23 responses so far ↓

• 1 Hey, 'Democans and Republicrats suck', [Lake] // Jul 16, 2010 at 2:47 pm

  Aren’t these ‘results’ similar to the pre election Year of Disaster (2008) and the Obama, My Yokohoma Momma, on slought.

  Told ya so, told ya so (on George W. Obama …..) the ‘Miracle President’ ….. the Warrior Peace Prize holder ……. the Afghan – Iraq – Iran mid east mire …….. ACORN poster boy ………. the NASA ambassador to Islam —— will lose either the 2012 Dem Primary / Convention or the General November Election!

  And it won’t be Hilary or Biden!

  Ya heard it here first!

  Don’t blame me: Perot, Perot, Nader, Nader, Nader!

• 2 Dale Sheldon-Hess // Jul 16, 2010 at 3:14 pm

  The awesome thing about this poll is that everyone, 100%, are right!

  * Third parties _would_ be a good idea; more ideas, more fluidity, more democracy. Oh, except for:

  * Strong third parties would be a _bad_ idea; more split votes, more worse-of-two-evils candidates elected.

  * And they _do_ already exist; Green, Libertarian, Vermont Progressive (they have a US senator!); the list goes on, and they’re out there, spreading ideas but either spoiling elections or being ignored out of fear that they will spoil elections.

  If only there were a way to get the upsides without suffering the downsides: http://rangevoting.org

• 3 Carolyn Marbry // Jul 16, 2010 at 4:30 pm

  What this poll really shows us is that the third parties are not making much of an impression on 96% of the people.

• 4 Hey, 'Democans and Republicrats suck', [Lake] // Jul 16, 2010 at 4:42 pm

  “not making much of an impression on 96% of the people ……… ” while allowing the bigs to put their boots on the necks of the same 96 per cent!

• 5 George Phillies // Jul 16, 2010 at 5:04 pm

  The key question is whether ‘already exists’ is a choice read by the interviewer, or whether it was a volunteered answer. Volunteered answers are given by people who view their answer as quite emphatic and important.

• 6 Michael H. Wilson // Jul 16, 2010 at 5:31 pm

  re # 3. How about it means we need to do a better job of getting out there in the first place?

• 7 Green Party Conservative // Jul 16, 2010 at 9:03 pm

  Thanks for this story..

  Really gave me a chuckle…What they will do to avoid mentioning the Green Party…

  Thanks IPR for shinning a light on ‘em..

• 8 Robert Capozzi // Jul 17, 2010 at 5:05 am

  What’s interesting to me in question 9 is that the percentages have remained about the same for over 10 years. The current 57% is up only slightly from the 54% in 1999.

  It appears that the level of discontent with the Rs and Ds is NOT a new phenomenon.

  While the US has had 3rd parties pretty much (always?) continuously throughout its history, the term “national” points to the idea that there’s not, at the moment, a PLAUSIBLE national 3rd party. Some of that is due to election law restrictions, but a lot of it is because the zealously ideological and utopian nature of many/all of the current crop of 3rd parties.

• 9 Eric Sundwall // Jul 17, 2010 at 7:10 pm

  The ideological zest that RC bemoans is a result of third parties not mattering in the single plurality district so ill-conceived by Madison. Thus, they can afford to be that way based on intense passions and deep intellectual commitment. Winning isn’t the issue as some would so earnestly make it.

  Americans are very practical when it comes to picking winners and losers. Increase the frustration with horribly gerrymandered districts.

  All that being said, a centrist well liked party with an eye towards middle class sensibility, need only convince the tangled middle that a 34% plurality might pull off an upset . . . wherefore art thou ? Ain’t gonna happen. Long live the flaming dissident.

• 10 Melty // Jul 17, 2010 at 10:02 pm

  seems that though Republicans’re most sympathetic to the Tea Party movement overall they’re least receptive to upstart parties

• 11 Jeff Vanke // Jul 18, 2010 at 11:59 am

  @Sundwall: I am trying to make that centrist party happen. As luck would have it, my current Congressional campaign in VA-6 includes no Democratic challenger to the 8-term Republican. This relieves voters on all sides from having to worry about “splitting the vote.” (A third candidate in this race is Libertarian.)

• 12 Robert Capozzi // Jul 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm

  es, you may well enjoy (and derive utility from) being a “flaming dissident,” and I would never question what floats YOUR boat. That’s your business.

  I would suggest that a liberty-oriented centrist party MIGHT ascend under the right circumstances. For ex., there are many districts where the incumbent goes unchallenged by a major party. If there’s an anti-incumbent wave like we get every 12 years or so, and a centrist ran a credible campaign, he/she just might win. One — just one — would mean instant credibility for that 3rd party. It might be something that could be built on. You might see some pols bolt the failing party, like they did from the Whigs.

  It’s a long shot, I certainly admit. Personally, I don’t get my jollies from shocking people with outrageous statements. One gets the sense, Eric, that you do, what with your unretracted statements about “citiots” and “bagel-chompers.”

  It’s all good, my pastoral friend. Whatever gets you through the night….

• 13 Robert Capozzi // Jul 18, 2010 at 1:44 pm

  …clarifying…

  Rather than an “anti-incumbent wave,” I meant a “balance of power wave,” like we just had in 08 and to some extent 06. The Rs lost their electoral mojo.

• 14 Robert Capozzi // Jul 18, 2010 at 2:02 pm

  …more…

  I believe I saw Joe Kennedy is going to run for Congress as an L in Barney Frank’s district. That might be VERY interesting if done properly.

  (Note that that district once elected a Know Nothing candidate to Congress!)

  Affluent, yet progressive Northeastern district…Frank is rumored flirting with not running, I believe I’ve heard…Obama is not working out too well.

  Kennedy did a credible job in the debates with Brown and Coakley…doesn’t seem to be an extremist L…has a great name! Heck, who knows?

  Of course the odds are very long. Most likely outcome is single digits. OTOH, MA is a state that should see the Rs go away first, why not an L Bernie Sanders named Joe Kennedy?

• 15 Robert Capozzi // Jul 19, 2010 at 6:55 am

  es: Winning isn’t the issue as some would so earnestly make it.

  me: Yes, winning any one contest, or even an aggregation of contests, “isn’t the issue,” per se. I would hope that winning over the hearts and minds of a growing number of people toward peace and liberty IS the issue. I would hope that narrowcasted pontification to the converted is NOT the issue, which strikes me as a colossal waste of time.

  If you believe that shock is the best, most efficient tactic to win over hearts and minds, I respect that…and I question it. This “bagel chomper” prefers a more non-violent approach.

• 16 Starchild // Jul 19, 2010 at 9:37 am

  @15 – I agree, Robert — *winning over the hearts and minds* of a growing number of people toward liberty should be our goal.

  As opposed to changing our positions (or pretending to do so) to reflect what we think voters currently want as a means of seeking their votes.

  We needn’t aim to shock people, just have the courage to present our ideas proudly and honestly, instead of assuming people can’t handle the truth.

  Leadership is about *leading* public opinion in the right direction, not following it.

• 17 Robert Capozzi // Jul 19, 2010 at 10:39 am

  sc: We needn’t aim to shock people, just have the courage to present our ideas proudly and honestly, instead of assuming people can’t handle the truth.

  me: Hmm, let’s break this down a bit, unpacking some premises that seem embedded in your view.

  First, and most important, is the assumption of “truth.” My opinion is that everyone — on some level — believes that they know “the truth,” and I for one count myself as skeptical of their opinions! We’re all doing our best to know and live the truth, but, based on results, it’s clear to me that we all fail on that front at least time to time.

  Handling the truth, then, really means something more like accepting your (our) opinion. And, yes, there is a LOT

• 18 Robert Capozzi // Jul 19, 2010 at 10:48 am

  …continuing…

  of data that suggests that most people do NOT accept the L theoretical opinion of a just social order, at least not in its totality, as defined by absolutist, abolitionist Ls who have, for quite some time, dominated the LP and its foundational documents and messaging.

  I happen to agree with you that leadership involves leading, not following. But a good leader communicates to the listener in a manner that is likely to be understood. And a good leader picks and chooses which messages are likely to trigger the appropriate response. A good leader knows where to push and where to back off, waiting for the time when another initiative is ripe.

  How these leadership skills are calibrated is an art, not a science. In my experience, a leader doesn’t win over hearts and minds by, in effect, telling all that will hear that their ideas are completely wrong, that we need a massive, revolutionary, social upheaval now.

  Chicken Little was not a good leader.

  IMO.

• 19 Starchild // Jul 19, 2010 at 10:56 am

  Robert – I’m involved in the libertarian movement because I believe it’s true that people have the right to live their lives as they choose so long as they do not initiate force or fraud against others, and that the fairest political system is one that allows people this natural freedom.

  Yes, I recognize that people have different opinions, and that not everyone believes these things to be true. However I do believe them to be true, and since I believe this, I intend to act on the assumption that they are true, and that others are likewise capable of seeing this.

  If you likewise believe these ideas to be true, I invite you to join me in proudly standing up for them.

• 20 Starchild // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:02 am

  A good start in proudly standing up for our ideas would be not comparing persons who hold radical libertarian views to Chicken Little, when the sky in that story was *not* falling, whereas the problems that we can see in the world from a libertarian perspective, and the suffering they cause, are all too real.

• 21 Starchild // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:10 am

  If we simply and consistently repeated the message of the Non-Aggression Principle, and showed how it applies to different areas of public policy, I think it would come to be understood by most people.

  It is not necessary to say to people, “Your ideas are completely wrong.” In fact to do so would be unfair and unjust, because most people do follow the Non-Aggression Principle to a large extent in their daily living. We simply need to help them see how personal ethical mores they probably already believe in, like “Don’t steal,” “Don’t start fights,” and “Clean up your own mess” apply to public policy.

  Mary Ruwart’s book “Healing Our World” is an excellent example of how to present this radical message of peace, love and tolerance in a non-threatening, common sense manner.

• 22 Michael H. Wilson // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:16 am

  Sometimes just the facts have a way of being useful. When was the last time someone tried to explain the costs of keeping 75 to 100,000 troops deployed to Europe?

  American taxpayer are spending about $2,900 per capita on defense. Our NATO allies, if we can call them that, spend a fraction of that amount. The U.K. comes in at $718. Germany at $424.

  Can the government justify keeping 30,000 U.S. troops on the ground in So. Korea to defend So. Korea when they spend only $300 per capita to defend their own country against the costs that the American taxpayer is picking up for their benefit? Of course American auto workers are expected to compete against So. Korean auto workers in a global market.

  Might help if Libertarian defended union workers instead of bashing them in cases such as this.

• 23 Robert Capozzi // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:29 am

  sc, given the choice between being humble and effective vs. proud and ineffective, which would you choose?

  Me? I’d choose humble and effective. Proudly so

  IMO, I am the most radical L that I know in that I constantly question my thoughts and assumptions, about politics and everything else. This approach leads me to NOT be an abolitionist L, which I suggest is the more accurate term for those who align with Rothbard, Konkin, or other anarchoL schools of thought.

  My radical inquiry leads me to the conclusion: all things in moderation. Many abolitionist L suggest/insist that they — in effect — have found “the way,” and that catastrophe looms without an abrupt course correction in the current state of affairs. I read the opinions of a fair number of abolitionist L, and I detect that pattern, you?

  If my colorful shorthand for that mentality offends or is misrepresentative, I’m open to an alternative narrative to describe my abolitionist brethren’s tone and approach.

  I feel there’s no imperative that Ls MUST advocate a dramatic change in the country’s course to be L. There is much confusion about the implications of the NIOF construct and its application in the public square, IMO. Somehow, a tradition developed in the LM that advocating utopian endpoints = principle.

  I (proudly ) challenge that tradition! In my estimation, it has failed rather spectacularly and, I dare say, predictably.

  IMO.

Leave a Comment