we are doing it in virtually the same manners as other political parties do, or have in recent years.
>MG: Such presentation is outlined in the Dallas Accord, where candidates should present a range of solutions and familiarize the public and people in office should engage in a facilitative role. This is easier than ever with groups such as CATO to refer to, though such referral alone is limited as to LP successes.

…We need to think about doing political things differently. Frankly I believe that we need to combine the methods of a political party with those of advocacy groups
>MG: The Permanent Mission of the LP, adopted by Convention in 1985, is basically to promote Libertarian societies (which can bve anything from households to countries) by legal, educative, activist and political means. This does not mean that is the daily task of officers, but the organization as a whole gets the ball rolling at minimum and helps celebrate member action to those ends. To this was added specifically developing elective organizational skills I believe in 1989, which has certainly ben done. The Mission of the LNC is to promote election to national offices, which is understood to include adlection. To these ends the LP has founded or revitalized entities such as CLS, Cato, etc. , created groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus, and co-operates with groups such as LIO. It may help to realize that the LP is a liberal-libertarian alliance, not a pure Libertarian party, that helps create a libertarian consituency and a liberal-libertarian centrist politics; and was also created as a convenience to ISIL members seeking political outlet, which group is where one should begin in my view for most people. Also, the LP (or members0 ) has launched many autonomous entities, coalitions and initiatives. It has greatly assisted the LIO task of creating pledged Libertarians.

…such as the Sierra Club and figure out how to work with both methods
>MG: This has been done. Then again, recently they praised the methods of our elected officials on S & W boards!

As for the article overall, the writer hasn’t the foggiest idea what the LP set out to do, etc. I would point out that the number in public office is strictly dependent on developed members who form the talent pool; and also that there are great opportunities at the state level in the use of referenda and initiatives to get things done, particularly in the matter of PR and MMP type changes, and directions such as tax reduction or abolition.

Hope this helps.

I agree. Im not defending Barr/Root’s outreageous predictions…simply trying to clear up what Holtz meant.