The LP is dead.
And yet, there are still those that would act shocked. "Oh my! How did this happen? This was the year!" But let's not fool ourselves. This has been, without a doubt, the greatest third party failure in years.
When the "mainstream", accessible Libertarian candidate Bob Barr only polled .4% [1] before the election and only got roughly 530,000 votes, [2] it must have been a dismal year. Nader didn't fare much better at only 600,000.
Sure, there are other conclusions we can draw from this, and analyze and re-analyze all we'd like. Libertarians didn't just compete with other third parties but also a polarized electorate, poor economic factors, a media blackout, Ron Paul's run for presidency, and plain voter apathy.
All these helped contribute to a poor third party showing- true. But the LP did particularly bad this year, where it promised to succeed, at least marginally.
Promised to succeed? When? Since Denver was for the most part a valid exercise of democracy, many warily agreed to the support the ticket on both sides. Yet what happened next was the beginning of the end. Many watched an incompetent slate of national committee members take charge, and in the coming months, an arrogant presidential ticket crashed their ideology into the ground. Like Herbert Morrison, I too am left gasping "Oh, the humanity!"
But the past is past. Sure, we can argue about it all we want. Radicals and reformers had to compromise. Barr tricked the delegates. Whatever. But the truth is compromise will be a part of almost any organization, regardless of its intent or scope.
For 37 years, the LP made BAD compromises though. It couldn't decide whether it was a protest club full of potsmokers and goldbugs or a true political party. No one learned from the relevant successes of third parties in the past. Much of this was the fault of the radicals, who had assumed control of their party for a vast majority of the time, chasing out more moderate members whenever the party peaked before mainstream acceptance. There are, from my understanding, three simple instruments to third party success: a regional base, an issue ignored by the major parties ("freedom" does not count),and also unique principles. This is not achieved through electoral reform, but we could, in the future, do that to help third parties further.
There will undoubtedly be people who'll argue that there weren't as many laws as there are now. Does that change the validity of any of the above laws at face value? Are we even capable of meeting the restrictions if they did not exist? And how does the internet, TV, and other communications that spread libertarian messages factor into this conspiratorial third party blackout?
The failure of the LP this year proved that the reformers have no future in the party. Forget any viability. There will be no second chance: the LP is a failed brand. But many Libertarians enjoy their little club. So the only question is... will they heed their principles and stop subsidizing a party too "big" to fail? Or will the LP linger on, like the corporate duopoly which keeps on insisting one one more chance? That choice is up to you.
---
[1] [link edited for length]Substantive for one very important reason- this is the first time Barr has polled lower than Nader with Zogby.
[2] [link edited for length] The official Election Results.
[3] [link edited for length] A loophole in Duverger's law, as explained by Libertarian Reform Caucus founder Carl Milsted.
©2008 Spencer Jayden, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, October 25, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, August 29, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Spencer Jayden only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Spencer Jayden 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 Spencer Jayden of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Spencer Jayden |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-10-25 23:33:03
Dear Spencer Jayden -
Try www.CampaignForLiberty.com!!! They are doing alright.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-10-26 05:30:22
Hi Spencer,
Hmmm, after 37 years the Tonka toy has not turned into a giant earth moving machine. That's funny!
The problem isn't that the LP has failed, it's that most proponents have had very misguided illusions about what it is.
The LP is a tool. A very tiny, ineffective tool, but a tool none-the-less. The tool didn't fail, it is still the same as it ever was. The problem is that LP members can't recognized the difference between a tiny garden trowel and a giant earth mover. They sit in their sandbox feeling outraged that their party isn't as powerful as the GOP or the Democrat party. Pretty freaking sad for a bunch of supposedly super rational individuals.
Jahfre Fire Eater
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-10-26 12:27:44
With the "mainstream", accessible Libertarian candidate Bob Barr poised to poll .8% [1] (from the latest Zogby poll) or roughly 800,000 votes, this is a dismal year. Nader fares much better at anywhere from 1.5-2%. Conclusion?
One conclusion: you're confusing a single poll result with a final vote.
Even if Barr does get only 800,000 votes, he'll still have doubled the presidential vote from 2004; but this poll result is certainly no proof that that's what he will get.
At best, a poll is only a 90% or 95% reliable estimate of how many votes a candidate would have received, if the election had been held that day, within a margin of error. But it's completely worthless in Barr's case, as it says nothing about how many votes he'd receive -- according to it, he might receive no votes at all, or he might receive 2 million (both results are within the margin of error).
Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-10-26 12:48:12
You oughta learn to read footnotes, George. Or just read carefully. Either one will work. I didn't say that this one poll dictated final results, but as this is the first accurate poll reflecting Barr's true numbers, and we ARE drawing close to election day.
And the point is that Barr, as he is not a legitimate libertarian, has not drawn in any additional small-l libertarians, merely those conservatives pissed off with McCain. So, I ask again - so what? And honestly, Badnarik was an obscure lunatic in the first place. A programmer and self-taught constitutionist on the side who preached liberty from the trunk of his car? Yeah... the LP's Dennis Kucinich.
If you need more poll results, I'll be happy to provide them. I know you'll happily ignore them, but come November 4th, the truth will be plain to see.
How is registering as an asterisk helping expand the movement? It's not.
Jahfre:
That's not the point. The same can be applied to ALL parties then. They are merely vessels for ideas to propagate.
And just because some think that all third parties are mere protest rally clubs, doesn't define the way things have to be. Ron Bain covered this excellently with his "Poof" article; unfortunately, he also supports Barr. It's as if Libertarians, using their "tool", expect that they can run a marginally known candidate such as Barr and expect to educate "800,000" or (for George) 2,000,000 (keep rationalizing, George) people on hardcore libertarianism. It's simply insane.
And that doesn't change the fact that the LP shall die.
Posted By: ken
Date: 2008-10-27 06:04:52
What you call the 'radicals' were the people behind every spurt of growth of people in public office. The LP since inception has been battling against crooks under color of 'purism' and 'pragmatism' who often were in control of the national LP. That hurt but did not greatly retard it except in the last few years. People in office are down 90%. Why don't you investigate that? I also suspect you've never read any of it's strategic plans. You certainly have no idea of what it's done.
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-10-28 07:39:46
Dear Spencer,
Finally, a Libertarian to admit how out of step with reality and everyone else your views are.
Amen.
Master C
Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-10-29 01:13:07
What you call the 'radicals' were the people behind every spurt of growth of people in public office.
Of libertarians period or in general? The latter is a bold statement. The former is just blatantly false.
The LP since inception has been battling against crooks under color of 'purism' and 'pragmatism' who often were in control of the national LP.
That's one of the areas the LP went wrong period. Pretty ironic for an ideology that emphasizes grassroots activism and up-top activism to be spread "top-down" by a bunch of incompetent and criminal retards. This also hurts regional growth, which is where 90% energy should be invested anyway- not running worthless presidential campaigns when we don't have anyone worth running anyway.
That hurt but did not greatly retard it except in the last few years. People in office are down 90%. Why don't you investigate that?
I suspect that if you read my article properly, you would understand I'm blaming both radicals and the reformers here. Hencewhy the LP is invalid - there's no faction that can get anything done correctly, and both will just bitch back and forth on why you should hate the other side. Kinda like hmm..shall we say..Democrats and Republicans? But you guys love your little club and your roleplay, so I won't bring the big guys into this.
I also suspect you've never read any of it's strategic plans. You certainly have no idea of what it's done.
Oh I don't do I? Why don't you clue me in? Since you seem to find some worth in this strategy afterall, of self-destruction, which is beyond me...
This system is exactly what I mean. You're blaming the reformers. Let me tell you something. Don't confuse this "conservative" surge for the true reformers' plans. Their strategies are invalid and they've already failed, so what makes you think I would give them a second thought, especially as you listed the tragic shortcomings that are bearing fruit so far? Honestly, you put the logic out for yourself and don't even acknowledge it.
If you're gonna stay in the LP, then I understand. Enjoy your make-believe club and microcosmic hell. You created it for yourself. Worse yet, you'll just swtich off arguments if ever something doesn't go your way and why the LP ranks don't grow (in office, or dues-paying membership).
Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-10-29 01:16:48
Finally, a Libertarian to admit how out of step with reality and everyone else your views are.
I would gladly welcome your praise if you actually understood my point. I'm not saying libertarianism is a failed ideology. I'm saying that the people who insist on staying in the LP are bringing the movement down. It's a vehicle for strawman attacks and creates the view that this is how all libertarians are - ineffective, impotent anarchists who believe in hedonism and greed.
The people in charge don't help change that, whether they're REFORMERS or RADICALS. The tanked reformers' plan this year (which was hijacked by a bunch of conservatives) made this apparent, and anyone who still supports the LP, all they have left to say frequently is "oh, we'll never be seriously hurt by this" or "we'll never go away completely" or they'll try to lessen the impact by saying "we're not a party at all, we're not a club" when they fail.
For a party that preaches responsibility, they have very little.