©2008 Jahfre Fire Eater, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Jahfre Fire Eater only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jahfre Fire Eater is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Jahfre Fire Eater of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Jahfre Fire Eater |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Mike Stahl
Date: 2008-05-28 21:08:06
You are quite right, parties do not have principles. Do you suppose we could get rid of them? Or at least end the two-party system? That seems a more mannageable goal than reforming the GOP, or the DEMs honestly.
Posted By: rtbohan
Date: 2008-05-28 21:16:16
Great article. Campaigns, especially presidential campaigns are fund. Making change is hard work. If we really want change we have to start at the grass roots.
Posted By: Steve Dasbach
Date: 2008-05-29 07:14:22
I supported Barr in Denver because he can reach far more people with the Libertarian message than any of the candidates.
Most of delegates concerned about nominating Barr didn't object to what he was saying. They just weren't convinced that he would continue to deliver a strong Libertarian message after the convention.
I believe that Barr's change of heart is sincere, especially since it occurred several years ago, long before he considered running for President. It is also consistent with his long-established libertarian views on privacy. Time will tell.
Steve Dasbach - LP member since 1979
Posted By: Mrs. Fire Eater
Date: 2008-05-29 08:17:36
Get rid of parties? Good luck with that. Our founders could see no way to prevent this "evil" enterprise in a free society, and they were right. People will always form coalitions based on common goals. The problem with the parties is the branding/tatoo loyalty aspect, divorced from principle and outcome. That problem isn't with parties - it's with people themselves. That problem is an evolutionary one that is immune to social engineering, except over a very long time and through small, measured actions of individuals pointing their fingers at the right place and time. The only place finger pointing does any good is among those who wouldn't know what you were pointing at otherwise. There are many in the GOP who are simply looking for permission - for some inspiration and strength - to take the principled route. So I point - THAT WAY! - because I don't have the blindness or the loyalty. They follow, one at a time...
Posted By: John Campbell
Date: 2008-05-29 08:58:53
>>"All they care about is improved numbers in the next election, not promoting Libertarian Idealism."
The biggest thing holding back the LP is the waited vote argument. Improved numbers are crucial for breaking through. Otherwise all the effort of LP candidates and activists is wasted.
>>"the LP and its eternal 1-3% support"
Check your numbers. The high water mark for LP presidential campaigns is 1980 with 1.1% of the vote. Most recently Michael Badnarik got a whopping .34% of the vote.
Posted By: FormerLPMember
Date: 2008-05-29 10:29:18
If I read this correctly, you are a libertarian supporter of the Republican Party and its presidential candidate Ron Paul, but will now support the LP and its presidential candidate Bob Barr as a protest vote against your party’s presumptive nominee John McCain. Obviously you do not protest for principles but are “only in the game for the next round” and “all you care about is improved numbers in the next election, not promoting Libertarian Idealism.”
This “seems so short sighted and, well,” VERY “unprincipled.”
Posted By: C. Al Currier
Date: 2008-05-29 12:08:35
"Get rid of parties? Our founders could see no way to prevent this "evil" enterprise in a free society, and they were right." -- By: Mrs. Fire Eater
[George] Washington was not a member of any political party, and hoped that they would not be formed out of fear of the conflict and stagnation they could cause governance.
-from Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington
I do not believe that the LP ever had principles. I've been barred from the LP about a dozen times. The first time was in Denver Co in 1973. I showed up at an LP meeting as an anti-Amtrak-democrat. The LP'ers were about 45 minutes late showing up for their own meeting, then spent about 15 minutes griping about how hard it was to find the place. Then they starting preaching about Ayn Rand and atheism. I wasn't an atheist (barring offence) nor did I know about Ayn Rand (barring offence). After barring me, they told me to "show up next month so we can do this again"!
Well, for 30+ years, we've been barring each other, and now we got Bob Barred .
I guess there just weren't 'nuff purists left to put up a fight. Politics is run by those who show up, and too much in the LP is run by those who show up late.
Posted By: a knight
Date: 2008-05-30 02:25:46
"The Ron Paul Revolution has brought conservative Republican libertarians out in droves."
The term "conservative Republican libertarian" is an absurdity, non-existent in reality. Consider this also: This article attempts to portray giving up core libertarian theory for a wider party base, and potential electoral wins, yet is this not the very same reprehensible practise that this author claims was the motivation to high-tail it from the Republican Party in the first place?
Do not be deceived because of the way this argument has been dishonestly framed. This isn't about a little easing all around on the hard-core liberty positioning. The author is actively seeking to rid the LP of the planks he does not personally care for. In short, he wants you to become a breathing gexample of an oxymoron: a "conservative Republican libertarian", just like he thinks he is. Yet it is hard to get that conservative label to stick, since he did not approach the LP hat in hand, and on his knees, profusively apologising for the evil manifestation that his previous party has become. Real conservatives stand-up and accept personal responsibility for the effects of their past actions. They do not flee from them in the dead of night, and come the morning stand upon the opposite shore as renunciates reminscent of Trotskyists.
If he is neither a libertarian or a conservative, and is assuredly not a liberal or leftist, then he muist really be a righty, which is logical, since rightys claim to embrace the concept of presonal responsibility, because the strategy provides soapbox time, which they use to hurl abusive derogations at single moms.
Posted By: bruce
Date: 2008-08-24 13:59:22
You are wrong, Parties are not to express ideas. Parties are ther to get candidates elected. Those elected are then supposed to make laws to influence our lives in a positive way.
By standing by a principle and not waivering, the party has excluded all of the members which could help it get elected and to get some of its principles passed into law. Why did Ron Paul run and continue to run under the party of Repulican? Because the extremist in the Libertarian party are too closed minded to allow him to express any moderation in his views.