Joe Trippi: There Will be a Libertarian President. And Sooner Than You Think.
Joe Trippi has seen the future of presidential politics - and it's libertarian.
Trippi, the longtime Democratic political strategist who began his career working on Ted Kennedy's 1980 presidential campaign and is best-known for spearheading Howard Dean's Internet-fueled insurgency in 2004, says a strong run by a libertarian-leaning presidential candidate is inevitable. Four important changes in American politics are creating this opportunity: a socially tolerant public, the effective end of the two-party system, disruptive technologies, and the growing popularity of politicians such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
"The younger generation is probably the most libertarian and sort of tolerant, and has more libertarian values, I'd say, than any generation in American history," Trippi told Reason TV at a National School Choice Week event in San Francisco. An ardent defender of educational innovation, Trippi quips that he became a devoted proponent of school choice when he entered kindergarten at five years old.
When it comes to issues that are important to young voters – domestic spying by the N.S.A. and the legalization of marijuana, for example – libertarians are in touch with issues that the establishment won't go near, says Trippi. Public outrage has forced mainstream Republicans and Democrats to address the constitutionality of drone strikes and the expansion of presidential powers. But, he says, the political establishment will almost certainly do nothing more than tinker with a status quo that it helped to create.
That's why Trippi believes an outsider candidate should ditch the traditional two-party system and go it alone. As he demonstrated during Howard Dean's 2004 presidential run, a savvy candidate can leverage the Internet to mount a challenge from outside traditional pathways to power. Libertarian issues don't have enough support from within either party to win a presidential nomination, argues Trippi. But the Internet makes much of the partisan machinery irrelevant. He believes that crowdfunding is replacing $5,000-a-plate dinners and door-to-door campaigning is obsolete in the era of Facebook and "big data" analytics.
By taking advantage of these changes in American society, Trippi believes a candidate such as Rand Paul could mount a successful 21st century campaign. "[Paul] is so far the likely embodiment of who's going to raise the flag and take the hill," says Trippi. "[He] has a real shot at taking it." If Paul decides to run for president, Trippi projects "a fight of titans" against the establishment candidate at the Republican convention, comparing such a showdown to President Carter facing off against an insurgent Ted Kennedy at the 1980 Democratic convention.
Even if a libertarian fails to run outside of the established parties, Trippi is convinced that someone else will succeed. It's just a matter of time, he says, before we have a president who takes office without the backing of a political party.
About 22 minutes.
Produced by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Zach Weismueller. Interview by Krainin.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.
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
WRONG. The kind of politician who makes it all the way to actual contention is the one who along the way promises an assload of goodies to operatives behind the scenes and voters at every stump.
As a Democratic strategist, I reckon Mr. Trippi knows this.
Free shit works just like up here.
It's too intoxicating to ignore.
I don't believe either end of the American Political Duopoly will allow a libertarian President. Both sides have too much to lose, and players in the media have already chose their preferred flavor of politics.
The CPD set the guidelines for entering the debates, Gary Johnson met the standards and was still denied... so no they will not allow a freedom loving pol into a debate or allow the idea of there being more than "2" choices.
There Will be a Libertarian President. And Sooner Than You Think.
So the Grover Cleveland Reanimation Program is going well. Good to know.
We learned a lot from the Zombie Teddy Roosevelt project, and the Lich FDR disaster. Apparently, there's a higher potential for viable undeath in New Yorkers than Vriginians. Must be the evil in the water. Or the ritual circle under the state capital.
NOTE: The names of the Virgians we failed to Animate are classified under the Necromantic Operations Act. The text of the NO Act itself is classified under the National Occult Activities Monitoring Act.
On a minor note, we never did catch all the test subjects from the lab in Upstate NY, but its ok we just blamed it on bath salts
Not if "libertarians" keep voting for Republicans.
I am no fan of Republicans, but I can not even imagine someone approaching a libertarian being nominated by the Democrat Party.
Democrats are openly hostile to liberty.
I think when it comes to the rank and file there are positions taken that could amount to an impressive advancement of liberty, but for every one of them there is a statist position to match it, and their pols just seem to always deliver the latter but almost never the former.
Not that the GOP is much better. We all saw how much they shrunk the size and scope of government when they were in total charge B.O. (Before Obama). But at least they have some pro-liberty rhetoric than can be used to prod them into something good now and then.
Democrats are openly hostile to liberty, as in acting without having to ask permission or obey orders.
Republicans are closet Democrats who openly oppose abortion.
Democrat Party positions are rooted in equality above all else, which is definitionally incompatible with liberty. Hence, for example, they don't just want gay people to be free to contract marital unions, but to be able to force others to recognize and support them.
Libertarians should vote for libertarians.
If Mark Cuban ran for President he would pick up 20-30% of the popular vote.
The problem is that there has never been a popular appealing libertarian.
"Libertarians should vote for libertarians."
I agree, but I would make exceptions for any pol from the 'Big Two' who was significantly libertarian leaning such as Rand Paul or his father.
Considering Ron was the 1988 LP candidate (and a lifetime member of the party), the fact that he had a GOP label in 2008 and 2012 didnt make him not a Libertarian.
And he was clearly a libertarian.
His son too, but that is slightly less clear.
Well, Ron Paul has deviated from the LP Platform in some areas that one might find quite significant, but yes, he is essentially a libertarian, and certainly the closest thing in a national pol.
Has there been an LP candidate who didnt deviate from the LP Platform?
And which one?
The LP Platform has literally had nearly every position possible on, for example, abortion.
Has the LP Platform ever supported abortion restrictions or immigration restrictions, for an example?
I dont remember exactly, but it has been pro-lifish on abortion in the past.
I would like to see an example of that as I do not think one exists.
From a quick google search:
1972 plaform only opposed abortion restrictions in first 100 days.
Not a strong pro-life position, by any means, but fits "pro-lifish".
Thats as much research as Im gonna do, you can look up the history yourself.
Here is the 1972 LP Platform, I do not see the provision (and it is pretty weak tea, especially considering we're talking about before Roe came down, as you seem to concede) you are talking about in it.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29615
Its in there. Your reading skills just suck.
Its in the "Overpopulation" section, which was a bigger issue at the time than "Abortion".
Ha, ha, no wonder you did not link or quote it.
"We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days."
That is not an endorsement of any government restriction of abortion at all.
By your logic "We support the repeal of all laws restricting the use of marijuana for medical use" could be characterized as "anti-drug legalization(ish).
Sorry, robc, your socon proclivities just do not have the libertarian imprimatur you would like or wish for.
First Im a sympathizer and now I have proclivities?
You keep making stuff up.
Oh, 'sympathies' was what you candidly admit to, proclivities is implied.
By your logic "We support the repeal of all laws restricting the use of marijuana for medical use" could be characterized as "anti-drug legalization(ish).
A better analogy would be more like: "We support the repeal of all laws restricting possession of marijuana up to 1 ounce for personal use". If the LP platform actually said that, what position would you, arbiter of logic and True Libertarianism (TM), presume they took on laws restricting possession of quantities of marijuana over 1 ounce (to the extent they are already criminalized)? The qualifier implies acceptance, if not support, of restrictions beyond the qualifier. There's no reason to include the qualifier otherwise, and you can find plenty of examples in the LP platform, then and now, of unqualified statements.
It (implicitly) supports leaving in place laws restricting termination of pregnancy after 100 days.
Later platforms are much more pro-choice. Although some also mention murder, IIRC, while also not supporting any laws. The ones that acknowledge a wide range of libertarian positions on abortion.
That quote is EXACTLY what I said it was above. It opposes restrictions during the first 100 days.
It does not support it, you might could say it implicitly does not challenge them, but it gives no endorsement nor call for any restriction whatsoever. As I said, there is no such plank in a national LP Platform.
You do realize that even if your reading were a correct one that that position in 1972, before Roe was handed down, would hardly have been considered 'pro-life(ish)' for the time, right?
First, the LP does not have a monopoly on definition of the term libertarian. Second, have you even read the current LP platform?
"However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property."
Uhhh, wrong.
People want free shit.
Libertarians don't offer free shit.
Thus libertarian candidates are not popularly appealing.
Derp!
We offer free shit too.
Free speech, free press, free assembly, free etc.
It ain't free unless someone else is paying for it!
You don't "offer" those things, but hopefully you defend them as rights inherent in us all.
Nobody gives us our rights.
Nobody gives us our rights.
Duh. But considering the other parties take them away, we offer them. In comparison.
Bam.
BAM! just knocked it up another notch with my spice weasel
Doesn't count. Nobody cares about that shit.
Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Bob Barr.... no nothing appealing about these men and their policies at all
Keep up the stupid butt plug, golf clap, just fuck off because imbecile fits.
Trippi's trippin.
It merely depends on your definition of "libertarian".
We have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the Oval Office right now.
And here I thought it was a Piece Prize, for all those people he's droned into pieces.
Don't forget, President Peace Prize also ushered in the era of POSTRACIAL AMERICA.
Fucking narratives- how do they work?
If you start listing ALL of BHO's bizarro comments, we'll be here all day!
other people use the word libertarian to mean something completely different than I mean when I use it.
Reason seems to be redefining "libertarian" to mean "Rand Paul".
Look, I disagree with Rand Paul on some issues that are pretty important to me, but I think it is just clear that he is the closest thing to an LP nominee that exists as a national-level politician. Demanding 100% purity would be letting the perfect be the enemy of the very good.
He is an astute politician as well, and did manage his fathers prez bid. perhaps hes being careful not to become painted as a loony toon like the scum suckers did to Ron. I'd back Rand over The Duke currently. we need Cruz in the Senate where he can cause the most chaos for the Establishment pawns. and perhaps the free state project may yield some interesting politicians this year, a man can dream.
Demanding 100% purity would be letting the perfect be the enemy of the very good.
It'd also be impossible since, as the running joke goes, there's no such thing as a True Libertarian -- much less a Bo Cara Certified True Libertarian (TM).
I wonder what a successful campaign slogan for a libertarian-friendly USA would look like.
"A monocle on every chain"
"Don't swap orphans when crossing the factory floor" (if we were lucky enough to have a two term libertarian president)
"He kept us out of everything"
"Supporting AND Defending the Constitution"
"No Slaves, No Masters"
"Equality of circumstance, not equality of outcome"
"Taking back America, the American way"
"Because Liberty isn't a 4 letter word"
I could go all day
"You DID build that!"
"It's your life.... protect it!"
"No Slaves, No Masters"
I like that one a lot.
Its the Anarchist motto "No States, No Slaves / No Gods, No Masters"
"if you like your freedom you can keep it"
I think when it comes to the rank and file there are positions taken that could amount to an impressive advancement of liberty
You're completely full of shit on this, for the simple reason that the ostensibly "liberty-minded" people you are referring to believe RIGHTS ARE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
A person who believed that rights were granted by the government, but who thought that once granted they should be broadly and vigorously applied, would be immeasurably better than what we currently have.
A person who understands the english language enough to read the constitution would go even further
That's a naive position. Granted by the government negates all the rights granted. In fact, might be more insidious since the currying favor would be the only way to keep your rights. Instead of just enforcing existing law that removes government as the granting agency.
So where do rights come from?
I wonder what a successful campaign slogan for a libertarian-friendly USA would look like.
IF YOU WANT IT DONE RIGHT, DO IT YOURSELF.
"Libertarians smoke dope wrapped in gold rolling papers!"
"Go 'way, pardoning..."
"Empty out the prisons to make room for the Bush/Obama cabinet."
"Judge Napolitano for Attorney General, Willie Nelson for FDA, Ron Paul for Treasury, and unfilled vacancies for all the other departments"
Good news/bad news - This guy used to be a campaign advisor for the Presidential bids of Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale and Howard Dean. So on the one hand, it casts doubt on his political savvy, but on the other hand, it shows how a Democrat pol can get into freedom.
His idea of freedom is freedom to do young women on yachts, and freedom to kill young women in cars. I'm surprised he didn't switch to Clinton once Bill met Monica.
how does it cast doubt on his political savvy? Do you know whether those candidates would've done better or worse without him?
I agree wholly. I'm tired of the idea that there are no Democrats amenable to libertarianism; I feel like it shuts off a large part of an otherwise potentially sympathetic electorate. Howard Dean was a pro-gun, tax-cutting, and budget-balancing fiscal conservative and pioneering social liberal who ran in direct opposition to Bush's statism. He leans a bit more to the traditional left than most libertarians, but if Rand Paul can lean a bit to the right of most libertarians, why can Paul be in the fold and Dean can't? Why do libertarians assume that the legions of Dean supporters, people who aligned with the Democrats in 2004 and 2008 as an opposition to Bush-era authoritarianism, are totally closed off to libertarianism? A lack of outreach towards anti-authoritarian Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents is, my estimation, a potentially big problem for libertarians; at least, it will be if we want to win elections.
The real reason we could have a libertarian president is the complete and utter dysfunction brought about by a corrupt and greed-driven two party system.
Reps and Dems will co-opt any idea that have been written in stone by libertarians and claim it as their victory.
Already, my Dem peeps have the belief that legal homebrewing and tap-rooms, legal geef, and gay marriage were the result of their hardwork and sacrifice.
I think we have real promise in states like Oregon. I think that Republican branding has been so tainted that people simply will not vote Republican, even if they are absolutely opposed to all things Democrat. If the Republican party were prescient enough (and some actually are), they could intentionally choose to back a Libertarian Senate candidate this term and not run a Republican candidate. Merkley would probably lose to a focused Libertarian if the Repubs chose not to run someone. Additionally, Wyden could probably be talked into switching to the Libertarian party if a Libertarian won. I hope he either switches to the Libertarians or retires. I'd rather claw my eyeballs out than vote for a Democrat now, but I'm a huge Wyden fan.
Fellow Oregonian here, and I totally agree. I love Ron Wyden, and I wish that people would be as quick to label him a libertarian as they are Rand Paul because, well, he is. He deviates from the fold in a leftward direction sometimes, but Paul similarly deviates leftward, so if the latter can be in the movement, why can't the former? Paul/Wyden would be an extremely formidable independent or LP ticket in 2016, although my dearest dream would be to see a true Libertarian Party, with proper wings instead of an insistence on ideological rigidity, with Ron Wyden's positions representing the left wing and Rand Paul's representing the right. That would be an actual third party with a serious chance.
What a crock. There will never be a libertarian president. There won't even be another conservative president nor a Republican one for that matter. We are way, way past the point of no return.
Free stuff rules, and that is the only thing the demented low-information voter (now in the majority) understands. Freedom and democracy be damned. I have a right to your stuff, and I know that because Obama told me so.
If that were true Cruz and Paul would not be in the government. Your points is also invalid because there is no free shit fountain. It will run out and government will be cut. Just like in Canada and Sweden it will happen in America.
If that were true Cruz and Paul would not be in the government.
Because Texas and Kentucky are representative of political attitudes across the entire country.
Jesus Christ man, are you even vaguely familiar with the difference between local and national politics?
Except for the fact that Rand Paul is a fucking idiot.
Hes also a successful Doctor.... what is it you do to better society tony? Troll the Libertarians because you cant stand freedom?
Keep poking him. I want to see if he'll throw a tantrum and hold his breath.
Rand Paul is doing active harm to the country by being 1 of 100 senators. So I have him beat if I'm sitting on the sidewalk playing with myself.
Ha! Good one, Tony! I like Rand, but I"m also an AnCap, so good on 'ya.
Wait a minute! Who are you and what have you done with Tony?
HUR
It's gonna be fun watching Tony and his ilk shit themselves during Rand's run for president even if he doesn't win.
Oh please no I'm so scared.
I just cannot see a true libertarian getting anything done within the present system.
I won't hold my breath.
I just cannot see a true libertarian getting anything done within the present system society.
I won't hold my breath.
FTFY
I whole heartedly disagree.
First of all, assuming that elections are honest and every vote is accurately counted (which I doubt), the Red and Blue camps unite with every under handed trick in the book and a few new ones to make SURE that no liberty minded candidate will win.
But I do wish I live long enough to witness this happening.
Theres already a Libertarian in the House... give it a little time and have faith freedom is infectious
I agree. Additionally, the several polls suggest to me that millenials have now been successfully inoculated against the silly racial pandering so prevalent today. The future is bright.
the several polls suggest to me that millenials have now been successfully inoculated against the silly racial pandering so prevalent today.
I'd love to see the polls that you think suggest that. Given the rate at which young people voted for Obama, and the probable reason why they did, I'm inclined to think that's full of more shit than a septic tank.
give it a little time and have faith freedom is infectious
How the actual fuck did we get into this position from the anemically minarchist federal government we started with if that is the case?
If he was a Kennedy advisor after Chappaquiddick then I won't listen to anything he says.
Why? Isn't that when he needed advice the most? Or are you saying that Ted's behavior immediately afterward proved he wouldn't take advice anyway?
Nice that we're having this conversation...Young Americans are strapped not only with this huge national debt, but many have huge college loan debt. They will not continue to vote for the old guard when the broken treadmill has no off switch. However, "free stuff" for votes is pretty hard to beat.
However, "free stuff" for votes is pretty hard to beat.
Until you don't have free stuff. This is already happening at the state level. Walker's reforms. Tax reform all over the place.
Walker's reforms.
... which are in the process of getting him drummed out of office and will be repealed in about 15 seconds.
One of the biggest hurdles is access to the mainstream media. Even in today's world of the Internet, they still exert a tremendous amount of influence and are just little pets of the two-party establishment.
Rand Paul might be fine and all, but he's a threat to the establishment and to his own party. The MSM will do all they can to prevent this from ever happening.
Time to stop casting Rand Paul as a "threat" to the GOP establishment. He, and the ideas he represents, are not a threat to the GOP--they are it's future. More and more of them in the LSM are realizing this.
It's easy to sit on the sidelines playing the dandy with the LP, but anyone serious about the practical advancement of these ideas (in culture and policy) knows that the name of the game is to take over the GOP.
Trippi seems to discount (ignore?) the difficulty of ballot access by outside parties.
I don't necessarily disagree with his conclusion. Sure, given a long enough timeline, someone "libertarian" will (again) become president. If there is a real economic calamity, it is almost a foregone conclusion we'll have a libertarian president?whether they want to be one or not. Trippi's premises seem laughably wrong, though:
The first sounds like simple conflation of tolerance of gay people with actual tolerance. No question homosexuality has been mainstreamed, but the public at large remains highly intolerant of most thought outside the mainstream, whatever it may be. The assertion about the two-party system appears to be wrong on its face. And regarding Paul, "Well, let's not start sucking each others' dicks quite yet."
I think this is also wrong. The size and scope of the federal government and state intrusion into people's lives would have seemed inconceivable to the average, early 19th century American.
If there is a real economic calamity, it is almost a foregone conclusion we'll have a libertarian president
Yeah, like Roosevelt and Obama. The two most libertarian presidents who ever did president.
I meant a much more serious economic catastrophe, as in one where the dollar loses its status as a reserve currency. It could usher in a very authoritarian president, but I'm skeptical of whether a centralized government paid in zim dollars could exercise as much influence over the entire country as it can now.... Maybe, but that's what I meant by an executive not libertarian by choice, but weakened by circumstance. Regardless, not an appealing prospect, which is why I hope we get some earnest libertarians in power to salvage the situation.
It's more important to elect someone with a libertarian philosophy than from the Libertarian party. At this point a Republican who believes in fiscal responsibility and personal freedom is the most likely candidate.
Seriously - which is more important? The lable or the actions?
Except we haven't had a libertarianish candidate get close to the GOP nomination in what, 2 decades now?
I'd argue this goes both ways. A fiscally conservative and socially liberal Democrat, a Howard Dean or Brian Schweitzer, is an even more likely presidential candidate than a Ron Paul Republican, but I never seem to see libertarians opening up en masse to support them. A movement that's not willing to become a subset of one party needs to support candidates amenable to their ideas in both.
RE: " It's just a matter of time, he says, before we have a president who takes office without the backing of a political party.
About 22 minutes."
23 minutes have gone by since I read that, and we still don't, damn it!
If it's not going to happen from inside the GOP, then here's what I see as the most likely alternative.
1. Free state project gets a libertarian in the NH Governorship.
2. ???
3. Independent/LP run for president, now with executive experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1cgYYMpKmI
About the best you can hope for is a libertarian Ross Perot. That'll be our big moment. Coming close to a national election and getting blamed for a couple generations for tipping it to whichever candidate from the real parties ends up winning. And it'll have about the same long-term effect on independent politics.
Sorry - Trippi isn't credible= he worked for three losing candidates Kennedy Mondale and Dean three socialists. He didn't mention that the reason that Romney lost is because of the racial quotas for immigration that his candidate (T Kennedy) was shifted from Asians and eastern europeans (likely to vote republican to africans and latinos -(likely to vote democratic) If the racial makeup of the country was the same as in 1980 then Romney would have won by a bigger landslide than Reagan did.
The only libertarian idea he seemed to like was school choice. He didn't mention any other choice issue.