[Pope Perseus Peptabysmal]

I just want to throw this out here because it seems most people in the Conservative forum are Libertarians...

Anyway, I live in the backwater part of Missouri and basically everything is run by Republicans. No big deal really, I mean, does it really matter if your Sheriff(spelling) is Democratic or Republican? Nothing really matters at this level of government because we are strong armed by the State and *spit* Federal government. Of course, I dunno why I'm asking this cause I can't vote for another 2 years and the fact if I actually supported the LP I'd be outcasted by my family (Republicans, not a bad thing so meh) and the fact most people I know would be like "WTF is the Libertarian Party?"

I've seen a few LP candidates on the ballot locally (Comissioner, Clerk, maybe a state senate seat, etc etc) [The idiots running the election also switched the Libertarian symbol with the Democrat donkey... idiots] and they get the remaining share of the votes left over from the Dems and Repubs. But the question remains: What can realistically be done to advance the LP? Would it take a Libertarian Governor to be appreciated nation wide? Libertarians have been lampooned on TV by the Jimmy Kimmel show when he had a zealous Libertarian rant about the tyranny of taxes (True, but of course the braindead audience just laughed). But I'm just left scratching my head on what to do.

[Terca]

The only way to do it quickly is to get all the corporate and private money out of elections so the third parties will stand a chance.

Possibly it can be done slowly, state by state, with lots of private donations and by convincing people that libertarianism won't lead to 18th century immigrant working conditions and starvation for a majority of America's working poor.

[The American Lion]

First things first that the LP needs to start small. Because since its a new and small party. Its needs to be local. A 3rd party getting city or county positions is great. They need to keep going. They need to go in steps to earn the trust of the locals.

Also note you may need know who are your voters are. Lets give the city of San Franisco. The city is very liberal. So there is no way the LP could ever land a position in that city. Hell, SF is so liberal. At last years mayorial campaign; the Republican Party came in 3rd and the Green Party came in 2nd and the Democrats won the vote. BTW they Green and Democrat votes were very close. Probaly next year we could have the Greens have control of SF. The best chance for the LP to run is to run in cities or counties that have a moderate left or right stance; you could also check most right stance. Since the LP have both left and right stances they have a good chance of grabing most moderates.

I just hope the LP have good luck this year. I can trust LPs in power instead of Democrats.

[Agent Buckwalter]

While I can be called a Libertarian Conservative, I stick by my view that the policies of the LP are 1/3 Conservative, 1/3 Liberal, and 1/3 just plain nuts.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Bring out your moderate fringe. See, the main two parties try to silence their extremist fringes in order to win the center of the country-- the Libertarians seem to encourage and promote their extremists, and it hurts your image.

Ranting about the "tyranny" of taxation hurts your credibility-- as well it should. Focus on lowering taxes, and cutting wasteful or excessive spending before cutting spending in areas people consider vital.

Essentially, the Libertarians need to learn to compromise and to work a piece at a time towards their political agendas, like more successful, mainstream parties.

[The American Lion]

Also whats hurting them is that their isolationist. Most Americans dont like isolationism.

[Tex]

Essentially, the Libertarians need to learn to compromise and to work a piece at a time towards their political agendas, like more successful, mainstream parties.

Excellent point. The Constitution was designed in a way so that radical change is very unlikely. The "founding fathers," with whatever flaws they may have had, by today's standards, were insightful enough to realize that emotionally-driven movements come and go, and that "new" ideas need to be tested over time, before becoming the law of the land.

For example, they generally tried to avoid the issue of slavery, probably because they feared the effect of civil war on a fledgling republic. It eventually came to pass, anyway, and may have even been inevitable, but they "bought time" for the country to establish itself on some basic principles that were shared by both sides of the state's rights/slavery issues...which helped mend the country after re-unification.

The more extreme libertarians want radical change, and that usually requires revolutionary-type tactics that will bring on a paradigm shift in the perceptions of the general public. The general public rarely wants radical change, once they have understood everything it entails.

My personal opinion is that where Libertarians are failing is in attracting Democrats, because a large number of those who vote Republican already lean towards libertarianism, without even realizing it...they just don't buy the entire package. If there were more or less equal numbers of this type in both major parties, they might be able to form coalitions on a few issues and break the cycle of Congressional gridlock, occasionally. If such a situation could be established, a single charismatic politician could declare himself a Libertarian candidate and influence the outcome of a presidential election, as Ross Perot did in '92. Had he been more of a libertarian, and less of a "nutcase," he might have even won.

[Noumenon]

Well we need to worry about getting someone in Congress before we worry about advancing state by state. Honestly, things don't look so good. We might be able to get one or two representatives in the House in the near future, but anything beyond that is just wishful thinking. The problem is that the LP can't move towards the center without abandoning their entire philosophy. A philosophy of non-aggression and natural rights doesn't allow for compromise. You can't abide by those philosophies and think some violation of rights or some initiation of force is okay. The primary difference between the LP and the two major parties is that the LP is philosophy oriented, while the two major parties take a utilitarian approach of "whatever works" or "whatever's popular." The LP will never become popular unless people adopt our philosophy. And teaching philosophy to the masses is no easy task. Thats why Ayn Rand thought individualists should focus entirely on teaching philosophy, rather than politics. I think both are needed.

I have thought about the possibility of a "Freedom" party, that would adopt an entirely utilitarian approach, like the two major parties. Such a party would not take any extreme positions, just advocate whatever leads in a direction of more freedom. I think it would be enormously successful, since there is a huge percentage of Americans, especially non-voting ones, who lean in a small-L libertarian direction, but do not adopt the philosophy or "extreme" positions of the LP. It may not be as good as the LP, but at least we'd be moving in the right direction with such a party in power.

But the LP could never do that, since it is philosophy oriented. It would require the creation of an entirely new party. I think I would join it too, since even though philosophically I agree with the LP, in the real world they haven't done much to move the country in a direction of more freedom.

Excellent point. The Constitution was designed in a way so that radical change is very unlikely. The "founding fathers," with whatever flaws they may have had, by today's standards, were insightful enough to realize that emotionally-driven movements come and go, and that "new" ideas need to be tested over time, before becoming the law of the land.

The funny thing here is that simply advocating a strict constructionist view of the Constitution is "radical." I think most libertarians would be relatively satisfied if we could go back to the limited government ideals of the Constitution. I know I would.

My personal opinion is that where Libertarians are failing is in attracting Democrats,

It is impossible to get a liberal Democrat to lean libertarian without changing his philosophy. However, you are right in that we hardly even try to reach out to them. Some might be attracted to our non-agression philosophy.

[Tex]

I have thought about the possibility of a "Freedom" party, that would adopt an entirely utilitarian approach, like the two major parties. Such a party would not take any extreme positions, just advocate whatever leads in a direction of more freedom. I think it would be enormously successful, since there is a huge percentage of Americans, especially non-voting ones, who lean in a small-L libertarian direction, but do not adopt the philosophy or "extreme" positions of the LP. It may not be as good as the LP, but at least we'd be moving in the right direction with such a party in power.

Exactly. There are always factions within any group, political or otherwise, that lean conservative, moderate, or liberal in the way they interpret the group's purpose. Some are purists, and will seldom yield from any position that seems to dilute the group's original ideas, and some will always be quick to accept any change that will attract more interest from the outside. Most are more moderate and will make compromises between the two, only when it is necessary for the survival of the group. It is really only another extension of the philosophy of democracy.

When you actually break it down, the label placed on the party is less important than whether it accomplishes something useful. Creating a new party is much like creating a new business...you have to target a demographic category that might be willing to embrace something new and untested, and convince enough people, quickly, so that you can "stay afloat," while waiting for an issue or event that will trigger exponential growth.

With the short attention spans of today, it is very difficult to sell anything that doesn't promise instant gratification of some sort. This seems to be true, whether the subject is politics, religion, or anything else that requires some measure of philosophical commitment.

A person who adheres unerringly to any basic philosophy finds himself being labeled a radical, because he has to take unpopular stands, either for or against the "hot-button" issues that come and go on a daily basis. If a purist begins to compromise, for the sake of gaining the public support needed for survival, then his earlier statements...before he moderated them... will inevitably come back to "haunt" him further down the line. It's a vicious circle that all politicians have to deal with on a continuous basis, and the reason the two existing parties have been corrupted from their original roots. The only thing that will overcome this phenomenom is the personality of the public "representative" of the party, usually the presidential candidate, in American politics. A John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan-type person can get away with inconsistencies in their philosophy...compromise...because people instinctively like them. It requires moral courage and commitment to an ideal to oppose someone you genuinely like, on the basis of principle, and the majority of people simply won't do it. The result is that a new party ends up playing the same numbers and statistics games that the existing parties play...tailoring their message so that it appeals to the largest number of the undecided, while not alienating the party loyalists (the purists).

Logically, at least from my perspective, it makes more sense for Libertarians to "infiltrate" the existing parties, and find a way to "steal" resources from an existing base of power, and incrementally change the existing political trends. Eisenhower did this in 1952, in a way. Nobody knew whether he was a Democrat or Republican...but almost everybody liked him and wanted him to enter the Presidential race, regardless of party affiliation...he simply took the best offer...all the resources of an established party...that was willing to conform to his beliefs. The Democrats had a good man in Adlai Stevenson, but he stood no chance against someone who was perceived by Americans as the guy who kicked Hitler's ass.

The Democrat Party is "ripe for the plucking," because they have squandered most of their moral authority...giving "candy" to their various constituencies, when what they really need is bread. They have an ideological vacuum that could be filled by a charismatic person who also possessed enough character and courage to attract some of those independent voters that care more about the long-term effects on the country than instant gratification.

The Republicans, on the other hand, already have a conservative base that can be inspired by any candidate that simply adheres to traditional American values...and much of that already blends quite nicely with libertarian beliefs. If libertarians could ever get a candidate nominated in the Democrat Party, it is conceivable that some day there might be a national election in which each candidate is trying to posture himself as the most libertarian...an ideal situation, in which even the supporters of the loser could find solace in the fact that they had "shaped" the debate in a positive direction.

I know it seems ridiculous to suggest that the Democrat Party could ever accept a libertarian philosophy...but the Republican Party is full of ex-Democrats that would not have believed their party could take the direction it already has...and it is not inconceivable that libertarians could gain a foothold and drive the socialists into the Green Party...because the hardcore liberals in the Party are getting old, and the "rising stars" are mostly political opportunists, who will make a "deal with the devil," if it will further their ambitions to power.

[Noumenon]

Exactly. There are always factions within any group, political or otherwise, that lean conservative, moderate, or liberal in the way they interpret the group's purpose. Some are purists, and will seldom yield from any position that seems to dilute the group's original ideas, and some will always be quick to accept any change that will attract more interest from the outside. Most are more moderate and will make compromises between the two, only when it is necessary for the survival of the group. It is really only another extension of the philosophy of democracy.

The thing with the LP is that there are purists and no one else. I admit to being a purist myself. However, a party with nothing but purists isn't going to grow and be able to compete with the major parties. If a new "freedom" party is created, I would be content to be in the minority of purists. Since the party would be based on utilitarianism, or whatever advances the cause of liberty, both purists and non-purists would be welcome.

When you actually break it down, the label placed on the party is less important than whether it accomplishes something useful. Creating a new party is much like creating a new business...you have to target a demographic category that might be willing to embrace something new and untested, and convince enough people, quickly, so that you can "stay afloat," while waiting for an issue or event that will trigger exponential growth.

Well I think the LP is doing a good job of staying afloat, but the exponential growth part is not happening.

A person who adheres unerringly to any basic philosophy finds himself being labeled a radical, because he has to take unpopular stands, either for or against the "hot-button" issues that come and go on a daily basis. If a purist begins to compromise, for the sake of gaining the public support needed for survival, then his earlier statements...before he moderated them... will inevitably come back to "haunt" him further down the line.

Well I think a new philosophy is needed, to avoid inconsistancy. It would be a combination of natural rights and utilitarianism. I could believe that taxation is absolutely wrong, but still believe low taxes are a good and desireable goal because they move in the direction I advocate. That compromise doesn't necessarily make me a hypocrite. I am not contradicting my belief that taxation is wrong. I am simply adopting a utilitarian approach to the problem.

With the short attention spans of today, it is very difficult to sell anything that doesn't promise instant gratification of some sort. This seems to be true, whether the subject is politics, religion, or anything else that requires some measure of philosophical commitment.

I think a Freedom party would offer instant gratification. The only thing that people need to be convinced of is that a little freedom benefits them instantly. The LP does not offer instant gratification. Even by the most optimistic estimate, our policies are a long way off from being implemented. It might not even happen in our lifetime, or ever.

A John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan-type person can get away with inconsistencies in their philosophy...compromise...because people instinctively like them. It requires moral courage and commitment to an ideal to oppose someone you genuinely like, on the basis of principle, and the majority of people simply won't do it. The result is that a new party ends up playing the same numbers and statistics games that the existing parties play...tailoring their message so that it appeals to the largest number of the undecided, while not alienating the party loyalists (the purists).

The thing that was wrong with Reagan is that his policies moved the country in the opposite direction of his philosophy. He said he was for small government, but government got much bigger under his administration. If for example he believed in very small government, but only adopted policies that led to somewhat smaller government, he would not be a hypocrite. At least he would be moving things a in a direction closer to his philosophy.

Logically, at least from my perspective, it makes more sense for Libertarians to "infiltrate" the existing parties, and find a way to "steal" resources from an existing base of power, and incrementally change the existing political trends. Eisenhower did this in 1952, in a way. Nobody knew whether he was a Democrat or Republican...but almost everybody liked him and wanted him to enter the Presidential race, regardless of party affiliation...he simply took the best offer...all the resources of an established party...that was willing to conform to his beliefs. The Democrats had a good man in Adlai Stevenson, but he stood no chance against someone who was perceived by Americans as the guy who kicked Hitler's ass.

The problem is that if purist libertarians like me join one of the major parties, we will be alienated. Our goals are not even in the same direction, at least one many issues. The advantage of creating a new Freedom party is that the goal is consistant with libertarian philosophy - in the end, pure freedom. The only difference is the method. Instead of radical change, incremental change. The purist libertarians would not be alienated because everyone in the party shares the same end goal.

Can you think of a better name for such a party? "Freedom Party" sounds kind of cliche, and what would we be called, freedomarians? Freedocrats? There has to be something better.

[Demosthenes]

The thing with the LP is that there are purists and no one else.

That's because those who see themselves as non-purists end up voting Republican...

Well we need to worry about getting someone in Congress before we worry about advancing state by state.

I disagree with this, I think starting at the local or state level is the way to get someone in Congress. Start small and make a name for yourself locally. Then start taking the plunge for vulnerable Congressional seats.

But if I understand the constituancy correctly this party has a bit of natural disadvantage when it comes to entrenching itself in American politics, that is because the constiuency is not largely backed coorporately. Which means indidual donations must be relied upon to support the party and let's face it, individuals cannot compete with coorporations in terms of fund rasing.

The problem is that the LP can't move towards the centre without abandoning their entire philosophy. A philosophy of non-aggression and natural rights doesn't allow for compromise

.

I don't follow you at all here. I'm assuming you're referring to the Iraq war and implying Libertarians don't support it due to Isolationist tendancies, but I don't find that to be the case in all respects. In fact, as far as I knew (?) Libertarians were largely in support of the Iraq war, according to Neil Bortz anyway...maybe I am mistaken. If so, I find I have less in common with Libertarians afterall.

The primary difference between the LP and the two major parties is that the LP is philosophy oriented, while the two major parties take a utilitarian approach of "whatever works" or "whatever's popular."

I really don't think this is all that true. There are many Libertarians who think they are Libertarians simply because the party advocates legalized drug use. (A stance I can never justify) In fact I have known a few who claimed to be Liberatarian for just this reason, or would vote for them as a protest vote, but really had no clue what that meant nor what the party really stands for. Perhaps you're referring to actual card carrying Libertarians, in which case I have less experience.

In some ways, I think you're over analyzing this. In large part I agree with Tex. The current parties as we know them have morphed over time to suit changes in the masses before, and I think that is simply the best way to handle it, in the shortest amount of time. Screw a philosophy or party that won't come to fruition in my time. I mean, I'm patient, I don't have to have everything right this second, but no one will ever join a cause they see as hopeless or unimplementable. That is just silly.


Keep it simple. Needless overanalyzation only alienates those whom this party wishes to serve. If the average IQ is between 100 and 110, then your polices and pursuits must be expalinable to people in this range or they'll simply take you as a pseudo-intellectual elitist. (Dems, case in point). Somtimes, maybe even most of the time things really are jsut as simple as they are, and it's best to keep it that way.

[Korimyr the Rat]

The thing with the LP is that there are purists and no one else.

That's because those who see themselves as non-purists end up voting Republican...

Or getting thrown out for supporting our public schools, and ending up so pissed off that they become raging social democrats...

[Noumenon]

That's because those who see themselves as non-purists end up voting Republican...

Or not voting at all. The problem with Republicans is that despite being the lesser of two evils, they are still moving the country in a less free direction. So the choices for a non-purist libertarian are these: vote Democrat, which rapidly leads to a loss of freedom, vote Republican, which leads to a somewhat slower loss of freedom, or vote LP, which does not lead to anything. This is why a Freedom party is needed. It would lead to an incremental increase in freedom, and it would accomplish that by having broad appeal. Anyone who wants to move the country in a more free direction would be welcome, including purist libertarians, non-purist libertarians, libertarian-leaning Republicans, and centrists who dislike both the other parties.

I disagree with this, I think starting at the local or state level is the way to get someone in Congress. Start small and make a name for yourself locally. Then start taking the plunge for vulnerable Congressional seats.

Well I think you need national recognition also in order to be considered a legitimate party. But I agree that the LP needs to focus more locally.

I don't follow you at all here. I'm assuming you're referring to the Iraq war and implying Libertarians don't support it due to Isolationist tendancies, but I don't find that to be the case in all respects. In fact, as far as I knew (?) Libertarians were largely in support of the Iraq war, according to Neil Bortz anyway...maybe I am mistaken. If so, I find I have less in common with Libertarians afterall.

No, actually I was referring to the non-aggression principle, which states that it is immoral to initiate force against another person. The LP was founded on this philosophy. It leads to "extreme" positions however, such as legalizing all drugs (to prevent a person from using drugs is to initiate force against them). Personally, I go for a more natural rights approach, which would still call for the legalization of all drugs. I believe that every person has a natural right to property, and that each person's body is his own property. Therefore it would be immoral to infringe upon that property by telling them what they can and cannot do with it (which includes telling them they can't use hard drugs).

The problem with a philosophy-oriented party is that it requires people to adopt an alien mode of thought, which is first accepting a principle and then applying that principle to all of their beliefs. If you accept the non-aggression principle, then you pretty much have to accept all of the party platform, to be consistent. Most people think in a more utilitarian way. They have a goal in mind, "equality" for the socialists/liberals, "morality" or "security" for conservatives, etc, and they adopt their beliefs according to whatever advances that goal. A Freedom party would operate in the same way, with "freedom" as the goal. Anything which leads to more freedom is accepted, anything that does not is rejected. This is easy for people to understand and accept. And it does not lead to extreme conclusions. Such a party could simply advocate lower taxes, without having to advocate abolition of all taxes, like the LP.

On a side note, yes, mostly all Libertarians oppose the Iraq war. War generally leads to an expansion of state power and a reduction in liberty, and should be avoid unless it is really necessary. Most libertarians don't see how Iraq posed an imminent threat, and so they don't see how the Iraq war was necessary.

A Freedom party would have to be against unneccesary wars, since that would lead in a direction of more freedom. However, they wouldn't take it to the extremes of the LP, which generally believes that war isn't justified unless you are actually being attacked.

I really don't think this is all that true. There are many Libertarians who think they are Libertarians simply because the party advocates legalized drug use. (A stance I can never justify) In fact I have known a few who claimed to be Liberatarian for just this reason, or would vote for them as a protest vote, but really had no clue what that meant nor what the party really stands for. Perhaps you're referring to actual card carrying Libertarians, in which case I have less experience.

I really think thats a very small percentage of Libertarians. Such people would be alienated the instant they learned about the LP's stances on other issues. A Freedom party wouldn't alienate them, since they wouldn't have to accept any extremist views. All they would have to do is believe in more economic and more personal freedom than we currently have.

In some ways, I think you're over analyzing this. In large part I agree with Tex. The current parties as we know them have morphed over time to suit changes in the masses before, and I think that is simply the best way to handle it, in the shortest amount of time. Screw a philosophy or party that won't come to fruition in my time. I mean, I'm patient, I don't have to have everything right this second, but no one will ever join a cause they see as hopeless or unimplementable. That is just silly.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. I'm generally agreeing with Tex. I think the LP is hopeless in its current form. And I don't think it will change its form. The thing I disagree with Tex on is what to do about that. He thinks I should join the Republicans, I think there should be a new party that advances freedom. I don't think joining the Republicans would do any good. Despite the economic freedom rhetoric, economic freedom has only gotten worse under Republican leadership. And you can forget about civil liberties. It would make as little sense for me to join the Republicans as to join the Democrats. That is why a new party is needed.

[Garibaldi]

No, a political strategy just needs to be upheld. Right now there's a Free-state movement going on(I think that's the title), and it presents a good idea. If Libertarians concetrate on New England, we have a good chance of gaining not only local recognition in those areas, but also a decent number of House, Senate, and Electoral College votes. Another tactic would be to infiltrate Hip-hop; this would give us the urban vote. Most intellects in Hip-hop are socialist, but only because it's more well known for it's socially progressive nature. Actually, I find most hip-hop socialists embody the capitalist spirit and could easily be swuade to libertarianism, such as the case with me.

Also, I think Democrats can be gained easier than you think. I was raised a democrat, but I still became a libertarian. My suggestion is to focus less on cutting subsidaries and privitazation, and focus more on the socially progressive and pro-union stances. Atleast here you'd be pointing them in the right direction, and then you could direct them to such reading as Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt or The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.[/u]