online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203922804578080684214526670.html
As a young libertarian, I was very enthusiastic about the formation of the Libertarian Party. I proudly cast my vote for Roger MacBride for president. I attended the 1975 national convention in New York that nominated him. But, while I am as libertarian today as I was then, I have come to believe that the Libertarian Party was a mistake.
The reason is simple. Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending "major" party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more "extreme" elements within.
To the extent that a third party is successful, it will drain votes from the coalition party to which it is closest and help elect the coalition party that is further removed from its interests. The Libertarian Party's effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty, and help hand the election to the candidate who is more hostile to liberty.
Fortunately, because this drawback is so obvious, the Libertarian Party's presidential vote has remained minuscule...
Libertarian activists should choose whichever party they feel more comfortable working within. That's what Ron Paul did. Likewise, Rand Paul has brought his libertarianism inside the GOP tent. The small-"l" libertarians in the tea party movement identified the Republican Party as the coalition closest to their concerns about fiscal responsibility and the growth of government power, and they have gone about making the GOP more libertarian from the grass-roots up. They have moved the party in a libertarian direction, as has the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Despite all this, some libertarians continue to insist that, because the Republican and Democrats are equally bad for liberty, it makes no difference who gets elected. However true this once was, in recent years Republicans have been better for liberty and Democrats have been worse...
Libertarian activists need to set aside their decades-old knee-jerk reactions to the two major parties, roll up their sleeves, and make the Republican and Democratic parties more libertarian. When it comes to voting, libertarians need to get serious about liberty and give up on the Libertarian Party.
I am all for "coalition building". I think that social conservatives need to think along these lines as well.
There are two reasons, I think, why that guys like Barone, George Will, Dick Morris and the others predicted a big Romney win, but missed something.
First, turnout among voters ages 18 to 29 eclipsed the 2008 election, with nearly 60% siding with the president. This support was largely invisible because it wasn't visible in the sources we were looking at. It largely occurred in various social media: Facebook, reddit, etc. Places where young people would hang out but which some of us older guys didn't see very well.
Second, "social conservatives" largely did stay home. Voter turnout was far below 2008 levels in many places. While in Pennsylvania, for example, Obama was able to match his 2008 totals here, Romney pulled far lower vote totals than even McCain did. I think that was the difference.
It doesn't pay to be a one-issue voter in a Presidential election. One-issue voters will not be able to win. It takes consensus-building and a willingness to compromise on some issues in order to become successful in the bigger picture.
I think Republicans can have a future if they just change leadershp, restructure, change their name, then change their approach.
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism as a party exists because both parties routinely fail to fight the marriage between Wall Street and Washington. Until Republicans run on a reform platform, expect more people to sit out elections or vote for the Libertarian party.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the youth vote is gone. Bush was toxic for the Republican brand, and will continue to get young people to vote Democrat. He is Hoover to FDR, a ghost you conjure up to dispel every four years. If Republicans want more young people, they need to get more libertarians on board--the rallies for people like Ron Paul were filled with young people.
'Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending "major" party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more "extreme" elements within.'
ReplyDeleteThe UK's parliament is elected on the basis of first-past-the-post (FPTP). We currently have a coalition government because no one party has an overall majority but the Conservative Party could form a minority government. Where a coalition government is (more or less) guaranteed is when proportional representation is the voting system. Here a voluntary coalition is usually formed between parties that can agree a programme for government. So the broad parties that exist under FPTP usually end up existing under PR, at least as far as the government goes (and functions).
In the regional assembly in Northern Ireland we have mandatory coalition elected under Single Transferable Vote which means every major party is in government regardless of whether or not (usually not) they agree on anything. Parties pick cabinet positions in order after which the Minister of the Department has significant unilateral powers. So agreement between the parties in government becomes something of a detail.
I have to admit I'm a bit confused. Because social conservatives decided to sit this one out, the Libertarians need to get with the program? Huh?
ReplyDeleteBill, I did mention that this was something of an afterthought. And it's pretty clear that social conservatives sitting out probably enabled Obama to win. All of this is just from the proverbial "things to note for next time" department.
DeleteAnd it's pretty clear that social conservatives sitting out probably enabled Obama to win.
DeleteWhere are you getting that information?
It's been widely reported that Romney got fewer votes than McCain did.
DeleteI'm aware. My question was how you know the composition of those who sat out.
DeleteIt takes consensus-building and a willingness to compromise on some issues in order to become successful in the bigger picture.
ReplyDeleteThat's the $64 question, John.
More to the point, would be the winner take all system of apportioning electoral college votes according to Rushdoony's Nature of the American System, p.11. It panders to the minority that is the tie breaker that can throw their vote to one side or the other. Radical factions of whatever variety then call the shots, the mainstream eats it and polarization results.
Further, we have the parties we do now in part, because third parties arose and their issues were either incorporated into one party or another, or they replaced one of the parties.
But the handwriting is on the wall. The Repugs can either embrace the constitutionalism of RPAul libertarianism or they can go down to defeat as the neo - con faux conservative half of the big govt. party.
Beyond social issues (and the Repug Party is socially conservative only nominally), both parties believe in the govt. running the economy and the world, neither of which make sense or are economical as we are coming to find out, all the while free market capitalism and our civil and political freedoms are lambasted as the cause for the depression at home and the wars over sea. Meanwhile both shrink accordingly.
Lately Chuck Baldwin has had some good columns. Previously I wouldn't give him the time of day. From "No Change"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin726.htm
Mitt Romney was just the latest attempt by the GOP establishment to force a big-government "moderate" upon party faithful. The true freedomist Ron Paul was treated in much the same way that Pat Buchanan was treated back in 1996. By hook or by crook, the GOP was not going to let a principled freedomist win the Presidential nomination. They wanted a controlled big-government toadie. They got what they wanted, and they lost! In fact, every time the GOP nominates a "moderate" as their Presidential nominee, he loses. Every time! One could almost get the feeling that the party establishment would rather lose with a moderate than win with a conservative. After all, why would the American people want a Wall Street moderate who will implement 85% of the Democrat agenda when they can elect a blue-collar Democrat and have the real deal? At least the Democrats are perceived as being compassionate. The GOP's refusal to listen to their grassroots, to advance populist causes, and to disconnect themselves from Wall Street continues to cost them elections. In short, the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is completely out of touch with average Americans.