Why the Libertarian party has done so badly.

[Ozwest]

uh no. America will just default on the debts and shaft the people.

Obviously you plan on being an employee.

That ain't what makes the world go round.

But that's O.K. China and India will show you the way.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I still maintain that "statism" IS the key difference and issue.

( blue pill vs. red pill ).

yes. when you deny women the right to have abortions, you are demanding GOVERNMENT to come in and do something about it. Conservatives are more on the statist side when it comes to social issue:

• military on the borders / wall
• against gay marriage
• anti abortion

moderate libertarians are more tolerant on these issues. hardcore libertarians are...uhh irrelevant

 

[Ozwest]

I would imagine "new" bureaucrats would come along and just claim they know of a way to spend our money better than the previous government. Look to third world nations for the never ending cycle of politicians claiming they will be able to do what the previous leaders failed to do.

Brilliant.

Only problem.

What goes in...goes out.

 

[Ozwest]

A lot of poor people are manufacturing goods for you. Soon you will run out of money to purchase them.

It's a New World Order.

 

[Truth Warrior]

yes. when you deny women the right to have abortions, you are demanding GOVERNMENT to come in and do something about it. Conservatives are more on the statist side when it comes to social issue:

• military on the borders / wall
• against gay marriage
• anti abortion

moderate libertarians are more tolerant on these issues. hardcore libertarians are...uhh irrelevant

A typical statist viewpoint. Moderate libertarians are moderate statists.

What is the ONE, agreed to, libertarian principle?

 

[Ozwest]

A typical statist viewpoint. Moderate libertarians are moderate statists.

What is the ONE, agreed to, libertarian principle?

Fucking Statist!

What a gob full of shit.

Is that the new "empowering" word?"

How aristocratic.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Fucking Statist!

What a gob full of shit.

Is that the new "empowering" word?"

How aristocratic.

 

[Ozwest]

That is a fucking Disgrace!

 

[Ozwest]

Excuse me while I listen to the Doors, and perambulate on your hockey-puck.

 

[Truth Warrior]

That is a fucking Disgrace!

Different strokes for different folks!

It's probably just the two dimensions that confuses you.

The left/right line is just so much simpler.

Only one dimension to deal with.

 

[Ozwest]

Different strokes for different folks!

It's probably just the two dimensions that confuses you.

The left/right line is just so much simpler.

Only one dimension to deal with.

Yeah,

I rely on graphs and statistical analysis in my decision making process.

Decision-making based on real life experiences is so lacking.

Thanks for the tip... Gonzo.

 

[AutoDas]

The LP thinks they can win the presidency with no seats in Congress... There's no name recognition. If people just focused on winning a seat or two every election instead of the presidency then the LP would do better in the general election.

 

[WRellim]

After seeing the reaction to Barr's receiving of the nomination, it has occurred to me why the LP has done so poorly these past years. They are completely theoretical and are all talk, they do not value real concrete progress. See the following picture

Right now, America as a whole is at point C. McCain is somewhere between C and R and Obama is somewhere between C and D. Bob Barr is somewhere between C and L.
[...]
Now, the true Libertarians want the party to nominate someone who is at point L. And because they haven't, a bunch of them are upset and are talking about leaving the party.

Actually, I think most of the people who are irritated about the Bob Barr thing would say you are placing him wrong... they see him as being somewhere between Z and R (or within the Z-R-C triangle at best).

Those who are more generous might be willing to say that he has ONE foot planted (recently) between L and R (or the L-R-C triangle)... but the OTHER foot appears to be planted quite firmly somewhere in the Z and R (or within the Z-R-C triangle at best).

Problem is which "leg" will he place the most "weight" on? While pursuing the nomination, he has spent nearly ALL of his time talking about how his ONE leg is in the L-R-C triangle (and of course emphasizing how "close" to be right on the "L" his foot is). But now that he HAS that nomination... will he switch over and place most of the emphasis on his OTHER leg? The one within the Z-R-C triangle?

Problem is that those "triangles" cover HUGE areas of the political spectrum...

If his past VOTING is any indication, then he actually remains in the Z-R-C area (and it would be quite debatable which "color" area he truly resides in... Was he really in the PURPLE hovering close to the Z on the Z-R line? Yet all the while claiming to be in the "middle" or far right of the RED?

So that now his claim to have completely jumped across the entire GRAY and RED areas and to CLAIM to be a resident of the GREEN area seems most implausible.


I've never really liked the way THIS VERSION of the Nolan chart "colors" and "divides" the chart...

Currently the colored sections purportedly show the "parties" -- but of course there is NO party named the "Centrist" party, and there is no single party named the "Statist" party (one could argue that the left side of the RED statist might be the "communist" and the "socialist worker" parties -- but they are not even large enough to be considered "3rd" parties in the US any longer. And conversely, many would say that the current GOP has gone so far down that they have virtually taken the "place" on the right-side of the RED statist area that would typically hold the "fascist/corporatist" parties.

Always thought it would be better with the divider lines being the horizontal and vertical axes (with lines from D-R and L-Z, and the four triangular "quadrants" then showing the real "leanings" of the people involved.... something like this:

Makes it MUCH easier to describe people WITHIN the "classic" parties (after all, is there REALLY any value in coloring the parties themselves when we ALREADY KNOW which party someone is in? And it ignores that the parties each span a "spectrum" of beliefs). So using THIS chart, we can easily say that:

• That Ron Paul while a "Republican" is definitely more in the GOLD section than the BLUE one (and he doesn't "cross" that line).
• But that John McCain is within the DARK BLUE area, but so SO CLOSE to the RED as to be almost sitting on the border between them.
• And I think it would be fair enough to say that Bob Barr WAS in the DARK BLUE section... but now wants us to believe that he has had an "epiphany" and moved (just like that, and wholeheartedly) into the GREEN/GOLD quadrants of the Libertarian party.

To me this makes the "problem" of Barr a bit clearer... certainly it is POSSIBLE for someone to "jump" a divide... But if someone is transitioning from one color area to another, we would expect that they would most likely venture "slowly" to the an adjacent area first. Since the "classic" Libertarian party is GREEN/GOLD in this latter chart, having them select as nominee (and head of the party) a "new" member who was formerly a BLUE (or even BLUE/RED) is what causes the concern and the drama (more so than say the 1988 selection of the GOLD Ron Paul -- where the main concern came only from the GREEN portion of the party.)

 

[WRellim]

Bob Barr is not going to win no matter what positions he takes. So it comes down to educating the public. Why educate people with a "sort of" libertarian message when Ron Paul has shown that there is a deep thirst for the authentic thing? The whole point is to challenge people's perceptions, not reinforce them.

Because, obviously, people do NOT like to "drink" things that are HOT or COLD... -- everyone knows that people much prefer LUKEWARM tasteless things...

 

[apc3161]

The LP thinks they can win the presidency with no seats in Congress... There's no name recognition. If people just focused on winning a seat or two every election instead of the presidency then the LP would do better in the general election.

I agree with you completely 100%. If the Libertarians weren't a bunch of idealists, they would take all that money that they WASTE on the presidential race, and focus their resources on 1-3 congressional seats that they have a chance of winning. This would "legitimize" them in the minds of Americans. In the next election cycle, they would run for maybe 10 congressional seats. Let the pattern continue until you have roughly 50 congressional seats. At that point, focus on 1-3 senate seats as well. The year after though, shoot for 4-6 senate seats.

Then, once you have roughly 50-100 house seats and 5-15 senate seats, you can begin to consider a presidential run. But doing so without any base seems like a waste.

If they were a serious party concerned with tangible progress instead of idealistic rhetoric that gets you nowhere, they would follow that kind of approach. Instead, after 27 years they are still where they started, no where.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah,

I rely on graphs and statistical analysis in my decision making process.

Decision-making based on real life experiences is so lacking.

Thanks for the tip... Gonzo.

And your graphic picture "worth a thousand words", of the US political landscape would be what exactly? C'mon just show me a better one. If I like it better, I'll accept it.

 

[Ozwest]

And your graphic picture "worth a thousand words", of the US political landscape would be what exactly? C'mon just show me a better one. If I like it better, I'll accept it.

After the New Hampshire Primary, I got the message.

And, not be obtuse, I donated more than "thousands " of words to the campaign.

 

[Truth Warrior]

After the New Hampshire Primary, I got the message.

And, not be obtuse, I donated more than "thousands " of words to the campaign.

Interesting side note, yet not responsive.

 

[PeterWellington]

Bob Barr will lose, and lose bad. I'd rather be principled and lose than unprincipled and lose.

 

[chowdy]

I agree with you completely 100%. If the Libertarians weren't a bunch of idealists, they would take all that money that they WASTE on the presidential race, and focus their resources on 1-3 congressional seats that they have a chance of winning. This would "legitimize" them in the minds of Americans. In the next election cycle, they would run for maybe 10 congressional seats. Let the pattern continue until you have roughly 50 congressional seats. At that point, focus on 1-3 senate seats as well. The year after though, shoot for 4-6 senate seats.

Then, once you have roughly 50-100 house seats and 5-15 senate seats, you can begin to consider a presidential run. But doing so without any base seems like a waste.

If they were a serious party concerned with tangible progress instead of idealistic rhetoric that gets you nowhere, they would follow that kind of approach. Instead, after 27 years they are still where they started, no where.

Even more potent than the criticism of idealism (which I happen to disagree with) is the fact that the LP is constantly associated with failure. Image is everything in politics...