Topic: Election 2008
Libertarians and libertarians must unite Too many times infighting within a Party destroys the very purpose of it's existence. The Libertarian Party is next. by Jonathan Cymberknopf
(libertarian)
Friday, August 22, 2008
Every Presidential election brings with it an opportunity for growth and success for a Third Party or Independent to come forward and meet the American's thirst for a viable Third option. Some examples in recent history include the 1992 Independent run by Ross Perot who stormed the scene and formed The Reform Party under which he ran in the following election in 1996. In 2000, The Greens nominated Ralph Nader and was the story of the election. These are two prime examples which I wish to present of opportunities lost which are hard to come by in this day and age where ballot access is so restrictive thanks to the grip of the Two Party machine.
In this 2008 cycle the story line is clearly on The Libertarian Party and its best chance for its best showing with an eloquent nominee who is well known. Bob Barr, a former Republican, won the nomination but it was not easy. In the Libertarian Party Convention in Denver, a hard fought battle between the "mainstream" faction and the "purist" faction unfolded. In the end, Bob Barr was chosen as its best chance to place the Libertarian Party on the map. To date, most of the "purists" of the Party have not come on board as they feel betrayed and some have even left the Party. A small group even started a new libertarian option called The Boston Tea Party which is still in its diaper stage.
This is very typical of what happens to Third Parties in how they implode. The important thing to notice and what most people fail to recognize is that it always happens upon the heels of success. Too bad, all libertarians cannot see the forest for the trees.
Going back to my examples above, after Ross Perot's final run in 1996, The Reform Party was in great shape for the 2000 election having achieved federal matching funds. This is when all the infighting occurred and it basically destroyed the Party. Basically in a nut shell, the supporters of Pat Buchanan fought with the supporters of John Hagelin, much the same way the supporters of Bob Barr fought with the supporters of Mary Ruwart. As a result, today, the Reform Party is basically defunct in most states, if not all. In my second example, The Green Party nominated an icon in Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. Ralph basically introduced The Green Party to mainstream America, much the same way Bob Barr is doing for The Libertarian Party today. Ralph received a lot of exposure in the media, more than any other Green before him; again, much like Bob Barr is doing for the Libertarians currently. Of course, we all know what happened post election on how the media perpetuated the biggest myth of them all by blaming Nader for the election of George W Bush. The liberal media was very savvy and grabbed this opportunity to once and for all punch through the idea that a vote for any third Party candidate is a wasted vote and they had their poster boy to prove it. As a result, The Green Party who had finally achieved brand name recognition started its own brand of bickering and infighting. The Green Party, strangely enough, instead of hitting the Two Party system harder in 2004 by coming back with Nader, bought into the media frenzy and left Nader out. They nominated David Cobb who was a total non-factor and even alluded he would not campaign in states where they felt were battleground states. Talk about suicide. On the other side, Nader, of course ran as an Independent and we all watched how the Democrats unethically kicked him off several key ballots and forced Nader to use his resources to fight them in court, much like the Republicans have began doing against Bob Barr now. As a result Nader was also a non-factor in 2004. The point is The Green Party lost whatever momentum they had in 2000 due to internal infighting that is still going on today.
There are countless other examples of other third parties implosions, and in fact going on as we speak, but I wanted to go with two broad examples everyone can relate to.
The Libertarian Party has a golden opportunity with Bob Barr to become a force within the Political system for years to come with a successful run this election cycle. With even a 3% showing in the November results, I am told by Richard Winger of ballot-access that the Libertarian Party would automatically qualify for ballot access in many states it otherwise would not.
This is more than reachable as Barr has been polling as high as 6% according to a previous Zogby poll. This 2008 election cycle presents a chance to bring into the fold countless amounts of new registered Libertarians. The success of a Party is its ability to hold a big enough Tent and welcome people with different points of view while maintaining its principles. There are many roads that lead to Rome. To crucify someone because they are not pure enough or doesn't agree with your way is plain old stupid. It is immature, it is not democratic, and it is political suicide. It is hard enough a task to compete with the rigged two party system; we cannot afford to be petty which amounts to nothing more than being a sore loser. When will we realize that infighting, dissention and bickering make us all losers? There is plenty of time and there will be plenty of opportunities for all sides of the Spectrum within the Party to make their voices heard. Right now, Bob Barr presents the best chance the Libertarians have in advancing the message of Liberty & Freedom and less government to the American public. Bob knows how to maneuver politically and we should all support him for the better of all of us regardless of how radical or not we are. There are "purists" out there who would actually relish in The Libertarian Party failing this election which boggles my mind. I urge you to re-consider the consequences. This is a historic chance for the Libertarian Party to grow up and be a contender for years to come. Similarly, I urge the Ron Paul diehards to join us and take the revolution to November. Whoever first coined the phrase "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" was a genius.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 121 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jonathan Cymberknopf only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jonathan Cymberknopf 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.
The question in my mind this cycle has been is Bob Barr close enough phylisophically for me to actively support him or will I sit on my hands.
On issues like abortion, religious tolerence, gay rights and drug decriminalization Bob has in the past been on the other side. Even today he hasn't been explicitly clear that he is on the same side. It seems he has more moved towards the wall rather crossed it.
On the other hand, this is only one election cycle, I believe that having the LP Presedential candidate do as good as possible will benefit my side of the fence.
One thing I will commit to is not trash talking about Barr or other party leaders (on ether side of my fence). I hope that given time we can bridge the differences and bring them over. As Dr. Phillies stated the enemies are not in this room.
The article is well written but badly reasoned. I'd give him a B+ for writing and D- for logic. The error comes in the unspoken premise that the Libertarian Party and libertarianism are still the same thing. Mr. Barr may well do better than any other LIbertarian candidate and he may represent the LIbertarian Party. The question is whether he is a libertarian. My research shows he is not. He is a conservative. He is still against equality of rights for gay people. He sitll believes in the war on drugs -- provided the states fight it. He is still for foreign intervetionism - just a different mixture. He is still for federal bailouts -- such as for Freddy Mac. He is still scapegoating immigrants. He is still a politician not significantly different from those the others nominate.
I would think that running a conservative candidate during a year when the Far Right doesn't think McCain is conservative enough will help attract votes. But the purpose of the LP I joined was to promote libertarianism. Winning votes was secondary. By making votes primary and ideology secondary (or worse) the LP has decided that promoting liberty comes second so drug warriors like Barr are now Libertarians. But the LP does not define libertarianism and can't turn Mr. Barr into a libertarian. Party membership apparently requires nothing but a request to join. Being a libertarian requies a committment to a set of ideas. Barr has done the former but not the latter.
So this year I, and most the libertarians I know, are planning to not vote at all. For many of us that is the first time we have consciously decided to oppose an LP candidate.
I respuctfully disagree with "him" who was not courages enough to leave a first name.
Mr. Barr did not Join the Libertarian Party yesterday. He joined 3 years ago . If we were talking about Gravel who lost the nomination for the Democratic party and then joined the Libertarian Party so he could run for the nomination, I would agree with you.
Furthermore, your comments help to prove my point. Your tent is not big enough for anyone who has seen the light and wishes to join the cause. Barr has changed his stripes and has proven it. Yes, in his republican tenure, he was not a lIbertarian and was a foe as a matter of fact. But his years in Washington helped him evolve.
Finally, may I remind you that what started out as a club for intellectuals in 1979 has developed into a real viable Third party which wants and is ready to compete. The purpose of a Party is not to perpetuate ideology but to win and govern. Votes are the life line to a Party. A Party has to grow . So many "purists" such as yourselves are so afraid of success as if that means comprimising the very principles of the party. That is totally incorrect. Bob Barr would cut spending in every area of government. That in of itself is worth voting for. Barr would cut taxes, Barr would end the war, Barr would end FISA . I could go on but you know very well everything he stands for. How can you disagree with those virtues? You are cutting your nose to spite your face. If a Barr run is successful you will have a better shot in 2012 and by then you may get your "purist" nominated.
In conclusion, Barr recognizes Rome was not built in a day . Some of us have to live in the real world. You can't get elected on a super radical approach and then expect without Congress' help to eliminate everything all together in one shot. Barr is a Libertarian that understands this since he has been there. Most Libertarians are finally understanding this which is why Barr won the nomination.
Too bad your tent is small. Sounds like the Nazi philosophy.
My take as a libertarian is that people should be free to decide if they wan't to call them selves livertarians or not. The major requirement to be a Libertarian is to be a member of the Libertarian Party and registered to vote if possible as a Libertarian. I believe Bob Barr meets these criteria,
In general as to whom the term libertarian can be applied to is any one who wants and is willing to give more individual freedom and thus accepts the responsibility as opposed to seeking more government control. So the term libertarian isn't an absolute you don't have to want tottal freedom and thus zero government you just want when decisions are made that the decisions are made with an attitude towards more freedom not less. This is that region at the top of the page in the top of that diamond. It isn't a pin prick at the very very very top corner it is a large area.
Johnathan, I don't think a restrictive deffinition is equivelent to a realy dispicable political phylosophy. When you choose to use that next to last word you imediatley become suspect of having it applied back at you. As a mater of respect do not use that word unless you are talking about a member of the Nationalist Socialist Movement or some one who chooses to identify them selves with the National Socialists Party and often applies the term Neo to its front. I suspect him is at the exact opposet extream as the that long gone German party.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-08-22 16:50:23
Jonathan,
A few notes:
The fight for the LP's 2008 presidential nomination was much more complex than "mainstreamers versus purists." Wayne Allyn Root also ran as a "mainstream" candidate, but after he was eliminated, and even though he endorsed Barr, a considerable portion of those who had cast votes for him in early ballots supported Mary Ruwart (the last "purist" candidate standing) rather than Barr. Prior to that, the Root campaign had approached the ("purist") Kubby campaign about an endorsement/teamup when Kubby was eliminated. "Mainstreamer" Mike Gravel assisted "purist" Kubby in securing participation in the candidate debate. And so on, and so forth.
It's easy to get wrapped up in the idea that a nomination fight revolves around one conflict, but usually there are a bunch of dueling forces and priorities.
The Boston Tea Party was founded in 2006, nearly two years before Bob Barr even announced his candidacy for the LP's presidential nomination -- and its platform and program are arguably more "moderate" and "mainstream" than the LP's. Although many BTP members are "purists," there's also a segment of new members who are "mainstreamers" but who simply don't believe Barr represents libertarianism, "mainstream" or "purist," at all. They may or may not be correct (that's a pretty subjective judgment call), but they're sincere in their belief.
I'd also argue that the BTP is well out of "diaper stage" and into "toddler stage" at this time. We've held two national conventions. We've nominated a presidential slate. We've put that slate on the ballot in Colorado., We'll be putting it on the ballot in Florida and Louisiana. We just wrapped up our first ballot access petition drive (in Tennessee) and expect the results to be certified. We may secure ballot access in other states as well this year. We already have one elected public official and one appointed public official to our party's name.
Best regards,
Tom Knapp
Founder and 2008 vice-presidential nominee, Boston Tea Party
Steve I agree with you and as for the last part you are right. I carelessly used "Nazi Philosophy" I was trying to decribe a close minded narrow better than you ideology.
Tom thank you for reading my article and thank you for your comments.
May I ask as I am new to the Libertarian Party . What is the purpose of the Boston Tea Party? Why break away from The Libertarian Party? Why not work within an established Party that holds your very own principles. Are you not dilluting the vote?
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-08-22 17:43:31
Jonanathan,
Strictly speaking, the purposes of the Boston Tea Party, as set forth in its bylaws, are: "To empower lovers of freedom to reduce the size, scope and power of government through various means, including but not limited to: Nominating and/or endorsing candidates for election and appointment to public office; affecting public policy through information, education and advocacy campaigns; and supporting the diverse and important work of the individuals and organizations comprising the libertarian movement." [Note the "endorse" part -- the BTP has endorsed many more LP candidates this year than it is running under its own label]
Thing is, organizations are composed of members, members have different goals, and the organization will tend to evolve in purpose toward those members' goals regardless of what is set in type. At this time, I agree that the BTP is substantially, and fairly obviously, acting as a vehicle for discontented LP, former-LP or never-LP "purists."
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I seem to recall that back in 1776, Jefferson wrote something about "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another," etc.
Let's assume that many libertarian "purists" aren't, under any circumstances, going to hop on the Barr bandwagon. I think that's a reasonable assumption. Why shouldn't those purists board a vehicle more in line with the direction they want to go, rather than stay in the vehicle they're in, pissing and moaning that it's going the wrong way?
At the time I founded the BTP, I hoped that it would end up constituting itself as an internal caucus of the LP rather than as a separate party. I even offered a resolution to that effect at the BTP's 2006 national convention. It was defeated. Like I said, purposes evolve pursuant to the desires of those composing an organization.
I don't worry about "diluting the vote." Votes don't belong to parties, they belong to voters. It's up to John McCain, Barack Obama, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Charles Jay, et al to convince those voters that they're the best candidates. If a voter thinks that Barr is a better candidate than Jay, he or she will vote accordingly, and vice versa.
Nobody is automatically entitled to "the libertarian vote" ... and historically the LP has done a very bad job of getting that vote, if the Pew Research Center, the Cato Institute and other entities which have conducted issues/ideological studies and polls are correct. After nearly 40 years, is there some particular reason why libertarians should continue to stick with an organization that hasn't made significant progress toward achieving its goals, or why they shouldn't try other approaches as well?
The LP always has the option of attempting to win the loyalty of libertarians. What it doesn't have is an automatic entitlement to that loyalty, or to a competition-free market in which to seek that loyalty. In my personal opinion, the LP hasn't earned loyalty for its presidential ticket this year (I believe it has earned loyalty at other levels, which is why I remain an LP member, activist and congressional candidate). Some others seem to agree, and we're acting on that belief. Better now, when "the libertarian vote" is at less than 1% in actuality and in fairly low double digits potentially, than when it is in double digits actually and such splits could prevent victory, don't you think? And it could be that the LP's approach is preventing such progress and that the BTP will help light the path in that direction.
I'm a Mary Ruwart supporter, and a radical. To be honest, I was extremely disappointed when the Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr. Not because I don't believe his conversion to our side is genuine, but because I had a gut feeling that Ron Paul supporters would have a hard time connecting with his candidacy. Ruwart, on the other hand, is friends with Paul and in my opinion, has done more for his candidacy than Barr. As shown in a recent interview with Paul on The Situation Room (CNN), he is "torn" between Barr and Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. We all know how much of a terrible lier the good doctor is - he was clearly more comfortable with Baldwin. But, so far, Ron Paul supporters have moved to neither camp with their money (either that, or they're still recovering financially from the Paul campaign; I know I still am). I guess the point I'm trying to make is - the LP should not focus on winning over disgruntled McCain supporters, but should focus on picking up the Ron Paul vote. The party needs the new blood!
I have to agree with this article. I am fairly new to this party. I voted LP in the 2004 election for the first time. I was a die hard republican up to the 2000 election, and then I lost hope in the party. Although Bob has made mistakes on issues in the past, he is now fully disclosing those issues and making amends.
I feel that the party needs to evolve and become more center minded in the near future. I agree with the far reaching radicals, but to get a chance of the general election, you have to get a handle and communicate to the masses. The center of the political spectrum is where most votes lie. We cannot grow this party and ignore those people.
By accepting a more politically balanced candidate, more people will come to respect the party as a valid choice. While it is fine to be a purist, that stance will not get you elected to any office. You can support a more centered candidate and still keep your integrity as long as there are points which are moving in your direction. Think about it. If you have a more centered minded candidate, you get more votes and you are still moving the political spectrum toward your direction.
We should take baby steps. Since most people would probably fall inside the centrist box, we find a candidate that can appeal to those people while still moving the politicial agenda in the Libertarian direction. We need to find and support a candidate who is located directly above the centrist box on the edge, but not so far as to come across as radical.
And another thing that really peeves me off is the purist who complain about Bob Barr because he's not pure enough, but they worship Ron Paul. Right now Paul is really hurting this party by not giving credit to his libertarian leanings. He's come to the center to attract votes to get elected, but now that he has been elected, he should give credit to our the party for their Libertarian beliefs.
If I heard correctly, Ron Paul is running unopposed in this election. If he were a libertarian and wanted this party to grow, he would have changed his party affiliation to Libertarian which is what he is. He would still get elected. I also think he should release his supporters to support a candidate this year in the election regardless of who it is. He's no longer a contender and he needs to back down or help another candidate get the message out.
(don't get me wrong, I like the guy and his ideas, but he's hurting our party and taking away from the current situation instead of making the most of it.)
I can't and won't speak for the purests because there is no good definition of what one is. Ron Paul isn't perfect, his stances on abortion, gay mariage and imigration and the problems surounding the racist publications that his name has been connected with. Barr also has problems very similar and worse, abortion, gay mariage, religious intelerence, drug warior etc.
But Ron Paul has choosen not to run as a Libertarian and Bob Barr has asked for has appoligized for past issues and has won the Libertarian nomination.
We have our players for this round. Pick one you like or don't vote. Dreaming Ron Paul is going to step back in and some how get even close to 15% is a... ell a dream.
Ok so what do we do. We pick whom we are going to support. We have lots of chooses so pick one.
We also decide what we won't do. I have decided that I am not going to bash with harsh critisism any of the party candidates or leaders. I will state where I have problems and I will state where I think one or the other is doing a good job but I will be civil. I will not call for kicking one group or another out of this party or that party. I believe that in the long run we are more philisophically alike the different and we will only have a long term chance if we stop in fighting and start collectively organizing.
What a utter crock of bull from some of the replies to my piece. I am astounded at the intellectual level of them.
Jonathan berates me for not leaving a “first name”. Why? He says it is cowardly not to. Apparently the Founders of the country, who debate the Constitution using pen names were all cowards. Apparently his claim to be Jonathan makes him brave, as if that narrows down the pool of possible writers in any substantial way. That is just silly.
He too makes the utterly stupid mistake of equating being a libertarian with being a Libertarian Party member. Libertarianism existed long before the LP was founded -- a party I worked with for almost 30 years I should note.
My tent is big enough for people who saw the light. And when Barr does see the light he will be welcome. He is wrong on major issues and anti-libertarian on them. That is not seeing the light that is turning the bloody light in the party onto dim.
I would note he knows his history very poorly. The party was not founded in 1979 as he claims. I was already campaigning for candidates in 1978 and the party had already run two presidential campaigns by them. But he’s the expert on the Libertarian Party, at least in his own mind.
Is Barr libertarian on some things as Jonathan points out? Yes. Virtually every politicians is libertarian on some things. Only a fool would think that makes them libertarian. And apparently asking LP candidates to be libertarian is now equated with being a Nazi. Good lord, if this is the kind inane logic used by LP enthusiasts no wonder the party sold out and nominated this conservative.
Steve is equally as bad. He said the “The major require to be a Libertarian is to be a member of the Libertarian Party and registered to vote if possible as a Libertarian.” Fact -- the LP is not the defintion of libertarian. It is a philosophy not a party membership. If people confuse the two mores the pity for freedom since it would now equate liberty with people like Barr. And that hurts liberty. The party was founded by people who were already libertarians when the founded it. The ideas predate the philosophy. And it is fidelity to those ideas, not party membership, that makes one a libertarian or not.
I would say that anyone who defines libertarian as belonging to a party is clearly uninformed about the origins of libertarianism and about the origins of the Libertarian Party.
Him, to be a big L libertarian is to be a member of the Libertarian Party.
A little l libertarian is a phylosophy . The two are not necesarily the same. A lot of it has to do with where you draw bounderies. I am smart enough to know that in a democracy you need to draw the bounderies in such a way as to convince enough voters to move a reasonable amount in your direction.
So if you want to draw a itsy bitsy tiney little circle around your twisted perspective. By all means do so. With my pleasure. Call your self what ever you like... Call your self "him" All you are doing is making yourself meaningless. Which you have done a fine job off tonight, Some of us want more then fantasies of freedom.
Posted By: C. Al Currier
Date: 2008-08-23 11:01:37
I fit best in the Boston Tea Party, with its simple political form.
I recognize only three political arguments about government:
Kill-the-beast
Tame-the-beast
Feed-the-beast
For years, libertarians have tried to make politics into something more complicated than what I have the patience for. The BTP is a good place for people who argue from postion #1 & #2, but clearly not a good place for people of position #3. There are two great parties devoted to feeding-the-beast, the Democrats and the Republicans. I would join one of them if that's what I wanted to do. The only reason I have for participation in a 'third party' is because I oppose political argument #3. The LP currently looks too much like a feed-the-beast party to suit my 'tastes'.
I don't think there is anything "too purist" about defending Liberty.
People who would be characterized as such go the long extra mile when it comes to defending our liberties, as long as it's done without coercion or physical force. There is a purpose to being "pure".
Also, I don't think "purists" will dilute the LP vote. Barr should earn votes on his own merits anyway.
One thing I like about individualists is they don't take their marching orders from anyone. There is individual thought and with that, plenty of disagreement. People have the right to think independently and vote for who they think is best, or not vote at all.
I'm supporting Barr not because I think he's the best spokesman or pure example for Liberty - although he's made a lot of progress considering where he was not too long ago - but I support his run because of the work the LP has done over the years into making themselves into a viable choice... enough so to get someone like Barr to cross over... and I want to see the ideas of Liberty itself have an impact in this election, then continue to grow from there.
Also, I think it's important to remember that many long time Libertarians - people like Ruwart - were elected to the party committee.
So I think the LP's principles will remain in good hands and I don't expect the party to implode like the Greens or Reformers.
I have voted for every LP presidential candidate since Ed Clark. I haven't liked them all or agreed with everything they said, but each was SO FAR, FAR better a choice than any of the D or R candidates that it would have been crazy - given the opportunity, and given my libertarian philosophy - not to vote Libertarian. I happily will be voting for Bob Barr, even though I believe he has some philosophical shortcomings.
Posted By: Richard Shepard
Date: 2008-08-25 22:32:17
This discussion is all very nice and civil, better than most libertarian forums I have seen lately. Bob Barr this. Mary Ruwart that. Ron Paul ...(Ron Paul? - He's a Republican! ... a libertarian Republican, I suppose, but a Republican nonetheless.)
Anyway, I really don't have any idea where this gets us. Everybody who has any interest in third party politics needs to understand one thing. Nobody is going to get anywhere until we have serious election reform. As long as we have to contend with single member plurality districts no third party, regardless of its "pragmatism" or its "purity," is going to get anywhere. Check out "Duverger's Law" on Wikipedia to understand what I am talking about.
Posted By: Arthur Torrey
Date: 2008-08-26 10:57:48
I guess I'm one of those evil "Purists" who thinks that principles are important... Important enough that I'm an elected Libertarian officeholder. Important enough that I'm an officer in the state LP. Important enough that I'm an LP Presidential Elector candidate.
I met Barr in Denver, (My 5th NatCon as a delegate BTW) and saw his weaseling and waffling on every major issue. I saw the transcripts where as a SITTING LNC MEMBER and Presidential candidate, he talked about his reason for running being to help downticket REPUBLICANS... I've seen the evidence of his giving support while on the LNC to REPUBLICAN candidates with Libertarian opponents...
So I won't do the lemming march off the cliff and support Barr. I have stopped my support of the LP until / unless it figures out that in order to be the "Party of Principle" principles matter... I WON'T vote for Barr in the general, and I have clearly and repeatedly pledged that in the admittedly unlikely event that the LP wins my state, I will NOT cast an electoral vote for Barr.
When I run for re-election next spring, my campaign materials for the first time will NOT have an LP logo on them, and the "libertarian" will have a small "L" - I may go for the BTP endorsement, haven't decided yet.
BTW, I'm proud to give my name...
Arthur Torrey
Town Meeting Rep - Billerica
LPMA Operations Facilitator
LPMA Presidential Elector, NOT voting for Barr
speaking for myself
and wondering what you need to do on this blog to get a PARAGRAPH BREAK!!
I'll vote for big L Barr for one reason only; to pave the road for little l (but hopefully big L by 2012) Gary Johnson. Hopefully he'll run and show the newbies how a libertarian votes. Jonathan, if you ever want to meet a real libertarian, let me know. For now, I think I'll start hanging at the BTP site, they seem to know what a libertarian looks like.
what the writer doesn't get is that the purosts (constitutionalists-anarchos) , pragmatists (liberals) and pledgers (Libertarians) have always worked together well in the LP. The problem is people who are infiltrators or opportunists claiming to be one or the other (though rarely pledgers) starting okey doke both ends against the middle cons claiming there's factionalism. That's why the 'purist' C. Smith spent do much time denouncing anarchists, or the pragmatist darling badnarik and the 2004 platform are suddenly portrayed as crazy purism: they're hustling you.
And if you've been around the LP a few months and don't get that, the assuption is you're part of the hustle.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2008-09-14 08:12:32
I am not a "DIE-HARD" libertarian...with that said, I am more of a Constitutionalist...not Constitutional Party...and with that in mind, I would rather see Balwin in the race more than Barr...Cause I don't trust Barr, since he voted for the Patriot Act. Yeah, I know he apologized for that vote too...but is he going to do that again?
I do NOT trust Barr...and let's face it...there are more folks looking to the 3rd party BUT one of the 2 Major party monster machine ( D&R ) will win, that is a fact!!
Posted By: Scott McLachlan
Date: 2008-09-14 10:22:41
The problem with Barr, as I see it, is that while he has converted somewhat to Libertarianism, he has pretty much whiffed on most of the major platforms of the Party, and has hired some pretty questionable characters to run his staff. He does not even have a link to the Party on his website-- so why exactly should we support a man who doesn't support US?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
