The Libertarian Party and the Super Bowl: A Political Metaphor

The brilliant libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett (who first converted me to anarchism during an amazing presentation at an Institute for Humane Studies summer seminar in 1988) muses over at Volokh.com on whether the very existence of the Libertarian Party is siphoning off libertarian political activists from the major parties, to the ultimate detriment of the libertarian cause.

His first post on the topic here; he revisits the topic in reaction to some blogworld chatter about it here, with an illuminating sports metaphor that ultimately encourages libertarian political activists to focus on libertarian candidates and their fate, not the fate of a purist party bearing the libertarian label:

Like other Americans, however, many libertarians think of political parties like sports teams. They want their own team to root for and cannot root for the other teams. Voting Libertarian gives them psychological satisfaction, while in the aggregate diminishing their political impact.

Libertarians should stop thinking of parties as teams and think of them instead as the playoffs. In NFL football terms, The Democrats are the AFC and the Republicans he NFC. To get into the Superbowl, you have to survive the season and the playoffs in your respective conference. In effect, Libertarians want to form their own league which no one but themselves is interested in watching. And they assure themselves of never making the playoffs much less the Superbowl.

Comments

[clarityiniowa]

duh.

[WSDave]

Agreed. Which is why it's so vitally important for individuals to get involved at the lowest levels of power and work up. Nieghborhood council, school board, city commissions, whatever. Non-partisan is better so as not alienate anyone. Just bring you Libertarian values into play at whatever level you can attain.
Okay, I'll stop now.

[NoStar]

At one time the Republicans (should have been the upstart AFL) started their own league.
At one time the Whigs looked firmly entrenched.

I think Libertarianism needs multiple institutions to bring policy to fruition. Think Tanks like CATO, Magazines like Reason, and a political party or two are all necessary.

The geniuses among us should be creating new libertarian institutions that service other parts of our lives. Putting all our eggs in one basket is not a good idea.

[clarityiniowa]

I hold rather a contrarian view that Libertarian's fortunes are actually brighter in the Democratic party, and that the Democrats would prosper as a loyal opposition were they to couch their ideals more in Libertarian terms. The past few days on H&R have given me a lot of fodder. I sort of outline it in my last few posts on my occasional when-I-have-time blog A Perpendicular View.

[c]

Doesn't the assertion that the Libertarian party is too influential for its own good seem self-evidently false to anyone else? I mean, if the difference between the success or failure of libertarian ideals in the mainstream hinges on the absolutely piddling number of actual, registered Libertarians, we're truly fucked.

[clarityiniowa]

c - I agree. I am a "fellow traveller" so to speak, and I spend a lot of time on the Iowa Lib. Party's email discussion group. They're great people, good company, men and women to have at your back. But by and large they are too Pollyanna-ish for me with regard to the behavior of Mass Humanity outside the rule of law. Take folks one by one, and they are generally okay. Take 'em in herds and they tend to be jumpy, panicky, paranoid, greedy and violent ? and to make a virtue of those attributes. No, I prefer my Libertarianism within some kind of coherent structure. I think "A nation of laws, not of men," just about does it for me.

[clarityiniowa]

thoreau -

Seriously, I don't understand the traditional preference of Libs for the Reps. Is it because they are at least honestly and openly authoritarian, rather than backdoor sneaky authoritarian like the Dems. No, wait, Reps keep talking about liberty while waving the flag in your face and pounding you in the head with a crucifix, so I guess that's pretty sneaky too.

[thoreau]

clarity-

The short answers is taxes and guns. And, to be fair, that is a decent answer.

[David T]

"At one time the Republicans (should have been the upstart AFL) started their own league.
At one time the Whigs looked firmly entrenched."

NoStar: the analogy won't do. The Republicans were formed in 1854-5 when the Whig Party was already collapsing under the weight of the Kansas-Nebraska bill and the rise of the Know Nothing movement. The only question was who would replace the Whigs as the major opposition to the Democrats--the Republicans or the "American" (Know Nothing) party? The 1856 election showed that it would be the Republicans.

The analogy with the Libertarians would be the Republicans getting practically nowhere (except in a few local races) for 35 years after 1855...

[Warren]

Except that nearly all candidates upon achieving office, betray all their libertarian supporters (even as they continue to placate them with rhetoric) in favor of increasing their own wealth and power.

[Josh]

I hold rather a contrarian view that Libertarian's fortunes are actually brighter in the Democratic party, and that the Democrats would prosper as a loyal opposition were they to couch their ideals more in Libertarian terms.

I'm sure the Democrats will be happy to adopt rhetoric that seeks to minimize centralized power as long as they don't actually have any of it, but they'll bolt as soon as they get it back. Cf. the GOP, 1994-2004.

[NoStar]

David T,
Perhaps it is the Democrats who are about to fall this time. Their coalition is developing cracks and has been for some time.

The Libertarians only lack for an Abraham Lincoln (or a Joe Montana) to lead them to victory.

[combustable]

ClarityinIowa,

I think you are right about the Dems being much better than the GOP on liberty. Some GOP talk a good game but their current policies are not free market, but cronyism and corpratism on economics and reactionary conformist on social policy and foreign affairs. I like you identify as a classical liberal. Democrats by and large don't support larger government than the GOP, the priorities are just different. Bush's spending being so much higher and inefficient than Clinton's proves the point. The GOP biggest influence on domestic policy is guys like Dobson and other theocrats, who love big government to promote marriage, take all "obsenity" off not just broadcast TV and radio, but cable and movie screens as well and promote a Christian values. Abu Gharab and the many other instances of torture are also Republican policy.

[WSDave]

As for spoiler votes, the Washington State Gubinitorial election takes the cake: 129 vote Dem victory (depending on the lawsuit) with 63,000 votes going to the Libs. The Dems and Reps may not like us, but they're begining to realize that, in a closely divided state, we WILL decide the election. Now it's up to us in Washington to reach out to both sides and make it easy for them to do some things that we want so that they MIGHT get our support next time.

[fyodor]

think of [policital parties] instead as the playoffs

I loved the metaphor but not the explanation, so I'm offering my own. Other teams are playing besides your own (which went 1-15) and so you have to choose to root for one over the other in order to making watching the game any fun even though you don't especially care who wins.

[jc]

Well he got the right sport anyway.

There's no real difference between the two conferences, and there's less and less difference between the 2 big parties.

[fyodor]

I remember once in the 70's when the NY Giants consistently sucked, as my family sat down to watch a playoff game, my uncle was pondering who to root for when he suggested that my father was stilling rooting for the Giants. No matter who was playing, he said, my father would still be rooting for the Giants! I guess that's the attitude Barnett is warning against...

[WSDave]

The more I think about this...

If Washington State actually had a functioning LP, the chair could walk into the offices of the other parties and say "I represent 63,000 votes which you obviously need. Here's a list of my demands.", or something to that effect. Both the Dem and Rep chair's heads are on the block for not providing a landslide election (according to the press, for what that's worth).

The Rep chair (Chris Vance) spent a few months before the election bad-mouthing Libs and saying how he would destroy the party in Washington. The Reps may well try to win us back now.

Too bad we're so scattered.

[Peter K.]

So he wants to "encourage libertarian political activists to focus on libertarian candidates and their fate"? Tell me please where are the libertarian candidates, outside the "purist party bearing the libertarian label"? Has any Democrat ever proposed getting rid of a government program, repealing a law, getting out of a war, AND at the same time support the return of the savings in the form of a tax cut? No. They ALWAYS advocate puuting the savings in some other idiotic scheme. Where is the Republican who supports a tax cut, who does not claim that the government can afford it by finding more efficient ways of running our lives, protecting us from the consequences of our own errors, etc.? There are none.

[clarityiniowa]

thoreau -

taxes and guns... hmmm, makes you guys seem awfully Floyd R. Turbo, or Frank Burns doesn't it?

[clarityiniowa]

Peter K. So he wants to "encourage libertarian political activists to focus on libertarian candidates and their fate"? Tell me please where are the libertarian candidates, outside the "purist party bearing the libertarian label"? Has any Democrat ever proposed getting rid of a government program, repealing a law, getting out of a war, AND at the same time support the return of the savings in the form of a tax cut? No. They ALWAYS advocate puuting the savings in some other idiotic scheme. Where is the Republican who supports a tax cut, who does not claim that the government can afford it by finding more efficient ways of running our lives, protecting us from the consequences of our own errors, etc.? There are none.

Has any major Libertarian office holder ever been in a position to do anything differently? No. There are none.

[fyodor]

There's no real difference between the two conferences, and there's less and less difference between the 2 big parties.

Compared to your own team, definitely, but you might still have a slight preference for humpty or dumpty, which by that point is all that matters anymore...

[Pedant]

"Well he got the right sport anyway."

Perhaps so. But anyone who still can't properly spell "Super Bowl" at this point in history automatically qualifies to have ample grains of salt attached to everything else he says.

The event has been taking place for nearly four decades now. It's the biggest annual spectacle of any kind in America. It's accompanied by weeks of inescapable media coverage. And yet the "brilliant" Randy Barnett's instinct is to write the name as "Superbowl."

Sorry, but sometimes little things really DO mean a lot.

[Ruthless]

I don't like the sports analogy either. I'm sticking with the Vestal Virgins: Keepers of the Flame.

And we should be proud we are less than 1 percent of the population. We'd have more influence if we made noises about limiting ourselves to a 1 percent ceiling!

[sage]

WSDave,

Do you go to the meetings and such? I live in Kitsap County and there are meetings here every month (I think), but I haven't been to one. I *have* been riding my reps with emails that drip with anger and sarcasm, since that's easier and likely more effective.

[Ken Shultz]

"Sorry, but sometimes little things really DO mean a lot."

So...um...just out of curiosity...uh...are you a woman or something?

[Trey]

I know of one libertarian in congress, and he is one of my heros. He is Dr. Ron Paul of Texas, and a Republican.

[Bigger Picture]

Libertarians tend to reflexively align with the Republicans, even as the Republicans leave them covered in santorum. The Greens tend to reflexively align with the Democrats, even as the Democrats appear to be frozen in stone (the Ds are the true conservative party in America; they want to change hardly a thing). Do the Greens face the same dynamic with the Dems as Libs face with the Reps?

If every lib-leaner bolted for the Libs, and if every prog/greenie left for the Greens, where would we be? Would we have 4 *relatively* equal parties? Is it in the interest of the Libs and Greens to bolster each other, so as to take the Dems and Reps down several notches? Right now things resemble a game of chicken. The Rep-aligned libs are afraid to abandon the Reps because they feel it will diminish their influence. The prog/greenies think they already have proof that they screwed up by deserting the Dems in 2000. But what if both factions got together and walked away simultaneously? What happens then? Or does it matter, given the way US elections are conducted?

[R C Dean]

Democrats by and large don't support larger government than the GOP, the priorities are just different.

This is simply not true. I can't think of any expansion of government by Republicans that Dems haven't either supported outright, supported but said it should be bigger, or opposed because it wasn't big enough.

And I don't think you can argue that Republicans are better on the issues of taxes and guns (which are not small issues).

For a Lib, the Republicans, sad to say, are the least bad alternative.

[Ken Shultz]

"This is simply not true. I can't think of any expansion of government by Republicans that Dems haven't either supported outright, supported but said it should be bigger, or opposed because it wasn't big enough.

George W. Bush blasted the budget through the roof because the Democrats put so much pressure on him? Am I really supposed to believe that?

"For a Lib, the Republicans, sad to say, are the least bad alternative."

I know it's a I know it's a grammar thing, but since that seems to be the order of the day, once again, the term "alternative" should only be used when there are only two options. The Libertarians are an option. The Democrats are an option. The Republicans are an option too--not an alternative. thing, but since that seems to be the order of the day, once again, the term "alternative" should only be used when there are only two options. The Libertarians are an option. The Democrats are an option. The Republicans are an option too--not an alternative.

[Ken Shultz]

That was weird.

[Eric the .5b]

All of this assumes two big premises:

1) That there are enough "lower-l" libertarians around to move the political consensus of one or both major parties.

2) Most of them vote for the LP come election time.

I am dubious about the first and flat-out don't believe the second, myself. I only voted for one LP candidate last year, and only because he 1) was serving in Iraq and thus not one of the nitwits I've learned to hate since 2001 and 2) not in a position to spoil a reasonably decent major-party candidate.

[Isaac Bartram]

...not in a position to spoil a reasonably decent major-party candidate.

Wow, where are you that there was "a reasonably decent major-party candidate"?

You sure as hell can't be living in Florida.

[Dynamist]

Both the Republican Political Conference (RPC) and the Democratic Political Conference (DPC) hold predjudiced views of "problems" and both offer state solutions. They are the political league. Libertarians play at the sandlot/park board level, and I don't think they play the same game, since they're not looking impose major structural solutions. They're more inclined to tear down the league. How about a salary cap on politicians and functionaries?

Although libertarians may never field an MVP (POTUS), they could get more people to play the local pick-up game. We're not going to see Jeffersonian agrarian lifestyles, but some of that self-reliant sentiment might be transferred to neighborhoods. The more my neighbors help each other, the less we need national policy intervention.

[clarityiniowa]

Plus, if, as thoreau asserts, the whole Libertarian universe boils down to guns and taxes, then you all are basically the Republicans' bitch and they know it. They have absolutely no incentive to listen to a thing you say because their comeback is simply that they've already got your primary issues covered.

[clarityiniowa]

But, hey, boys and girls, keep thinking inside that box, now, and keep doing the same thing over and over. Nothing insane about that...

[Dynamist]

clarity: I'm not convinced of your reading of Dem core values. Expanding civil rights is using state means to support privilege, less unilateral intervention is still bombing those who don't agree, and what appears as fiscal responsibility still grew the state without requiring accountability. As a platform, there's nothing there for me to stand on.

[Scott]

Yeah, it would be nice if the Democrats would couch their ideas in more "libertarian" terms, but the problem is they never will because those terms are diametrically opposed to everything they stand for. My view of politics is pretty simple. Republicans are wrong 50-75% of the time. Democrats are wrong 100% of the time. Even when they are right (ridiculing BoobieGate) they are still wrong because it isn't the power of government regulation that they are opposed to, it is the particular way in which said regulation is being enforced.

[combustable]

"This is simply not true. I can't think of any expansion of government by Republicans that Dems haven't either supported outright, supported but said it should be bigger, or opposed because it wasn't big enough."

Well on Medicare, Bush gave us a boondoggle that keeps growing exponentially in price (due to a delibrete misrepresentation about its cost)and which does not offer much to beneficiaries. A Democratic bill would not have been more costly than Bush's law will end up being and might be cheaper, at the same time as delivering many more benefits to people. Why? Because Bush's GOP bill forbids negotiating with the Drug Industry and pays them there very high retail prices. It was basically a huge transfer of tax dollars to the Drug Industry. What other large entity when purchasing billions of dollars of goods pays the full retail price? No business does this. Democrats and Republicans will basically spend the same amount of money, but Republicans use the money to reward large rich corporate campaign contributors and engage in foreign wars, while the Dems are more likely to use the money to provide benefits to Americans. On taxes, the GOP is only better because they run large deficits and don't pay for their spending. On civil liberties, the rights of the accused, separation of church and state, and torture the Dems are much better.

[clarityiniowa]

Dynamist - Okay, but like all idealists, you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. My point is, you have more to work with with the Dems. They are in chaos - why the hell else would they annointed Howard Dean as DNC chairman. There is a significant thread in the party right now trying hard to look forward rather than back to the New Deal. If the Libs are looking for somewhere to go where they may have a change to assert themselves, they have essentially three choices: Stay in the small lounge with the actual LP and wait for the entire rest of the world to decide to join them, join the Bush Republicans in their crusade for freedom for born again christians, when they don't really need you and are pretty sure they have you co-opted anyway, or you can throw what little influence you have where it has a chance of falling on fertile ground. Up to you, I'm just sayin'...

[clarityiniowa]

Scott - because those terms are diametrically opposed to everything they stand for. I'm wouldn't be so sure, man. I'm up for a job with the Iowa Democratic Party. They wouldn't even look at me with my track record if they weren't willing to think out of the box a bit at this point. My Libertarian leanings are fairly well known. I get published fairly regularly in the Des Moines Register and did radio commentary for 8 years.

[Xrlq]

All of this assumes two big premises:

1) That there are enough "lower-l" libertarians around to move the political consensus of one or both major parties.

2) Most of them vote for the LP come election time.

Nope, all it assumes under #2 is that a significant minority either vote for the LP come election time, or don't vote at all because they everyone they consider worth voting is running on a ticket where they can't win anyway.

[clarityiniowa]

Scott - Doo dah, doo dah. You sound like you're reading from the Republican playbook, man, you ARE their bitch. Let's say you're right, and every single Democrat in the country is a hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool commie pinko collectivist thug - What does every thug want more than anything else - more power. With their base slipping, where are they going to get it? If the Dems weren't receptive to change, there would have been no Welfare reform, no "Reinventing Government," which did far more in the way of restructuring and cost savings than it was ever credited for, no Gram-Rudman, no balanced budget. Times change, people and parties either change with them, or become extinct.

[scott]

If the Democrats make a move towards Libertarian thinking, I'd be the first to rejoice. The problem is I haven't heard a single prominent Democrate ever espouse a Libertarain idea. And balancing giant government budgets (Grahm-Rudman), or making a massive government programs run better(welfare reform), aren't exactly libertarian ideas. When they do sing a libertarian song (gay rights, abortion rights) the tune tends to be appalingly off (securing these rights through judicially manufactored special protections rather than the notion their are broad areas of life government has no business involving itself in).

[Eric II]

To those who don't think the Libertarian Party is missing out on the votes of an enormous number of libertarian-leaning voters, I'd ask the following questions:

1. About what percentage of Reason writers voted for Michael Badnarik last year, and how does that number compare with the percentage of writers at major right-wing publications that didn't vote for Bush, or the percentage at major left-wing publications that didn't vote for Kerry?

2. About what percentage of Hit & Run commentators supported Badnarik, and how does this compare with, say, the percentage of FreeRepublic.com voters who supported Bush?

3. Of the various blogs that you read whose authors have worldviews that can be considered libertarian, what percentage voted for Badnarik?

As Briah Doherty's post noted (albeit to make a different conclusion), there's an enormous tribal element to politics, in American as elsewhere. In the absence of a credible, non-loony libertarian candidate, large numbers of libertarian-oriented voters will throw their support behind a Democratic and Republican candidates, even as they're accutely aware of their shortcomings. The fact that they do so shouldn't be taken to mean that there wouldn't be a healthy amount of support for a libertarian-oriented party that isn't in the grip of extremists.

[clarityiniowa]

scott - Again, you make the mistake of making perfect the enemy of the good. When you train a dog, you reward every small approximation of the desired behavior, increasing the reward as the exhibited behavior increasingly matches what is desired. You don't wait for the dog to sit up on its own, then pet it, or you'll be waiting forever.

[clarityiniowa]

Eric II - Unfortunately, I think anyone who self-identifies as a Libertarian by definition qualifies as an extremist, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.

[clark]

Who wouldn't want to help Tom DeLay and George Bush win the Superbowl?

[Eric II]

"Unfortunately, I think anyone who self-identifies as a Libertarian by definition qualifies as an extremist, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place."

Do you think that writers like Virginia Postrel, Eugene Volokh, Andrew Sullivan, and P.J. O'Rourke are generally viewed as extremists? Or media figures such as John Stossel and Larry Elder? Or for that matter, most of Reason's columnists? A lot of people may disagree with them, but relatively few dismiss them as cranks. The same can't be said for the likes of Browne and Badnarik.

I'm not under any illusions here. I doubt that a credible libertarian party would be able to win more than 15% of the vote in a Presidential election at this time. But that would still be a hell of an improvement over what the LP is currently bringing in. And a support level like that would allow a number of Congressional and State offices to come into play. The more I like at the situation, the more it seems to me that the biggest problem here is a lack of vision.

[deron]

Clarity...

An alternative reason for the attraction to the Republicans. They said the right things, and until very recently it was easy for them to say those things. Libertarian rhetoric is a natural fit for the party not in power. It's easy when you are in the minority to lobby for smaller government; you're just denying perks to the other side. It's easy to be for states rights when you aren't in power; you're just promoting a forum you can win in.

Can a Democrat become a libertarian? I was driven to it by the Republicans. And, honestly by learning some economic realities (overcoming youth). An example of how the Republican's drove me to it. Piss Christ, the Republican's didn't want to fund a picture, because it was offensive. They missed the issue you, which is you fund everything or nothing at all. Since we all have opinions, nothing at all is a better path. Stem cell research is the same. Either fund science or get out. I became a free marketeer by different means, but on social issues the Republicans have driven me towards libertarianism with their love of cultural warfare.

As for the LP. It's run by people who can't see a first down as a worthy goal. It's four "hail marys" and turn the ball over. Don't even settle for a punt. Thoreau's got them right in that they seem to be about guns and taxes. I'm cool with gun rights, but that doesn't change the fact that some people are down-right scary. I want the government to shrink and my taxes to be cut, but there has to be a sensible approach.

Libertarianism is a robust and appealing political philosophy, but it like Democracy is the best choice of a bad lot. Libertarians don't always remember this in their rhetoric.

BTW, if I don't like the Republicans and don't agree with the Democrats, why shouldn't I support a third party?

[thoreau]

As for the LP. It's run by people who can't see a first down as a worthy goal. It's four "hail marys" and turn the ball over. Don't even settle for a punt.

I think that's a slight over-simplification. Everybody's willing to compromise on something. But not everybody is willing to compromise on the same thing, few are willing to make a BIG compromise, and nobody agrees on what the priorities should be.

More fundamentally, even if people are willing to compromise, they want to remind everybody that they're compromising on something that most people take for granted.

LPer: "OK, we'll accept a ban on private ownership of weaponized viruses...for now...but we demand the immediate legalization of concealed uzis within 1000 feet of a school. And we insist that ex-cons be allowed to carry uzis as well without a permit. If they've served their time then as a matter of fundamental justice that they have their rights restored."

Normal guy: "But, that's insane to let a convicted child molester carry an uzi near a school!"

LPer: "Hey, we already compromised on weaponized viruses (for now...), how many more infringements of the 2nd amendment do you want? Anyway, it's been fun talking to you, but my Druidic Council is meeting tonight, and I need to reapply my blue skin dye before I go."

I know, it isn't quite that bad, but if you feel the need to tell everybody when you're compromising (in order to satisfy your conscience), you still don't sound very moderate.

[Eric the .5b]

Isaac:
You sure as hell can't be living in Florida.

Correct.

[Eric the .5b]

And that got clipped. I live in Texas.

[Eric the .5b]

clarityiniowa:
My point is, you have more to work with with the Dems. They are in chaos - why the hell else would they annointed Howard Dean as DNC chairman.

Because they're feeling disgruntled and marginal against the eeeevil conservative hordes. The people who like Dean are the true believers who want more government power, not those who think they might be going in a wrong direction. I think the Democrats are likely to be more resistant to libertarian ideas for a while.

When they start a shift towards moderation, some people stomp off Green Party-wards, and they're still a minority, maybe they be more receptive.

[Eric the .5b]

Xrlq:
Nope, all it assumes under #2 is that a significant minority either vote for the LP come election time, or don't vote at all because they everyone they consider worth voting is running on a ticket where they can't win anyway.

That first option is still suspect - how "significant" a minority can such a group be if the entire group (all libertarians) is so small? That second doesn't require the existence of the LP.

[Eric the .5b]

thoreau:
I know, it isn't quite that bad, but if you feel the need to tell everybody when you're compromising (in order to satisfy your conscience), you still don't sound very moderate.

True, but the problem for most libertarians is that "compromising" positions and principles to make them unobjectionable to Democrats, or even just most people, ends up making you, well, something very much like a Republican.

In other words, libertarianism isn't moderate. It's not mainstream, it's not popular, it's not intellectually dominant.

I'm a guy who believes in the inescapable necessity and thus the moral justification for a state, private nuclear weapons strike me as a bad idea, and I don't deliberately violate traffic laws and write enraged screeds in my blog about them evil coppers every time I get caught. I'm pretty damn "moderate" for a libertarian, but to the rest of the political world, I'm a radical simply for thinking anything along the lines of "our government is too big and restricts us too much".

[Eric the .5b]

Deus ex Machina:
Frankly, at this moment, both parties have made Libertarians their bitches.

At this point, libertarians aspire to be fleas on the major parties' bitches.

[Sean Dougherty]

The hidden connection between being a Libertarian Party member and a hockey fan has been exposed! The NHL basically did form its own league that nobody cared about relative to football and this was recently exposed.

Now my world makes sense.

[kevrob]

The LP isn't in the AFC or NFC. The proper paradigm is England's Football Association. The Dems and the Reps are in the Premier League, while we Libs are mucking around in League Two, hoping for promotion, while risking relegation.

The primary system could conceivably provide an avenue to nominate a libertarian as a Donkey or Elephant for state legislature or even Congress, but the interest groups who infest the Big Two have even more clout in that process than in the general election. Does anyone think a potential lib-Dem who supports school choice won't get blackballed by his local teachers' union, or that a pro-choice lib-Rep won't get shot down by Right-To-Life activists? Both parties have litmus test issues that disqualify principled libertarians. Now, if you want to trim your sails in order to better fly under a false flag, go right ahead, mate.

One more thing. I know who Ron Paul is, as I suppose many on this board do. I was a Paul delegate to the Seattle convention that nominated him for President as a Libertarian for the 1988 campaign. Had Dr. Paul not had a career as a Republican Congressman in the early 80s, there is no way he would have been able to regain a seat in Congress in the 90s. As it was, Texas Republicans chose ex-Democrat Phil Gramm over Ron in a Senate primary contest, before Paul made his temporary leap to the LP. They were happier with a Boll Weevil than a libertarian.

Kevin

[Baylen]

Does this mean that the Reform Party is the USFL? And are the big-G Greens (or at least the quality if their ideas) the XFL? And since it seems the Republicans were never the AFL, should the goal of the big-L Libertarians actually be to become like the AFL?

Interesting re: Barnett's anaglogy, Fox gives media love to both the NFC and the Republicans he likens them to, while Dan Rather's CBS fellates the AFC and the Democrats he likens them to.