Why the Libertarian party has done so badly.

[apc3161]

After seeing the reaction to Barr's receiving of the nomination, it has occurred to me why the LP has done so poorly these past years. They are completely theoretical and are all talk, they do not value real concrete progress. See the following picture
http://bp3.blogger.com/_WmN4h-_UisE/SD7mk_YUukI/AAAAAAAAASs/T-eZlhuzA-A/s400/untitled.JPG

Right now, America as a whole is at point C. McCain is somewhere between C and R and Obama is somewhere between C and D. Bob Barr is somewhere between C and L.

Now, the true Libertarians want the party to nominate someone who is at point L. And because they haven't, a bunch of them are upset and are talking about leaving the party. But the truth is, America isn't ready for someone at point L, because it's a fact that Americans are as a whole at point C.

The goal should be to slowly move the country towards point L, and this can be done by electing representatives between and L and C who will slowly take us to point L in small baby steps. People like Barr ( who can actually get elected) will take us in a direction towards L.

The true libertarians however don't seem to care. They would rather nominate someone at L, who has no chance at winning, for the sake of principle. But as a result of this hubris, the country will either move towards R or D (bad), because our country as it stands today will not vote for an L candidate. If the true Libertarians were serious about making this a truly more libertarian society, they would accept Barr's nomination as someone who truly has the ability to move the country in the right direction towards L.

But from what I'm reading online, they are all upset. It is because of this non-compromising position, that they will never get anywhere. They want all or nothing, and they are unwilling to make any compromises, even if those compromises move our country more towards L, which is their ideal.

Nominating Barr was the right thing to do, because he can connect with mainstream America and the move the country in the right direction. Thats the bottom line, Bob Barr will steer our country towards point L. If the Libertarian Party were to always nominate 100% true libertarians as a matter of principle, they would lose every election as they have been doing and the country will continue to move in the wrong direction (as Democrats and Republicans get elected) much as it has been these past few decades.

The Libertarian party needs to be more realistic, get off the soap box, and concern itself more with true libertarian progress.

[Truth Warrior]

Because the LP is primarily, merely a "fringe" offshoot of the GOP AND an oxymoron. :)

[mport1]

I agree, and I'm an anarcho-capitalist. We must take steps towards progress and unfortunately the only way to do that is not pushing for radical changes in the short term (although that should be the long term goal).

[OptionsTrader]

Assertions a point do not make.

[apc3161]

I agree, and I'm an anarcho-capitalist. We must take steps towards progress and unfortunately the only way to do that is not pushing for radical changes in the short term (although that should be the long term goal).

exactly. Thats what I think too.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Because the LP is primarily, merely a "fringe" offshoot of the GOP AND an oxymoron. :)

There's a difference between libertarian and conservatism.

[crazyfingers]

Ron Paul jump started a revolution with his no-holds barred libertarianism. We should be striking while the iron is hot, not backing down. Bob Barr isn't going to win no matter what message he preaches. So why support a quasi, watered down version of freedom when its obvious that many people enthusiastically respond to the real thing?

[Ozwest]

The man on the street will never be a Libertarian.

That's the facts jack.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The man on the street will never be a Libertarian.

That's the facts jack.

That's because of the hardliners that try to run out moderates.

[apc3161]

Ron Paul jump started a revolution with his no-holds barred libertarianism. We should be striking while the iron is hot, not backing down. Bob Barr isn't going to win no matter what message he preaches. So why support a quasi, watered down version of freedom when its obvious that many people enthusiastically respond to the real thing? Are we trying to build a libertarian movement, or a movement based upon being "more conservative" than McCain?

1,000,000 people voted for Ron Paul. That is a lot, but in the last election 122,000,000 people voted. Be realistic.

[crazyfingers]

1,000,000 people voted for Ron Paul. That is a lot, but in the last election 122,000,000 people voted. Be realistic.

Bob Barr is not going to win no matter what positions he takes. So it comes down to educating the public. Why educate people with a "sort of" libertarian message when Ron Paul has shown that there is a deep thirst for the authentic thing? The whole point is to challenge people's perceptions, not reinforce them.

[Truth Warrior]

There's a difference between libertarian and conservatism.
Yep, statism. :p

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html

[mport1]

Ron Paul jump started a revolution with his no-holds barred libertarianism. We should be striking while the iron is hot, not backing down. Bob Barr isn't going to win no matter what message he preaches. So why support a quasi, watered down version of freedom when its obvious that many people enthusiastically respond to the real thing?

Because he is the only one who would get any coverage from the media. If there was a big name candidate who was also a radical, I would agree with you. Barr has already gotten more media coverage that probably every LP candidate ever. There is no chance any of the other candidates would have gotten any attention. A better, radical message is of no use if nobody can hear it.

[Ozwest]

That's because of the hardliners that try to run out moderates.


When the money runs out, people will be focused.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

When the money runs out, people will be focused.

uh no. America will just default on the debts and shaft the people.

[Truth Warrior]

Because he is the only one who would get any coverage from the media. If there was a big name candidate who was also a radical, I would agree with you. Barr has already gotten more media coverage that probably every LP candidate ever. There is no chance any of the other candidates would have gotten any attention.
Harry Browne got a bunch too, relatively speaking. Not nearly enough obviously.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yep, statism. :p

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html

no. conservatives tend to be more restrictive when it comes to social issues, while libertarians are equally balanced on social and economic issues.

[Ozwest]

uh no. America will just default on the debts and shaft the people.


Ummm... And your definition of focus.

Would be...

[Truth Warrior]

no. conservatives tend to be more restrictive when it comes to social issues, while libertarians are equally balanced on social and economic issues.

I still maintain that "statism" IS the key difference and issue.

( blue pill vs. red pill ).

[apc3161]

When the money runs out, people will be focused.

I would imagine "new" bureaucrats would come along and just claim they know of a way to spend our money better than the previous government. Look to third world nations for the never ending cycle of politicians claiming they will be able to do what the previous leaders failed to do.

[Ozwest]

uh no. America will just default on the debts and shaft the people.
Obviously you plan on being an employee.

That ain't what makes the world go round.

But that's O.K. China and India will show you the way.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I still maintain that "statism" IS the key difference and issue.

( blue pill vs. red pill ).

yes. when you deny women the right to have abortions, you are demanding GOVERNMENT to come in and do something about it. Conservatives are more on the statist side when it comes to social issue:


military on the borders / wall
against gay marriage
anti abortion


moderate libertarians are more tolerant on these issues. hardcore libertarians are...uhh irrelevant

[Ozwest]

I would imagine "new" bureaucrats would come along and just claim they know of a way to spend our money better than the previous government. Look to third world nations for the never ending cycle of politicians claiming they will be able to do what the previous leaders failed to do.
Brilliant.

Only problem.

What goes in...goes out.

[Ozwest]

A lot of poor people are manufacturing goods for you. Soon you will run out of money to purchase them.

It's a New World Order.

[Truth Warrior]

yes. when you deny women the right to have abortions, you are demanding GOVERNMENT to come in and do something about it. Conservatives are more on the statist side when it comes to social issue:

military on the borders / wall
against gay marriage
anti abortion
moderate libertarians are more tolerant on these issues. hardcore libertarians are...uhh irrelevant
A typical statist viewpoint. Moderate libertarians are moderate statists.

What is the ONE, agreed to, libertarian principle?

[Ozwest]

A typical statist viewpoint. Moderate libertarians are moderate statists.

What is the ONE, agreed to, libertarian principle?

Fucking Statist!

What a gob full of shit.

Is that the new "empowering" word?"

How aristocratic.

[Truth Warrior]

Fucking Statist!

What a gob full of shit.

Is that the new "empowering" word?"

How aristocratic.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_WmN4h-_UisE/SD7mk_YUukI/AAAAAAAAASs/T-eZlhuzA-A/s400/untitled.JPG

[Ozwest]

http://bp3.blogger.com/_WmN4h-_UisE/SD7mk_YUukI/AAAAAAAAASs/T-eZlhuzA-A/s400/untitled.JPG
That is a fucking Disgrace!

[Ozwest]

Excuse me while I listen to the Doors, and perambulate on your hockey-puck.

[Truth Warrior]

That is a fucking Disgrace!
Different strokes for different folks! :D

It's probably just the two dimensions that confuses you.

The left/right line is just so much simpler.

Only one dimension to deal with. :rolleyes:

[Ozwest]

Different strokes for different folks! :D

It's probably just the two dimensions that confuses you.

The left/right line is just so much simpler.

Only one dimension to deal with. :rolleyes:


Yeah,

I rely on graphs and statistical analysis in my decision making process.

Decision-making based on real life experiences is so lacking.

Thanks for the tip... Gonzo.

[AutoDas]

The LP thinks they can win the presidency with no seats in Congress... There's no name recognition. If people just focused on winning a seat or two every election instead of the presidency then the LP would do better in the general election.

[WRellim]

After seeing the reaction to Barr's receiving of the nomination, it has occurred to me why the LP has done so poorly these past years. They are completely theoretical and are all talk, they do not value real concrete progress. See the following picture
http://bp3.blogger.com/_WmN4h-_UisE/SD7mk_YUukI/AAAAAAAAASs/T-eZlhuzA-A/s400/untitled.JPG

Right now, America as a whole is at point C. McCain is somewhere between C and R and Obama is somewhere between C and D. Bob Barr is somewhere between C and L.
[...]
Now, the true Libertarians want the party to nominate someone who is at point L. And because they haven't, a bunch of them are upset and are talking about leaving the party.

Actually, I think most of the people who are irritated about the Bob Barr thing would say you are placing him wrong... they see him as being somewhere between Z and R (or within the Z-R-C triangle at best).

Those who are more generous might be willing to say that he has ONE foot planted (recently) between L and R (or the L-R-C triangle)... but the OTHER foot appears to be planted quite firmly somewhere in the Z and R (or within the Z-R-C triangle at best).

Problem is which "leg" will he place the most "weight" on? While pursuing the nomination, he has spent nearly ALL of his time talking about how his ONE leg is in the L-R-C triangle (and of course emphasizing how "close" to be right on the "L" his foot is). But now that he HAS that nomination... will he switch over and place most of the emphasis on his OTHER leg? The one within the Z-R-C triangle?

Problem is that those "triangles" cover HUGE areas of the political spectrum...

If his past VOTING is any indication, then he actually remains in the Z-R-C area (and it would be quite debatable which "color" area he truly resides in... Was he really in the PURPLE hovering close to the Z on the Z-R line? Yet all the while claiming to be in the "middle" or far right of the RED?

So that now his claim to have completely jumped across the entire GRAY and RED areas and to CLAIM to be a resident of the GREEN area seems most implausible.


I've never really liked the way THIS VERSION of the Nolan chart "colors" and "divides" the chart...

Currently the colored sections purportedly show the "parties" -- but of course there is NO party named the "Centrist" party, and there is no single party named the "Statist" party (one could argue that the left side of the RED statist might be the "communist" and the "socialist worker" parties -- but they are not even large enough to be considered "3rd" parties in the US any longer. And conversely, many would say that the current GOP has gone so far down that they have virtually taken the "place" on the right-side of the RED statist area that would typically hold the "fascist/corporatist" parties.

Always thought it would be better with the divider lines being the horizontal and vertical axes (with lines from D-R and L-Z, and the four triangular "quadrants" then showing the real "leanings" of the people involved.... something like this:

http://www.infiniteronpaul.com/images/ShadedNolan.png

Makes it MUCH easier to describe people WITHIN the "classic" parties (after all, is there REALLY any value in coloring the parties themselves when we ALREADY KNOW which party someone is in? And it ignores that the parties each span a "spectrum" of beliefs). So using THIS chart, we can easily say that:

That Ron Paul while a "Republican" is definitely more in the GOLD section than the BLUE one (and he doesn't "cross" that line).
But that John McCain is within the DARK BLUE area, but so SO CLOSE to the RED as to be almost sitting on the border between them.
And I think it would be fair enough to say that Bob Barr WAS in the DARK BLUE section... but now wants us to believe that he has had an "epiphany" and moved (just like that, and wholeheartedly) into the GREEN/GOLD quadrants of the Libertarian party.

To me this makes the "problem" of Barr a bit clearer... certainly it is POSSIBLE for someone to "jump" a divide... But if someone is transitioning from one color area to another, we would expect that they would most likely venture "slowly" to the an adjacent area first. Since the "classic" Libertarian party is GREEN/GOLD in this latter chart, having them select as nominee (and head of the party) a "new" member who was formerly a BLUE (or even BLUE/RED) is what causes the concern and the drama (more so than say the 1988 selection of the GOLD Ron Paul -- where the main concern came only from the GREEN portion of the party.)

[WRellim]

Bob Barr is not going to win no matter what positions he takes. So it comes down to educating the public. Why educate people with a "sort of" libertarian message when Ron Paul has shown that there is a deep thirst for the authentic thing? The whole point is to challenge people's perceptions, not reinforce them.

Because, obviously, people do NOT like to "drink" things that are HOT or COLD... -- everyone knows that people much prefer LUKEWARM tasteless things... :D

[apc3161]

The LP thinks they can win the presidency with no seats in Congress... There's no name recognition. If people just focused on winning a seat or two every election instead of the presidency then the LP would do better in the general election.

I agree with you completely 100%. If the Libertarians weren't a bunch of idealists, they would take all that money that they WASTE on the presidential race, and focus their resources on 1-3 congressional seats that they have a chance of winning. This would "legitimize" them in the minds of Americans. In the next election cycle, they would run for maybe 10 congressional seats. Let the pattern continue until you have roughly 50 congressional seats. At that point, focus on 1-3 senate seats as well. The year after though, shoot for 4-6 senate seats.

Then, once you have roughly 50-100 house seats and 5-15 senate seats, you can begin to consider a presidential run. But doing so without any base seems like a waste.

If they were a serious party concerned with tangible progress instead of idealistic rhetoric that gets you nowhere, they would follow that kind of approach. Instead, after 27 years they are still where they started, no where.

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah,

I rely on graphs and statistical analysis in my decision making process.

Decision-making based on real life experiences is so lacking.

Thanks for the tip... Gonzo.
And your graphic picture "worth a thousand words", of the US political landscape would be what exactly? C'mon just show me a better one. If I like it better, I'll accept it. :rolleyes:

[Ozwest]

And your graphic picture "worth a thousand words", of the US political landscape would be what exactly? C'mon just show me a better one. If I like it better, I'll accept it. :rolleyes:

After the New Hampshire Primary, I got the message.

And, not be obtuse, I donated more than "thousands " of words to the campaign.

[Truth Warrior]

After the New Hampshire Primary, I got the message.

And, not be obtuse, I donated more than "thousands " of words to the campaign. Interesting side note, yet not responsive. :)

[PeterWellington]

Bob Barr will lose, and lose bad. I'd rather be principled and lose than unprincipled and lose.

[chowdy]

I agree with you completely 100%. If the Libertarians weren't a bunch of idealists, they would take all that money that they WASTE on the presidential race, and focus their resources on 1-3 congressional seats that they have a chance of winning. This would "legitimize" them in the minds of Americans. In the next election cycle, they would run for maybe 10 congressional seats. Let the pattern continue until you have roughly 50 congressional seats. At that point, focus on 1-3 senate seats as well. The year after though, shoot for 4-6 senate seats.

Then, once you have roughly 50-100 house seats and 5-15 senate seats, you can begin to consider a presidential run. But doing so without any base seems like a waste.

If they were a serious party concerned with tangible progress instead of idealistic rhetoric that gets you nowhere, they would follow that kind of approach. Instead, after 27 years they are still where they started, no where.

Even more potent than the criticism of idealism (which I happen to disagree with) is the fact that the LP is constantly associated with failure. Image is everything in politics... :rolleyes:

[WRellim]

I agree with you completely 100%. If the Libertarians weren't a bunch of idealists, they would take all that money that they WASTE on the presidential race, and focus their resources on 1-3 congressional seats that they have a chance of winning. This would "legitimize" them in the minds of Americans. In the next election cycle, they would run for maybe 10 congressional seats. Let the pattern continue until you have roughly 50 congressional seats. At that point, focus on 1-3 senate seats as well. The year after though, shoot for 4-6 senate seats.

Then, once you have roughly 50-100 house seats and 5-15 senate seats, you can begin to consider a presidential run. But doing so without any base seems like a waste.

If they were a serious party concerned with tangible progress instead of idealistic rhetoric that gets you nowhere, they would follow that kind of approach. Instead, after 27 years they are still where they started, no where.

Yea, now THAT would be a practical plan.

Instead they take someone who will get them some "publicity" even if it ends up losing them virtually everything they stand for and discolors their "brand" to make it worth even less than it currently is.

But hey, it's not like they or other party's have ever tried it (what they are currently doing) before, have they? ...Well, even so, like maybe, like, the magical "electoral" fairies will grant them their wish this time.

[Knightskye]

Can we just dump the chart and the letters and blame the media?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqzvy4VTMBI&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e9JAsM2x-4&feature=user

[apc3161]

Bob Barr will lose, and lose bad. I'd rather be principled and lose than unprincipled and lose.

Barr is already polling 6% without doing anything! If he polls above 10%, he will get into the debates.

While he might be a long shot from winning, getting into those debates should be priority #1. Because then people can realize how much the democrats/republicans are full of it.

As of now, the libertarians have never gotten more than 3% of the vote and after almost 30 years, they are barely stronger than when they started. The party needs a candidate such as Barr to legitimize them.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Barr is already polling 6% without doing anything! If he polls above 10%, he will get into the debates.

While he might be a long shot from winning, getting into those debates should be priority #1. Because then people can realize how much the democrats/republicans are full of it.

As of now, the libertarians have never gotten more than 3% of the vote and after almost 30 years, they are barely stronger than when they started. The party needs a candidate such as Barr to legitimize them.

ur the only person with any fucking common sense on here

BTW, whoever was saying that the Far-Right should be labeled "Fascism", fascism is actually a mostly leftist phenomenon

[PeterWellington]

Barr is already polling 6% without doing anything! If he polls above 10%, he will get into the debates.

While he might be a long shot from winning, getting into those debates should be priority #1. Because then people can realize how much the democrats/republicans are full of it.

As of now, the libertarians have never gotten more than 3% of the vote and after almost 30 years, they are barely stronger than when they started. The party needs a candidate such as Barr to legitimize them.

Maybe an example will help here, taken from www.gop.com:

"The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party."

If Jefferson were alive today, he would vomit on the Republican party (Ron Paul not included). And where did it go wrong? How did it change so much? By doing the same thing you're suggesting; trading principles for power, a little at a time, until you finally get the power you're after, only your values are gone. What's the point?

[Don Wills]

Bob Barr will lose, and lose bad. I'd rather be principled and lose than unprincipled and lose.

In both cases you're a loser.

Yes Bob Barr will probably not win this year. He needs to get about 45 million
votes to win and folks have said he may only get 20 million. Oops - that's
twenty times the number who voted for Ron Paul. Maybe you need a better
reason to not vote for someone who actually has a small chance of winning,
as compared to Ron Paul who had zero from day 1 as a Republican.

[Don Wills]

... the libertarians have never gotten more than 3% of the vote and after almost 30 years, they are barely stronger than when they started...

Actually they've never gotten more than 1.1%, and they only got more than 1%
that one time 28 years ago.

[WRellim]

ur the only person with any fucking common sense on here

BTW, whoever was saying that the Far-Right should be labeled "Fascism", fascism is actually a mostly leftist phenomenon

Fascism (or as Mussolini preferred to call it, "Corporatism") is put on the "right" rather than the left because while it is a totalitarian form of government, it pays lip service to "property rights" even while subverting the functionality of them (i.e. you are allowed to continue to "own" your factory even though the government will order what you will produce, how much, when, and be your only customer).

[WRellim]

Maybe an example will help here, taken from www.gop.com:

"The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party."

If Jefferson were alive today, he would vomit on the Republican party (Ron Paul not included). And where did it go wrong? How did it change so much? By doing the same thing you're suggesting; trading principles for power, a little at a time, until you finally get the power you're after, only your values are gone. What's the point?

QFT.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Fascism (or as Mussolini preferred to call it, "Corporatism") is put on the "right" rather than the left because while it is a totalitarian form of government, it pays lip service to "property rights" even while subverting the functionality of them (i.e. you are allowed to continue to "own" your factory even though the government will order what you will produce, how much, when, and be your only customer).

it was put on the "right" by Leftists during and after World War 2 so that they wouldn't be associated with Hitler

But if you look at the main plans and implementations of Fascism, its mostly left-wing

Then again, the whole left-right political spectrum is obsolete in my opinion.
It should be a collectivist-individualist scale, which would be much more straightforward and understandable (Totalitarians on one side, Libertarians/Anarchists on the other)

[AutoDas]

The Libertarian Party should try doing that Free State Project by having a Libertarian candidate for every position possible in every election for the next 4 years.

[CorkyAgain]

Because he is the only one who would get any coverage from the media. If there was a big name candidate who was also a radical, I would agree with you. Barr has already gotten more media coverage that probably every LP candidate ever. There is no chance any of the other candidates would have gotten any attention. A better, radical message is of no use if nobody can hear it.

"If voting changed anything, it would be illegal."

If a candidate represented a real threat to the status quo, he wouldn't get any media coverage. Ask yourself why Bob Barr is getting favorable coverage when Dr. Paul did not. Surely you don't believe the MSM has suddenly had a change of heart!

I predict that the recent coverage is a flash in the pan, and will be the highwater mark for Barr. He'll be shut out of any debates and what coverage he gets will be more and more dismissive. The only way he can prevent that is to be even more accommodating to the opinions of beltway insiders, i.e., by even more watering-down of the libertarian platform.

[CorkyAgain]

Because, obviously, people do NOT like to "drink" things that are HOT or COLD... -- everyone knows that people much prefer LUKEWARM tasteless things... :D

You've inspired me to go out for Thai food tonight, as a statement of libertarian radicalism. :D

Make mine 5 stars and bring me a cold beer to wash it down!

[WRellim]

You've inspired me to go out for Thai food tonight, as a statement of libertarian radicalism. :D

Make mine 5 stars and bring me a cold beer to wash it down!

See now that's the problem. If you were a TRUE Bob Barr supporter you would know that eating Thai food (and drinking Beer!!!) are virtually treasonous.

A TRUE Bob Barr supporter would be having a meal of those flavorless rice-cake things, with a side of whit margarine and a glass of nice luke-warm city tap water. Yummmm! :D

[CorkyAgain]

If they were a serious party concerned with tangible progress instead of idealistic rhetoric that gets you nowhere, they would follow that kind of approach. Instead, after 27 years they are still where they started, no where.

I think you have it backwards. The LP has always been a "pragmatic" party insofar as it has sought to effect change through the electoral process. That is, they've tried to reform the system from within.

The truly radical libertarian position eschews voting and political campaigning altogether. It sees these as tacit acceptance of the existing institutions of power. It refuses to participate in what amounts to an attempt to legitimize state power.

The "purist" or "idealist" wing of the LP has always been realistic enough to see that electoral victory is out of reach. But they believe that campaigns provide a way to educate people about libertarianism. That's a more achievable, pragmatic goal than getting a presidential nominee elected.

But I think the educational goal has been undermined by the dynamic of campaigning, where messages have been reduced to sound bites and where the MSM likes to stir up "controversies" and focuses on the "horse race" aspects of the contest. The message simply doesn't get through.

I no longer believe in the political approach myself. I think we need to continue trying to educate, and obviously we need something more than an academic thinktank to do this. I think we need to harness popular entertainment and the open source movement in software...