This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Atlas Blogged
   Quote of the Day

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

-Noam Chomsky

   Recent Comments
   Categories
   Administrivia

The Neolibertarian Network

Syndicate this site (XML)
XHTML | CSS
Blogarama - The Blog Directory
blog search directory Listed on BlogShares

« George Allen and Porkbusters | Main | Waterboarding »

October 28, 2006

The Silent, Ignored, Divided Twenty Percent

Earlier this year, the Burlington Free Press printed a letter to the editor that stated, in part,

The Gallup Poll's annual survey on government found that 20 percent of the population is libertarian. Many libertarians can be found in the Democratic and Republican parties trying unsuccessfully to change these behemoths. Trying to hold the Republicans to their small-government rhetoric, and the Democrats to their promises of social tolerance and opposition to the war.

Libertarians make up the sensible center. We are socially tolerant and fiscally frugal. Libertarians are building a third party to put freedom of choice and responsibility back into your hands.

The letter was written by Hardy Machia, the chairman of the Vermont Libertarian Party.

It may not be immediately obvious, but Mr. Machia is in the minority of politically active libertarians in that he eschews the two major parties. Most people who seek policies of greater freedom do so from within the two big parties. And they generally lose that fight to those who seek to regulate, regulate, regulate. This is true with the Democrats (regulate business, regulate firearms, regulate hate-speech, etc) and Republicans (regulate relationships, regulate substances, and secretly monitor that which cannot be regulated). Libertarians who fight from within either of these two parties are on a fool’s errand.

Our plight was recently highlighted by an article in The Economist:

America may be the land of the free, but Americans who favour both economic and social freedom have no political home. The Republican Party espouses economic freedom—ie, low taxes and minimal regulation—but is less keen on sexual liberation. The Democratic Party champions the right of homosexuals to do their thing without government interference, but not businesspeople. Libertarian voters have an unhappy choice. Assuming they opt for one of the two main parties, they can vote to kick the state out of the bedroom, or the boardroom, but not both.

But the situation is even worse than this, as the two main parties repeatedly fail to deliver what they are advertising.

Democrats actually oppose gay marriage and even civil unions. Remember the way Bill Clinton burned the gay community with “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”? Why do Democrats have the support of the gay community?

Democrats are the self-styled party of inclusiveness and diversity, but they have no problem violating those principles for partisan mud-slinging based on race, creed, etc. And it’s not hard to make the argument that they have long taken the black vote for granted.

Meanwhile, Republicans are not giving us smaller government. They are fat on pork, and are so different from the 1994 GOP that even Dick Armey says they have compromised their agenda and will lose their majority in the House.

Again, why would any lover of freedom vote for either of these two parties? The only answer is pragmatism, though we know that is a formula for failure in the long run.

The Economist article concluded with an ironic, painful note that the situation is, of all things, market-driven:

Libertarians are ignored partly because they are hard to find, not least because they just want to be left alone. (There is a Libertarian Party, but it gets hardly any votes.) Politicians can reach social conservatives through churches or union members through their unions, but where do libertarians gather? Parties will always court the votes that are cheapest to court because, for once, they are spending their own money.

Libertarians have been hoping that the internet will be the place to find and organize like-minded, anti-government Americans. According to polls, there is a large, silent minority of us in this country - enough to control the outcome of any election, if we could only be organized toward a common goal. But we instead concentrate on our differences - some fight primarily for social freedom, while others concentrate on economic liberties. So long as that is the case, we will only get lip service from the two parties of power and big government.

Wulf Posted by Wulf on October 28, 2006 at 08:03 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/424

Comments

The thing that really burns me up is how the Libertarian candidates are always excluded from the official public debates. They'll allow freaks like Al Shartpon in a presidential debate but not a Libertarian--even when the Libertarian party gets on the ballot year after year.

The gubernatorial candidates had a debate here in Texas a few weeks ago. The Republican and Democrat were in on it, and the Independents (even Kinky Friedman) were in on it, but no James Werner-L.

I think if you are able to jump through all the hoops required to actually get your name put on a ballot, you should automatically be included in the debates. The candidates of the Libertarian party have been on every ballot I've seen since I was old enough to vote, and they are never allowed to take part in the debates.

Posted by: AlanDP at October 28, 2006 10:59 PM


Alan, I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but David Schlosser is running for the First Congressional District in Arizona, and he has discussed that same issue on his blog. More recently, he pointed out that he isn’t just excluded from the debates, but from most press coverage. He makes a great point when he says, “But, if likelihood of winning is the news media's standard of coverage, why does the news media cover any of the 95% of the Congressional races that result in the inevitable re-election of the incumbent? Why would the media cover the Arizona Governor's race, with the incumbent leading by a 2:1 margin?”

Posted by: Wulf at October 28, 2006 11:15 PM


I think that the Libertarian party is a lost cause - there are simply too many nutjobs for most American's tastes.

I wonder if '08 is the time for a (l)ibertarian candidate though. Republicans are just Democrats that don't like abortion as far as I can tell. With the additional visibility that libertarian ideals have been getting a true small government liberal running as an indy could possibly have a chance.

Think Perot with personality.

Posted by: Chris at October 29, 2006 8:50 PM


sadly the hopless libertarian party can barely get a candidate on a libary board much less into congress.

Posted by: isiah of buffalo at October 30, 2006 7:36 PM


Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember This Information?