I've seen a lot of discussion of late about how the Republican party, in response mainly to the tea party activists, is trying to reaffirm itself as the party of conservatism. As a big believer in conservatism myself, I see this as a great thing. However, I recognize that there are a lot of libertarians who want to branch off into a new party and try to get elected on something resembling the Mises platform.
My question is if the people on this forum think this is a good idea or do you guys think the libertarians should try to go through the Republican party and try to run candidates (like Peter Schiff or Rand Paul) in general elections under a Republican banner?
I personally think that dividing the two parties will only weaken both. I would like to see the Republican party run more candidates with a limited government message that can appeal to both the libertarian base as well as what one might call the social conservative base. Thoughts?
The only way the Libertarian Party will ever have a chance to be elected is if it takes control of the elections away from the two parties.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: The only way the Libertarian Party will ever have a chance to be elected is if it takes control of the elections away from the two parties.
So you're in favor of the third party approach?
The Late Andrew Ryan:Use people like Ron Paul but of course their priority should be getting themselves elected. Where are you hearing this rumor? I can't imagine that Mises wouldn't love the Libertarian party.
It's not that Mises people wouldn't support the Libertarian party, it's that I'm not sure whether or not they'd back a candidate running under the Republican banner who represents a lot of their positions. I'm trying to find out what people on this forum think.
The Late Andrew Ryan:And I'm sorry but the thread name is just stupid "No gus I think we should remain a small and mostly insignificant party in America."
I mean I don't think it's a good idea to have a Libertarian party either, I just wanted to phrase the question in a friendly way.
As a life-long loyal Republican I have seen the party swing to many poles, but over the last 60 years, in general, it has grown more power-hungry and less "old-conservative". Remember Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America". He actually succeeded in getting a large enough group of committed people elected to do it. But those committed people surcumed to power very quickly once they had a taste of it. It is for this reason that in my heart I have become an Anarchist. I no longer believe that any group strong enough to be effective can survive the call of power.
But as a practical person I have joined the Campaign for Liberty and the Libertarians. If enough could be elected to the House, or to any state, who are true believers and are willing to be very unpopular and just vote NO until they are strong enough and large enough to run for Senate or President, it could work, at least for a while.
bloomj31: Stranger: The only way the Libertarian Party will ever have a chance to be elected is if it takes control of the elections away from the two parties. So you're in favor of the third party approach?
Only with a revolutionary strategy of overthrowing the electoral system entirely, anything else is just being made a fool by the establishment.
bloomj31: The Late Andrew Ryan:And I'm sorry but the thread name is just stupid "No gus I think we should remain a small and mostly insignificant party in America." I mean I don't think it's a good idea to have a Libertarian party either, I just wanted to phrase the question in a friendly way.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Why not? I consider the Libertarians THE greatest political hope for America today.
Why not? I consider the Libertarians THE greatest political hope for America today.
They seem to me to lack the numbers to be anything other than a party that takes votes away from the Republicans. That being said, I agree with a lot of libertarian ideology and policy but, from my point of view, it will be difficult for the Libertarian party to win elections. It's my personal opinion that the libertarians should try to take office under the Republican banner and then just vote libertarian once they're elected.
I am definitely in favor of a third party approach. Even though you might be able to get a couple of people elected throughhe republican party, in the end, the republican party is and always will be controlled by the neocons. The people that run the Rs will no be uprooted from their positions no matter how hard libertarians try. It's been tried in the past to take over the Republican party, but it's always ended up as a time wasting distraction.
The Libertarian Party goes for a long term approach. The LP is building structure and running candidates at the local level that can actually win.
The one thing that would make third parties more effective would be instant runoff voting, which allows voters to rank their selections.
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
bloomj31: The Late Andrew Ryan: Why not? I consider the Libertarians THE greatest political hope for America today. They seem to me to lack the numbers to be anything other than a party that takes votes away from the Republicans. That being said, I agree with a lot of libertarian ideology and policy but, from my point of view, it will be difficult for the Libertarian party to win elections. It's my personal opinion that the libertarians should try to take office under the Republican banner and then just vote libertarian once they're elected.
I see how this worked with Ron Paul in the 2008 election. Calling yourself a republican doesn't help much with elections unless you say what your voters want, like starting another war for freedom!
I see a much better chance under a third party because otherwise people will associate all of the big government, war mongering republican failures on libertarians running as republicans.
Now that doesn't mean there will be a good chance that libertarians will get elected either way, both the libertarian party and libertarians running as republicans have both failed miserably. Ron Paul only manages to keep himself elected in his extremely conservative district and he has had no influence in Washington whatsoever.
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
revolutionist: The one thing that would make third parties more effective would be instant runoff voting, which allows voters to rank their selections.
If you can capture the electoral system, then you can rig it to produce whatever outcome you want.
There's no way they're going to allow us to take that power away from them without a violent fight.
bloomj31:it will be difficult for the Libertarian party to win elections.
Good thing anarchism is the only political program that doesn't require seizing the reins of power.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
According to Gerald Celente, there will be a libertarian(ish) party rising up within the next few years. It would make perfect sense for it to be the Libertarian Party, which is already the third-largest party...
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
The Libertarian Party is pathetic.
When the platform is less radically libertarian than a "Republican"'s, you have a very big problem.
Granted, it is pretty hard to be as good as Ron Paul when publicly running for office.
That's what the Libertarian Party needs to be though, more radical - otherwise it is a joke and will remain as such.
What it needs to do is follow the Rothbard caucus, just as Ron Paul has done. It's sparked the revolution.
http://www.lprc.org/tenpoints.html
The Ten Points of the Libertarian Party Rothbard Caucus
Radical Abolitionism --As the word radical means "going to the root" of something, radical Libertarians should not merely propose small changes to the status quo and debate the fine points of government policy with their opponents, but should propose the abolition of State institutions and programs while calling attention to the evil at their base: the coercion, force, and tyranny inherent in the State. Because morality and logic are on our side, the best candidates and spokespersons will sound eminently reasonable while maintaining radical libertarian positions.
"The Republicans run on a platform that 'government doesn't work'. Then they get elected and prove it." - P.J. O'Rourke.
As a Republican and a recovering neocon (thanks to you guys), I think the best way would be to do both, run a third party and run in the Republican party. Ron Paul is very popular with young people and many conservatives who are now questioning the stupidity of neoconservatism. If you had someone in the Republican party and the Libertarian party preaching the same policies, the Libertarian party then sounds more mainstream to voters. Heck maybe even run a libertarian under the Democratic ticket too. I'm sure there are a lot of people in the Democratic party who hate the government telling them what to do (ex: gay rights activists, legalizing drug activitists, etc). Ultimately, it's about the ideas, so it doesn't really matter what banner they run under.
Actually, I tend to think liberals are closer than conservatives in many ways. The liberals have good ends, but choose means that attain the opposite. Republicans are smarter - they have some ends, they know the means that lead to them, but they can't successfully on them (corporate welfare) so they run on different means - free markets, without having any intention to act on it. But if you look at the kind of world the conservative tends to want, his ends, I don't think libertarianism can give it to him - and neither does he, but he thinks relatively libertarian positions on some issues can get him elected.
Now, for the OP - the idea that a strong LP hurts the GOP is really only a strong argument if I'm supposed to like the GOP better than the Dems. But, if anything, I like the Dems better (not really though.) In turn, I'm supposed to like the GOP better because they are more "free market." But this free-market idea in GOP hands means corporate welfare, which I consider to be more harmful than socialism - and it's also harmful to the free-market cause in general, because people don't really like corporate welfare and when the GOP comes to power and does that kind of thing, they blame it on markets. Look at Greenspan running around telling people his mistake was trusting too much in markets, Bernake claiming to follow Friedman, Friedman giving us the withholding tax,...
I think liberty candidates should be running as Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats. We are a movement after all, not just a political party. The Libertarian Party could gain in importance if it had a serious candidate run once in a while.
Political Atheists Blog
JAlanKatz: Actually, I tend to think liberals are closer than conservatives in many ways. The liberals have good ends, but choose means that attain the opposite. Republicans are smarter - they have some ends, they know the means that lead to them, but they can't successfully on them (corporate welfare) so they run on different means - free markets, without having any intention to act on it. But if you look at the kind of world the conservative tends to want, his ends, I don't think libertarianism can give it to him - and neither does he, but he thinks relatively libertarian positions on some issues can get him elected. Now, for the OP - the idea that a strong LP hurts the GOP is really only a strong argument if I'm supposed to like the GOP better than the Dems. But, if anything, I like the Dems better (not really though.) In turn, I'm supposed to like the GOP better because they are more "free market." But this free-market idea in GOP hands means corporate welfare, which I consider to be more harmful than socialism - and it's also harmful to the free-market cause in general, because people don't really like corporate welfare and when the GOP comes to power and does that kind of thing, they blame it on markets. Look at Greenspan running around telling people his mistake was trusting too much in markets, Bernake claiming to follow Friedman, Friedman giving us the withholding tax,...
As you said though, the liberal Democrat platform could be described as "Don't worry, if you can't get it for yourself, the government will give it to you." Which seems to me to be totally at odds with the pro capitalist views of Libertarianism.
bloomj31:As you said though, the liberal Democrat platform could be described as "Don't worry, if you can't get it for yourself, the government will give it to you." Which seems to me to be totally at odds with the pro capitalist views of Libertarianism.
That doesn't sound like something I'd say, but if I said it, I said it. The platform, though, is the means. What I'm talking about here is the worldview, the desired end. It is true that such a platform is at variance with those ends - it will not produce it. It also is blatantly immoral. But to condemn the Dem platform as blatantly immoral and therefore believe that the GOP is better is fallacious. I'd also have to look at the GOP platform. If both are blatantly immoral, then the immorality of one is not a reason to favor the other.
Based on what I've read here, it seems split between a "run as a third party" and "run under all banners." My personal take on this is that the "run under all banners" is a nice idea and it would be great to see Libertarians in all parties but I personally don't see how the Dems would square their tax and spend and welfare state agendas with the libertarian concept of at least minarchy not to say anarchy.
I understand that there is a lot of hatred for the Republican party out there. But as a loyal Republican, and a big believer in the limited government message of conservatism, I would like to see more conservative Republicans win elections. So I'm biased. But I do think the Libertarian party has a lot to bring to the table for the Republicans and so my hope is to see the two ideologies fused into one under the Republican banner. But that would require libertarian participation which, if these responses are representative of modern libertarian views, doesn't quite exist yet.
JAlanKatz: That doesn't sound like something I'd say, but if I said it, I said it. The platform, though, is the means. What I'm talking about here is the worldview, the desired end. It is true that such a platform is at variance with those ends - it will not produce it. It also is blatantly immoral. But to condemn the Dem platform as blatantly immoral and therefore believe that the GOP is better is fallacious. I'd also have to look at the GOP platform. If both are blatantly immoral, then the immorality of one is not a reason to favor the other.
Liberal democrats have a desired end of...something like "everyone gets everything they want no matter how scarce the resources are" or something like that. And while they could be considered the party of the big heart, I often consider them the party of the small brain because they never seem to realize that their desired end is at odds with their means.
That being said, the Republican party could be described as the "we're conservatives who made a deal with evangelical Christianity that often negates our conservatism" party. So the GOP platform is schizophrenic. At one level, they advocate economic freedom, at the other level, they want to ban gay marriage and abortion and marijuana. So they're conflicted in much the same way Dems are. I tend to think the Republicans and the Democrats are equally oblivious to the contradictions in their theory. But if I had to choose one conflicted party over another, I'd always choose Republicans.
running under Dem., Rep., or all is a preference of status quo or not. Dem's probably need the most waken up to liberty, so, admittedly that's where most of the work would have to be done. Thus the more that join the Dem. way, the better. If I put on my political government cap on, where the most work needs to be done is where more people would need to go. When a hole in a dam is opening the crew need not focus on the pin-hole anymore, but all run down to where the big hole is gaping open.
besides the biggest gaping hole is where liberty exists so that's where I'm running to... also I don't see any of this ending without self-defense happening more and more....
wilderness: running under Dem., Rep., or all is a preference of status quo or not. Dem's probably need the most waken up to liberty, so, admittedly that's where most of the work would have to be done. Thus the more that join the Dem. way, the better. If I put on my political government cap on, where the most work needs to be done is where more people would need to go. When a hole in a dam is opening the crew need not focus on the pin-hole anymore, but all run down to where the big hole is gaping open. besides I don't see any of this ends without self-defense happening more and more....
besides I don't see any of this ends without self-defense happening more and more....
Going the liberal Dem route would be an interesting strategy for libertarians because they will be contending with the Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank liberals who, despite their claims, seem to be for anything other than liberty and freedom.
bloomj31: Going the liberal Dem route would be an interesting strategy for libertarians because they will be contending with the Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank liberals who, despite their claims, seem to be for anything other than liberty and freedom.
yeap, so that needs the most work. How else is that 'party' going to understand liberty if nobody of liberty brings it to them? If nobody does, one way or another, then they will only increase in their strength that anti-liberty gets them elected and thus the people support such measures. It will NEVER go away without anybody waking them up to liberty.
bloomj31:I personally don't see how the Dems would square their tax and spend and welfare state agendas with the libertarian concept of at least minarchy not to say anarchy.
Welfare is interesting. As a system it will always fail, but in terms of liberty it's not bad as long as it is voluntary for all contributors. If a welfare advocate argues that it shouldn't be voluntary, because some people need to be forced to help others, we can say, "Why us? Why not Canadians? What is it about living in this particular territory in close proximity to welfare recipients that necessitates that we have to pay while Canadians don't? Why don't we force Canadians and wealthy Chinese to pay, using our police, military, etc.?"
Why anarchy fails
wilderness: yeap, so that needs the most work. How else is that 'party' going to understand liberty if nobody of liberty brings it to them? If nobody does, one way or another, then they will only increase in their strength that anti-liberty gets them elected and thus the people support such measures. It will NEVER go away without anybody waking them up to liberty.
Well, I suppose it's worth a shot.
AJ: Welfare is interesting. As a system it will always fail, but in terms of liberty it's not bad as long as it is voluntary for all contributors. If a welfare advocate argues that it shouldn't be voluntary, because some people need to be forced to help others, we can say, "Why us? Why not Canadians? What is it about living in this particular territory in close proximity to welfare recipients that necessitates that we have to pay while Canadians don't? Why don't we force Canadians and wealthy Chinese to pay, using our police, military, etc.?"
The Reid bill supposedly contains opt out language for the healthcare reform plan, but that is only for states, not for individuals. In fact, the individual mandate that was in the Pelosi bill (and I believe the Reid bill, I'll have to go check) is literally a law that says everyone HAS TO buy certain coverage that the government deems acceptable.
Welfare, as it stands now, doesn't seem to allow anyone paying for it to opt out. So while I agree that if everyone wants to contribute to welfare programs, they ought to be able to, that's rarely how these programs are structured. And the new legislation coming out of the Democrat camp doesn't suggest to me that they'll ever move towards anything voluntary like you're talking about.
bloomj31:Liberal democrats have a desired end of...something like "everyone gets everything they want no matter how scarce the resources are" or something like that.
No, I don't consider this to be accurate. That seems to be an attempt to derive their ends from their means - but I've already said that their ends are incompatible with their means, so that kind of account won't work.
So, what are liberals and conservatives about? They've changed policy views many times over the years - policy being an attempt to create a certain worldview, and different policies work best in different times - but have not changed their fundamental views. So to understand them, go back to the origin of the terms, when they both were clear and explicit about what they meant by them. The time was the Industrial Revolution, the first time in human history where humans had, in large numbers, access to real choice about their lives and what they would do. Some embraced this change, recognizing its potential to remove traditional hierarchy and create a world of equality and choice. Those were liberals. Others longed for tradition, for the days when a man was born into a class and did not attempt to move out of it, when hierarchy was strict and natural. These were conservatives. At each turn of history, both have pursued policies in keeping with these ends, until today. Today, liberals are confused about what policy will get them what they want. This happened because a Democrat ran on a traditional Democratic platform - strong currency, free markets, and so on - and once in office did the exact opposite, embracing the traditional Republican, Whig, American Plan platform - government funded infrastructure and corporate welfare to keep the hierarchy in place. Because he was a Democrat, opposition to this, although it originally grew in the Dem party, only became organized in the GOP, which felt that his approach was generall right, but he had gone too far - but those who opposed this policy in principle were persuaded to join up with the GOP, associating that party with free markets. The Dems from that point on have simply defined themselves by opposition to the GOP, which realized that the newcomers, mostly liberals, were useful for PR purposes, and so adopted their talking points, while meaning something entirely different by them, and found ways to stretch words to fit their policies once in office. Hence, war socialism became "saving freedom" and the like.
bloomj31:That being said, the Republican party could be described as the "we're conservatives who made a deal with evangelical Christianity that often negates our conservatism" party. So the GOP platform is schizophrenic. At one level, they advocate economic freedom, at the other level, they want to ban gay marriage and abortion and marijuana.
At no level do they advocate economic freedom, other than the level of rhetoric and PR. There is simply nothing in the party's worldview, or legislative history, to suggest a belief in economic freedom for all. For some, yes - so long as economic freedom is understood as the freedom to earn profits by any means desired, such as socializing losses, subsidies, privilege...the traditional American Plan kind of stuff.
Hence, the pantheon of "great conservative presidents" includes nothing so much as men who took large steps forward in eliminating real economic freedom. Nixon - the closing of the gold window, Reagan - the bailing out of the S&L (there's no actions taken today resting on this precedent, are there?), Hoover - the prototype of the New Deal, Teddy Roosevelt - too much to name,...
So Alan, what you're saying is that you agree with the Democrat desired end just not at all with the means they choose to use to go about getting it and because of that you'd be more likely to support a libertarian candidate running under the Dem banner than the Republican banner because you don't think the Republicans represent anything like freedom?
bloomj31:Welfare, as it stands now, doesn't seem to allow anyone paying for it to opt out. So while I agree that if everyone wants to contribute to welfare programs, they ought to be able to, that's rarely how these programs are structured. And the new legislation coming out of the Democrat camp doesn't suggest to me that they'll ever move towards anything voluntary like you're talking about.
Right, but this kind of thing matters for what a libertarian would do in order to try to succeed within the Dem party. If I were to run within the Dem party, this is the kind of thing I'd harp on. I wouldn't talk about opposing welfare, but rather about the values I share with the Dem voters - the general belief in lifestyle choice and against unchosen obligations, and I'd talk about putting welfare into that framework. So too, I wouldn't talk about laissez-faire, but about specific things that Dems would like to see happen and how we can get those things to happen b having certain policies. Now, of course, those policies would be laissez-faire, but I wouldn't put it that way.
bloomj31: So Alan, what you're saying is that you agree with the Democrat desired end just not at all with the means they choose to use to go about getting it and because of that you'd be more likely to support a libertarian candidate running under the Dem banner than the Republican banner because you don't think the Republicans represent anything like freedom?
Yes, if you understand that end as the traditional end of the liberal camp. On the second part, no, I don't think I'm any more likely to support a libertarian candidate running as a D than as an R. I've supported both, and various other combinations, and opposed both, and various other combinations. For instance, I supported Paul, a mainly-lib running as an R. The D examples have mainly been local. By other combinations, for instance - I supported Gravel, a D running as a Lib, and opposed Barr, an R running as a Lib, and currently support Schiff. I'm undecided on Rand Paul - originally supported him, now I've largely become indifferent. So, I would make those decisions based on candidates, not parties.
This is a great question and one I've been giving thought and study to for a little while. I've studied the history of political parties and particularly the demise of the Whig party as second party and the rise of the Republican party. I think that we'll something similar, and most likely the replacement of Republican Party as second party. The new party, limited government and focus on person freedoms will pull from both the left and right. To be continued...
Christopher M. Mahon
http://ambidextrouscivicdiscourse.blogspot.com/
Chris: This is a great question and one I've been giving thought and study to for a little while. I've studied the history of political parties and particularly the demise of the Whig party as second party and the rise of the Republican party. I think that we'll something similar, and most likely the replacement of Republican Party as second party. The new party, limited government and focus on person freedoms will pull from both the left and right. To be continued...
If this happens, I'll certainly vote for this new party.
JAlanKatz: Yes, if you understand that end as the traditional end of the liberal camp. On the second part, no, I don't think I'm any more likely to support a libertarian candidate running as a D than as an R. I've supported both, and various other combinations, and opposed both, and various other combinations. For instance, I supported Paul, a mainly-lib running as an R. The D examples have mainly been local. By other combinations, for instance - I supported Gravel, a D running as a Lib, and opposed Barr, an R running as a Lib, and currently support Schiff. I'm undecided on Rand Paul - originally supported him, now I've largely become indifferent. So, I would make those decisions based on candidates, not parties.
I support Schiff too. And what Schiff's cause says to me is that it's possible for strongly libertarian candidates to run under the Republican banner and still attract a large amount of libertarian as well as conservative Republican support. We'll see if he's able to beat Dodd though. If he can, I think it will be a great moment for libertarians as well as traditional conservatives.
bloomj31:I support Schiff too. And what Schiff's cause says to me is that it's possible for strongly libertarian candidates to run under the Republican banner and still attract a large amount of libertarian as well as conservative Republican support. We'll see if he's able to beat Dodd though. If he can, I think it will be a great moment for libertarians as well as traditional conservatives.
Somehow, I don't think we'll see if he's able to beat Dodd. Although I like him, I don't see him winning the primary, and I'm afraid that there's a large chance he won't be on the ballot in the primary.