New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | November 4, 2004

Brian Doherty gives the reasons for hope at the Libertarian Party's campaign HQ.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← New at Reason | Main | Reproach and everlasting shame sit mocking… →

See all 28 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|11.4.04 @ 6:07PM|#

I'm guessing the party for supporters of Badnarik (or any Libertarian candidate) would potentially be more fun than the ones for either the Republicans or the Democrats, except for this nagging question: Were there any girls there? What was the ratio?

|11.4.04 @ 6:12PM|#

Stevo,
One Libertine woman is worth 5 Demoblicans.

|11.4.04 @ 6:40PM|#

I don't really understand the Badnarik campaign's decision to pour money into the swing states. Yes, perhaps they cause the Bush campaign to toss more pocket change into the race, but it didn't lead to more LP votes. I live in state red enough to know that I could safely vote for Badnarik. If I were in a swing state, I *might* have voted for Kerry.

I know nothing about political strategy or the goals of the LP, but if I were Badnarik, I would have spend more time in a couple of solid red states (Idaho, Montana, Utah), and tried to boost the overall numbers among disaffected Republicans.

|11.4.04 @ 6:44PM|#

Given the higher voter turnout this time around, Badnarik would have gotten around 425,000 votes if he'd matched Browne's percentages. Browne got 0.357% of the vote; Badnarik got around 0.315%.

In other words, despite the fact that this race was between two overtly big-government candidates, the Libertarian Party actually *lost* over a tenth of the support it had in 2000. That sure doesn't sound like reason to be hopeful for the future of the Libertarian Party.

Also, could people stop pointing to the fact that Badnarik nearly achieved Nader's numbers as if it was a major accomplishment? Nader's votes were artificially low in this election; Democratic Party legal wrangling and dirty tricks kept him off the ballot 14 of the states that Badnarik was allowed to run in. Those 14 states included places like California, Texas, Illinois and Ohio, and collectively contain over half the population of the country. When you look at just the 34 states (plus DC) where both Nader and Badnarik were on the ballot, Nader beat Badnarik by 390131 to 124708.

Al Barger|11.4.04 @ 6:57PM|#

I'm not saying that Badnarik made any big breakthrough, but this was not necessarily because of anything done wrong.

Quite simply, third parties were pretty well shut down across the entire country. As was noted above, Ralph Nader didn't make any impact either, even in states where he was on the ballot.

Here in Indiana we have one of the couple of strongest LPs in the nation, and we struggled for 1% in most of our races- off by half or two thirds from the last couple of election cycles. I got about 28K votes for US Senate against Evan Bayh, or about 1.2%.

I've seen this kind of thing a time or two before. Best I can tell, in a wartime environment with lots of life and death issues on the table right now, voters simply weren't fooling with any kind of independents.

|11.4.04 @ 7:07PM|#

Imagine if a local candidate ran with the kind of energy Badnarik did.

|11.4.04 @ 7:59PM|#

Here's a funny true story from election coverage on WJAR/Channel 10 in Providence, RI.
The anchor was discussing the election results in Massachusetts (since the Fall River area is part of the same TV market), and he said, "With x% of precincts reporting, in first place we have John Kerry, the Democrat, in second place George W. Bush, the Republican, and in third place (pause) Michael (pause) Badnarik (really long pause) - I, I don't know what party he's from."

|11.4.04 @ 8:15PM|#

I've seen this kind of thing a time or two before. Best I can tell, in a wartime environment with lots of life and death issues on the table right now, voters simply weren't fooling with any kind of independents.

I don't buy it. The Libertarian Party got atrocious numbers in 2000, too -- an election held in peacetime, with no significant issues at stake, between two largely indistinguishable candidates. If ever there was a time to vote for a third-party candidate, that was it.

|11.4.04 @ 10:04PM|#

The LP may have had more influence in some local races. In Washington state, longtime LP activist Ruth Bennett appears to have been the margin of defeat for the Republicans in the Governor's race. The results show 49.32% for the Dems, 48.57% for the business-oriented Dino Rossi, and 2.1% for Bennett. You can bet this won't be ignored by the WA Republicans, who will have to shore up their small-government base. In Colorado, Janssen Bowman's 3% of the vote nearly unseated a State House Republican incumbent who only managed to win by 49% and a margin of only 474 votes.

Being a "spoiler" is not comparable to being elected, but it has its influence.

|11.4.04 @ 10:19PM|#

Even if I am the last soul on earth with an ounce of reason, I will refuse to vote for the Republicans or Democrats. Never have, never will. It does not matter how others vote. The election is the wrong time to influence others. Do it now. Be mad about the demise of the secular state. Be mad at those who would give up their rights in order to save their money. Be mad at those who tell you what to do with your money.

Angela Keaton|11.4.04 @ 11:23PM|#

Mr. Threadweakener:

There were almost 40 women there. I tried to count but the Travis County LP members were handing out tickets for free booze so I lost track. A good time was had by most.

Warren|11.4.04 @ 11:50PM|#

Fuck all you nay-sayers, and especially fuck all you who didn't put your X next to a Libertarian.

The Libertarian Party is liberty's only hope in the United States. Today we are small and impotent, but no one knows what tomorrow will bring. For now, we remain, we survive, and we will be here when the winds of history shift to fill our sails.

|11.4.04 @ 11:54PM|#

The National LP needs to stop pissing around with their perceived "national influence" and start building small, local, loyal bases with which to work. Stop raising a quarter million for the Wisconsin governor's race to draw 2%. Stop raising six figures for 6 thirty second anti-drug war ads.

Spend the money on local races. Overspend on local races - win them. Use those winners to stump and fundraise. Build more of a base around them. Springboard those original winners into offices one step up.

And when I say local race, I don't mean judge of elections or town solicitor. I'm talking city councilmen, county/corporate commissioners and borough/township supervisors. Imagine dumping $100k into a county commissioner's race a few times each election season. Yeah, I mean, we don't get the war on drugs ads that bring in .219% of the vote for president, but, hey, we might get a win or two to build on.

|11.5.04 @ 12:24AM|#

Ms. Keaton: Thank you for the report on the female presence at the LP party. I was inspired to ask by recalling an old article in Liberty magazine, about an LP convenion in (I think) Salt Lake City. The writer said it was a groundbreaking event in LP history in that "there were actually girls present at a Libertarian convention." (They were attending a different event in the hotel and wandered in by accident.)

(As I write this, I'm listening to the Jon Airheart interview on your Web site, and the question under discussion right now is, "Where are all the libertarian women?")

It's weird, considering how many of the high-profile writers, thinkers and influencers of the libertarian movement are/were female: Ayn Rand, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, Virgina Postrel, Wendy McElroy, etc. etc.

Thanks for the link to your www.liberatedspace.com -- I looked at all the photos and, after I have recovered from that (vitamins, Gatorade), I will go back and read more of the words.

|11.5.04 @ 12:38AM|#

Frell! I meant state governor, of course. and "HOW COULD YOU NOT VOTE FOR US."

|11.5.04 @ 12:39AM|#

And "Stevo" not "Steve"! Dammit!

|11.5.04 @ 2:33AM|#

Goiter-

I think the sights could even be set a little higher, with a push to elect a handful of state legislators. It would take articulate and savvy candidates in select districts, but it has been done in the past and could be done again.

I also think that ballot measures could be a good place to focus energy. In 2002 a measure to repeal the income tax got above 40% in Massachusettes of all places. If the measure had been to, say, cap the income tax at half the current rate (nitpickers can quibble with the details, but the point is to have a drastic tax cut on the ballot) and the target state had been, well, anywhere else, it might have passed.

Here's a thought: Start a fund that donates money to LP candidates for state legislative office on a competitive basis. They could be asked to submit a kit that includes written statements, campaign brochures, recordings of speeches, letters of endorsement from their community, and other evidence of a polished and sane candidate who knows how to articulate a message that is moderate and marketable but still distinctly libertarian. The candidates could also be asked to submit an analysis explaining why their particular district is winnable, and why their major party opponents are vulnerable.

Assemble some people to judge the submissions, including successful LP officeholders, professional campaign strategists, maybe even a successful office-holder from another third party, to get the perspective of somebody who doesn't share our views (remember, a lot of the electorate doesn't) and yet is familiar with the challenges facing a third party candidate. Invite some finalists to interview. (Bonus points to anybody who doesn't have blue skin and/or a cape at the interview ;)

Give the winner or winners the largest donation that is compatible with (1) the budget and (2) relevant campaign laws.

I would donate what little I can right now to such a fund. In the future I'd donate more.

|11.5.04 @ 3:17AM|#

I think that right now state legislators is a bit too much to bite off for most of the LP. Organization is not a strong point and to pull off a state race, you'd need help from the state and national LP. It's why I'd focus one step below and use that as a springboard. Strong candidates are also a problem. To win a state race you'd need a strong candidate and much more money, especially with the shortage of strong candidates. Weaker candidates can be overcome with spending in more local elections.

I love everything you say after "here's a thought" Tremendous. Except for one thing. State and national campaign support is usually lacking. I know that they have pre-printed literature and such to help out, but what these candidates would need would be help in detailing that literature to their district. They'd need help with things like district analysis, especially the break downs by precinct, race, gender and how to mold the message to these people. They need help in determining how to best spend funds. And they need help in organizing volunteers for lit dropping, door-to-door greets, phone banks and mailers. Right now, the national party isn't doing this or training people to do this. They're focused in on big-ticket items and being 'idea men'. And we all know how 'idea men' usually work out in leadership positions...

As far as a fund goes, I have been bickering with certain players on the national stage to stop using the requests for money emails as a way to spend money on wasteful things and put together a mailing list for donating to individual smaller campaigns. I think the party is ready for a grassroots movement, not rah rah press releases about a guy that's going to win 2% even after we raised $300,000 for him.

|11.5.04 @ 8:12AM|#

Stevo Threadkiller,

And old Bernie is "pro-business" (meaning corporate welfare) when he wants to be; just watch him on the Banking Committee sometime.

|11.5.04 @ 10:21AM|#

The posters who are arguing that the LP should focus on running local candidates and forget statewide or national races are missing three things: a) the LP does run local candidates (at least 200 typically); b) in many states you need to have a candidate who wins at least 1% in a statewide race to guarantee the party ballot access for the following election; and c) running a presidential candidate draws substantially more media coverage. Badnarik got very little coverage in the press, but how much coverage did any of the lower level candidates get? I mean, if I didn't read this website and the LP's own website I would never have even heard of Jim Grey.

James Anderson Merritt|11.5.04 @ 12:19PM|#

SR makes excellent points all around. In answer to the fellow who said we need to elect more city council members and officials at that level, I emphasize that these are precisely the types of offices where Libertarians win not only election, but RE-election. We have many city council members, and I think the latest LP Press release names two more that we picked up last Tuesday. There are also County Supervisors, judges, and at least one sheriff and one district attorney, in addition to school board trustees, members of various commissions, etc. These were all non-partisan races, but in nearly every one, the candidate's standing in the Libertarian Party was raised by opponents in debate, attack-ads, or gossip, to discredit the candidate; it didn't work. Even more gratifying, Libertarians that have been so targeted are regularly RE-elected, meaning that the public in their areas now is not only unafraid of Libertarians, but actually likes at least one!

The LP has had state reps (in Alaska and New Hampshire) in the past, but not any at the present time. The wheel will turn; the LP's time in the statehouse will come around again, although probably not unless we make a deliberate attempt to target victory at that level in at least a handful of states, backing up that intention with serious money and effort.

I wish some of the critics of the LP would take the time to actually educate themselves about what they are criticizing. It seems as if some of you are working on outdated experience with a much younger LP, or generalizing from isolated experience with a particularly inept local or state LP organization, while the rest are working from hearsay or spinning your own realities as homage to hearsay. I understand that people of such a mindset will simply not consider the LP, and that they find great sport in trying to get the best of Libertarians. So I address my comments not to them, but to the open minded who are reading these words: do your own research from original sources (e.g., www.lp.org) and make up your own mind. Also, consider the mindset and motivations of those would gleefully stick out a foot to trip up those who are trying to make progress in the same direction that the tripper himself recommends.

|11.5.04 @ 2:51PM|#

Ah, the always optimistic Mr. Merritt telling us things are better than they are. It is neither an accident nor a surprise that "libertarians" winning elections are doing so in nonpartisan races. The label of libertarian has become a negative. An astute libertarian is far better served by running as a republican or even a democrat than take on the negative baggage of the LP. Rather than don the rose-colored glasses, Mr. Merritt and his LP would far better served by asking a simple question: How has a political party with many excellent policy ideas become such an albatross?

|11.5.04 @ 7:52PM|#

As I have been saying at the Badnarik blog, forums, and to other Lp-ers, sorry but I dont buy this whole " We need to run a Presidential candidate because his media coverage helps other libertarians running in lower offices" idea.

frankly, thats bullshit and I can use real world examples to back it up. In my local paper I did not notice one single mention of Badnarik. Yet I read 2 feature articles of considerable length ( frnt page continued inside probably a half newpaper page, or a full typical size page for each man IIRC). Since I live the Maryland side of Delmarva, I could not vote for either of these men, but I know the guy running for Delware Givernor got about 3% or 12,000 votes ( comapred to 565 for Badnarik) or over 20 times the votes Badnarik got in his state. Local politics is local and local media will cover local races if there is a story there.

|11.5.04 @ 7:54PM|#

I meant to say that I read 2 feature articles for candidates running for governor and state house in Delaware.

James Anderson Merritt|11.7.04 @ 2:45AM|#

Jose Ortega y Gassett should use a few Q-Tips in his ears before he sticks out his foot out to trip someone who is allegedly running in the same direction. Did he not hear (or read) that the Libertarians who won non-partisan office did so DESPITE frequent attempts by their opponents to use the so-called "albatross" of Libertarian party affiliation or membership against them? EVERY campaign I have personally witnessed or taken the time to examine (and that's been quite a few of them, Mr. O y G) involved some attempted smear of the Libertarian by the Democrat or Republican; others tell me that this seems to be par for the course in there experience, too. In the hundreds of cases where the Libertarian achieved office, the smear obviously didn't work. In the many cases where the Libertarian was re-elected, it was clear that people understood that the sky wouldn't fall in if they elected Libertarians, and that, in fact, things might even get a little bit better. The Libertarian label was hardly an albatross for them -- the more offices we win, the less of an albatross it seems.

More likely to make the LP an "albatross" is the active disinformation that is spread about the LP and its candidates, primarily by major party operatives or those who wish to curry their favor, but also, altogether too much of it here at Reason Hitandrun, I am sorry to say. For instance, what is all of this about libertarians being "pacifist"? Whoever said Badnarik was a pacifist obviously never paid attention to his speeches, and probably needs to borrow some of Jose's Q-Tips (since he isn't using them anyway). Badnarik has -- over and over again -- come out in favor of a strong defense and retaliation against those who actually do us harm. He does not buy into the religious holy war thing, however, and has articulated numerous reasons why it was wrong for us to go into Iraq -- or to fight any aggressive war of conquest on the basis that someone might rise up to oppose us. That's not pacifism, it's just good, common sense, of the type that used to be characteristically American.

Badnarik, no pacifist, nevertheless understands that an Empire can't help but attract nasty challengers. So who needs Empire, says Badnarik? If we abided by our own Constitution -- if we actually pursued that "humbler" foreign policy that candidate George W. Bush promised us in 2000 -- we would be at least as happy and prosperous as we are now, and a whole lot safer because we'd be minding our own national business and not trying to be the "world's sole superpower."

See, that's the thing. The people who label the LP "pacifist" and try to characterize it as an "albatross" and its members as "kooks" are, by and large in my experience, the same people who can straight-facedly call an aggressive war of conquest "self-defense" and "liberation." Who can justify starting a war and killing thousands, innocent and "guilty" alike, on false and flimsy pretexts because the opponent is "a bad guy." Who say that the Constitution is quaint, no longer relevant, and even dead in the modern world. They probably have a clue, but I'd be surprised to hear that they wanted the average person to have one.

|11.8.04 @ 9:20AM|#

Let's talk numbers for a moment. According to the U.S. Census circa 1992, there are 542 federal elected officials and 18,828 state elected officials. Nnow consider the fact that 96.2 percent of all elected officials in the U.S. are from local governments. There are about half a million elected officials in the U.S. You crowing about "hundreds" of elections won makes my point, to wit, the LP does not matter. Win 10,000 elections, Mr. Merritt, and we can have a serious dicussion. Until then, enjoy your status as a card-carrying member of a hobby party.

|11.9.04 @ 1:23PM|#

Since this is by now an ancient archive in Internet time, I doubt if it will be read by many. But "wotthehell" ...

Many accuse Badnarik of being a kook because he thinks drivers' licenses are unnecessary. I think he's nearly onto something.

For a few years, I've been suggesting to anyone who would listen that drivers' licenses be issued by institutions that really have a stake in good driving: the car insurance companies. This is like the practice in the early days of our country where fire insurance companies ran their own fire departments. You can still see relics of this in the cast iron insurance company medallions on the walls of houses in Philadelphia's Ellfreth's Alley.

If Insurance companies issued licenses, maybe driving tests would have some teeth in them. Maybe premiums could vary with applicants' scores. If there are real risks from older people driving, maybe we'd have frequent re-testing of older drivers. Maybe it would be easier to get really bad drivers off the road. The companies hire a lot of actuarials who are good at figuring out risks and costs like these.

Of course, I'd want non-compulsory insurance, too, but when you look at the numbers of people who now drive with no license or a suspended one, what's the big deal? There'll be "outlaws' no matter what scheme we try.

Just my $.02.

You can probably figure out where I stand on the Income Tax, too.

Bob

|11.9.04 @ 4:00PM|#

Look, the way I see it, there's only one way for the LP to get a foothold on the national scene: CONCENTRATED EFFORT.

The LP must not spread it's precious resources over such a huge geographical area. It should start by being a recognizable and legitimate presence in ONE particular state. Once the reputation of the LP has been established in that state, the party can put its new political capital (pardon the W reference) to use in neighboring states.

My suggestion for an "incubator" state is New Hampshire. The population of the "Live Free or Die" state would appear to be more open to LP views than most other places.

The LP should flood NH's populace with informational ads and should post candidates for a number of state and local offices at the same time.

Since the TV/radio/newspapers in NH tend to cover the entire state, the messages will naturally overlap - folks will start to become comfortable with the concept of the LP simply because they've seen/heard/read ads for various LP candidates who are running for offices in many different parts of the state.

Also, the signals for New Hampshire tv and radio stations spill over into Massachusetts. Therefore, the NH campaign messages would have the side-effect of educating the Bay State population at the same time - softening them up for the post-legitimacy invasion in a few years.

Not to be dismissed: NH has that early, extremely influential presidential primary. The presence of so many national media-types in such a small space could result in some "free" national exposure - especially if some of them get bored of their assignments and start sniffing around for an interesting story.

Just my four ha'pennies worth.

Martin Fox
Hoboken NJ

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Reason.com