Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Omnis]

I really can't believe Nader runs any more. My theory is that people vote for him as a joke.

Maybe Ron Paul will make a showing again in 2012. Hopefully before then. Also, I'm curious to see how the future of the Republican party pans out because I'm very frustrated with how far they've moved off course and I'm sure many of themselves are too.

Yeah well the 2012 nominee is going have to be a freaking rockstar to break the church of Obama. The country will have to be rebuilt through the Congress.

I hate Shepard Smith. Nader is right, here. I can't stand all of this racist crap.

 

[Keef]

Shepard Smith is the one who acknowledged the phrase as racist. Nader did not. I agree with you, Omnis. I believe in general it's the people who say "racism is bad" who are creating more racism simply by acknowledging it. Shep is obviously a lesser mind than Nader because he did not listen to any other words Nader said. He simply got stuck on the words "Uncle Tom" and said woah, woah, woah, I'm an idiot.

Yes. In my eyes he shown himself as a fool.

 

[V1P3R]

Oh ok... so then it's ok for everyone to use the N word. Cool.

 

[Max Powers]

I hate Shepard Smith. Nader is right, here. I can't stand all of this racist crap.

I bet he spends hours a day practicing that self-satisfied smirk in the mirror. I can't stand him either.

 

[Keef]

Oh ok... so then it's ok for everyone to use the N word. Cool.

Technically, if nobody recognized the word as being bad it wouldn't be bad.

 

[YSSMAN]

Why Ron Paul didn't put on a serious attempt at being running as a Libertarian Party candidate was beyond me; he had lots of press and supporters (he was the darling of NPR, to be honest), but the TV networks said zilch about him.

I believe Dr. Paul's reasoning was that because he is a "true Republican," he is going to remain a candidate on the Republican ticket. Which of course goes back to who's version of the Republican party will survive into 2012...

BTW:

Don't feel bad about voting for Obama. My Republican/Libertarian family went for Obama usually 3:1.

 

[Keef]

I went searching for the deal on Ron Paul a little while ago. He's still around. I put him in my signature.

 

[FoolKiller]

Maybe Ron Paul will make a showing again in 2012. Hopefully before then. Also, I'm curious to see how the future of the Republican party pans out because I'm very frustrated with how far they've moved off course and I'm sure many of themselves are too.

I would love to see the Republican Party go toward the way of Ron Paul.

I went searching for the deal on Ron Paul a little while ago. He's still around. I put him in my signature.

He also was running for his Congressional seat. He was unopposed, I believe, so he it didn't make many headlines.

 

[YSSMAN]

I would love to see the Republican Party go toward the way of Ron Paul.

I'd be sympathetic to that cause as well, but the problem is, what he is advocating isn't exactly on the scale of what would be needed to unseat the Democrats. Realistically, the Republicans need to purge the "values voters" who care only about abortion rights, gay marriage and other "culture war" pieces (ie, the "base") to return to the intellectual and Libertarian values that had otherwise dominated the party up until the 1980s.

Granted, I'm one of those "lefty" Republicans like TR, Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford, but I do not want to see the brand die. If it must happen, I'm fine with that, but I want to see a cohesive party back (hopefully) with the support of the Libertarian wing as well.

 

[FoolKiller]

My question is: If the party basically disappears except for once every four years how do we get the message out there? The problem is that we spend 3 and a half years hearing about Republicans and Democrats and when the big elections come around the average voter forgets that anyone else exists. Is there anything to be done to help the party's image between now and 2012?

So, here we are five months after I asked that question, and this thread has gone silent. Before that it was 3 years since Duke and Danoff were debating with MrktMkr1986.

I have heard nothing from Libertarians in the news. We are back to the same old Republicans vs Democrats debates. I go to the Libertarian Party Web site and I see that they have almost daily posts, but I don't hear anything from them in the mainstream press.

Obviously, the two big parties aren't changing in this next election cycle.

Should the Libertarian party (or any third party) find a way to get their voice heard on a regular basis? Can they? It would be nice to see things happening enough so that when the next presidential election came around enough people knew what the Libertarian party was to at least consider voting for them.


Anyway, as usual they talked a lot, had little showing and now are playing the role of the silent minority.

 

[Zrow]

I'd say Libertarians are definitely going to find some trouble in these economic times, when the collapse of the financial industry is largely being blamed on deregulation.

 

[Omnis]

So, here we are five months after I asked that question, and this thread has gone silent. Before that it was 3 years since Duke and Danoff were debating with MrktMkr1986.

I have heard nothing from Libertarians in the news. We are back to the same old Republicans vs Democrats debates. I go to the Libertarian Party Web site and I see that they have almost daily posts, but I don't hear anything from them in the mainstream press.

Obviously, the two big parties aren't changing in this next election cycle.

Should the Libertarian party (or any third party) find a way to get their voice heard on a regular basis? Can they? It would be nice to see things happening enough so that when the next presidential election came around enough people knew what the Libertarian party was to at least consider voting for them.


Anyway, as usual they talked a lot, had little showing and now are playing the role of the silent minority.

They can't. They're had more than 20 years to do it. But Ron Paul is getting a lot of press and so is his Campaign for Liberty. If anything, we'll see another Goldwater revolution in the republican party before the LP becomes "mainstream"

 

[YSSMAN]

Should the Libertarian party (or any third party) find a way to get their voice heard on a regular basis? Can they? It would be nice to see things happening enough so that when the next presidential election came around enough people knew what the Libertarian party was to at least consider voting for them.


Anyway, as usual they talked a lot, had little showing and now are playing the role of the silent minority.

Realistically? It seems to be a very long, outside shot to get a serious and otherwise strong third party voice at the moment. The Democrats are still polling well enough to hold together a majority, despite some defectors within the party. The Republicans are an absolute disaster, which in all honesty, is likely the only source of a credible third party to emerge at the moment. My hope is that the "Conservatives" in the GOP (Limbaugh, Hannity, Bohner, McConnell, etc) GTFO and form their own party so we can hit the reset button in the GOP and have a credible party once more.

 

[Duke]

Those guys are not about to give up "ownership" of the word Republican. They build their entire edifice on the foundation of tradition (or at least the appearance of tradition) and so they will never give up the brand recognition, ever.

 

[FoolKiller]

Those guys are not about to give up "ownership" of the word Republican. They build their entire edifice on the foundation of tradition (or at least the appearance of tradition) and so they will never give up the brand recognition, ever.

And this is why I think that even a split in the GOP would do little to help. Sure you could have a group that agrees more with Ron Paul and that most Libertarians can get behind, but they won't carry the title of Republican, and so they would be seen as the off-shoots.

I see it much more probable that the big two will continue going to the more extremes. I mean, the Democrats are already leaning more heavily toward the moveon.org people and Republicans are reluctantly allowing Limbaugh to become their voice.

This kind of schism may screw things up and eventually lead more level-headed American voters to finally look at third parties in large numbers. The problem is that at that point a third party may be too late to fix things, which would have gone extreme both ways, because no one party in a three-party system will have enough power to push for big changes.



I personally feel that if the Libertarian party, or something similar, cannot (will not?) make themselves known, other than to stir the pot of a few thousand voters every four years, then the bigger idea for Libertarian minded individuals is to begin pushing back vocally for following the Constitution. Perhaps a public movement to remind the government of how they actually work with the Constitution would be more effective. Could there be a saner public movement, to counter Limbaugh and Move On, that could eventually sway the current political parties?

 

[YSSMAN]

I see it much more probable that the big two will continue going to the more extremes. I mean, the Democrats are already leaning more heavily toward the moveon.org people and Republicans are reluctantly allowing Limbaugh to become their voice.

While the parties themselves may do that, keep in mind that most elected officials run on the idea that they are "independent" of the political system, and vote however they like to get re-elected. To use a coined term, "maverick" would be applicable here. In theory, the actual party of a person never really matters as long as they do what you (for the most part) agree with. I can think of my Senator Carl Levin in that regard, as I don't necessarily agree with the Democratic party platform in all instances, but for the most part, he does a good job representing my state's interests, and I can't blame him for that. Senator Stabbanow on the other hand...

Could there be a saner public movement, to counter Limbaugh and Move On, that could eventually sway the current political parties?

Yes, very easily. Traditionally, political movements rise and gain a large amount of popularity, and then when they become a political threat to the Republicans or Democrats, the movement is absorbed into one of the major parties. The party that stands to do this right now is the Republicans, as they are in the minority status, and without a clear set of goals. Have a look at the People's Party here in the US as a great example. While they were catering to a narrow set of ideals, they began to erode political power in the Mid-West, and consequently the Democrats stole their thunder. Presumably, the Republicans would look to do the same in this current backlash against the policies being enacted now, but without a clear vision for the party as-is, I don't see that changing any time at all.

BTW: I hear Hannity is showing up at the Tea Party down in Atlanta. I'm sure that just made everyone really happy that wants to be a part of a legitimate and otherwise "pure" movement.

 

[Omnis]

And this is why I think that even a split in the GOP would do little to help. Sure you could have a group that agrees more with Ron Paul and that most Libertarians can get behind, but they won't carry the title of Republican, and so they would be seen as the off-shoots.

See, the problem is that the liberty-minded republicans were the silver age republicans... the ones that rose to power again after the golden age Licolnites fell out of favor. The Republicans that Duke is describing are the ones who used to be LBJ-style democrats. The parties now have organized themselves appropriately, I think. One is gov't intervention domestic, and the other is gov't intervention abroad. But since so many in these parties are "moderates" the line is blurred and we find that most politicians favor intervention at home and abroad.

The convenient solution would be a triple-party, but then I can't see how anyone in their right mind would vote for the interventionist pair. If we had a pair of wings within two parties, it would make more sense that the neo-conservatives rejoined the democrats, so that the inter-party squabble between republicans would perhaps be over mild protectionism vs. free trade or whatever.

But, again, ambition always attaches itself to the victorious group. So we'll likely never see anything so clean cut or anything that makes so much sense. If libertarianism, for example, is found to work so well that all doubt of it is erased and its popularity is untouchable, then of course everyone will market themselves that way until the political system degenerates into a situation similar to that which we have today.

 

[Danoff]

I have no hope for the libertarian party. I used to, but the last presidential election's poor turnout for libertarians erased all hope from my mind. The libertarian party is and will seemingly always be a party of crackpots and weirdos.

...and it's the party I'll vote for and register with. Unpopular though they may be, they're the closest representation of my political viewpoint of any "major" political party in the US. (Major here is defined as having more than 1000 or so members)

I'm quite happy in the knowledge that, though the guy I voted for had absolutely no chance to win, he was a candidate who's platform I could stand behind.

 

[Keef]

In general I think the idea of change coming from anywhere within the government is ludicrous. Politics as a whole are the problem. The only way I see to change is is for all the lazy Americans that don't care anymore (which I believe is the majority now, eh?) to actually speak out and do something. Representatives and Senators might thousands of letters a day saying all sorts of stuff that get thrown in the trash, if they got a thousand letters a day that all said the same thing, well, that would just be unavoidable.

I can't get my mom or dad to even pay attention when I bring up constitutional issues, much less actually think deep and debate it. All they care about is the pay check every week. They'll probably care a little more when they have to have a government issued license in order to be certified for their job, or something crazy like that. By then it'll be too late to resolve the problem with words.

So no, I don't see Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians changing their ways to actually get something done and reverse the damage. They'll just change for change's sake, moving farther apart like was said earlier. The changes have to start outside the government, and I hope people get motivated to actually do something sooner than later.

I've sent my letter, btw, about the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Twice now in the last week.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm quite happy in the knowledge that, though the guy I voted for had absolutely no chance to win, he was a candidate who's platform I could stand behind.

But, you voted the way you were intended to. Haven't you heard, nowadays it is all about who you think will win. You are supposed to look at Libertarians and say, "Yeah, they have a lot of good ideas, but I don't think they have a chance to win, so I am voting McBama."

Seriously though, like you I registered with the party. I had to write in my party affiliation on the voter registration card. <- That right there could a be a problem in and of itself. Shouldn't any party registered with the state and able to be on the ballet be listed on the voter registration card? When I go online to check out my voter status it now says Libertarian, so it isn't because I can't do it.

I can't get my mom or dad to even pay attention when I bring up constitutional issues, much less actually think deep and debate it.

It is similar for me. I finally got my mom to pay attention, because she was all gung-ho on Romney and I knew she would regret that two-faced snake politician, but after listening to me she said that she agreed, but didn't think that (then) Ron Paul could win. So, I asked her if selling out her principles was worth making sure you voted for a winner all she could tell me is that she didn't want to waste her vote. I just told her voting for what you believe, nay, know is right is not wasting your vote, but voting for a safe candidate is selling your soul. All she could say is that she was proud of me for not just following the mainstream when I didn't agree, but that she couldn't willingly risk allowing Hillary (pre primary) to win.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Seriously though, like you I registered with the party. I had to write in my party affiliation on the voter registration card. <- That right there could a be a problem in and of itself. Shouldn't any party registered with the state and able to be on the ballet be listed on the voter registration card? When I go online to check out my voter status it now says Libertarian, so it isn't because I can't do it.

I don't even remember telling them my party affiliation. Is that required for all states and/or counties?

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't even remember telling them my party affiliation. Is that required for all states and/or counties?

Only if you want to vote in the primaries for Republicans or Democrats, unless Illinois allows you to vote in the primaries despite party affiliation.

Election laws do vary state to state. In KY primaries are limited to only the people registered for that party, so the form requires you to declare an affiliation.

The problem with that is that in small towns, like where I grew up, you have everyone registered as one party and running on one party so that the primary basically is the election so the small town politics doesn't get drowned out in the fall. On one hand it means if more than two people run you actually get a good difference of opinions, but being a small town that rarely happens.

The negative impact is these peeple are less likely to show up for national/state elections because they already voted for their neighbor as magistrate, which is all they care about anyway. Also, you have nearly an entire town of people registered as Democrats when the votes in national and state elections trend Republican, skewing the statistics.

And now that I am registered as third party I get no primary vote unless by some odd chance two libertarians are running in my district, because the national Libertarian primary isn't on the KY ballot.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't even remember telling them my party affiliation. Is that required for all states and/or counties?

Nope.

Here in Michigan, we are not allowed to declare for a party, but you can certainly be a part of the party system by sending your cash in and all that jazz. Although, there was a big hubbub this past year in the GOP Primary where they got their hands on the list of voters, not to mention the absolute disaster that was the Democratic Primary.

...The changes have to start outside the government, and I hope people get motivated to actually do something sooner than later.

I've sent my letter, btw, about the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Twice now in the last week.

Good for you! I'm very happy to hear that you're doing that, its extremely important that you make your voice heard. Have your Representatives written you back yet? It seems like I usually get a response from Ehler's office within a week (or so), and I'd love to hear what your Representative sends some kind of response back.

 

[Delirious]

I've been a super conservative for the longest time but it just makes so much more sense to me now...I mean I like small government less taxes but also individual freedom and free enterprise...I've given up hope on republicans and their party and I was never joyous over democrats major taxes/spending/large government.

Consider me one of you guys too

 

[YSSMAN]

If there was ever a chance for the Libertarians (or any third party for that matter) to make a move right now, this is it.

Irate and Independent - Real Clear Politics

A poll of opinion polls shows Americans' attitudes are changing rapidly.

They are less and less thrilled about the country's direction and Congress, according to Tom Bevan, executive editor of national polling aggregator RealClearPolitics. He says independent voters are shifting away from the polices of the Obama administration and Democrats.

"Independents have flipped negative," warns Bevan. "That's not a good thing for any party."

The first gubernatorial races since Democrats took control of Washington, in New Jersey and Virginia, show voter angst and ire. Those races appear to be heading in different directions but are two sides of the same coin.

In Virginia -- which swung Democrat first in 2006 to Jim Webb in his Senate race, then further to Obama in 2008 -- Republican Bob McDonnell leads Democrat Creigh Deeds by widening margins.

In New Jersey -- which last went for a GOP presidential candidate in 1988 -- Democrat Gov. Jon Corzine averages about 40 percent. GOP challenger Chris Christie has fallen more than six points in two weeks. The beneficiary is independent Chris Daggett, winning double-digit support.

"What do these phenomena have in common? In two words: disillusionment and disgust," says Lara Brown, Villanova University political science professor.

Registered and likely voters, in particular, are disillusioned and disgusted with both parties and their candidates, who seem to over-promise, under-deliver, ask for too much and take advantage of their positions, explains Brown.

Americans are worn out by inflated rhetoric and Washington insiders who just months ago said they were outsiders.

Voters wonder what happened to candidates they elected to clean up Washington, stop partisan bickering and remove Wall Street titans who retained fat bonuses only because taxpayers bailed out their companies.

Americans are simply fed up:

&#8226; A CNN poll last week suggests most no longer agree with Obama "on the issues that matter most to them."

&#8226; A Rasmussen poll shows 31 percent "think Congress has a poor understanding of the health care proposal," down four points from August (not a high point for Congress, if you recall town hall meetings). Worse, only 18 percent "think the (health care) plan will be a bipartisan effort."

&#8226; Another Rasmussen poll shows only 49 percent "think that the economy will be stronger in five years than it is today." &#8226; A new Gallup poll shows most are "very concerned" about the economy and 60 percent "think the economic conditions are getting worse."

Adding to these fears is Iran, which "9 in 10 Americans" think is developing nuclear arms, according to CNN.

And few seem to understand the president's unwillingness to make a decision about Afghanistan. It is as if they ask: "Does he ever actually sit at the Oval Office desk to work -- like the rest of us?"

Then there are tax problems for Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.; questionable loans for Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; and adulterous liaisons for Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C.

Further, only 39 percent of Republicans have a favorable impression of Michael Steele, GOP chairman. Other polls suggest Americans feel Republicans are merely "obstructionists."

The White House added insult to injury with its fight with Fox News. Most wonder how the White House even bothers with this "issue" with so many other important matters at hand.

"When you look at all of these things, it is no great surprise that the thousands of tea party activists haven't embraced any one political party and that Glenn Beck's anti-administration, small-government, pro-individual-freedom tirade continues to draw some of the highest ratings of all three cable news networks," observes Brown.

What does all this portend? Very possibly a Ross Perot moment -- the emergence of someone with serious charts and serious language that angry Americans will see as more authentic than "hope and change."

I'd love to see a solid third party movement emerge to challenge the Republicans and the Democrats, but there are still to many "what if's" to know what exactly that would do on the national scale. The push by Republicans to be "more Conservative" (not in the traditional Libertarian sense) can, and probably will backfire when mainstream candidates will be challenged. At the same time, the Democrats have a lot of ground to lose if the Independents go elsewhere. I just have to wonder what the "elsewhere" will be.

 

[Tornado]

Its not surprising, I'd say. Its clear that a lot of people don't want to associate themselves with the GOP, due to, well, you know...; but Obama's increasingly notable lack of effort towards anything that isn't health care has left a lot of people out in the cold as well towards the Democrats (and the wasting of time fighting over the issue that most people in the country probably never actually cared about, especially compared to the things mentioned above, probably isn't helping either party either anyways).

The worst case scenario is that people just stop voting again, I suppose; but I'm not sure if they will actually do that with the country in such economic trouble.

 

[Omnis]

The most pragmatic thing is to re-take the GOP. People like Lindsey Graham are huge obstacles though. It won't matter too much though because sooner or later all of these old neo-conservative socialist republicans will literally die out. And then there will exist the same type of policy supporters in only the democratic party.

 

[Zrow]

The most pragmatic thing is to re-take the GOP. People like Lindsey Graham are huge obstacles though. It won't matter too much though because sooner or later all of these old neo-conservative socialist republicans will literally die out. And then there will exist the same type of policy supporters in only the democratic party.

The issue of abortion is going to be a major hurdle in this, if you ask me. That is one issue that people seem to just. not. budge.

 

[Omnis]

The issue of abortion is going to be a major hurdle in this, if you ask me. That is one issue that people seem to just. not. budge.

Which is why it should be an as-local-as-possible thing. Peter Schiff is right about abortion though. It's important, but there are literally SO MANY huge things wrong with the government that need fixing before we can even think about things like abortion.

 

[YSSMAN]

And then there will exist the same type of policy supporters in only the democratic party.

As someone who has been working iith a lot of Democrats lately here on campus, I've yet to figure out how the party will transform when the current leadership dies off. The party does a great job of adjusting to the political flow of the day, but that doesn't lend well to good governance. I get the feeling that the Democrats are going to face the same problem that the GOP is having in the non-too-distant future where the Progressives will have to face off with the Conservatives for control of the party. Everyone loves to scream about how good their ideas are, but when there are so many, its difficult to single out just one.