After Michael Badnarik’s defeat in the 2004 election, members of the Libertarian Party are taking a good, hard look at the party — and many don’t like what they see.
Over at Reason, Tim Cavanaugh takes a look at some of the complaints about the party from within. He then suggests nobody knows what’s wrong, and anybody who claims to know is full of it.
He didn’t, however, address the important issue of how extreme the LP platform appears to the typical average voter, nor the (mis)perception the average voter has about the LP and libertarianism.
I always vote Libertarian, because I understand the principles and I never had to deal with the misconceptions. I am not, however, involved with the Party, so I can look at things a little more objectively (no pun intended).
Virtually everyone I talk to about the LP or libertarianism has misconceptions about what it is, what the principles really mean, and even what the Constitution says! Once I take the time to explain a few things, most of them say they agree and will strongly consider voting Libertarian.
The whole point of a political party is to get people elected in order to push a particular agenda. I happen to agree in most part with the LP’s platform, as I think most people would if they understood it and it didn’t sound too extreme. The current platform is not separated from principle, so that the two are intermingled. The principles are what guide us. The platform should be a roadmap for getting from here to there. Currently the platform shows the end, but not the means. How do we get from IRS to no income tax? It will be disruptive. How will we minimize that disruption? These questions are largely unanswered by the current platform.
Many people take a look at the LP platform and decide we’re a bunch of wackos for this very reason. Some of the proposals could simply not be implemented immediately without throwing the country into chaos.
It’s my opinion that in order for the LP to start gaining any ground, the platform must be separated from the principles, updated at least annually with current issues and reasonable solutions to them which move the country back in the direction of our principles, rather than away from them.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3480 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Brian
Nov 07, 2004
Perhaps a second option for us would be helpful. I haven’t been pleased with the LP for years. A party with libertarian positions that appealed to more people would be helpful. And, the competition would be great for the cause. We could run our own candidates or endorse one anothers.
Jun 23, 2005
IO ERROR » Remaking the Libertarian Party
Mark Sweeney
Sep 06, 2007
What is needed is exactly the type of elixir that the gentleman at the 2000 convention suggested: a meaningful taxation methodology that the LP can endorse. There is no way to run a modern republic without some form of revenue. A voluntary system will not work. A fair system that the voters can see minimizes exceptions will make the pain that we all share is something the LP can and must support.
If you could get a copy of that speech from CSPAN.org and post it on youtube.com you could probably get many people who, like myself, see the Libertarian Party as the party with the most viable solutions to America’s foreign and domestic problems. But without a meaningful way to fund the republic, there is no way that the party can convince anyone that they can be taken seriously.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like paying taxes under the threat of force. But no one can run a government of, by and for the people for 300 million people without some form of revenue.