Article: Why libertarians don't win elections

What a bunch of losers! Operating out of principal! That is just not politically feasible!

Hmmm... All three statements are true!

I would suggest that you touch into this book:

The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945
by George H. Nash

Funny thing, I attended the LP convention in Las Vegas and while there were a few nuts (what political convention can say it doesn't have a few?) everyone there was very tolerant and laid-back. In fact some of the people who addressed break-out sessions were Republicans and Democrats.

Looks like an excellent history.

I'm interested right now in reading the new book by David Horowitz The New Leviathan

I have been doing my own research in this area pertaining to what is going on in the state of Maine, The quote in the next paragraph from the linked review seems particularly relevant to the government redistribution of wealth network that exists in Maine which also advances liberal ideas about "social and economic justice" in fact that is a frequently found phrase on the website within the government network- which as expanded into "quasis" evolves incrementally into a form of totalitarian government control:

Left-wing activism's advantage is even greater because all the money isn't just going directly to causes. Instead, liberal activists use government as a force multiplier. They spend money to influence government not only to carry out policies they prefer, but to fund further liberal activism. Progressive politics has become a self-perpetuating machine funded to a great extent by American taxpayers.

As a constitutional conservative- I believe that being rooted in principals is a GOOD thing- principals as found in The Maine and United States constitution. I find that groups that use phrases such as "nonpartisan" are usually concealing their true ideology- liberalism. Since the progressive agenda has long been to transform the system from within incrementally, language such as "non-partisan" and "compromise" fit that agenda perfectly.

I have a great Christmas analogy about the libertarian's place on the political spectrum. If the tree of liberty was a Balsam Fir, the Republican would be arguing for more lights, the Democrat would argue for more tinsel and the Libertarian would be out planting more trees.

Non-partisan in the case of No Labels & America Elects= Angus King.

I love that analogy btw.

Grumpy Gas Bag Sat, 06/16/2012 - #3: "I would suggest that you touch into this book: The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 by George H. Nash"

I have the first edition of this book and knew George Nash when he was a graduate student. It's a scholarly book on a narrow segment of mid 20th century American conservative political thought and its more obscure leaders, but not much beyond that -- except for the traditionalists' desire to drive the more individualist thinkers out of "their" movement (which most of them wanted nothing to do with anyway, as for example Buckley and his followers' hatred for Ayn Rand who wanted nothing to do with him).

When I knew George he was extremely conservative, both personally and politically, not an activist despite all that was raging around him, and not particularly interested in the more "libertarian" ideas then being widely discussed. His book reflects that. It will tell you all about William Buckley and more obscure, conservative intellectuals and their hostility to anything "libertarian" but don't expect a history of anything beyond that, much history of actual political activism within real government policy-making, or a useful and accurate account of the individualist, non-"traditionalists" on the right.

If you're interested in the narrow topics he was interested in when he researched and wrote it (which he did very seriously) then it's worth reading to learn something about the more obscure "traditionalists" (most of whom you and most others have probably never heard of) within their own circles, but it won't help much in understanding today's movements or much else that happened in practice.

The purpose of electing those who actually stand on principals ( such as the Maine State Constitution or the United States Constitution) is to put a STOP to the incremental and fundamental transformation of the free society that our founding fathers created into socialism, communism, Marxism and even Shariah law,

There are documents that our intelligence service procured written by the Muslim Brotherhood That specifically identify the success of communism in infiltrating the American system as a model that the Muslim Brotherhood can use as well. (I once had the link to the actual document but I have lost track of that link but will keep looking for it)

The media portrays ONLY the element that stands firm on the philosophy and principals of our original founding documents as being the "obstacles" to "compromise" - which is just another way of framing "the incremental and fundamental transformation" of the American political system into something entirely different and certainly more oppressive to the individual.

If there is no element in our elected representatives that stand firmly for the principals of the American political philosophy- the incremental tansformists have their way and can battle it out between themselves whether the world will by dominated by Shariah Law or Marxism- the one being a theocracy and the other a secular state that oppresses all religious beliefs.

And guess what ! - When there is a grid lock- it is because ALL are standing firmly for what they believe and none are willing to compromise- NOT because the ONE faction that stands firmly on the principals that founded this country ( and on the principals that they advocated that got them elected) are not giving way to those who want to delete the American system of government from the world stage. Utter hypocrisy to place the blame on one faction.

If there ever was an election when it is ripe for a Libertarian candidate to win- this is it- Not having won in the past just means that the Libertarians are not embedded in a corrupted political culture- they are outside of it.

With all due respect I do NOT believe many libertarains are going to win elections in this national climate.

Millions of Americans have come to believe that they have the fundamental right to have government "take care of them" to the point where we have way more riding the wagon than pulling it.

I think it is going to take another "financial collapse", one such as the world has never seen, in order to weed out the chaff and instill "personal responsibiliity in the majority of Americans........again!

I believe in "Liberty" and the responsibility that comes with being a "freeman". Unfortunately too many have learned that they could vote themselves a "piece of the pot" and just like Greece, today, they are NOT going to vote to give up that piece of the pot!

The election to watch right now, is today in Greece, where we will be able to watch a prelude to our own future as a nation, play out, just like reality TV!

WC

Scott Walker!

Its up to the voter to decide- each one individually. What have predictions got to do with it? Do people decide their votes by second guessing what other people are going to do? Scott Walker won by a much larger margin than predicted.

Libertaerians won't win elections and tea party candidates may win a few small ones in isolated precincts where there are still enough people around that believe hard work and skill counts for how you get ahead in life. Otherwise the Progressives got you all beat and will win again in November. The Supreme Court vote on Obamacare will be the finishing touch on their success.

tea party candidates may win a few small ones in isolated precincts

What do you consider a few? How many?

Let's start with Paul LePage, then we will move on to a few more Tea Party candidates who have won:

PA- Pat Toomey
KY- Rand Paul
FL- Marco Rubio
WI- Ron Johnson
UT- Mike Lee
AR-1 Rick Crawford
AR-2 Tim Griffin
AZ-1 Paul Gosar
AZ-5 David Schweikert
FL-2 Steve Southerland
FL-22 Allen West
FL-24 Sandra Adams
GA-9 Tom Graves
ID-1 Raul Labrador
IL-10 Robert Dold
IL-11 Adam Kinzinger
IL-14 Randy Hultgren
IL-17 Bobby Schilling
IN-3 Marlin Stutzman
IN-9 Todd Young
LA-3 Jeff Landry
MI-1 Dan Benishek
MI-3 Justin Amash
MI-7 Tim Walberg
MN-6 Michelle Bachmann
MO-4 Vicky Hartzler
NC-2 Renee Ellmers
NH-1 Frank Guinta
NV-3 Joe Heck
NY-13 Michael Grimm
NY-20 Christopher Gibson
OH-1 Steve Chabot
OH-6 Bill Johnson
OH-15 Steven Stivers
OH-16 Jim Renacci
SC-1 Tim Scott
SC-3 Jeff Duncan
SC-4 Trey Gowdy
SC-5 Mick Mulvaney
TN-4 Scott DesJarlais
TX-17 Bill Flores
VA-9 H. Morgan Griffith
WI-7 Sean Duffy
WI-8 Reid Ribble
WV-1 David McKinley

Don't argue with pmconusa -the low down truth of what lies in the future. Do not question- Just accept and obey!

Sorry Mackenzie, I don't know what came over me.

Ed Crane at Cato started out managing Libertarian Party Campaigns, but the post-Nixon campaign finance reform laws convinced him that any small party could never succeed again, as say the Republican Party did in 1860.

So Crane started Cato to have an influence.

Libertarians can be just as described on this blog. The Abolitionists were uncompromising too. Would you rather they weren't?

Polls show only about 8 to 12% of Americans are favorable to libertarian positions. The problem for libertarians is made more acute by the fact that it requires an IQ of at least 115 and an independent inquiring thought process to reach a libertarian worldview, and the other 80% of the electorate operates by emotion, tradition, self interest, and social utility.

Of course, the future is not all that bleak for libertarian prospects. The competing ideologies, Marxism (including radical egalitarianism), Corporatism, Theocracy, Agrarian Aristocracy, etc, don't have that many adherents either. Ideologies succeed by capturing broader party organizations in times of crisis, and altering the trajectory of the Republic.

Romney, as must be clear to all by now, is a corporatist willing to accommodate theocrats. Obama is a Marxist. Will libertarians vote for Romney to stop Obama, or Governor Gary Johnson to stop Romney? Should be interesting.

Will libertarians vote for Romney to stop Obama, or Governor Gary Johnson to stop Romney?

As a Republican, I am struggling with this one. ;-)

There is a difference between small-L and big-L libertarians. Seems to me that there's a lot of small-L libertarian thought on this board (mine included) and a small but very noisy contingent of big-L - as in Libertarian Party - thought.

The Libertarian Party has, over the years, proven a failure due to its strident and uncompromising positions on no small number of issues. That I might agree with many of them philosophically negates a certain pragmatism.

I think it would be safe to say that few Americans of any political stripe would disagree with the concept that every person should have decent shelter, decent housing, decent protection from the predation of others, and the opportunity for subsequent generations to better themselves.

Progressives believe that government is the engine of same. Conservatives, including many small-L libertarians, realize that government cannot and never will provide them over the long term. Big-L libertarians agree with that point, but fail to recognize that it took time to get to the precipice and it will take time to get away. For the Big-L libertarians, the devil will take the hindmost.

The devil will be well-fed, and joined in Hell by a lot of Big-L libertarians. Not that they were wrong. But because they were impatient.

quote from Reagan in 1975 from Reason magazine.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t...

We do not live in ordinary times and there are no reasonable and rational ordinary expectations.

Good Find, Thrasybulus.

An observation about this thread. Libertarian issues are mentioed in a general and nonspecific way. We have a candidate running for Senate in Maine as a Libertarian who is never mentioned - Andrew Ian Dodge. I am more interested in the specific candidate than the party. I am more interested in the political philosophy the candidates expresses than whether or the candidate is labeled a particular way. In Maine I feel that our political philosophy that is expressed in our constitution has been transformed in Augusta by statutory law into a progressive political philosophy- and this by both Republicans and Democrats. This has also happened at the national level. So what is in a label? When it comes to progressivism- one of their favorite tricks is to hide behind the label.

An example from a review of The New Leviathan in the Washington Times:

.....The left has employed a corps of philanthropic professionals to change the orientation of foundations established by capitalists. Oil tycoon J. Howard Pew, for instance, left a fortune to teach Americans the "values of the free market" and the "paralyzing effects of government controls." Pew Charitable Trusts is now the largest funder of the Tides Center, a middleman funder of far-left-wing activists.

So why are we making so much of the label? Is it because the Libertarian label still is what it is?

Bob S

When I look at that list of tea party candidates I wonder where were they when they voted for Patriot Act extension and NDAA?

Where are their priorities when it comes to liberty vs the state. Where are their priorities when it comes to war?

No electoral majority was ever built from purists and true believers. They are built from coalitions. There's a reason Ron Paul runs as a Republican, not as a Libertarian. Libertarians have real prospects for influencing the Republican Party, no hope of controlling it.

If the Libertarian Party ever became a major player it would begin to attract clever, energetic, ambitious candidates many, or most of whom, when they acquire some power will discover they like power more than principle.

So it's OK with you Flammenerter, if the electoral candidate is no purist when it comes to the United States constitution and will willingly either look the other way or advance a system oppositional to the Constitution (State and/or Federal) in order to build a coalition that will get himself elected. The public has gone along with this thus far and so rest assured the public will go along with it forever. The current election is no different than any other election that we have ever seen.

It doesn't matter that congress has even lower poll ratings than the president. It doesn't matter that for all their willingness to compromise on principals stated in constitutions, the current Federal Congress cannot get it together to even a budget. That doesn't matter because the public will always do what they are expected to do and the media will do the same.

Your second sentence may be true but right before that happens is when we find those moments of purity. This election calls for such a moment of purity to the principals of the rule of law as created by the people and for the people and that rule of law is found only in constitutions. Statutory law is not always pure to those principals.

The "they can't win" propaganda is to a large degree psychological propaganda at it's best, generated to be a self-fulfilling prophecy and a handle to manipulate the collective masses.

The question is- Are we a nation of collective masses as the progressives proclaim- or are we a nation of individuals as our founding documents maintain?

The founding fathers placed great priority on national defense- In fact that was the main selling point to the colonies which, after defeating the power of the "King", were not welcoming to another governing power over them- but they each understood that they were surrounded then, as now, by many enemies. The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility and purity to the.constitution- it does not advocate specific defense policies. National defense is a power granted by the constitution to the federal government.

But since you bring up the Patriot Act- that was used to tap the phone wires of those that mifght lead to terrorists plots. The opposition claimed it could be used on any American for any reason- but never offered any evidence that this is in fact the case.

Obama's policies of patting down or x-raying are directed at ALL who travel by air and there are many testimonies of indignities to common citizens who are not alleged to have any terrorist related activities. Where is the opposition to Obama's policies which actually does impose upon the privacy and dignity of the average citizen? Israel manages its security with out invading the privacy and dignity of all who travel- why can't the United States?

MacKenzie asks:
"So why are we making so much of the label? Is it because the Libertarian label still is what it is?"

No, it is because so often the label is misappropriated. We have Republicans who do not support our platform and just join because politics is a busy enjoyable activity for them. They harm our cause. This happens in all parties, not just ours. Take the time to read the Democrat platform. It is a statement of their beliefs and goals. There are Democrats who hunt, own camps and would like their grandchildren to have those same opportunities. They should not be Democrats.

Back when The Libertarian Party was actually registered as a party in Maine, they asked me to write their property rights plank. I wrote it and they adopted it without changing a word. I am a liberty minded citizen, but I am not a libertine.

That's what I mean.Your answer goes to why we should not make so much of labels- but here we are talking the labels- not the candidates. The Libertarian party nominated Gary Johnson as the presidential candidate. In the case of defeating Obama, who to my view has always been an enemy of America, is an extreme case. Just look at the current issue with the security leaks.It is said that this will set our security efforts back 15 years- which seems a goal that any enemy of America would want to achieve. It may be a matter of mere arrogance and an extreme case of doing anything to get re-elected- or it may be what he was elected to do- but getting rid of Obama takes precedence over everything because there has never been an administration so destructive to the United States as this one.If he is elected again our nation's sovereignty will probably be sacrificed to totalitarian world government. Those who call Romney "Obama light" just do not understand the depth of destruction that Obama has implemented against this country. There is no way that label fits. In the extreme case of the presidential election, the number one issue is defeating Obama and so any third party candidate weakens the chances of getting Obama out.

But in the case of electing Senators and Representatives - that's a different story.

"getting rid of Obama takes precedence over everything"

Think carefully, please, this is not really true. DISCREDITING EVERYTHING Obama and his minions stand for is the thing that takes precedence over everything.

The US is finished in its current form no matter who wins the election. The country and many of its people owe more than they have or can reasonably be expected to pay off in any version of the future. When this happens to an individual, it is a recipe for bankruptcy. When it happens to a country, we have Greece etc. In the US, because there are solvent States as well as insolvent ones, we are analogous to the EU. And just as the EU will break apart as the better off countries refuse to share the poverty the insolvent ones brought on themselves, the US will break apart as the folks in the many solvent States will refuse to pay off the debts of the insolvent States (California, Illinois, New York...). It will happen sooner if Obama is re-elected because he will try to force these kinds of bailouts. Ergo it may be preferable to re-elect him as then he would clearly be the President who presided over the collapse of the country-- a fitting infamous legacy. And the end of the Democrat Party.

"What you wish to destroy, you must first allow to completely expand" Tao

You can vote for Gary Johnson with a clear conscience:-)

The destruction that Obama has done to this country encompasses far more than the deficit. If you read my post carefully- I didn't even mention the deficit- I mentioned the leaking of intelligence and you didn't mention anything except the deficit. This is not a one issue election. Foreign policy is extremely important and definitely affects our deficit and vice versa.

Splitting the vote against Obama is splitting the vote against Obama- the other candidates may want to solve the deficit problem but Obama wants only to spend. It is the only thing he knows how to do. His only executive experience before being elected was distributing funds for "educational" grants at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge is another example of an institution appropriated by the left and using the original reputation of the organization as a cover for advancing a far left agenda. Bill Ayers was a member of the board at the same time Obama was in charge of distributing grant money. The money all went to organizations with extreme far left radical associations.

Obama's "solution" to the deficit problem has never been anything except to keep on spending.