Medical marijuana: entirely Libertarian & Green led movements

Know Your Customer federal banking rule, retracted: Libertarian led

When Klinton was sending Madeline Albright and Bill Cohen around the country with fraudulent “town hall” meetings to get the public inspired about renewed bombing of Iraq (or to deflect attention from impeachment proceedings), was shown to be staged events by Bob Fitrakis, the Green gubernatorial candidate in Ohio. National news for a couple of days.

I could list literally dozens of issues that are, or have been led by opposition parties. It is irrelevant that these accomplishments aren’t remembered in a way that leaves Greens or Libertarians in lasting power. Most opposition party activists aren’t in it for the “power”.

PEACE
Steve

The bits about inclusion in debates and ballot access restrictions. Very few states have ballot access restrictions that are significant compared to what it takes to win elections. With first past the post, ballot access restrictions are beneficial to those third parties that get over the hurdle; they provide credibility. Debates are largely unwatched save for the big presidential debates.

Regarding IRV. Definitely a waste. So are fusion campaigns. Pushing for Range Voting is worthwhile. With RV ballot access and getting included in debates becomes easier, since third parties are credible options.

The big tent bits and getting rid of the “we know better” mentality are hugely important. Search around the blogosphere. Talk to normal people. Guess what: many moderates care about issues as much as third party partisans!

A party that pushes in the Green direction or the Libertarian direction could be big tent and still purposeful.

Yes, I know that the Austrian Scholastics can claim that we cannot know whether imposing Sharia Law is worse than fining jaywalkers. Yet, lewrockwell.com and other anarcho-scholastic sites do make comparisons between levels of government badness.

I don’t think IRV would require such a bold step, but I do think it’s more trouble than it’s worth. There are better issues to concentrate on.

To answer Deran, today I’m a Democrat. The main reason I switched to the Green Party in 2001 was because of the inroads the 2000 Nader campaign made, as well as my palpable dissatisfaction with the Democrats after the Gore/Lieberman loss. I’m not exactly a fan of Nader (then or now), but I did respect the work that was done.

I knew going in my libertarian interpretation of the sacrosanct Ten Key Points was a bit different than the rank-and-file Green. I thought that would be tolerated, but I’m sorry to say I was very sorely mistaken. This was particularly true after September 11, when I took a position reluctantly supporting military action in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda, but opposing similar action in Iraq. That was a radical position to take in November 2001 (not so much today; funny how that works). But it wasn’t radical enough for the GP litmus test, evidently. Most of the local Greens didn’t have a problem with me, but the GP leadership did, and weren’t shy about letting everyone know about it. The fundamentalism and zealotry pervasive in that organization easily rivals anything in the radical Religious Right. So much for “diversity.”

At any rate, the experience left me permanently soured on the Greens, and I went back to the Democrats immediately after fulfilling my obligation on the 2002 ballot. I don’t necessarily regret leaving the Democrats (most of my grievances remain today), but I absolutely don’t regret coming back.

The “big tent” organization isn’t inherently bad. In any serious political organization you’re going to have winners and losers. That’s just the way it goes. Unfortunately, the marginalized factions in both the Democratic and Republican Parties have nowhere to go, and indeed often find it easier to stick with the devil they know in the hopes their marginalization is a temporary condition. That’s not the fault of the major party organizations as much as it is because of the stubborn refusal of the third parties to organize in a manner that’s proven to work. Competition is a good thing; I wish we had some.

I guarantee Ron Paul wouldn’t be so reluctant to jump back into the LP fray if he thought the organization and tolerance level there was sufficient enough to allow him to run a campaign as he sees fit, which he obviously doesn’t. I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but I can certainly empathize with him on this point.

Look at the republican party today. A perfect example of the “big tent” philosophy. It is a fractured mess, the leaders of the pack Romney, McCain, and Huckabee are not fiscal conservatives that want smaller government. Ron Paul, the only one who qualifies, is being totally ignored by the establishment of the GOP. That is what happens whe you try to
be “too” big tent…..some faction or factions come in and totally change what the basic beliefs of the party are. This, in essence, is exactly what has happened to the republican party over the years. If the Libertarian Party reformers are successful in passing the directional principles platform in Denver it will lead to more and more unlibertarian factions within our midst. One day we will look up and actually have candidates supporting preventative/preemptive war or a carbon tax or a host of other issues that may not be to our liking. Raise your hand if you actually think that the republican party still stands for “smaller government and less taxes” Keeping our ideology sound will allow us to work with the other parties without actually becoming them.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/cand_state/cand_libertarian_party2.html

On the ballot:

Barry Hess
Dave Hollist
Alden Link
Daniel Imperato
Christine Smith
George Phillies
Robert Milnes
Michael P. Jingozian
Bob Jackson
Wayne A.Root
Steve Kubby
John Finan

“Comparing everything like this to a “religion”, while fairly easy, is just the case because religions tended to be one the first major forms of human social organisation.”

That’s why I draw the comparison. To understand the “problems” of third parties not gaining traction (and how, in turn to gain that traction), I am suggesting that we should first understand more about why people adhere/lose religion. We should understand religious participation in the most abstract sense – precisely what you deem as social organisation.

I don’t find that it’s about presenting the perfect argument/creed or having the perfect platform. It’s about the most fervent “apostles” of a political party engineering a social gateway into the party WITHOUT being fervent. I merely suggest the best way to make a blueprint for this might be to pretend one is founding a “secular” religion and ask, “now how do I get people to join?”

I would also, for the fun of argument, assert that there are people that take Star Trek, Boy Scouts, Christianity, Socialist with equal fervor. Yes, the likely level of fervency between these “religions” will vary in a predictable manner. But with politics, I’m suggesting that we’re at the most fervent end. People killed/died for secular religions like National Socialism or Communism just as readily as for Christianity or Islam.

I’m curious as to why Startin argues for ditching planks about IRV and proportional representation. I know he argues that they mean fundamental changes in how our government is structured, but in the end isn’t that what most third parties are aiming for? That may fall under his “anti-purist” ideas, but I’d argue that if third parties don’t have any ideas or plans except for immediate actions, then, to borrow a phrase, what’s the point? (On a bit of a tangent, however, I think it’s interesting how many folks talk about how IRV in Florida would have meant a Democratic victory in 2000. While they very well be right, they generally talk about it in such a way as to imply that there were only three or four parties running in Florida for president, as opposed to the nine or ten as was actually the case. From my perspective as a member of a minor third party, it sounds like an implicit comment that only one or two third parties are actually worthwhile to support, which sounds almost as sectarian as anti-third party arguments from the Democrats and Republicans.)

Anyway, something which doesn’t seem to be mentioned by many third party folks that I think is incredibly useful for convincing people “why should I vote for a third party?” is that the third party movement is not a only a left-wing or right-wing thing. There are many third parties from all across the political landscape, indicating that there’s a broad swath of people who think something is fundamentally wrong with the way our electoral system is. While I don’t think we’ll see the Socialist Party and the Constitution Party running joint slates any time soon because of this argument (and for good reason!), it’s fairly potent nonetheless.