Jason Kuznicki declares:
The Libertarian Party is a badge of shame upon an otherwise reasonable branch of political thought.
I wish I could say he was wrong, but with the nomination of Michael Badnarik, there's not much of a retort at this point. Jason links to this article by R.W. Bradford in Liberty magazine that points out how Badnarik's website was quickly edited to remove some of his loonier ideas after he won the LP nomination. I got a peek at some of those positions before they were edited out, and believe me, they were whacko. I wrote about them here. Timothy Sandefur likewise has said that the LP is "more often an embarrassment than an aid to defenders of freedom". It's time for the LP to wake up. When people like Jason, Timothy and I - all people with strong libertarian leanings - think you're headed off the deep end, you certainly have no prayer of getting support among the masses.
- Log in to post comments
In line with the topic of this post, allow me to point out another relevant link: "Why I Am Not A Libertarian" by Prof. Stephen Dutch. I didn't know how, for lack of a better word, insane the current Libertarian Party's platform was until reading this. (The platform itself is available here, for comparison purposes.)
So, Ed, just one question is left: Who are you going to vote for this November? ;)
Adam asks who I'm going to vote for. Oh boy. This is something I have mulled over a great deal, and I'm not entirely sure my decision is settled yet, but here's my answer as of right now:
I think I'm going to vote for Badnarik despite my distaste for him, and ironically, the fact that he has no chance of being elected is the key factor in my decision. In the past I have voted libertarian while really hoping that the candidate would win (knowing, of course, that that was not going to happen); this time, I will probably vote libertarian while not really wanting this particular candidate to get elected. Here's why...
I've always voted libertarian despite the fact that I knew they weren't going to win, and despite the fact that there were some things in the platform I strongly opposed, because I took a longer term perspective on things. The more support libertarians have, the more attention their ideas will get and the more likely they will be to have an influence on future policy decisions.
I do not agree with everything on the libertarian agenda, but I strongly believe that they are the only party that truly wants to pull back the amount of government intervention in our lives. I want those ideas to have a place at the table, to have a real public hearing and to act as a counterweight to the two major parties, neither of which has the slightest interest in limiting government's intrusions. And I have always recognized that this is a long-term project. So I figure why change that perspective now? If I vote for Badnarik, I still further the agenda that has long governed my decisions, and because he has no chance of being elected personally, all of the negatives that come with his particular lunacy don't really factor into the decision.
I'm fully aware of all the obvious responses to this position, so please don't bother to tell me that a vote for anyone but Kerry amounts to a vote for Bush, who I obviously dislike intensely. I've heard those arguments many times, I've given them due consideration, and I don't find them terribly convincing at this time.
I will be voting for Badnarik too with the same misgivings that Ed is voting for him.
I wont vote Republican because of Bush's association with fundamentalist Christians. He got us into a war that can't be won, and I don't see Kerry making any statements right now that would convince me he is good material for the presidency. He offers no solutions.
Unless something changes before the election in November I have no alternative but to vote for Badnarik.
I understand your reasoning, Ed, but has it occurred to you that by voting Libertarian in this election you're only going to encourage them to nominate more wingnuts like Badnarik in the future? More votes for the Libertarians would certainly give them a greater place at the national table, but they could also very well be construed as an endorsement of their current platform. How can others tell the difference between your vote as an endorsement of libertarian ideas in general and an endorsement of Libertarian policies specifically?
If I read you correctly, you're saying that you want to use your vote to send the message that third parties have a right to exist and take part in the dialogue of governing this country. I have no problem with that. However, I don't think that decision should be made regardless of what the actual policies of those parties are. If you want to help the Libertarians, it seems to me the best way to do so would be to send the message that they can have your support if and only if they're willing to promote policies that you actually agree with and that are good for the country. Forcing the Libertarians to dump the kooks and take more reasonable positions would, I think, help them more in the long run.
BTW, for Lynn: What is Badnarik's proposed solution to the Iraq quagmire?
I understand your reasoning, Ed, but has it occurred to you that by voting Libertarian in this election you're only going to encourage them to nominate more wingnuts like Badnarik in the future? More votes for the Libertarians would certainly give them a greater place at the national table, but they could also very well be construed as an endorsement of their current platform. How can others tell the difference between your vote as an endorsement of libertarian ideas in general and an endorsement of Libertarian policies specifically?
Honestly, I'm not really concerned with how others view my voting decisions. If anyone wants to know what I believe, they can ask me and I'll either tell them or I won't. But I don't see a problem with voting for a party without agreeing with everything they say, whether it's the LP or the Democrats and Republicans. Anyone who agrees with every single thing a party says is probably braindead.
If I read you correctly, you're saying that you want to use your vote to send the message that third parties have a right to exist and take part in the dialogue of governing this country. I have no problem with that. However, I don't think that decision should be made regardless of what the actual policies of those parties are. If you want to help the Libertarians, it seems to me the best way to do so would be to send the message that they can have your support if and only if they're willing to promote policies that you actually agree with and that are good for the country. Forcing the Libertarians to dump the kooks and take more reasonable positions would, I think, help them more in the long run.
I don't just want to help third parties get taken more seriously, though I generally favor that as well. I specifically want libertarian ideas taken more seriously, which means I want them to get more attention in the media so that people will actually consider them when voting. I also want the major parties to take them more seriously. I'm not an idealogue, I recognize that third parties generally achieve success by growing to the point where the two major parties begin to adopt some portion of their positions and thereby siphon off support for them. That's how they gain influence over policy. I agree with many of the ideas of libertarianism, certainly more than I do with the major parties, so that is the natural place for me to be as a default. As I said, since I've always taken a long term view of things when deciding how to vote, I'm not seeing a good reason to change that now.
And in answer to your question to Lynn, I don't think Badnarik has a solution to the problems in Iraq either. But since he's not going to be elected anyway and that's not the reason for my (or her) vote for him, it's not terribly relevant.