LP Monday Message: Who is Joel Boniek?
Your Monday Message from the Libertarian Party:
Dear friend,
If you’re lucky enough to live in Montana, take a moment to thank Joel Boniek.
Boniek, a Republican state representative from the Livingston area, sponsored legislation exempting Montana-made guns from federal legislations. It was signed into law April 15.
Joel’s bill applies only to guns made and kept in Montana. Supporters hope it triggers a court case over whether the federal government can regulate gun sales.
Boniek overcame amazing odds and defeated a Republican incumbent in the primary who voted to expand government and openly criticized tax relief efforts. He’s not your typical politician. A quiet, peaceful man, Joel lives “off the grid” and still makes his living as a crane operator, carpenter and hunting guide.
But Joel’s upset win proves that voters want representatives who put freedom first, and that principled candidates who run smart campaigns can knock off entrenched incumbents – and accomplish great things in office.
Now, wouldn’t it be nice to have a state representative in your town just as passionate about defending your rights?
Well, you can by helping build a bigger Libertarian Party.
A bigger Libertarian Party, one that represents all of the millions of libertarian-leaning voters out there, would be big enough to provide the campaign training, media assistance, and most importantly, the voter base to elect our own Joel Bonieks.
If you’ve already joined the Libertarian Party, thank you! If not, please consider joining today. With our common-sense approach of limited government in both personal and economic matters, compared to the radical agendas of Barack Obama and the Republicans, the Libertarian Party is really the only mainstream party in America.
So wouldn’t it be nice for principled libertarians like Joel Boniek to be in numerous seats in every state legislature – and with a “L” next to their names?
Well, then, make it happen. Get active with the Libertarian Party today!
With optimism,
Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian Party
Donny.Ferguson@lp.org
65 responses so far ↓
1 Susan Hogarth // May 5, 2009 at 9:14 am
Donny – if you want people like Boniek elected, why even BOTHER with the LP? They’re already *getting* elected, as Republicans.
But, since you asked, who IS Boniek?
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=40546
Abortion: Abortions should always be illegal.
State Budget: Indicate what state funding levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories.
Maintain Status a) Education (Higher)
Maintain Status b) Education (K-12)
Maintain Status c) Emergency preparedness
Maintain Status d) Environment
Maintain Status e) Health care
Maintain Status f) Law enforcement
Maintain Status g) Transportation and highway infrastructure
Slightly Decrease h) Welfare
State Taxes: Indicate what state tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one level per category, you can use a number more than once.
Maintain Status a) Alcohol taxes
Maintain Status b) Cigarette taxes
Slightly Decrease c) Corporate taxes
Maintain Status d) Gasoline taxes
Greatly Decrease e) Income taxes (incomes below $75,000)
Greatly Decrease f) Income taxes (incomes above $75,000)
Slightly Decrease g) Property taxes
Maintain Status h) Vehicle taxes
c) Do you support limiting the following types of contributions to state legislative candidates?
Undecided 1) Individual
Yes 2) PAC
Yes 3) Corporate
Yes 4) Political Parties
Yes d) Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
Yes e) Do you support imposing spending limits on state-level political campaigns?
Ugh, look up the rest yourselves. it’s pretty bad.
so, let’s tally:
Anti-abortion freedom
PRO maintaining current government spending levels on most things
PRO maintaining tax levels in several categories
ANTI first amendment (via restricting voluntary campaign financing)
PRO state killing (death penalty)
AGAINST decriminalizing MJ possession
PRO having state and local cops enforce FEDERAL immigration laws
ANTI recognition of civil unions
PRO ‘voluntary school prayer’
AGAINST allowing pharmacists who object to emergency contraception to refuse to dispense it (I honestly suspect he misunderstood this question)
And THIS is what passes for a ‘principled libertarian’ these days?
The LP leaders need to understand the difference between strategic alliances on one effort (yeah – thanks, Boniek, for doing the right thing on guns) and wholly embracing and holding up as a model for our candidates! – someone who *does not share our principles*.
But Ferguson ***does*** call Boniek a ‘principled libertarian’. If the LP’s leadership supports this call…. I don’t know.
This nonsense has to end.
2 mdh // May 5, 2009 at 9:45 am
“A bigger Libertarian Party, one that represents all of the millions of libertarian-leaning voters out there, would be big enough to provide the campaign training, media assistance, and most importantly, the voter base to elect our own Joel Bonieks.”
We’ve already had a party big enough to do that. Unfortunately, the resources were poorly managed so nothing ever came of it.
3 Steven R Linnabary // May 5, 2009 at 9:47 am
I don’t see the connection between Joel Boniek and building a bigger LP, except possible to find a credible candidate to run against him.
I REALLY don’t see the need to advertise him on the LP website. Just doesn’t seem appropriate.
Might make an interesting story for RRND daily alerts, but hardly from the LP.
PEACE
4 Rachel H. // May 5, 2009 at 10:03 am
Even more interesting, given the message from staff recently that “the gun thing doesn’t play well with voters”.
5 Matthew // May 5, 2009 at 10:11 am
Ugh. LP.org is endorsing yet another run-of-the-mill conservative whose beliefs seem to run contrary to conservative political philosophy. Good God, this man is no Libertarian! Conservative, maybe, only in the modern, neutered definition of the word.
We wonder why Republicans are purging intelligent supporters. This most recent entry from LP.org is just further indication of how out of touch even the Libertarians are with their own political beliefs.
6 Marakay Rogers // May 5, 2009 at 10:23 am
The LP has always struggled with the perception that it’s the Republican junior varsity. It isn’t, or it shouldn’t be — so why the leadership now feels compelled to endorse Republicans with horrendous records on taxes and individual rights and the like is beyond me.
Lord help us if the LP becomes the new bastion of neo-conservatism — which is the antithesis of a libertarian message but is right where our leadership is marching to.
7 volvoice // May 5, 2009 at 10:26 am
Come on Donny…. a few of us are out here pullin for ya cause you are a youngblood, but this ain’t helpin yer cause.
8 mdh // May 5, 2009 at 10:27 am
@6 – I don’t think I’d say that our leadership is. Mr. Ferguson is a paid staff member, and not an elected official of the LNC or any state party.
The real problem is paid staff members taking explicitly political actions. Their role should be limited to management and administrivia rather than active politicking. Politics should be left as the sole domain of elected officers of the LNC and state parties, and candidates.
9 mdh // May 5, 2009 at 10:28 am
@7 – Donny does some good work in terms of administrative stuff. If it weren’t for the controversial releases, I’d say he’s doing a pretty good job.
10 Tomcat // May 5, 2009 at 10:37 am
I’m a gun rights activist. It was my introduction to activism in general, and lead me ultimately to becoming an official part of the Libertarian Party. So, my opinions on firearms need to be clear for people to truly understand what I’m about to say:
Guns are NOT the only issue we should use as the basis for someone being libertarian, and anyone who does that is a freaking moron!
Sorry, but I had to get that out of my system. However, the sentiment is genuine. Frankly, there’s a lot more to be libertarian (little or big “L” is irrelevant at this point) than just liking guns. While this particular law is great, and I hope that it’s upheld as Constitutional (which I actually doubt), what about all the other positions that Susan posted?
Donny, pal, do me a favor, will ya? STFU. You’re making us look bad.
11 Gene Trosper // May 5, 2009 at 12:40 pm
You know, I once walked away from the LP and was recently talked back into joining the party. Now I question the logic of my rejoining. In fact, it is taking every bit of self-restraint right now to not just simply walk away again. The ONLY thing keeping me from doing so is because I was entrusted to be the chairman of my county LP affiliate. Because of that, I have responsibilities to uphold and don’t want to walk out on those responsibilities.
12 citizen1 // May 5, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Are there any guns that are actually made in Montana?
We need a law like that in CT. It would exempt guns made be Wildey Firearms. The company founder, Wildey Moore, has run as a candidate of both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties.
13 Susan Hogarth // May 5, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Are there any guns that are actually made in Montana?
If not, there will be soon!
14 Steve Perkins // May 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I was scratching my head over this press release too.
A week or two back, Donny sent out a press release citing to an “AP poll” which shows that more Americans believe Elvis is still alive than believe the country is on the right track (17%).
I promoted this on my Facebook page, and got feedback from left-leaning friends that this was purely false… the most recent AP poll numbers for “on the right track” were almost 50%. I emailed Donny directly to ask about his source, so I could respond to the feedback, and never heard anything in reply.
I don’t really mind an LP press release being “too pure” or “too moderate” for my particular tastes. However, imaginary numbers and promoting candidates with no ties to the LP at all? Many of our press releases are pretty “WTF?” no matter what your ideology happens to be.
15 Michael Seebeck // May 5, 2009 at 2:47 pm
How he should have written it:
———————–
Dear friend,
If you’re lucky enough to live in Montana, you just got luckier.
A new law, signed April 15, exempts Montana-made guns from federal legislation and regulations. It also reasserts the reserved powers of the State of Montana and its citizens under the Tenth Amendment and rights of those citizens under Ninth Amendment.
The law only applies to arms made in kept in Montana, with some exceptions such as bazookas and full-auto machine guns. It may trigger a federal court case over the Second Amendment and state sovereignty. Recently the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a new precedent, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the States just like the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Now, wouldn’t it be great if this idea can expand to every other state?
Well, you can by helping build a bigger Libertarian Party.
A bigger Libertarian Party, one that represents all of the millions of libertarian-leaning voters out there, would be big enough to provide the campaign training, media assistance, and most importantly, the voter base to elect our own representatives to get these pro-freedom laws passed.
If you’ve already joined the Libertarian Party, thank you! If not, please consider joining today. With our common-sense freedom-based approach of limited government in both personal and economic matters, compared to the extremist radical agendas of the Democrats led by President Obama and the Republicans, the Libertarian Party is really the only mainstream party in America.
We need your help to make it happen. Get active with the Libertarian Party today!
——————
Note no mention of the Republican, it lauds the accomplishment, and flows better into pitching the Party based on the message, not the messenger or their affiliation with the other party.
16 Stewart Flood // May 5, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Well written.
17 Michael Seebeck // May 5, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Thank you, Stewart.
18 libertariangirl // May 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm
For christs sake does anyone have oversight over what Donny puts out ?
19 Thomas M. Sipos // May 5, 2009 at 6:02 pm
When I called Donny a “Demopublican” a few weeks ago, Brian Holtz went into drama queen mode, wailing that I was Joe McCarthy smearing the young innocent Donny.
Actually, I’ve never used “Demopublican” or “Republican Lite” as smear terms. I use them as gentle, polite euphemisms for what I’d really like to say.
20 libertariangirl // May 5, 2009 at 6:38 pm
um i believe i defended him a cpl times too .
my bad
21 Gene Berkman // May 5, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Seebeck’s re-write is better because it is more directly about the issue.
Of course, if the LP did not waste time and resources running national campaigns where we have no impact, we might have elected a few legislators ourselves, and the press releases from national could highlight what our guys are doing.
22 mdh // May 5, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I tend to disagree, Gene. National campaigns, especially presidential, tend to bring in a lot of opportunities for earned media, despite the cost. I think in the end, it’s worth it just from a PR perspective to have as many credible candidates on the ballot as possible. This brings in more good activists and some may turn into winning candidates in races that we can win, such as state and local legislatures and such.
23 Cork // May 5, 2009 at 8:31 pm
A third party that serves no purpose except to promote one of the two major parties…weird. The LP is completely worthless. Not even worth a pity vote or throw-away vote anymore. Let it die.
24 Susan Hogarth // May 5, 2009 at 8:52 pm
A third party that serves no purpose except to promote one of the two major parties…weird. The LP is completely worthless.
A couple (few? several? sigh…) of errant press releases does not a Party make. The important thing is how the Party leadership and membership deals with the errancy.
25 Mik Robertson // May 5, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Michael did have a much better version. But really, if Donny had left out the words “like Joel Boniek” in the penultimate paragraph, it would not have been so bad.
The power of the incumbency is great and anyone who can overcome that, especially from the same political party, gives hope to all challenger candidates. Perhaps that is what Donny was going for.
26 Cork // May 5, 2009 at 9:24 pm
This goes beyond the last few press releases. The “new” LP very much seems to be promoting the ideas, candidates, radio hosts, and talking points of the GOP. It has been Republican lite for at least a year, if not much longer. Almost any of the LP’s material (the release on marriage being an exception) could have been put out by the GOP.
27 Richard Cooper // May 5, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I was mystified why Ferguson had a release featuring this GOP legislator.
If the idea was to identify with the legislation, he need not have been mentioned at all.
Starting off, I expected to read that he was changing to the LP. If not, why mention him?
28 Cork // May 5, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Future LP releases we can expect to see:
Libertarians urge Obama to invade Iran, to ensure world peace.
Monday Message: Who is Rick Santorum?
Caught on tape: Radical Democrat wants to release terrorists, legalize pot
Libertarians: seal off border, send back the job-stealing beaners
29 Robert Capozzi // May 5, 2009 at 9:57 pm
This one seems ill-advised as well.
I’m OK with praising Rs and Ds on single issues as a means to build the LP as the more-consistent voice for freedom. This release doesn’t do that sufficiently. The person praised isn’t an L.
30 Billy Goat Eater // May 5, 2009 at 11:52 pm
There is nothing wrong with the LP that getting rid of Donny Ferguson, Andrew Davis, Robert Kraus, Bill Redpath, Bob Sullentrup, Aaron Starr, Stewart Flood, and M. Carling wouldn’t fix. The GOP in the LP is a minority. Sycophants like Brian Holtz to the contrary notwithstanding.
31 Alexander S. Peak // May 6, 2009 at 2:15 am
This is insane. No libertarian—whether minarchist, anarchist, Objectivist, constitionalist, classical liberal, or whatever—should have any reason to think that this man is also a libertarian.
In case anyone in the LP has forgotten, libertarianism is about smaller government, not bigger.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
32 Arthur DiBianca // May 6, 2009 at 8:06 am
Apparently Barney Frank is about to introduce a bill to get rid of the ban on online gambling. I wonder if we’ll see an LP press release praising him.
(“Now, wouldn’t it be nice to have a Congressman in your town just as passionate about defending your rights?”)
33 a different paul // May 6, 2009 at 8:24 am
To paraphrase Susan: The LP leaders need to understand the difference between strategic alliances and supporting other party candidates.
Agree completely. Some of the Libertarians I knew in the past had this constant internal debate going on whether it was better to have an LP or better to try to reform one of the parties from inside it. Sentiments like this release feed the latter half of that debate, and aren’t helpful to the LP in my view.
34 Eric Dondero // May 6, 2009 at 10:06 am
What I’m puzzled by is why is it that not a single one of you here, or Donny for that matter, has bothered to ask the guy to join the LP?
Simple. Someone hop on a flight to Billings, rent-a-car, take the guy out to dinner, pass him the membership form, and ask him for $25.00.
Tell him he can run for reelection as a Republican no problem. Just get him to join!
35 Andy // May 6, 2009 at 10:12 am
“Of course, if the LP did not waste time and resources running national campaigns where we have no impact, we might have elected a few legislators ourselves, and the press releases from national could highlight what our guys are doing.”
Libertarian Party Presidential campaigns are the best advertisement campaigns for the Libertarian Party that there is. Many of us would not be here if not for a Libertarian Presidential campaign. Speaking for myself, I got involved after being exposed to the Harry Browne for President campaign back in 1996.
36 robert capozzi // May 6, 2009 at 10:23 am
eric, I dunno, seems like the acquisition costs for your tactic would be prohibitive. flying around to ask every R or D that ever says anything vaguely L seems contra-indicated. maybe a phone call….
37 Eric Dondero // May 6, 2009 at 10:25 am
You know, I spent 6 months up in Montana in 2006 petitioning for property rights. I met NUMEROUS! libertarian state legislators, some much more hardcore than this guy, and a couple even DUES PAYING MEMBERS OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY.
I called up the national LP office at the time to let them know this. And the attitude was ho-hum.
I really don’t get some of you LP people. There’s not a single legislator in the entire US right now, identified with the LP.
How friggin’ hard is it for you people to jump on a flight to Montana, wine and dine some legislators, give them a membership form and ask them to sign on the dotted line?
Then the next day you put that up on LP.org and in a press release: “New Libertarian State Legislator…”
Who cares if the guy runs on the Republican ticket. Assure him that that’s just fine. You just want them to be a member of the LP.
Hell, those 4 legislators in NH who were Libertarians – Gorman and the others – in the early 1990s, were elected on the Republican ticket.
Really, you all, GET SOME REAL WORLD POLITICAL SENSE!!!
38 Eric Dondero // May 6, 2009 at 10:28 am
Robert, you’re joking right?
You’re honestly telling me that the biggest problem with flying around to recruit state legislators to the LP is the cost of the plane tickets?
Look you all, start acting like the Conservative Party of New York State. Start making cross endorsements of Republicans, particularly during the primaries.
I know muchos Republicans who would be appreciative of an LP endorsement.
And I can thing of a bunch of them, that would be more than happy to be a dues paying member of the LP, to have that dual-ticket so-to-speak.
YA JUST GOTTA ASK!!
39 Steven R Linnabary // May 6, 2009 at 10:33 am
What I’m puzzled by is why is it that not a single one of you here, or Donny for that matter, has bothered to ask the guy to join the LP?
Eric- Read Susan’s post #1. This guy isn’t even close to libertarian, let alone Libertarian.
PEACE
40 Andy // May 6, 2009 at 10:47 am
“Hell, those 4 legislators in NH who were Libertarians – Gorman and the others – in the early 1990s, were elected on the Republican ticket.”
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that New Hampshire allows fusion candidates – that is candidates who run under more than one party banner – and that Don Gorman (and probably the others) ran under both the Libertarian Party ticket and the Republican Party ticket.
41 Eric Dondero // May 6, 2009 at 10:47 am
Steven, he’s “not close to being a libertarian,” by your definition of “libertarian.”
This may shock you, but a lot of us have a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE expanisive definition of the term.
To me, anyone who scores northeast of 66/66 on the Nolan Chart IS A LIBERTARIAN!
Now, they may not be an Anarchist-Libertarian like Susan Hogarth, but they have just as much right to her to the label.
That goes for moderate libertarians, conservative libertarians, libertarian libertarians, whatever.
Susan Hogarth and her like are not the “Gatekeepers,” of the term libertarian.
Again, YOU ALL DON’T HAVE A SINGLE G-DAMMNED STATE LEGISLATOR ANYWHERES IN THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW.
Lose all the g-damned purity and get to work at real world politics.
42 Eric Dondero // May 6, 2009 at 10:51 am
Okay, here’s a bit of information for you all.
There are two absolute crazy f*cks in the New Hampshire State House of Reps. One of them is a flaming Anarchist. His name is Tom Acieri (sp?). Neither the Democrats nor Republicans want anything to do with the guy.
Why the f*ck don’t you all recruit this guy into the LP?
Here’s another one: Steve Vallaincourt. This guy is bonkers. Believe me, you don’t want him as your enemy.
He’s run on the LP ticket before. He even briefly claimed that he was no longer a Republican but an elected Libertarian State Rep. in early 2008. He was quoted as such in a Gay Magazine.
Again, I called up National LP HQ to tell them about the guy. Ho-hum response.
Nobody every followed up.
Here you’ve got two hardcore PURE! Anarchist-Libertarians in the NH House, and NOBODY!! in the LP has bothered to formally recruit them.
Pathetic!
43 Eric Dondero // May 6, 2009 at 10:53 am
Yes Andy, you are correct. NH and Delaware, and I believe now Rhode Island allow fusion tickets. And of course New York does, as well.
But who cares about the formality.
Create your own version of Fusion for the LP. Just tell these legislators, “We’ll count you in as an elected Libertarian, if you just sign up and give us your dues. In return we’ll endorse you and ask our membership to help to reelect you.”
It’s win win for everyone. LP gets to brag about their new state legislators, said legislator gets more support for his reelections.
44 robert capozzi // May 6, 2009 at 10:54 am
eric, nope, not kidding. my understanding is the LNC is pronouncedly cash strapped at the moment, so, even if yours is a good idea, it seems highly unrealistic.
and cross endorsements are generally verboten by the bylaws, is my understanding.
in NY, the LP endorsed and nominated Weld for guv before the R convention. NYCP torpedoed that effort, and it didn’t work out so well for NYLP.
In short, while fusionism has SOME appeal in theory, in practice it seems contra-indicated.
45 Steven R Linnabary // May 6, 2009 at 11:01 am
Well, Eric, you may well be correct that there is a more expansive definition of “libertarian”. Afterall, Bill Clinton did claim to be libertarian.
Personally, I think the LP has enough problems with truthers, anti-semites and racists calling themselves libertarian (and even running as Libertarians).
And you are absolutely right that Susan is not the “Gatekeeper” of what can be called libertarian. But the following does NOT describe ANY Libertarian:
Anti-abortion freedom
PRO maintaining current government spending levels on most things
PRO maintaining tax levels in several categories
ANTI first amendment (via restricting voluntary campaign financing)
PRO state killing (death penalty)
AGAINST decriminalizing MJ possession
PRO having state and local cops enforce FEDERAL immigration laws
ANTI recognition of civil unions
PRO ‘voluntary school prayer’
AGAINST allowing pharmacists who object to emergency contraception to refuse to dispense it (I honestly suspect he misunderstood this question)
I really don’t see the point of moving the LP to any contemporary MOR, but I can see the point of moving the center toward libertarianism.
PEACE
46 robert capozzi // May 6, 2009 at 11:20 am
sl, I like your idea of using political gravitational pull on the MOR toward Lism. but being on Pluto seems to have less effect than being on the Earth’s moon.
so, while we’ve made strides away from Pluto, we’re still on Mars. The closer we get to being relevant, the more likely we will be to be influential.
47 Erik Geib // May 6, 2009 at 11:32 am
“Personally, I think the LP has enough problems with truthers, anti-semites and racists calling themselves libertarian (and even running as Libertarians).”
Agreed.
And I think Boniek would feel much more at home with the Constitution Party than the Libertarian Party. Why social conservatives keep trying to join the LP or receive LP praise is beyond me.
I’d rather see more incrementalist new members (i.e. those who allow the state to currently do a few more things than most libertarians would like, but certainly less than Dems or Repubs would like) than crazy people (social cons). Poll after poll shows America has a nice little niche for libertarians (2/3rds would prefer lower taxes even if it meant fewer government services; 60% [or more, depending on the poll] against the war in Iraq; 2/3rds in favor of keeping abortion legal, etc. etc.). Now, let’s identify that 1/3rd who is ‘socially liberal’ and also for lower taxes and smaller government. I know that’s the old cliche that’s supposedly never worked, but damn, people – social cons are a minority in this country… let’s please stop kissing their ass.
48 Tomcat // May 6, 2009 at 11:40 am
Erik,
Do you have any links supporting those numbers? It’s not that I doubt them, but more like I could use them for something I’m working on.
For the record, I agree with you. A few incrementalists are preferable to the nut jobs who give us all a bad name.
49 robert capozzi // May 6, 2009 at 12:26 pm
eg, while I agree with the thrust of your point, I strongly suggest against denigrating “social cons” and people of faith generally. Ls have a high percentage of atheists, agnostics and deists, but it’s really bad form to generalize about people’s spiritual views and their political propensities.
I’d go so far as to say that 2 of Jesus’ key messages — the golden rule and judge not lest ye be judged — are quite L in implication.
and, while I’m tepidly pro choice and strongly against the death penalty, some people who are broadly “social con” and L leaning won’t budge on these 2 issues.
I’d vote for someone whom I disagree with on these 2 issues, and would say if they are for max liberty and min coercion, they should be welcome in the LP.
50 Erik Geib // May 6, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Robert,
I don’t recall saying anything negative about people of faith. To me (and many others, I assume) a social conservative is one who wishes to espouse their religious viewpoints on others through the hand of government. 70-some percent of America (or higher) claims to be religious, yet 70 percent of America isn’t a social con.
Like I said, I’d rather the Barr/Rockwell crowd go to the CP. Hell, many of them aren’t even *that* libertarian- they just want to replace the tyranny of federal government with the tyranny of state government. Bleh.
The more the social con crowd moves in (which again, is a minority in this country), the more we hurt our chances at independent and left-leaning outreach. Instead of inviting in social cons, I’d rather find the Republicans who are uncomfortable with the social cons and the war hawks (the people who vote/register Republican based primarily on economic policy). Likewise, I’d also prefer to target people who vote/register Democrat because either Republican social cons make them uncomfortable or they are adamantly pro-freedom on many civil liberties issues (gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, etc.). I’d suspect there are more than a few “Democrats” out there who are either uncomfortable or un-knowledgeable concerning leftist ‘social justice’ causes.
51 Erik Geib // May 6, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Tomcat,
I’ll keep looking for an older link I have somewhere (shoulda bookmarked it) that shows a higher number (I believe it was 67% at one point, but…):
“A solid majority of voters (62%) continue to prefer a government that offers fewer services in exchange for lower taxes. Twenty-eight percent (28%) want more services even if it means higher taxes.
In previous surveys, those who say they favor lower taxes and fewer services have ranged from the high 50s to the mid-60s. Those who want more services and higher taxes have run from 24% to 31%. ”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/benchmarks/america_s_best_days
“In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion?”
.
Agree Disagree Unsure
% % %
7/8-13/08 63 33 5
8/7-13/07
62 32 6
12/05
63 32 5
7/05
65 30 6
5/05
63 33 5 ”
Source: Quinnipiac University Poll. July 8-13, 2008. N=1,783 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.3.
“The weekend poll, timed to coincide with the Iraq war’s fifth anniversary, also showed little U.S. support for the conflict. Fewer than one in three respondents — 32 percent — said they support the war, while 66 percent said they oppose it.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/poll.iraq.economy/index.html?eref=rss_politics
52 robert capozzi // May 6, 2009 at 1:43 pm
eg, I didn’t say you did conflate “social cons” and the faithful. Some do, however, and not without cause, since many/most/virtually all social cons use religious views to justify their positions.
I have to chuckle about your “Barr/Rockwell crowd” notion, since LRC posters were generally hostile to Barr. Both use “federalism” arguments on several fronts, but that’s yet ANOTHER schism in the movement…too many to keep track of. (In fact, I sometimes will use federalism arguments myself, truth be told. Undoing the Leviathan requires some tactical flexibility.)
I agree with your assessment of where our richest target markets are. It surely isn’t in the shrinking LotS crowd.
53 Erik Geib // May 6, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I probably should have said Barr & Rockwell crowds – lol. I didn’t mean to imply they were one and the same.
My points remain though – I despise them both.
54 Rocky Eades // May 6, 2009 at 3:19 pm
As I have said before, I, personally, would rather have one lgbt, pot smoking, tatooed and pierced, spike-haired prostitute who proudly loves and loudly and articulately proclaims individual freedom and the non-aggression principle than to recruit ALL of the f***king fair taxers out of the Republican Party!
55 libertariangirl // May 6, 2009 at 3:50 pm
can I get an Amen!
56 Tomcat // May 6, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Erik: Thanks! I was going to look for numbers along those lines later this evening. You just saved me a pile of effort
57 robert capozzi // May 6, 2009 at 4:09 pm
rocky, please claify what you mean by “have.;-)
seriously, what purpose does it serve to have a party of a few alternative lifestylers? while it’s GREAT that the LP is home to the alts, how many of them are there? without numbers, you don’t have a political movement, you have a fringe social group/debating society, I’d suggest.
I too love to hang with “freaks,” but what’s the point? a lotta hair air?
58 robert capozzi // May 6, 2009 at 4:16 pm
eg, despise? personally?
I’m not sure that “hating” fellow Ls gets us anywhere. Barr especially. The man’s come a long way in a short time. He stopped his life to run for Prez. I for one an grateful for his efforts, even when I disagreed with him.
59 Erik Geib // May 6, 2009 at 4:55 pm
See, that’s the thing though – I only consider Barr an ‘L’ in party, not in ideology. He too closely resembles a paleo-conservative for my tastes, and the ‘pragmatic’ selection of him as the presidential candidate only helped close off outreach to moderate and “left-leaning” libertarian supporters. A pick like Barr does little to go after the electoral ‘third’ I spoke of earlier, partially due to his conservative past (DOMA, anyone?), and partialLý due to what I continue to insist are paleo-conservative and *not* libertarian views. Like Rockwell, I think he’d rather replace the tyranný of the federal government with the tyranny of the states (‘states rights’). I doubt either’s convictions towards truly limiting or eliminating government control of our lives.
And yes, I despise him, though I’d hesitate to say I “personallý despise” him, as I haven’t met him. I could, however claim that, “Personally, I despise him.” :p
60 Erik Geib // May 6, 2009 at 4:59 pm
And all of those typos are thanks to the BlackBerry – lol
61 Thomas M. Sipos // May 6, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Why social conservatives keep trying to join the LP or receive LP praise is beyond me.
That’s easy to answer.
1. The LP has better ballot access than the CP.
2. Social conservatives are often regard as bigots. As hating gays, Muslims, Mexicans, etc. Whereas Libertarians are still regarded by many Americans as being tolerant and diverse. So whenever Sean Hannity (or whoever) says “I’m really a libertarian,” it’s an attempt to steal that good reputation for himself.
Ironically, neocons, social conservatives, etc. try to benefit from antiwar, pro-immigration, etc. libertarians’ reputation for tolerance, while simultaneously trying to dilute those LP positions.
62 Erik Geib // May 6, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Tomcat,
No problem. Let me know if you ever need any other data – I’m sort of an information/stats hound (hence my inability to immediately find the number I was looking for, but I think it’s on my home cpu).
63 Tomcat // May 7, 2009 at 10:21 am
Erik,
I just might have to bug you much more in the future then.
64 libproppeace // May 8, 2009 at 3:03 am
There’s nothing wrong with being socially conservative unless you try to use the State to force those viewpoints on others. Cultural leftism is not required for libertarianism. And really — suggesting that the Rockwell crowd should join the Constitution Party is plain ridiculous.
Also, no one is suggesting that federal tyranny should be replaced by tyranny from the states. The goal is clearly no tyranny. But the idea that tyranny can be eliminated by centralizing power is clearly false; that argument is essentially saying that making the State more powerful will somehow make it better. I think libertarians should know better. Decentralizing measures, such as states’ rights (or ‘state sovereignty’, if you prefer), are checks on the power of the State — something libertarians should favor.
65 mdh // May 8, 2009 at 7:35 am
Eric, I think we should court some Democratic state legislators. All the socialism they want, as long as they’re anti-war. Since, y’know, just being libertarian on one or two things is OK enough to make a Libertarian, right?
Leave a Comment