New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | October 25, 2004

Julian Sanchez considers the case against the case for gridlock.

Comments

|10.25.04 @ 4:11PM|#

My concerns:

1) I think it unlikely that, outside of libertarian circles, a loss by Bush will be read as a failure of big government conservatism. Rather, looking to the man who won, it will be viewed that Bush did not go far enough to buy votes. See medicare prescription drugs for an example. Seniors are upset because they didn't get enough goodies from Bush, not because he handed out too much.

2) Mid term elections are wacky things. If we have donkeys all around after mid terms, we will be worse off.

3) It is giving up on the hope of influencing a major party's platform. If divided government is the best we can hope for in the near term, we have ceded everything in the long term. Divided government is not a desirable end that we should be casting limited government ideals aside to embrace.

|10.25.04 @ 4:33PM|#

On libertarians working within the major parties vs. sticking firm with the Libertarian party... is there a correlation with age here? My inkling is that older libertarians tend toward the former while younger ones tend toward the latter. Is there anything to this?... because I'd hate to try to grapple with the reasons behind this if my assumption is spurious. Any thoughts?

|10.25.04 @ 4:40PM|#

I'm a work with major parties libertarian. I'm 31. I don't know if that helps your thesis or not, Andy.

|10.25.04 @ 5:11PM|#

I think it unlikely that, outside of libertarian circles, a loss by Bush will be read as a failure of big government conservatism. Rather, looking to the man who won, it will be viewed that Bush did not go far enough to buy votes.

True, but Bush has pinned a lot of hopes on rallying his base. Sure, a lot of it has been symbolic rather than substantial, but the fact remains that he has been careful to court his base rather than take them for granted. Small-l libertarians are commonly seen as an element of the GOP coalition, and if enough of them defect to the Big-L candidate to make a difference then some GOP strategists will surely take note.

The more important question is the extent to which the 2008 GOP nominee concentrates on his base. If he stakes a good portion of his bid on the base then some sort of concession will be made, however small it might be. If he decides to focus on swing voters, or if he decides that small-l libertarians are too few to matter then we're screwed.

I don't know if it's possible for the small-l libertarian elements of the GOP coalition to be written off as too few to matter. However, with a strong Badnarik showing there's at least a chance that GOP strategists will pay heed. Without a strong Badnarik showing there's probably much less chance that GOP strategists will notice our numbers.

Final thought: If Badnarik spoils Bush in one or two states, I wonder if in 2008 some Democrats will help the LP candidate with ballot access in the same way that some Republicans helped Nader this year. Maybe in 2008 the D's and R's will use the LP and the Greens as surrogates, with the Greens getting $ from the R's and the LP getting $ from the Dems. I don't know if that's the best or worst case scenario, but either way it would be weird.

|10.25.04 @ 5:14PM|#

Correction:

I don't know if it's possible for the small-l libertarian elements of the GOP coalition to be written off as too few to matter.

should be

I don't know if it's possible for the small-l libertarian elements of the GOP coalition to avoid being written off as too few to matter.

|10.25.04 @ 5:21PM|#

I'm pretty sure I'm sticking with the LP for now. I'll be 31 this Halloween.

|10.25.04 @ 5:45PM|#

Huh, all I can conclude at this point is that 31-year-olds are a crapshoot:) Me, I'm 27 and voting Badnarik, with little hope that the GOP or the Democrats will ever be good enough to earn many votes from me. Though I guess I should say that I'd rather have Kerry win this election... and I'd really like to see Kerry take the electoral college vote and Bush get the popular vote... would expose many many hypocrites:)

And as for Badnarik stealing votes from Bush... it seems to me that most Badnarik voters would prefer Kerry to Bush... oh, how I wish for instant runoff voting.

Amy Phillips|10.25.04 @ 5:47PM|#

Maybe it's that I wasn't around during the "heyday" of the LP (whenever that was), but as a libertarian under 25, I don't know any other libs in my age bracket who take the LP seriously. There are a few, I'm sure, but I think that many of us young folks who came to libertarianism independently have sort of absorbed the stance that the LP is a joke. For as long as I've been politically conscious, the LP has never run a national candidate I've been proud of, and most of my young lib friends feel the same way.

I'm not so much a proponent of working within the major parties as I am of working with each party on the issues on which we agree with them, and working against them both where they disagree with us. A hoc coalition-building, if you will. But I may not be a particularly useful sample, as I'm just generally a weirdo.

|10.25.04 @ 5:52PM|#

The LP had a heyday? Who knew?

|10.25.04 @ 5:58PM|#

Age 30 here, and a small-l libertarian willing to work with/within major parties.

|10.25.04 @ 6:07PM|#

I'm not so much a proponent of working within the major parties as I am of working with each party on the issues on which we agree with them, and working against them both where they disagree with us.

But the whole point of political parties is to present a unified, supposedly consistent platform to voters. The Republicans already have a platform, and it's heavy on religious morality, the drug war, and various other items we don't agree with, as well as a couple things we do agree with like lower spending (I guess they forgot that one) and taxes. What makes you think they're gonna change their platform, which has been pretty darn successful lately, to accomodate the likes of a few libertarians?

|10.25.04 @ 6:19PM|#

Patrick - exactly.

Amy - maybe the LP is a joke, but if every libertarian out there doesn't help try to make it less of a joke (ie, by actually voting for LP candidates), how will we ever be heard?

I just don't see a whole lot of hope in the major parties. With the exception of Ron Paul, do we have any libertarians who've worked with the major parties and been successful?

|10.25.04 @ 6:51PM|#

I'm 29 and voting for a major party candidate for the first time (past votes were for the LP candidate). I'm still voting LP for other national and state offices, where possible. I hope to return to the LP candidate for president in the future, when I don't think the current president is so especially terrible and when the LP nominates a couple folks who don't seem to me like they belong in a carnival sideshow somewhere.

|10.25.04 @ 7:11PM|#

26 and voting LP this time around. Of course, if I lived in Ohio instead of California, that might be different. I'm just happy I finally have an LP candidate I can be proud of. Sadly, he's running for Senate vs. Boxer (so he'll get trashed). On the plus side, some of my Dem and Republican friends heard him on NPR (I believe) and said he sounded like a really good, intelligent candidate, even on issues they disagreed with him on.

Get that man a cape and run him in 08.
Judge Gray for Prez!

b-psycho|10.25.04 @ 7:33PM|#

I strongly doubt there's much chance of having a meaningful effect within either "major". Questioning the status quo of either gets you thrown aside pretty quick, we'd have to literally hijack the party leadership to achieve anything.

IMO, what we should do is, since as the more intelligent of status-quo apologists frequently point out we have a 2 party system for the foreseeable future, grow our political claws nice and long & then throw our energy into ripping one of them to shreds. The GOP likes to use libertarianesque rhetoric to trick more people into voting for them, & are generally seen by the uninformed as "the party of limited government", so if we can manage to fight dirty enough & attack them, the Libertarian Party can gradually slide into their place and bump them out of the loop.

This is the "other" problem with the LP (as in, besides running candidates that get labeled as kooks too easily): a lack of large partisan balls. I suspect it's related to how the attitude of the party leans towards idealistic, their revulsion to current political tactics naturally prevents attracting the political Warrior types. Being cordial may be nice between members, but it's not how elections are won, and they need to realize that soon.

|10.25.04 @ 7:33PM|#

Get that man a cape and run him in 08.

Not until he's torn up his driver's license and gotten a Ph.D in astrology...

b-psycho|10.25.04 @ 7:40PM|#

BTW: for the question about age & party allegiance...

I'm 22, voted Libertarian in 2000, but I've grown skeptical of the party to the point ever since to the point where I'm not voting at all this year. Anyone who wants an explanation of why, follow the link in my handle.

|10.25.04 @ 7:51PM|#

I've always wondered why Democrats don't give support to Libertarian candidates, especially with all the commotion about Republicans helping Nader. I asked about it on Democratic Underground and the two answers I got were:
1) Because THEY own the media
2) We aren't scumbags like them

So anyway, I'm still wondering...

|10.25.04 @ 7:54PM|#

Amy - maybe the LP is a joke, but if every libertarian out there doesn't help try to make it less of a joke (ie, by actually voting for LP candidates), how will we ever be heard?

By having the LP take up an agenda that makes it less of a joke? How about one that had the following planks:

1. A flat income tax, with no exemptions or deductions
2. A balanced-budget amendment
3. SS privatization, with the long-term goal of making it optional
4. Cuts in entitlement spending
5. Phase-out of all farm subsidies and corporate welfare
6. Reduce the regulatory powers of the FCC, SEC, FDA, EPA, etc.
7. Support for abortion rights, gay marriage, and euthanasia.
9. Legalization of marijuana and other soft drugs, oppose prison sentencing for any recreational drug use.
10. Strong but rational support for private gun ownership
11. Reduce drinking age to 18, oppose DUI law excesses
12. Support civil liberties against the machinations of both the right (certain Patriot Act provisions, Drug War laws) and the left (campaign finance laws, seat belt laws)
13. Liberal but rational immigration policies
14. A moderate foreign policy that avoids foreign conflicts and entanglements whenever possible, but eschews head-in-the-sand isolationism

Instead, the LP's agenda supports items such as:

1. Abolishing the income tax
2. Abolishing all entitlement programs
3. Abolishing all federal regulatory agencies
4. Legalizing all drugs
5. Allowing private ownership of Uzis, submachine guns, and other such weapons
6. Opposing workplace discrimination and civil rights laws
7. Opening up the borders and letting anyone come in
8. A foreign policy that involves pulling our troops out of everywhere, letting the rest of the world go to hell, and praying that the US doesn't get affected

And to top it all of, the party insists on having its message promoted by kooks such as Browne and Badnarik. Seriously, what do you expect?

Some of you might agree with some of the LP agenda planks that I listed (I'm kind of sympathetic to #2 and #4 myself). But regardless of your views it's quite clear that this agenda has no chance of sellling to more than 1-2% of the populace; and as a result, two parties full of shameless, unrepentant statists have a visor-like grip on power.

It's also quite clear that a sizable percentage of the populace (probably 10-15%) could be classified as libertarian in its political views, and would be willing to vote for respectable, polished candidates pushing an agenda along the lines of the one that I initially listed. A number of Congressional seats would definitely be in play, and so might a couple of governorships and senatorial seats. And as the WW2 generation dies out, more post-Boomer kids reach voting age, and the mass-retirement of the Boomers produces an existential crisis for the welfare state, such a party would have a chance to fully upend the two-party status quo in a couple of decades.

The LP only has itself to blame for failing to capitalize.

|10.25.04 @ 8:21PM|#

As I've said before, the hope in voting for loonies like Badnarik is he'll get enough votes that people will have take the LP seriously, and when that happens, the LP will have to take itself seriously too, and put candidates along the lines of Eric II's first list. I beleive there can be some limited success working within the major parties, but only on some issues, and only when they need our support; and over time that strategy will be too limited in it's success to be worth it. Perhaps the tragedy of it is that as long as the LP is the Liberterian party, people will always associate the small-l's with the captial-L's. Starting a new party is the obvious solution, but of course then you have a relatively small movement even more divided then it already is...who wants to see will the real liberterian candidate please stand up debate on hit-and-run in 2008? Ahh gosh, this thread has actually succeeded in getting me pretty depressed about it now. I guess my only option, is once I've made my millions, is to take over the LP and set it straight once and for all.

|10.25.04 @ 9:02PM|#

I am 19 and I am voting for Badnarik. I know he has no chance of winning but:

- I don't care that much whether Bush or Kerry wins

- Even if I did, my 1 vote wouldn't change the outcome (especially not since I live in New York)

- I would prefer to say I voted for the person I really wanted to win

To those libertarians who are voting for a major party candidate or aren't sure I say: come on vote for Badnarik. All your friends are doing it.

As for long term strategy I guess the best thing would be to get someone elected to a a house or senate position then use the publicity to persuade a large portion of the electorate to agree with us. I haven't worked out minor details like whether this plan is at all feasible.

As far as working with major parties is concened the LP could use the threat of a spoiler effect as a threat to major parties to get something in return. For example we could make a deal with Republicans to not run a conservative-leaning libertarian in a close race on condition that they endorse whoever we nominate in some other race. Of course we should still refrain from running against people like Ron Paul.

|10.25.04 @ 9:14PM|#

I'm with Eric II. We have no hope until the LP regains its sanity (wait... did it ever have any?). Badnarik is a kook and, as much as I'd like to vote for him to further the LP's cause, I can't in good conscience vote for such a nut, even though he stands not a chance.

|10.25.04 @ 9:24PM|#

Why do people call Badnarik a nut? Have you seen him in an interview or read his website. He seems very articulate. I would just like to hear the reasons laid out for me.

And finally, if he's a nut, so what? Is he any worse of a nut than our crazed, confused, Baptist president or his statist, major competition?

Puh-leeze.

|10.25.04 @ 9:34PM|#

Thank you, Lowdog. I've been wondering that for a while.
Unless some of you can come up with good answers, I'll vote Badnarik.
Naysayers

|10.25.04 @ 10:37PM|#

"Why do people call Badnarik a nut?"

Just little things like refusing to maintain a driver's license or pay income taxes. And that conspiracy theory of his on four bombs being planted inside the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

"Is he any worse of a nut than our crazed, confused, Baptist president or his statist, major competition?"

That's debatable, but even if you answer in the negative, you're under no obligation to vote for those clowns either.

b-psycho|10.25.04 @ 11:37PM|#

...that conspiracy theory of his on four bombs being planted inside the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

Huh?

I'd heard about the thing w/ him not having a driver's liscense, but never about that one. When'd he say that?

|10.25.04 @ 11:48PM|#

Have any of you Badnarik bashers actually heard the man speak? Take a listen to the interview linked in his blog. He is well reasoned and a superb speaker. What's more, he's stopped saying crazy things since his nomination. This is a man that you can be proud to vote for.

I'm 21, I'm voting in my first presidential race, and I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for someone who is going to tarnish America's heritage of liberty while throwing our prosperity away.

I would not vote for Bush with a gun to my head, and neither would I vote for Kerry.

Four more years of Bush ensures that American blood and wealth will continue to be spilt in the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East for little or no benefit.

Four more years of Kerry ensures an economic holocaust. The Social Security system has $26 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a cost that will fall upon my generation if it is not changed.

What's more, my self-esteem is not for sale to any political hustler. I took a difficult and unpopular stand when I branded myself "libertarian", and I plan to show to the world that I am serious about my principles and steadfast in my convictions.

If we want to see a more libertarian future, then we NEED a strong libertarian political force. I am willing to sacrifice for that. Voting Libertarian is so cheap compared to the cost I am willing to pay for liberty.

Badnarik or bust. Liberty or death. Live free or die.

|10.25.04 @ 11:49PM|#

I wasn't sure if this blog would allow it, but I'd like to send a big "Fuck you" out to all the "libertarian" Bush and Kerry supporters.

Good night.

|10.25.04 @ 11:52PM|#

How's this for your buttons, kids...

I am 21 and sick of trying to work with the religious-right, homophobic crazies in the Republican Party. I don't care who wins, and I am voting Badnarik, even if he his crazy and wrong...

Oh, yeah, and I live in Ohio, I hope Bush loses this state!

|10.26.04 @ 12:12AM|#

Hmm. Interesting thought. The LP would be better if you selfish people would vote for whatever loony they offer!

Rather like this half-assed business would get better if you selfish people would buy our lousy products!

|10.26.04 @ 1:11AM|#

"Best Endorsement of 2004" goes to...

"(H)e's stopped saying crazy things since his nomination," spoken in support of Bednarik by new voter Jacob! Oh, if only each candidate could truly assure us he is off the Loony Juice for now.

Making your priorities the rights to get stoned, make money, have sex and put your own interests first are kind of immature yearnings, really, and that's the fallacy of the current LP.
It makes central what to most people is infantile. Where's the social contract? Where's the yearning to be more than you are? Without those, all you are is you, never more. And if that's good enough for you, get used to being lonely, 'cause it's going to last your whole life.

Jacob, you're a stitch, but your temper is a hint that you maybe should back off on that libertarian weed for awhile. Stay cool. Pay attention. You need an education, as your "economic holocaust" remark shows you know little about either economics or the Holocaust.

|10.26.04 @ 9:49AM|#

What seems to escape many of the LP faithful is that a libertarian candidate has to appear SUPER reasonable because his platform, even if moderated, is still quite radical to the eye of the average joe.

Incremental change is the only hope, folks.

|10.26.04 @ 10:29AM|#

"When'd he say that?"

I originally read about it on Azcentral.com, but the article doesn't seem to be there anymore. I got the following clip from the column through Google:

http://www.livejournal.com/community/libertarianism/646515.html

And he doesn't know what really happened in Oklahoma City, but he's happy to imply that someone planted four bombs inside the Murrah building. "The official federal reports just don't seem quite right to me," he says.

|10.26.04 @ 11:50AM|#

Hmmm. So Badnarik's a nut, eh?

Let's see.

Dubya thinks God talks to him. This is lapped up by the RepubliCON faithful.

Clinton gave a speech yesterday where he talked about cops in Florida intimidating voters in '00. This is lapped up by the DemoCRAP faithful.

Seems there's a lot of nuttery in the American body politic.

|10.26.04 @ 11:56AM|#

Hmmm. So Badnarik's a nut, eh?

Let's see.

Dubya thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq. This is lapped up by the RepubliCON faithful, as well as a substantial portion of the rest of America.

Kerry thinks that Social Security is a sound program. This is lapped up by the DemoCRAP faithful, as well as a substantial portion of the rest of America.

Seems there's a lot of insanity in the American body politic.

Amy Phillips|10.26.04 @ 12:49PM|#

Patrick,
I agree that it's foolish to "think they're gonna change their platform, which has been pretty darn successful lately, to accomodate the likes of a few libertarians." That's why I don't support trying to influence either major party to change their opinions.

Instead, I support working with Democrats to protect gay rights, oppose the Patriot Act, and do those other things on which they already agree with us. I support working with Republicans to lower taxes, protect the 2nd Amendment, and all those other things on which they already agree with us.

It's not a matter of changing their minds; it's a matter of helping them to craft and implement effective policy on libertarian issues they already believe in. We never have to compromise our principles, or vote for their guy, or anything else distasteful like that. Instead, we work as a minority voice to influence the government in a direction we like.

Amy Phillips|10.26.04 @ 12:52PM|#

I meant to add:

It's debatable the degree to which they actually agree with us on any of those issues, even the ones they purport to believe. The Republicans have done a terrible job safeguarding free markets, and the Democrats are selling out on civil liberties. But I think our best bet is to encourage them to stay true to their principles, and to support them ad hoc on specific issues, rather than trying to push their platforms in a more palatable direction.