Comments on: Tough Love for the Libertarian Party

by: Pamala Paul

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:15:40 +0000

pezlpl7jftrvz263

by: John Dibble

Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:31:50 +0000

I’m a Libertarian, and I agree with a lot of what has been said here. The Libertarian Party needs serious reform.

www.reformthelp.com

by: MN_Bulldog

Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:32:36 +0000

Right, check out www.politics1.com and click on “political parties”. There are dozens of them. I’m sure one would fit your description. Whether you want to join/build is up to you…

by: Right Democrat

Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:21:57 +0000

I would like to see a political party formed that would be the opposite of the Libertarian Party. We need a party that will be an advocate for working people and restrain the greed of the marketplace. We need a party that will stand for traditional family values and law and order. Voters who are economic populists and conservative to moderate on social issues have been overlooked by the elitists who have long dominated our two major parties.

by: NewFederalist

Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:59:12 +0000

As a former LP member and activist (Dec 1974 through Aug 1985) my perspective is the party will never become a true third party. It will perpetually be a minor party and may last as long as the Prohibition Party and for many of the same reasons. As long as the LP remains a narrowly focused ideological party it will always attract some level of fanatical (not intended to sound negative) support. These “true believers” will leave at the first significant compromise of principle to gain electoral success. When they go the party dies when it compromises itself into Republican-Lite or Democratic-Lite for there will be no reason to differentiate among the alternatives. It is a very thorny problem for all alternative parties regardless of ideology. By the way, I believe the last true third party we have had in America is the People’s Party (Populists) of the late 19th and very early 20th centuries. They had broad appeal; elected members to Congress (both House and Senate); elected governors and other statewide officials as well as actually having control of some state legislatures. AND…they were not a splinter of either major party. That was impressive and has not been replicated since.

by: Chris Bennett

Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:36:14 +0000

As a long time LP activist I understand some of the frustrations of the LP. I don’t necessary agree with 100 percent of our platform as well but the LP is much closer to my thinking than any other party.

I was Aaron Russo’s Scheduling Cordinator while he was running for the LP Presidential nomination. To this day I still feel that the LP kicked themselves in the rear for not choosing Russo. Now there was 2 better candidates for VP who because of Campagna’s lies, they got shafted. Millay and Jameson would have been better than Campagna and I supported Millay wholeheartedly. I must say for my first National Convention it was a wild one. Of course I still believe that Nolan and Badnarik had a secret deal going in case one of them had fallen first. I didnt trust Nolan, he looked too much of a neo-con to me.

To solve some of the points that were discussed, after the election I started a group to help elect and groom LP candidates.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyconsulting

For all you who would like to see better LP candidates come visit my group and run for office yourself. I have tons of campaign experience and can offer candidates much help!

by: Otto M. Kerner

Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:01:16 +0000

Good points. I have to believe, though, that there’s a deeper problem here than the LP needing advice. Some of these things should be obvious to anybody who’s thinking about them clearly. The small part of me that still cares about the LP’s fortunes was banging its share of my head against the wall repeatedly as I watched what the national party was doing in last year’s election. Mike Badnarik? Why was he even running for the nomination to begin with? Personally, I think Aaron Russo would have been the best candidate—as far as I can see, the only legitimate criticism of him is that he’s a loose cannon who sometimes puts his foot in his mouth. So what? He had an off-chance of becoming a high-profile alternative candidate. Yes, there was a chance he would make a fool of himself and embarrass the party, but this assumes that the Libertarian Party is something so important that you can’t risk its good name, which is ridiculous. In any event, even a child would know that either Russo or Gary Nolan would have been a better candidate than Badnarik. I’d imagine most libertarians know that, too, but apparently not the ones who were at the convention. And choosing Campagna over … well, over anybody, just somebody non-embarrassing who might have been standing around would have been better … was twice as dumb. I’m sure most of the delegates didn’t know about his fake degree when they voted for him, but, that’s their own fault.

So, it would be nice if LP activists would slap their hands on their foreheads after reading your suggestions and get their acts together, but I don’t see it happening. For whatever reason, the LP has always attracted an odd group of people who have proven themselves ineffectual at running a political party. For example, on your 8th point: they wouldn’t need to change their name now if they had picked a different one to begin with. Back in 1971, the party’s founders considered “New Liberty Party”, but, no, they decided “Libertarian” sounded better.

That said, some of your suggestions are easier said than done, even when you have the right idea. Your point #2 for instance, reminds me of when I was running for local office a few years ago. The election required two candidates to run as a slate, so I recruited another LPster who lived near me as my running mate. He proved to be a terrible candidate, refusing to “tuck in his shirt”, so to speak, or answer reporters’ phone calls, etc. But, there was no one better I could get to run. Should I have just cancelled the campaign? Maybe.

By the same token, I’m sure the LP would love a presidental candidate “who has some elected political experience or who can successfully raise substantial amounts of money.” But those are really hard to find: they’ve been seeking one for 30-some years and still haven’t found one willing to run.

I’m not sure how consistently your suggestions 4 and 7 can be carried out by someone who is a True Believer. If you really think the IRS should be abolished immediately, isn’t it kind of disingenuous to say, “We’ll think about abolishing it 10 years from now”? Anyway, political plans in Washington almost never get carried out over the course of 10 years. One presidential term is usually the practical limit on how far ahead the president can plan. That said, I was pissed off when they drove Neil Randall out of the party, and I wrote a nasty e-mail to the Vermont party chair at the time.

by: Mikey

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:00:26 +0000

Before all others, #4 is the key. Third-parties should never tell people “go away” if the person is interested in supporting your beliefs. Third-parties need to start off with one or two key near-term goals, with a track of where they would like to be in 10 years. That way, people who believe with the one or two key goals will come in and support your cause. Having differing opinions on minor topics within the party is healthy, since it will help determine how and where the party will grow and evolve into. Things like legalizing drugs, abortion, and stem cells research should not be tackled from the beginning. If they want to focus on the IRS and fiscal restraint . . . then focus on them. Let the individual party members decide for themselves how they view the other issues out there. It will show that the party is not trying to cookie-cutter itself and the voter population like the Democrats and Republicans have over the decades.

by: es

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:31:30 +0000

I occasionally hear the LP referred to as “those people who want to legalize marijuana, but not the Greens…those other people.” lol

by: es

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:24:59 +0000

I agree with that 100%, especially the part about not throwing out people who agree with 90% of the platform. That’s really just a different sort of compromise…but if they can’t even learn compromise within the party, how are we to trust them in the legislature?

by: iFocusNews.com

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:56:02 +0000

I especially agree with 1, 2, 7, and definitely 8. I don’t think it’s as much a communication problem as it is a problem with them taking their platform too far. Be true to what you believe, but understand that politics is about compromise, and that you’re not going to win any elections by saying that the federal gov’t shouldn’t even be providing roads and schools.