Libertarians Cost Republicans Again

[ddelange]

"consequently a vote for a Libertarian helps a Democrat"

Yes- and I hope the Repubs take notice! Political change doesn't happen overnight. If we're to abandon the libertarians for the short term goal of preventing the Dems from winning then we'll never see any improvement at all. If the Republicans see the Libertarians gain ground year after year, then they'd better deliver while they are in a position to do something about it or see more and more votes going over to the Libertarians.

That's the best response I've heard yet from a Libertarian. It's the only logical course Libertarians can pursue and justify letting the "greater" evil to win from time to time. Of course, I disagree that the Libertarians will ever be anything more than a minor party, but the Brits probably said that about the Revolutionaries as well. . . . Well put.

 

[Justin]

Libertarians are indeed costing Republicans.

So?


Item A vs. Item B
Christina Aguilara vs. Brittany Spears
Coke vs. Pepsi
Steven Seagal vs. Jean Claude Van Dam
TGI Friday's vs. Chili's
Republican vs. Democrat

Q:
What is the main difference between item A and item B in each of the above examples?
A:
Image.
Sure there may be minor preferential differences here and there, but in the grand scheme of things, the only difference between each of the above is in how they want you to perceive them.

So don't get mad at me because I listen to Soul Fly, drink Jones Soda, watch Jackie Chan movies, cook my own food, and vote Libertarian.

Maybe I'll come back to the mainstream choices when they stop sucking.

 

[Tamara]

"Maybe I'll come back to the mainstream choices when they stop sucking." -caliban

I may use that for a sigline someday...

 

[Justin]

Tamara-
Thanks!
Even I have my moments.

 

[joeislove]

I've voted Libertarian for most offices since I was 18 years old, for various reasons I won't go into at length here.

I think the Republicans and the Democrats are both despicable, just for different reasons.

A friend of mine once observed, "A Republican will lie to your face. A Democrat will lie to your face while smiling and shaking your hand."

I don't give a damn if the Republicans lose votes because I vote Libertarian. If the Republican party stood for what I believe in, I would proudly vote for them. I have voted for Republicans in the past. I voted for John Linder every time he ran in my district, until he was gerrymandered away from me, because he stands for the kinds of things I believe in, most notably the Fair Tax Plan. True, he mostly ran unopposed, but if he didn't stand up for something I believed in, I would have just left that office unvoted, rather than proudly flipping the lever by his name.

And I don't consider it to be "throwing my vote away," as long as I'm voting my conscience. I think that if you vote for a candidate you don't believe in, just because you believe in his closest competitor even less, that's how you really throw your vote away.

The two-party system is destroying this country.

 

[ddelange]

The two-party system is destroying this country.

When did the destruction start? Because the two party system has been doing pretty well since inception, in fact contributing to creating one of the greatest nations in history. The two party system also does quite a bit better than the Parliamentary Democracies of the world.

 

[Monkeyleg]

The Libertarian vs. Republican argument is probably the oldest in the history of mankind (well, except for "which is better: Glock or the 1911?").

If you have a Republican candidate who represents most of your views, a Democrat who opposes nearly everything you hold dear, and a Libertarian who represents most of your views (but who only polls under 10%), I can't see how the decision is that difficult.

On the other hand, if you have two skunks from the Dem and Repub parties, neither of whom represent your beliefs, then go for the Libertarian.

Better yet, get involved with the Republican party at the local level and make sure that the candidates they select are ones that mirror your views.

Bastiat, it sounds like you experienced the same thing I did on election day. The tone of the campaign from both sides was terrible. And there's a reason for that. Here on TFL we'd call it "suppressing fire." McCallum had a $1.3 billion deficit that he inherited from Tommy (gee, do you think Tommy went to DC without knowing this was looming?). That's a heck of a burden to try to explain. And McCallum didn't do well enough in his campaign to address that issue to the satisfaction of the voters.

There's another thing, though. In Wisconsin, the Republican party has never really thought much about grass-roots activism. They've traditionally relied on big donors, and have dismissed the grassroots groups like the pro-lifers and the gun-rights groups, oftentimes to the party's peril.

This time they tried to emulate the Democrat grassroots-style efforts, but it was pretty clear they're not up to speed on that style of campaigning.

Maybe they learned this time. You and I and the other gun show volunteers represent a huge volunteer base that I think they wrote off as being Not Relevant.

If the Republican Party in Wisconsin wants to learn something, they should look at how Tom Reynolds--who wasn't supposed to even win the primary against an entrenched Republican incumbent, much less beat the Chvala-funded Democrat candidate--beat everyone's expectations. And he did it with very little money, but lots of grassroots volunteers.

 

[AnotherPundit]

This article just whines. If Republicans want Libertarians to vote for them, they need to stop enacting policy like campaign finance reform, various gun rights restrictions, farm subsidies, steel tariffs, ted kennedy's education bill, etc.

All this does is whine about how the libertarians are supposedly responsible for the failure of Republicans to live up to conservative ideals.

 

[joeislove]

When did the destruction start? Because the two party system has been doing pretty well since inception, in fact contributing to creating one of the greatest nations in history. The two party system also does quite a bit better than the Parliamentary Democracies of the world.

You're right. The country's always pretty much had two parties in power at a time. They haven't always been Democrats v. Republicans, but pretty much always two big contenders with maybe a few third party guys here and there.

I guess what I mean is the two-party system as portrayed and pushed by the modern media, and devoured by an undereducated American public. The Democrats and Republicans are portrayed, with rare exception, as the only two choices.

Back in the old days someone like Teddy Roosevelt could put together his own party and run for office. Now, he wouldn't be taken seriously. He'd either have to run as a Republican or a Democrat, or get zero exposure. If he was as comical and goofy as Ross Perot, he might get coverage that way. After all, most Americans get their "news" from The Daily Show and SNL nowadays, right?

The end result of that is a situation where the Republicans and Democrats feel they don't really have to take any third party seriously, because they feel that they will be the controlling parties for ever and ever, amen.

Because they aren't worried about being overthrown by one of those crackpots from the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party, or the Natural Law Party, or whatever bunch of crackpots you want to talk about, they're not really all that concerned with actually representing the concerns of the constituency that elected them. They can do whatever they want, because they know that they'll get a certain number of votes from the people on their side of the fence, simply because those same voters are afraid of "throwing their vote away" by voting their conscience. Voters are afraid of truly representing their convictions at the ballot box, because they are afraid that "the greater of two evils" will win out over the lesser.

So the root of the problem is not necessarily in the two-party system. As you said, it has worked, with the Whigs or the Bull Meese or the Democrats or whomever for more than two hundred years. I think the problem is rooted in the willingness of the American public to let a news anchor do their thinking for them. As long as Americans continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, the system will be evil. It's been getting more evil by the decade, and the rate of decay is increasing.

Which is why I vote for men, and not for parties. Most of the men I vote for are Libertarians. Some are Independent. A few were Republicans. A couple of my local votes went to Democrats.

And I would be proud and honored to have any of them over for dinner, and I would loan any of them a power tool, if asked. I don't vote for evil candidates, not even "lesser evils".

 

[Oleg Volk]

I vote based on issues. DFL is unsatisfactory on ALL counts, GOP claims to be statisfactory on one issue (guns) but isn't consistent about it. LP's platform is entirely agreeable to me and I will pick them over other whenever their candidates are available. Neither GOP nor DFL are in favor or property rights, or individual self-determination.

If GOP doesn't want the vote loss, they will just have to evolve.

If they don't evolve, then we'll have to take chances as infantry no matter which brand of evil is in office.

 

[Ought Six]

If Repug candidates want libertarian votes, then why are so many of them attacking libertarian values and candidates before the elections, and attacking libertarian voters for voting their principles afterwards ??? This allows only two possible conclusions; either Repug campaigns are incredibly stupid and shooting themselves in the foot by attacking a group they wish to get votes from; or Repug campaign operatives and candidates are trying to divert blame from themselves for their electorial blunders by scapegoating libertarians.

The latter scenario is obviously the truth. It makes much more sense, as when it comes to voting blocs, campagin managers aren't stupid. They know we libers are a small enough group, and probably wouldn't vote for them anyways, that they've decided they have nothing to lose by publically pissing on us. Therefore, the Repub campaigns and candidates that have a history of doing this (like Mannix, the failed Repug gubernatorial candidate in Oregon) are making themselves our enemy by their own design. Their posing, complaining and scapegoating of libertarians by Repugs over a situation they themselves knowingly created shows these Repugs for the sleazy, lying, manipulative political vermin they truly are.

These cheap, underhanded tactics can backfire seriously. Here in Oregon, we had Kevin Mannix running as the Repug gubernatorial canidate, and Gordon Smith running as the Repug Senate candidate. Mannix ran a lousy campaign and attacked Cox, his Libertarian rival, right out of the gate. Of course, Cox fought back, including in the televised debate, which Mannix initially tried to keep Cox out of. The libDem, Kulongoski, took a very different course. He had a meeting with the Greens Party candidate and convinced him not to run. Mannix lost by a slim margin. Gordon Smith, on the other hand, ran a brilliant campaign, and did not attack his Libertarian rival. Smith won by a landslide with the very same group of Repub, independant and Dem crossover voters that Mannix failed to get.

So blaming Libers, turnout, or anything else is a lie, but a lie that some Oregon Repugs are more than happy to spout. Mannix showed he was just a politico, not a man of integrity. Too bad these whining Mannix Repugs are still trying to scapegoat the Libertarians they've attacked all along, using finger-pointing "we're a victim of the Libers" Jesse Jackson tactics. LOL!!! The most powerful political party on the planet 'victimized' by one of the weakest! I guess it's just asking too much to think they might stand up like men and take responsibility for their own miserable failure. The fact that they cry and lie instead doesn't say much for their character.

 

[Libertarian]

Come on Ought Six, tell how you really feel?

 

[Dennis]

To say that, "a vote for a Libertarian helps a Democrat"
coyly ignores the fact that a vote for a Republican
helps their Democrat siblings as well.

The differences between the Democrat and Republican parties
involve only speed and style—not goals.

When the Republicans decide to serve our Republic,
rather than themselves and their Democrat siblings,

When the Republicans decide to support Liberty,
rather than increasingly burdensome bureaucracy and
increasingly tyrannical control over "We the People,"

When the Republicans decide to abide by the U.S. Constitution,
rather than pervert our ruling document to serve their power-hungry nature,

Then they will have become worthy of representing Americans.
Then they will have my vote.

Until then, I will vote against the oligarchy without regard to its Republican or Democrat label.

Until then, I will vote only for those few Republicans who want to limit our federal government, not merely limit the rate of its rampant growth, expense, and illegal controls.

Until then, a vote for a Republican is a vote for the status quo, and
a vote for the same perverse principles and goals espoused by the Democrats.

The lesser evil is not the path to restoring Liberty.
The lesser evil merely shifts the burden to our children and our children's children.

I would consider myself a coward, unworthy of our American heritage, if I voted for the lesser evil when a vote for Liberty still exists.

My Libertarian vote appeals to Republican greed for power and, hopefully, will teach Republicans some moderation—something no vote for the status quo can even suggest.

Let those who would compromise away our freedoms vote for the Democrat-Republican political machine.

My vote chastises their perfidy.

My vote is a one-issue vote for the Second Amendment because if the Second Amendment falls, the entire Bill of Rights falls and all other issues (many of which we avoid discussing on TFL) will be decided ONLY by the oligarchy. Our ruling class will have become omnipotent and incapable of being challenged by the people.

That dare not happen.

That's why I cannot vote for the goals of the Democrats, even when somewhat moderated by the Republicans.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Joeislove, the biggest difference between now, and back when folks like Teddy could put together something like the Bull Moose party, and get taken seriously, is NOT the news media. It's ballot and campaign laws.

In the last few decades, and especially the last few years, the "major" parties have enacted all manner of discriminatory ballot and campaign finance laws, which put third parties at an almost impossible disadvantage. The "majors" get on the ballot with a $50 filing fee, (Which gets waived if they forget to pay it!) while the third parties have to mount hugely expensive ballot access drives, collecting many thousands of signatures, just to get the elections officials to admit they exist. I don't even want to get onto the topic of what "campaign finance" deform has done to us.

Suffice to say, it's not quite illegal to run as a third party candidate in most states, (I think it actually is in one or two states.) but it's getting close to that.

 

[Hard_Case]

Wow...for a second here I thought I'd mistakenly visited DU....

I'd definitely agree that they system needs to be changed, as it unjustly and in many cases illegaly discriminates against legitimate third party candidacy. It's a sickening pervesion of the intent of the system, and ought to be addressed. With that said...

The last time I gave more than a casual consideration of a Libertarian candidate was I believe during the last gubernatorial race in New Jersey. I remember reading the position statements, usually three to four paragraphs, of each of the candidates on the ballot. Most of the candidates wrote about issues of concern to New Jersey votes, issues that would be of relevance to the position of governor. Things like education, sprawl, taxes, auto insurance, etc. The Libertarian? 3 paragraphs about ending the drug war and one paragraph about opening trade to Cuba. If this is how out of step they are, at least in the case of New Jersey, it'll be a LONG time before I consider it again.

 

[priv8ter]

For example

Here is another specific example:

I'm not from Arizona, but for this argument, let's say I was.

Are you folks saying I should vote for the REPUBLICAN, John McCain, who INTRODUCED the legislation to close the 'Gun-Show-Loop-Hole'(which is the same thing a DEMOCRAT would do?) instead of voting for a Libertarian?

I mean, let's face it, McCain is an incumbent, with no serious shot at losing his seat, so my vote for a Libertarian would just be wasted, so I would be much better off, and my vote would matter :barf: if I voted for McCain!

If that is is the Republican'ts best argument, then they have already lost. I forsee 2004 as being a PAINFULL election year, for everyone.

 

[AugustWest]

Libertarians are indeed costing Republicans.

It's the Republicans who are costing Republicans. If they weren't leading us down the path of statist government control, there wouldn't be any need for another choice.

Modern Republicans are not friends of Amendment II, not friends of free markets, and frankly, not friends of freedom in general.

Voting for Republicans because you don't like Democrats is like buying Lorcins because you don't like Ravens.