Part of our problem is that even most of our candidates don't really think we can win. by John Wingspread Howell
(libertarian)
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
As the Republicrats hold their conventions over the next two weeks, and even now the Ron Paul contingent is generating more energy among card carrying Libertarians than our own ticket, it's obvious that the Libertarian Party hasn't made much progress since its inception a quarter century ago. Here we are using 5% of the vote as our high water mark? Given the current landscape, even that seems overly optimistic. Why? Because we haven't adopted a winning strategy.
We continue to think and act as a tiny third party. There wasn't a single delegate in Denver who believed that the Libertarian candidate for President had a chance of winning, regardless of who we nominated. It could be argued that this is simply being realistic, but the problem is, we don't seem to be able to imagine ourselves ever being more than that, and our results bear that out. Typically our nominees are not our best and brightest, and this year it is debatable whether our nominee is even one of us at all.
Ironically, there has never been a time in our lifetimes when there was more opportunity for a Libertarian victory than today. Voters increasingly identify themselves as independent or even "libertarian" because they are disillusioned with and alienated by the Republicrats. The popularity of Ron Paul is a testament to the fact that libertarian values and ideas resonate in the mainstream, especially with younger voters. More and more people are beginning to "get it," that Big Government isn't a solution for everything, that the Constitution is being ignored by those sworn to uphold it, and that foreign military adventurism has not only failed to provide the promised national security but has in fact made us more vulnerable, while significantly downgrading our relationships with much of the world.
In addition to growing realization among the electorate that real wholesale, comprehensive change is needed in government, the number of women voters in play is not only substantial, it is potentially cataclysmic. The degree to which Hillary's campaign raised and then dashed hopes and dreams and expectations for a woman to break through the last pane in the glass ceiling cannot be overestimated, nor can the cost in lost opportuntities to the Libertarian Party.
All of these factors together created a tidal wave that the right Libertarian candidate, with sufficient financial backing, could have ridden to the White House. Yes, the White House. Yes, this year! It would not have been difficult to pick up a significant number of Hillary supporters with the right candidate. Although many of them, we can asssume, are traditional big government Democrats, they are also traditional civil libertarians who would have been happy to compromise on the big government issue if they were convinced that our values and empowers women. As many of this group continues to threaten to vote for McCain, does anyone doubt that they would have come to our camp if they'd had a good woman to support?
Certainly Mary Ruwart would have been one candidate who could have attracted them. Certainly there are other Libertarians who didn't seek the nomination who could also have appealed to this block. But could we have won? Could Mary have? Even with a few million extra women in her camp? I believe she could have. Under certain conditions. If Ruwart had won the nomination and had the money to compete with the Republicrats, hiring the best political strategists and media consultants in the business, she could have made it a horse race.
Some delegates said they would have voted for Mary instead of Barr but she didn't have enough fire in her belly. And Barr did? Most of those who voted for Barr did so with the (now apparent) erroneous assumption that becasue he had name recognition with the media, the party would be taken more seriously, receive more coverage, resulting in at least five percent of the vote. Well, how's that working for us?
I don't see much fire in Bob Barr's belly. I don't hear much Libertarian philosophy coming from his mouth either. His positions are incrementalist at best, and that's being generous. I'm still waiting for him to convince me that he wants to be President or believes he can be President. But if not, what does he want? A soap box? Fine, if he would use it, but he's a little too quiet to put a soap box to good use. If not the soap box then what? Is he simply a saboteur? John McCain's political assassin? And herein lies the problem. If I, a died in the wool LIbertarian who wants to get excited about my candidate, has tried to find a way to get excited about my candidate, and still can't figure out why he's even in the race, well-- that says it all.
And then there's the whole issue of money. I know Barr isn't raising nearly enough of it. Nor did any of his predecessors. But Libertarians aren't all poor and broke. There's money out there-- plenty of it. Just waiting for a reason to be spent. I don't blame potential major donors under current conditions. The party is a political money pit. Our leadership hasn't done anything to convince those who do have assets, that anything significant would come in return for the investment. Five percent isn't enough to turn anyone on. Ballot access? For what? If we don't believe we can win, and if our choice of candidates continues to reflect that belief, cycle after cycle, why spend any money to publicize how lightly we take our responsibility to nominate someone who actually competent to serve if elected?
Indulge me for a moment, on a fantasy tour. Suppose we could recruit someone of the stature of a James Carville to work for us. Not necessarily James, but someone in his pay grade, someone who has demonstrated an ability to win major elections with underdog candidates. (I should perhaps add Carl Rove as another example but I can't stomach the thought). At this point we don't care whether or not our hired gun is a true blue LIbertarian or not, as long as he or she is primarily motivated by the passion to win. That's all that matters.
The choice of candidate is another matter entirely. Potential candidates need to score a trifecta. 1. They must be qualified to serve. 2. Their Libertarian credentials must be without question. 3. They must be a media magnet. I regret the necessity of including the third criteria but that is simply the reality of the current situation.
Qualified to Serve: Ironically, our current candidate probably passes this test. I don't doubt his ability to serve if elected. I simply don't want him serving as a representative of my party. In the larger picture, howevr, this is an issue. With all due respect to my friends who comprised this year's field of POTUS candidates, with the exceptions alerady noted, does anyone think that any of these people was ready to take that call at three in the morning? Certainly most of them would make good legislators, perhaps even good governors, but President? Of course, it doesn't matter if we don't expect to win. All we need in that case is a good spokesperson. In that case, lets just hire a good PR firm and forget about a campaign.
Libertarian Cred: The candidate must bleed gold, without a hint of red or blue (or purple, Congressman Barr?). Whether he or she has been a lifetime Libertarian or is a recent convert doesn't matter as long as he or she has got the faith. We should be recruiting the very best from within or without the party. As long as they are passionate libertarians, we can accept them as Libertarians. If they come from the outside, this person would need to be vetted. We would want to be as certain as possible that this person is a true convert, or has been a small l libertarian for a long time and has simply decided to capitalize. We need to be sure any outside prospect is joining the party for ideological reasons, not simply for publicity or career advancement-- or sabotage. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Mr. Barr joined the party or sought the nomination with dubious intentions, but I am saying he hasn't explained to the satisfaction of many of us why he wanted the nomination or, even now, what he plans to do with it. And I'm saying he doesn't measure up. He's not the candidate that will win for us. Proabably not even the coveted five percent.
Media Magnet: What type of candidate grabs media attention? Someone who is articulate, passionate and feisty. Someone who either charms the media and subsequently the public, or creates a spectacle, or both. It could be Ron Paul. It could be Mary Ruwart (for different reasons, in different ways). It could be someone we haven't considered. A popular Fortune 500 CEO. Clint Eastwood. Some other celebrity. A major athlete or entertainer who has significant post-career political experience. It doesn't matter who, as long as it is someone on this level.
Now stay with me, on the fantasy tour a moment longer. Imagine we have a competent charismatic candidate who is also a great LIbertarian. I believe there are several potential candidates who could meet that criteria, who would come forward if they beleived we were serious about winning, and who could help raise the money we would need to keep the playing field level or better than level. We could raise the money at daily rates equal to or surpassing Ron Paul's numbers. And that's just a drop in the bucket compared to what could be raised if it were clear we were in it to win. In addition to parity with the majors in fundraising we would need to further perfect strategies for grass roots insurgency and internet marketing. But we could do it if we wanted to. We could find the candidate. We could finance the candidate. We could win the guerilla campaign, and ultimately the election.
So why don't we try harder? Who's to blame that we don't? The current party leadership is taking a fair amount of criticism. Is it justified? In a way, it doesn't matter who deserves the blame for this year. It's too late for this year. We can only hope that in four years the climate will be even more favorable to Libertarians and not less. But it won't matter unless we start today to be ready to take full advantage of any openings that might exist.
Why could we win? How would we win? Assuming the money. Assuming the candidate. We could easily win on issues. If we had our candidate on TV every day explaining how privatization could eventually pay off the national debt and eliminate taxation, how an end to the war on drugs could actually reduce violent crime, the cost of law enforcement and the strain on the courts and the corrections system, how an end to neocon foreign interference could actually increase our security at home and our respect around the world, how an elimination of regulation and taxation would stimulate the economy and create an explosion of new jobs, how thinking outside of the box would put an end to business as usual in Washington, to corruption, to governement waste and inefficiency, would open us up to all kinds of new solutions, especially if the influence of lobbyists and their privileged clientele no longer stacked the deck against innovations in energy, in transportation, in-- (fill in the blanks). If we had a charismatic candidate who is able to step into the Oval Office on day one, and the funds to win the media wars, we know our candidate would win the debates, win on the issues, and ultimately win the votes.
Winning begins with a winning strategy. A winning strategy begins with the vision and, dare I steal a phrase from the competiton, "audacity," that the party with the best ideas can earn the most votes. And if we are the party with the best ideas, why shouldn't we have the best candidate? Why shouldn't we raise the most money? It all begins with the attitude and the expectations.
I'm ready to win in 2012. Who's with me?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of John Wingspread Howell only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
John Wingspread Howell 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.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-30 15:21:21
Much as I would like to endorse your fantasy, I can't. In this, the experience of the Paul movement within the Republican Party is instructive to the Libertarian Party. Your fantasy simply ignores the plain fact about why Ron Paul didn't win the Republican Party's nomination, about why he didn't even come close in total votes won, and about why he was routinely ignored by the media. If your approach actually worked, Paul would have been neck and neck with McCain right to the convention.
The problem is that there isn't enough campaign financing available to reach the voters with enough of a clear education in libertarian principles in a short period of time. It just can't be done that way. Really, the only way that the Paul campaign could have given itself any kind of a chance is if they had gotten the door-to-door campaign going about six months earlier than they did, combined with creating an infomercial of Paul giving the voters a complete primer in libertarian principles. Even then, it would have been a longshot, but at least then he would have had a chance to be running second...perhaps even neck-and-neck (although that's still pretty optimistic given the number of anti-libertarians in the Republican Party, the ones who drool and fawn over neo-cons).
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.
