Equal Time, Sorta

Here's the Libertarians for McClintock Web site.

Comments

[James Merritt]

Interesting to see how many CA Libertarian Party "luminaries" are listed as endorsing McClintock, apparently going against the official state party endorsement. Will we see (R) behind their names soon, I wonder? Do they actually think that McClintock has any better chance to win against Arnie and Cruz than Ned Roscoe or any of the other (L) candidates? Or do they really think that Mr. McLintock is the best examplar of the Libertarian ethic than anyone else running?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[mike]

It's probably because the choices are the cigarette guy, the anti-Intel activist, and someone with BIG FONTS and LOTS OF COLORS on his web site. I mean, it's pretty dismal, even by LP standards.

[mike]

Hey! I just noticed that Justin Raimondo is endorsing McClintock. That's kind of...unexpected.

[Gene Berkman]

As a longtime Libertarian and organizer of "Libertarians for McClintock" I can assure you that the LP leaders backing McClintock are not likely to become Republicans anytime soon.

Tom McClintock has long been friendly to Libertarians, and he has a record in Sacramento of opposing tax and spend policies of both Republican and Democrat governors.

Sen. McClintock has also stood for freedom in other areas, as shown by his opposition to draft registration and his support for Medical Marijuana.

Sen. McClintock is third in the polls, and has a real campaign which offers an alternative to the Pete Wilson left-overs running the Austrian's campaign.

[Dibble]

I'm not clear on why the LP feels a need to endorse ANYONE in the race, when it's quite clear that none of the plausibly electable candidates are remotely acceptable from an honest libertarian perspective. Why not just sit this one out, endorsement-wise?

[James Merritt]

So from Mr. Berkman's note, I gather that the reason the big-L Libertarians on his list endorse McClintock is that they actually think their endorsement will help the Senator go over the top and beat Arnie and Cruz (presumably by drawing LP crossover voters)? I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth: I am legitimately curious about the motivation for endorsing someone outside your party, whether he is "friendly" to your interests or not.

It would seem to me that, if the party-jumping endorsement can't really help the outcome, then the wiser course would be to close ranks with the party-endorsed candidate and try to build party name recognition and influence for the next go-round. If the LP "also ran" does phenomenally better than anyone expected, that would cause a much bigger splash than if McClintock gained a few thousand more votes from Libertarians but fell short of the mark.

Or is it possible that McClintock has cut a deal with the Libertarians for greater influence in a McClintock administration? Perhaps a guaranteed berth in the next election's Gubernatorial debates (from which Libertarians are notoriously absent this time)? If anything like that were a solid deal, that might be enough to get even ME to endorse Tom.

I guess what I am saying is that we can't trust individual candidates, regardless of their affinity for libertarian rhetoric and even libertarian deeds, to always do what is right for libertarians and libertarianism, much less the Libertarian Party. If LP poobahs are throwing their weight behind McClintock and yet aren't planning to bolt to the GOP, then I sure hope they have a signed-in-blood deal that will advance not just the interests of the party, but also the position of the party itself. When McClintock is gone, the LP will be on its own to deal with the "unfriendly" pols, so it needs to get stronger with every election season. Let's hope that this is a key goal of LP folk in their puzzling endorsements of Tom McClintock.

By the way, Raimondo used to exhort libertarians to jump ship and "work within" the GOP. It was an empty siren song in the early 1990s and it is an empty siren song now. Even Justin's pal, Pat Buchanan, realized he'd get more bang for the campaign buck by trying the third-party route. "Working within" doesn't seem to work. On the other hand, a practical alliance, based on enforceable quid pro quo, might be a good thing. Somehow, though, I can't believe that even McClintock would go that far to get help from California's Libertarian voters. Time will tell.

[Andy]

Dibble, while I can see sitting out of voting for a replacement for Davis, I think Libertarians (and anyone with even a bit of distaste for dirty politics) should vote YES on the recall because, at least for me, Gray Davis is a second-to-none example of a corrupt politician. A little kick in the ass to that sort of bastard is a good thing.

I haven't yet decided whom I should vote for to replace Davis... could someone post links to the websites for the Libertarian candidates, however bad they might be? If no Libertarian looks good, I think McClintock is ok, though I'm put off by his social conservatism... then again the governor might not have much power over social issues. I'm done with Arnold... he must be incompetent if he refuses to do a real debate with unknown questions... and even a tough guy like him can be manipulated if he's ignorant or naive.

Andy

[thoreau]

I voted for Larry Flynt!

[James Merritt]

Roscoe, called "the smoking guy" in someone else's note above, is at http://www.nedroscoe.com.

There's a lot more to Roscoe than just "smokers' rights." You can get a long-form interview between Roscoe and former LP presidential candidate Harry Browne at ftp://radio.harrybrowne.org/03-08-30a.mp3. (If you want to hear it in streaming form, try mms://www.harrybrowne.org/harrybrowne/03-08-30a.mp3).

Jack Hickey is at http://www.govhickey.com/

I won't list Ken Hamidi, as his website says "due to the short filing notice, Hamidi is registered Libertarian but considers himself an Independent."

[Matt Welch]

I've written briefly, with links, about all or most of these guys, if you do a Hit&Run search over there on the left (I'd do it, but I'm scrambling for a cassette to tape the debate!).

[Andrew Lynch]

Isn't closing party ranks the problem with the big 2? Why would I, as a registered LP member, vote for an LP candidate with whom I have absolutely zero identification, aside from the issues of personal liberty? I can see voting for a fringe candidate who sees and articulates the big picture, but not for someone whose zealotry doesn't translate into a PRACTICAL application of libertarian ideals. I joined the LP to escape the transparent hypocrisy of the big 2, not to reproduce fealty in another party.

Why, on the other hand, would I vote outside my party when I don't have faith in either of the big 2?

Isn't it more important to advance libertarian ideals than to vote for a Libertarian candidate. It's becoming clearer to me as I grow into my first year as a certified libertarian that it's not about party affiliation, but about ideology.

How do you guys and gals reconcile the two?

[James Merritt]

Andrew Lynch asks, "Isn't it more important to advance libertarian ideals than to vote for a Libertarian candidate."

In theory, yes, you should vote for candidates and measures that advance libertarian interests. Unfortunately, those candidates who promise to do so, or those measures that are advertised as doing so, often do not. And even when the odd candidate who does advance libertarian ideals is elected, or the odd measure approved, I've seen that the ground is rarely held; it either must be defended or even retaken in subsequent elections. Who is going to hold or retake that ground? In over 30 years of paying attention to elections, I have lost all faith that the Demos or GOP will capture ground for libertarianism except by accident, and they almost certainly will not hold it. I am convinced that the success of libertarianism requires a third party that, at very least, will regularly hold the feet of the more powerful parties to the fire, because it can tap voter dissatisfaction and desire for liberty to elect officials here and there, from time to time; or because it can spoil the race for the two major parties, or in threatening to do so, force the major candidates to give proper attention to libertarian issues and adopt (and implement!) libertarian positions.

I have never argued that anyone should vote for a party against his or her conscience. If you like candidate outside your party better, support and vote for that person. If you can't abide the candidate of your party, by all means actively oppose that person. If you think that a different candidate, if victorious, will do right by libertarian ideals, and you think that by supporting that candidate and withholding support from a candidate from your party, you will be serving the ideals better, please, vote your conscience.

On the other hand, suppose that your cross-party efforts come to nothing. Then, when you cannot rely on the defeated candidate to champion your interests in office, will you find that the party organization dedicated to championing those efforts has been strengthened or weakened by the results of the election? Or, suppose that your candidate is successful in the election, but proceeds, once in office, to turn his or her back on libertarian supporters and the promises made to them? Once again, will the party organization be able to effectively counter that turnabout, perhaps fielding a credible opposition candidate in the next election? Or will you and they just have to bend over and take it? From the evidence of my own eyes, I have seen this particular scenario play out between the GOP and the Libertarians. The GOP campaigns with libertarian rhetoric but governs in a substantially more statist mode. The Libertarians who believe the GOP line always end up whining about the betrayal, or worse, denying it and falling for the same scam next time. All the while, government continues to grow.

The sad fact is that, in American politics, groups have power. Groups that stick together and act in a focused way have the most power of all. So, unless you honestly don't like the Libertarian candidate, or you honestly believe that the "more electable" candidate of another party is actually "more libertarian" than the Libertarian one, you simply cut yourself off at the knees to NOT vote for the Libertarian. As long as the LP gets fringe-level vote totals, they and the libertarian ideology will be treated as a fringe constituency. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if libertarian voters could even get a few slices of the loaf by voting for candidates other than Libertarians. In practice, it doesn't really seem to happen.

So let's talk: do the Libertarians who endorse McClintock really think Mr. M is the great Libertarian Hope (as, for example, "GOP" Ron Paul might be if he were running in the election)? Or do they just think he is more electable than Roscoe? Do they think Roscoe isn't Libertarian enough, or competent to be Governor? I mean, what's going on here? Because if a lot of Libertarians vote for a non-Libertarian, the party will be weakened for sure. Who, then, will hold GOP or Demo feet to the fire in future elections, especially if McClintock DOESN'T win?

And, if McClintock DOESN'T win this time, would Libertarian support of his candidacy entice him to consider jumping to the LP next time? That ought to be a fair question, especially for a candidate who is so "friendly" to the ideas and the supporters of libertarianism, don't you think?

[thoreau]

I think the most important distinction is between a "lesser evil" and a "lesser good." The lesser evil is the one who won't do quite as many bad things as the other.

The lesser good is the one who will actually take concrete and significant steps in a better direction, but won't go as far as we would ideally like.

Show me some lesser goods in the 2 parties and I won't hesitate to ditch the LP in that particular contest. Show me some lesser evils and I'll always vote LP in that contest.

Concrete example of what a "lesser good" platform might be:

1) Significant tax cuts (the average tax bill per person would be 20% less than before, including sales taxes, excise, property, and other taxes, not just income tax)
2) Spending drops commensurately by 20%.
3) Marijuana is legal, even if other drugs remain legal.
4) A significant number of gun control laws are repealed and no new ones are introduced, even if some remain.
5) A handful of agencies are abolished and the others are streamlined. Alas, many still remain, but it's better than before.

If one of the big 2 parties actually worked on this agenda I'd ardently support them. Certainly not perfect, but a heck of a lot better than before.

[Russ D]

Look at Matt Welch's I Me Me Mine post.

I'm not a Californian, so my interest is almost non-existent in this whole thing, but the political buzzword counting kind of puts McClintock in the libertarian-like driver's seat with Arnold a distant second. Arnie talks libertarian economically, but sounds like he wants to butt in socially like a standard-issue GOPer.

I like what James Merritt said, if you're libertarian and McClintock looks like he has a chance, he might be worth the vote; if he doesn't have a chance, you might want to make the LP look a little better.

[Rick Barton]

Arnie looks likely to be more libertarian then Wilson and a lot more then Davis. The best thing for Libertarians for McClintock to do is get McClintock to extract libertarian promises from Arnie in exchange for dropping out and support.

[Mark S.]

How about a third option: Stop bothering with elections, indeed drop the entire libertarian party, and instead focus on activism and expanding public support for libertarian philosophy. Once we actually get enough people who will support our principles, THEN we can talk about running libertarian candidates.

[pdog]

After watching this debate, there is no question in my mind that McClintock was the winner. He conducted himself with dignity and statemanship. Arnold came in a close second.

"So, thoreau, by your argument, party affiliation is not as important as the application of libertarian ideals, in some form or another. This seems to run counter to James Merritt's idea that libertarian ideals are co-opted..."

You assume that Arnold will espouse libertarian rhetoric, but never do anything about it once in office. Irs an understandable though, as most 'republicans' have done so.

"a pure Libertarian Party is a viable alternative to the fuzzy, convenient flip-flopping to which the big 2 are so prone."

Tom McClintock does not seem to be a flip-flopper. Otherwise, he would have dropped out of the race. I really admire the way he talks about keeping a promise he makes. This is the one major thing that has kept me from supporting either a Libertarian canidate or Arnold or McClintock.

I have this feeling that McClintok will actually do, or try to do as hard as he can, to impliment the policies he espouses. I think that if libertarians support him for the major principles or policies he suports, they will not be dissapointed.

Now, Arnold also seems to be an enthusiastic supporter of some libertarian policies and principles he endorses. But my biggest doubt is whether he is truly a princples supporter of 'doing what is right, not what is popular', which I know McClintock is. But he has great ambition, and determination. But is this for 'himself' and his popularity/career, or truly for the country and state that gave him the potential to 'be all he can be.'. Im not sure I trust Arnold the way I would McClintock, but at the same time, I trust him lightyears (as Sean Hannity put it) ahead of Bustatament. I know Cruz Bustamante would destroy the state. In some ways, thats politically helpfull, but I really do not like to see the people of a state suffer because of politics.

This is a touch choice, between McClintock and Arnold. As for the true liberal/libertarian beliviers, in order for us to become McClintock suppoerters, he needs to reassure us he is truly a republitarian in the Larry Elder sense.

It does not run counter, because he assumes that the canidante _will_ actually impliment these policies that he espouses. If they don't, then they aren't libertarian ideal supporters, and will not recieve the endorsments.

[Don]

"Doesn't really matter to me, since I already mailed my absentee ballot for Larry Flynt. I decided to "send a message"."

ROFL. What message was that?

[Gene Trosper]

I've been a card-carrying Libertarian party member for 13 years now and a registered LP voter for just a little longer. In 99% of the elections, I have voted straight LP, rarely voting for "another" candidate. This is one of those rare exceptions. I would not have publicly endorsed Tom McClintock (thereby earning the wrath of some LP faithful)if I was not convinced of his pro-liberty philosophy and track record. Sure, McClintock may not be prefect, but he's a damn sight closer to being the ideal LP candidate than many actual LP candidates I've seen through the years.

As for the California LP, I've pretty much given up on the organization due to their seeming obsession with garnering "dues paid members" instead of focusing on implementing Libertarian policy or electing good candidates. I'm letting my dues paid membership expire, but will remain a registered Libertarian.

[Andrew Lynch]

So, thoreau, by your argument, party affiliation is not as important as the application of libertarian ideals, in some form or another. This seems to run counter to James Merritt's idea that libertarian ideals are co-opted, perhaps even perverted or -- post-election -- tossed by the non-Libertarian candidate who claimed to adopt them while campaigning.

Seems to me that two ideas are at work.

1) In order for the Libertarian Party to succeed, we have to bite the bullet and support candidates who probably won't win to foster momentum that won't pay off for years, if not decades.

2) In order for libertarian ideals to cultivate, we have to support ANY candidate who, through "lesser good," proves that -- not now, but in the future -- a pure Libertarian Party is a viable alternative to the fuzzy, convenient flip-flopping to which the big 2 are so prone.

Perhaps I've oversimplified.

I agree with James Merritt that only groups have power 'round these here parts. Libertarians voting for McClintock based on his libertarian potential diminishes the authority of the LP. On the other hand, voting for Ken "rebuild markets" Hamidi, Ned "Christian with four aces" Roscoe, or John "local control" Hickey sends a message that we don't believe Democrats or Republicans can address the basic tenets of libertarianism.

There's a hopelessness to the latter that makes me interested in voting for McClintock. And to the former there's attached a dread that if I don't vote for Roscoe or another, I'll wake up feeling like I've done nothing to move libertarianism forward.

It's cool talking about this. Makes me feel less inclined to make a rash decision.

[James Merritt]

I like what "thoreau" wrote above. The problem with giving into the siren song of the 2 major parties is that, from the point of view of libertarianism, either choice brings "evil," as measured by the inexorable growth of government through the past few decades. If one of the major parties presented a "lesser good" proposition for libertarians, it might make sense for libertarians to toss their votes in that direction. Since that rarely (never?) happens, the most good that can be done by a libertarian vote is usually to boost the Libertarian Party's strength and credibility.

In the debate tonight, McClintock did promise to balance the budget by cutting spending and not raising taxes. I believe that he sincerely intends to do that and has the knowledge of "where the bodies are buried" in Sacramento, to make a credible attempt. But is that enough to qualify him as a "lesser good" in thoreau's terms, especially if his chances of winning are as low as they appear to be? I don't know. I am going to have to think about the McClintock proposition from now until October 7th. But, if that day comes, and it looks like the race is Bustamante vs. Schwarzenegger, with neither McClintock nor Roscoe likely to win, then I think my vote will do more good for the Libertarians by going to Roscoe, than by being just one more drop in a defeated GOP candidate's bucket. It is a mark of the respect that I have for McClintock and his values and personal integrity that I will keep an open mind to the last minute.

[Kevin Carson]

James Merritt,

I agree that a third party organization has more influence than a caucus within a major party. The latter option is pretty much what the yellow dog Democrats expected from Nader supporters in 2000; but why would any major candidate cater to them instead of the DLC when that's where the money goes? and as a captive clientele within the party, what credible bargaining chip would they have to punish an Al Gore type for ignoring or patronizing them?

A third party, on the other hand, even if it only gets 3% of the vote, can punish a major party by costing it the election. Losing a couple of elections is a good way to remind a major party establishment not to take any of its constituencies for granted. The threat of spoiling an election by a third party is also a strong incentive to take its agenda seriously and accomodate it in the major party platform.

And a third party can always negotiate a dual ticket as a way of getting its ideas endorsed. Bryan's run on the Democratic and People's Party tickets in 1896 is the best example of this (of course he screwed them and watered their program down to free coinage of silver).

There are some Naderites who think Gore would have lost even worse if the threat of a UAW or Teamsters endorsement of Nader hadn't made him adopt a slightly more populist tone than he otherwise would have.

[Andrew Lynch]

Since nobody else at Reason seems to care about the CA LP candidates, thought I'd share with you an excerpt from Roscoe's blog:

Jerry Brown pointed out that someone who wants to balance the budget without additional taxes ought to point out that we must end the employment of 60,000 state workers. That's an excellent idea, particularly if we do this sensibly and pick the 60,000 that do the least work. We can offer them a package and point out that there's going to be a lot more work and challenges for those who remain.

What's not to love? ;>

[James Merritt]

I wanted to add something that Kevin Carson already appears to have anticipated:

Andrew Lynch talks about spending a vote to "foster momentum" that may not amount to much for years, if not decades. On the one hand, I have invested my own vote in that way on many occasions over the past 28 years, so yes, it can be -- and for me has been -- a long road. On the other hand, I think that Peter Camejo of the Green Party was at the table with "the heavies" tonight precisely because so many Greens had the courage to vote for the "greater good" as they saw it in the past couple of elections, even while the Demos were screaming that the sky would fall unless all progressive types rallied under the Donkey tent. Naderites shook the Democratic party, and Greens continue to do so. By sticking to their guns, they have earned respect and wangled a seat at the "adults table." I believe the Libertarians merit a seat at that table, especially in California, but they won't get it unless and until they can show the same strength of spine and the unwillingness to compromise principle that the Greens have shown. That's just the reality of practical politics. In casting your vote on October 7, you have to weigh what you stand to gain against what you give up -- the opportunity cost of your vote.

[thoreau]

The devil is in the details. I stand by my assertion that lesser goods are worthy of support. But how to identify a lesser good? Aye, there's the rub.

I would go so far as to say that Ron Paul is a lesser good, but when you're one vote out of 435 it's easy to be a lesser good. McClintock might be a lesser good, or at least he might plan to be one. Will he follow through on that plan? Who knows. Doesn't really matter to me, since I already mailed my absentee ballot for Larry Flynt. I decided to "send a message".

As to how a third party can make a difference?

Now I go into one of those fantasies "if I were in charge of LP strategy", and propose things I have no right to propose since I haven't paid my dues by actually volunteering for LP campaigns and whatnot.

I'd identify a single issue, and put all Democrats and Republicans on notice that we'll run spoilers against anybody who doesn't support a specific "step in the right direction" reform (e.g. a tax cut, repeal of a particular gun law, repeal of a particular regulation, decriminalizing medical marijuana, etc.). Then I'd run spoilers against anybody who didn't heed the threat.

To unseat a Republican would be easier, since libertarians are often (rightly or wrongly) associated with conservatives, and hence it would be easier to woo away conservative voters. To unseat a Democrat, I'd run candidates who focus on civil liberties and economic regulations that benefit the "big guy" at the expense of the "little guy" (e.g. zoning laws that make housing more expensive, instances where onerous regulations force small businesses into bankruptcy while the bigger businesses survive).

Of course, this presumes that I would have at my disposal polished, articulate candidates who stick to a message tailored to an objective. In reality I'd have at my disposal ferret legalization activists, guys who proudly proclaim their druid faith in the voter guide (insert D&D joke here ;), people who campaign in costume, people who use the most inflammatory words possible when critiquing US foreign policy, and so forth.

[Andrew Lynch]

This post may now be too dusty to attract further attention, but I wanted to mention a couple of epiphanies I've had based on the excellent discussion here.

If we step back and look at the big picture, here's what emerges:

1) It is unlikely that McClintock, if the recall passes, will win. Therefore, casting a vote for him because of his libertarian leanings does nothing to forward the LP. As a result, the LP does not get any closer to enjoying the success the Greens had getting Camejo to the table.

2) Advocating a libertarian movement within the California GOP simply furthers the fallacious notion that libertarians and nominal conservatives are joined at the hip, an association that doesn't do much to distinguish us from a party closely associated with socially normative principles. This is a particularly odious redirection of libertarian energies if the GOP candidate, for whatever reason, fails to honor his campaign promises. He doesn't have to pay the libertarian piper because the fealty of occluded libertarians won't matter. Isn't that the lesson Greens learned in their dealings with Democrats?

James Merritt, your 28 years of persistence are an inspiration. And Rick Barton, pdog, thoreau, and others, you guys/gals rock!

[StoweBerns Lindsey]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/20/2004 04:59:50
He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare,And he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere.