Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Getting a third party into the DC mix is going to have to start at a local level. There are some congressional districts that are going to have to elect some Libertarians, a few, more, whatever it takes. If neither Reps nor Dems had 217 seats but Libertarians had... say, ten seats, who would control the House?
We need to start with some House seats, get some Senate seats... once Libertarians become accepted as a part of the political scene the rest of the country will start to pay attention. The party platform can be revised to accept 'laws' that require prevention of pollution. Geez, if that were the only problem with this government we wouldn't have taxes and nobody would be voting.
It sort of makes sense that libertarians resist contributions from corporations because under their policies the American economy would SHRINK to its size in the late 19th century.
It's going to shrink no matter what happens straight to its equilibrium, no matter how much gubmint gets involved.
I describe myself as a middle of the roader with libertarian leanings. I've voted libertarian since I first heard of it, Gerald Ford being the last major party Prez I've voted for... well, til last week. And the Libertarian party is the only party I've ever contributed to.
The Texas LP has been active and has 173 candidates who will appear on the ballot in November. The real problem is that unfortunately most of the electorate is dense enough to be stuck in two party mode. There needs to be an educational process that makes these people aware that they have some choice of input.
I noticed that. When I cast my TX absentee ballot, there were quite a few libertarian candidates, so that seemed at least a bit hopeful.
Which also demonstrates why they're failures in politics.
In order to make it, you have to be willing to compromise sufficiently to draw enough votes. Libertarians ignore that they're radicals. They're too far from the center... Their unwillingness to compromise on anything is self-destructive. Thank God the Founding Fathers weren't Libertarians... not being able to compromise on slavery would have served the states on a silver platter to the contemporary powers.
Compromises between a Democratic congress and a Republican (well, fake Republican) president have resulted in the biggest deficit spending in the nation's history, by rubber stamping each other's pork. Worst part of it is that little of it was necessary, regardless of how much Comrade Commissars Bush/Paulson/Bernanke cried wolf.
No compromise libertarianism is the solution. Outright bankruptcy and the fall of the US as an economic superpower and possibly the entire government is the alternative. But, they always say that starvation is an excellent motivator.
Libertarians need to be on more ballots and elected into office more often. I don't know of any elected Libertarian politicians, but I believe they would have the best success in places like Eastern Washington and Oregon, or New Hampshire..Even parts of Idaho, Colorado, and other Mountain states. If the Libertarians could focus all the money on one particular candidate, even locally, they can use it as an opportunity to "prove" their capability. If it would be a success, surely it would catch on in neighboring districts until eventually you have a single electoral vote for a Libertarian. Instead of artificially injecting Libertarians into small states, proving capabilities in other areas would prove much more effective.
So, with that being said, maybe the party could survive on non-corporate donations. The only way, like I said, is to prove to the public that Libertarians support the way things should be. I think that a middle of the road party would also ease some of the bitter hatred that exists between the two current parties.
I say the party needs to be more aggressive. Oh and for the record, I don't like Bob Barr (sorry!). I think the party needs a stronger, well rooted candidate who can draw more support.
I read the libertarian platforms on their website shortly after I read Jared Diamond's book Collapse, about the fall of Easter Island, the Maya, Norse Greenland, and other civilizations. It's an excellent, (somewhat dry) scientific read, but it totally convinced me that a "middle path" taken by great civilizations is a good way to go -- a strong central government tempered by grassroots movements and community involvement. I agree that our two party system is flawed, but I think libertarianism is not a good answer. I was especially horrified when I read they would essentially cut all funding for national parks. I live near several large national parks and I think that would absolutely be a tragedy to give up these treasures. They are there "for the benefit and enjoyment of the people," in TR's words, and are not and were never meant for private hands or state ownership.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
