Swaying the heathenry would be good
I think Michael Kinsley's descriptions of the Democrats' tragic thought processes are always pretty convincing and very funny—and I don't care who knows it:
Then the General entered the race. And I don't mean General Anesthesia. A man in uniform, Democrats thought. People like that sort of thing, don't they? And yet he's a Democrat. Or at least he plays one on TV. True, on most issues he has either no known position or two contradictory positions. But he says he can requisition those missing parts. And he's a General. Talk about pragmatic! But when the General traded in his uniform for a fuzzy sweater, he suddenly looked less General-like than Al Sharpton.
Some Democrats cheated and looked into their hearts, where they found Howard Dean. But he was so appealing that he scared them. This is no moment to vote for a guy just because he inspires you, they thought. If he inspires me, there must be something wrong with him. So, Democrats looked around and rediscovered John Kerry. He'd been there all along, inspiring almost no one. You're not going to find John Kerry inspiring unless you're married to him or he literally saved your life. Obviously neither of those is a strategy that can be rolled out on a national level. But he's got the r?sum?. And gosh, he sure looks like a president (an "animatronic Lincoln," as my Slate colleague Mickey Kaus uncharitably described him).
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Brilliant.
yes, but terribly entertaining at the same time. and dead on about clark.
JOHN KERRY IS YOUR GOD!!!
Dude: "Can libertarians win in the long run?"
I would say not in the current US electoral system, to any meaningful degree. Speaking as a fiscally conservative independent, I don't see either major party making a serious effort of any sort to limit government. And, while I do believe that this has pissed many people off, no one will look at libertarian minded candidates without raising an eyebrow.
Just as the democrats flocked to JFK from Dean in a matter of hours, most voters are consigned to the way (2 party non PR setup) things are now. Could there be another in the Ross Perot electoral mold? Who the heck knows, but I highly doubt it. And the party apparatuses are so entrenched that it's bleak at the conressional level as well.
But you're young, perhaps in some years things will be different.
Howard Dean inspired too many people? That's his problem?
If you're looking to throw your vote away on the hopelessly lost cause of limited government I've found your candidate
The main reason the Libertarian party is going nowhere is the absolute, outside the mainstream, kooky ideas and people it draws. Absolute free markets. Absolutely no government regulation. Absolutely no provision for the common good. Absolutely I can own a howitzer...
I like it, though, because it challenges conventional thought. Libertarianism does not, however, consistently make sense for running the greatest country on earth.
Absolutely.
Gadfly, there is nothing inherent to libertarianism that makes it especially radical. The radical orientation is a side effect of the 2 party system. Since both parties try to cast as broad a net as possible, most libertarians can find a reasonably comfortable home in one or the other, calling themselves things like "New Democrats" or "moderate Republicans." Only the most radical version of libertarians can't be so assimilated.
It would be exactly the same thing if the two parties were the Libertarians and the Pat Buchanan Republicans. Most Democrats would fit firmly into a wing of one or the other party, and only a small hard core of extremist liberals would self-identify as Democrats.
Anonymous libertarian dude,
Since you are a college student, I have one word of advice: Paragraphs.
so new ideas only get filtered into the mainstream after years and years and years of dissemination by the fringes.
i.e. there are seemingly billions of potheads in nyc. seems like every other doctor, teacher and lawyer i meet is running off for a 6:30 appt. with a bonghit. yet movement towards softening drug laws in the city, much less new york state, have taken years. and even now the assault on the rockerfeller laws - a very good thing, obviously - is largely being cast as a race and class issue, because it fits in a template that is understandable to democratic voters. it's not that the war on some drugs isn't a race and class issue - one look at our cokehead president, dopehead former president, etc etc etc proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. but there's a broader application of principle which could appeal to a wider selection of voters, which include some of the aforementioned professionals and other "atypical" drug users, namely that you have a greater right and stake than some asshole in albany (or dc) when it comes to deciding what does and does not go into your body.
then again, that's a hard fucking sell. too many serfs in the kitchen, as it were. or maybe people like having decisions made for them so long as it doesn't impact sitcoms or sporting events too much.
on the plus side, the current democratic situation allows me to send "JOHN KERRY IS YOUR GOD!!!" emails to friends, including some former hopeful deansters. i know its mean but i can't help myself.
ok, what hope do we have with the likes of John Stewart, he seems to be the only popular celebrity to be able to say what he thinks, no matter how uninformed. although he promotes a Democrat (left wing) point of view, I watch him and think, surely he can be convinced to agree with most libertarian ideals. Am I naive to think that this philosophy can be logically argued to the masses? I see most of the points this political ideology tries to display clearly through mainstream media outlets like South Park, or the Dennis Miller show. What is it that keeps Libertarians out of politics in this country? I am currently a college student, raised by my beloved athiest and libertarian parents, and although I am extremely confident in my philosophical ideals, I am constantly dumbfounded by other's inability to understand libertarianism. I know that this has pretty much nothing to do with Tim Cavanaugh's post, I just wanted to get some other's opinions on this broad inquiry. Can libertarians win in the long run?
Just about ruptured myself laughing. I couldn't believe it wasn't from The Onion.
A silly, patronizing article, revolving around a fantasy of what people that the author doesn't understand might be thinking.
No, his problem is he's not going to win.