Some Thoughts on Republicans, Libertarians, and the American Political Process

First, the bad news.

On November 3, 2004, the winning President-elect will not be a Libertarian or a Green Party member. He will be a Republican or a Democrat.

Sorry, folks. It’s true. Deep in your hearts, you know it’s true.

Now, the worse news.

Voting for a third-party candidate won’t change that.

No, I’m not going to tell you that if you vote Libertarian or Green or whatever, you’re throwing your vote away. On the contrary. A third-party vote is extremely effective. If you vote Libertarian, or whatever, you’re voting for George W. Bush. It’s quite likely that it will be the Libertarian and Green votes that put Dubya in the White House.

The Republicans know something that the rest of us don’t; they know how to operate effectively. It’s why the Republicans are spending a lot of money and a lot of time making damn sure that Ralph Nader and other “alternative” candidates make it on the ballots in certain key states. It’s pretty simple, really; if you can buy, trick, or cajole one percent of the enemy’s voters into opting out of an election that hangs on half a percent of the vite, you win.

So, the Republicans are financing Nader. They’re saying “There, there, you tree-hugging faggot-loving liberal, you go pretend to vote while we get on with the business of winning the election. That’s right, you Godless Arab-loving little pervert, you teach us a lesson. You show us where it’s at and send a message to us about how you feel about politics…by letting us win. Good little liberal.” In secret, of course, they’re laughing all the way to the White House.

Six of one ain’t half a dozen of the other.

In the 2000 election, I watched a speech by Ralph Nader in which he made the claim that it matters little if the Republicans or the Democrats win; they were, he claimed, exactly the same–the “Republicrat Party”–and one was as good as the other. In that moment, I knew I would never vote for him, because in his bid to win the Presidential election, he had sacrificed his own greatest asset–his intellectual integrity.

A lie repeated often enough will be believed, no matter how outlandish it may be. Witness, for example, the mind-boggling number of people who believe that the “borrow and spend” Republicans are more fiscally responsible than Democrats.

The notion that the Democratic and Republican parties are the same is even more absurd. The last Democrat left office with a budget surplus, and had begun paying down the national debt; now, less than four years later, the Republicans have turned that budget surplus into the greatest budget deficit the nation has ever seen, in its entire history, ever. Federal standards on drinking water safety have gone down, logging and mining on Federal land has gone up, all under Republican watch…yeah, Ralph, they’re all the same, and you really showed us what for, didn’t ya? A Fundamentalist Christian who believes in anointing himself with oil, writes articles for white-supremacist magazines, and who thinks calico cats are demons sent out of Hell by Satan–I swear I am not making this up–holds the position of Attorney General of the United States. Think Gore’s Attorney General would look like that? Don’t bet on it.

The curse of the two-party system

Okay, time for another truth: The two-party political system sucks. It leaves little room for serious debate and no room for dissenting viewpoints; for people, like me, who live well outside the center of the bell curve, the two-party system works very poorly indeed.

But there’s another truth lying half-submerged beneath that truth: Right now, in October 2004, we have a two-party system, and it’s too late to change that before the general election next month. In twenty-four days’ time, the President-elect will be a Democrat or a Republican. Period. Deal with it.

The secret to weilding power–the secret to changing the world around you–is to understand the difference between action that is effective and action that is not. If you want to change the world, you must first understand what it would take to make that change. What would it take to create a three-party system? Voting Libertarian or Green ain’t it. The Republicans know that; that’s why they’re making sure Nader is on the ballot! The only way to create a viable three-party system is to get a viable candidate before the general election begins. A third-party candidate who doesn’t have a wide and deep voter base before the Republican and Democratic primaries doesn’t have a shot; it’s that simple. If he’s not already a contender before the run-up to the general election, this election is already over for him; the most effective course of action is to start planning for the next.

Realism is not defeatism

“But if everyone who wanted a three-party system would all vote Libertarian in the election, things would change!”

Bullshit.

In fact, that doesn’t do the idea justice. Let me rephrase. Pure, rich, deep bullshit, shit from the very finest of Texas bulls hand-fed with the choicest of grains to ensure the most fragrant aroma and most jucy texture. Bullshit of the kind to make a grown man weep and children tremble. Bullshit of such magnificence as to make the strongest ofmen say, “Ayup, that’s bullshit, and I ain’t never seen its like afore.”

Bullshit. If everyone who wanted a three-party system voted Libertarian in the upcoming election, the Libertarian candidate might be thrilled and delighted to see that he’d bested all previous records and won a stunning four percent of the vote.

Now, I’m not saying there are not a whole lot of Americans who are dissatisfied with the two-party system as usual. There are. Just go to a Fundamentalist revival some time, and you’ll see that anger and disenchantment with two-party politics runs deep; there are many patriotic Americans who believe in their deepest of hearts that two party-politics means one party too many. Witness, for example, the Texas politicians warning their constituency in the direst of voices that if the Democrats win, “Bibles will be banned” and “men will no longer be permitted to marry women.” (Again, I swear I am not making this up.)

The fact of the matter is, most people don’t think about politics that much. They go to the polls (or, more often, stay away from the polls) every four years, hoping the guy with the best haircut wins. Anyone who’s waiting for the sudden backlash against politics as usual to usher the Libertarian into the White House on a sudden and unexpected wave of popular support had best not hold his breath.

You want to vote your conscience? You want to cast your vote for the person who best matches your ideas? Fine, but do so with your eyes open; we are all, at the end of the day, responsible even for the unintended consequences of our decisions. There’s a reason the Republicans are putting political opponents on the ballot: if you’re voting for a third-party candidate, you are part of the Republican strategy for winning this election. Cast your vote, but know what you’re voting for: four more years of the same.

And now, for some good news

A three-party system is possible.

It’s not going to happen this November; political and social change doesn’t happen that way. The curse of every revolutionary who has ever lived is that most of the time, most of the people simply don’t care.

But it can happen nevertheless.

There’s a catch: It takes more than going to the polls once every four years and voting Libertarian. It takes actual long-term, dedicated work. And it isn’t going to happen from the top down; sorry, that ain’t how it works. It has to happen from the bottom up.

You want to vote Libertarian, and have your vote mean something more than Bush in the White House? Vote Libertarian in the place where you can do the most good: in your local elections. Work from the ground up. Support third-party candidates close to home, where your vote carries more weight and you’re able to cast your vote without being manipulated by the Republican machine. Work at home. Create an environment where people say “Hey, if the Libertarians (or Greens or whoever) are doing right for me in City Hall, maybe they’ll do right for me in state politics, too.” You don’t walk from one coast to the other in a single step; you walk from one coast to the other by putting one foot in front of the other a whole bunch of times.

If a third party wants to field a candidate with a realistic chance of winning the Presidency, that third party is doomed from the start if it doesn’t have at least a billion dollars behind it. It’s no accident that Ross Perot came closer than anyone before him–and even he didn’t get double-digit support. But on a state and local level, a tenth that much money and a tenth that much work is going to get a whole lot of people who aren’t Democrats or Republicans into a whole lot of places.

It’s all about using power effectively–and that’s a lesson we can learn from the people who already know it.

20 thoughts on “Some Thoughts on Republicans, Libertarians, and the American Political Process

  1. Very, very well-stated.

    Personally, I’ll still be voting Libertarian, for a few reasons.

    California, the state I live in, is going to Kerry. If every possible Green and Libertarian voted their hearts in California, California would still go to Kerry. If I lived in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania, my vote could be important for Kerry’s campaign. Here in California, the only way I can influence Kerry’s success in the election is by campaign contributions, which I have given, and attempting to get people in other states to vote for Kerry, which I should do more of.

    However, a vote for Badnarik, for me, will have an effect. There’s federal funding at the 5% level, and that’s worth shooting for. I agree that the real road to a successful three-plus-party system in the U.S. is through local elections, but bringing Badnarik up to even 1% makes a huge difference.

    Also, I don’t believe in the Democratic Party. I am sincerely of the belief that the Democratic Party today is driven by corporate graft as much as the Republican Party. The current Republican regime in the White House is exceptionally bad – and a big enough threat to my safety and civil rights that I am cheering Kerry. I still don’t like or trust the Democratic Party. In terms of political platforms, the Democratic and Republican Parties are definitely different, though they seem to be amalgamations which target broad and often mutually incompatible groups (Republicans make sure their platform can appeal to fiscal conservatives, the religious right, moderate libertarian-like voters, and rural voters, to name a few, while Democrats need to appeal to unions, moderate socialists, progressives, socially conservative Christians of disenfranchised ethnic backgrounds.) W’s administration has been especially incompetent and dangerous to civil rights and prosperity, with the Patriot Act, two expensive and ugly wars, and a contempt for the free press, but Clinton openly backed the Exon Internet censorship bill and a few anti-gay marriage bills. I’m pretty fond of what I’ve seen from Kerry, and I am making efforts to help Kerry, but the Democratic Party doesn’t really do much better on two issues that are important to me: corruption on the federal level, and the excessive influence of Christian values on laws regulating victimless crimes. As far as civil rights go (another big issue for me) the Republican party is definitely driving the attack on civil rights, but the Democratic Party hasn’t done an incredible job of protecting them.

    For most elections, I pretty much choose my vote between Green, Libertarian and Independent, and only vote for a major party if the candidate really impresses me as competent for the job.

    • I almost voted for Nader in the last election because I figured that California was a Democratic state and we could afford it. But I decided to vote for Gore on the day before – because the whole thing just seemed too damn close.

      Here’s what freaks me out about California. How in gods name did a Democratic State elect a Republican Governer?? Do liberals really hold that tight of a majority?

      • The Republican Governor thing was actually a weird quirk of the constituion that nobody noticed until it was exploited. The Democratic Party couldn’t rally a good defense against it because they were still supporting Davis.

    • I second what said about federal funding. In addition to the Libertarian party and candidate accurately reflecting my personal values, that is the major reason why I don’t feel as though my Libertarian vote is a wasted vote. If anything, it’s even more important!

      If you vote Libertarian, or whatever, you’re voting for George W. Bush.

      Why does everyone assume that Libertarians prefer Kerry to Bush? I hear that sentiment echoed from both sides. In my case (and I know I’m not alone) Badnarik isn’t taking a vote from Kerry- he’s taking it from Bush.

      This may come as a surprise, but I came to the Libertarian party from the Republican party, and still hold to many (though certainly not all) of the tenets of the Republican platform. I would most likely still be a Republican, if only the Republicans were. Bush’s implementation of conservatism is a radical departure from the Reagan-era Republican party that I grew up with and supported during my early voting years, but a Republican administration is still closer to reflecting my beliefs than a Democratic one.

      Don’t get me wrong- I don’t support Bush. I think he’s a monster and has to go, but the points of his platform which I find most odious (Homeland Security, the PATRIOT act, and the prohibition of gay marriage) are also supported by Kerry.

      I do agree that John Ashcroft is the devil incarnate, however.

      You want to vote your conscience? You want to cast your vote for the person who best matches your ideas? Fine, but do so with your eyes open

      My eyes are open, and here’s a truth for you- my vote will never elect the President. Never- not even in Florida. Even ignoring the Electoral College, never in the history of our country has a presidential election come down to a single vote, and it never will.

      You want to vote Libertarian, and have your vote mean something more than Bush in the White House? Vote Libertarian in the place where you can do the most good: in your local elections.

      I do. Badnarik is not by any means the only Libertarian candidate. Libertarians have run for and currently serve in hundreds of positions in local governments all over the country, typically with great success. Wherever possible I vote for and support them also. Check out lp.org- they frequently cover the activities of the scores of Libertarians in local government.

  2. Very, very well-stated.

    Personally, I’ll still be voting Libertarian, for a few reasons.

    California, the state I live in, is going to Kerry. If every possible Green and Libertarian voted their hearts in California, California would still go to Kerry. If I lived in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania, my vote could be important for Kerry’s campaign. Here in California, the only way I can influence Kerry’s success in the election is by campaign contributions, which I have given, and attempting to get people in other states to vote for Kerry, which I should do more of.

    However, a vote for Badnarik, for me, will have an effect. There’s federal funding at the 5% level, and that’s worth shooting for. I agree that the real road to a successful three-plus-party system in the U.S. is through local elections, but bringing Badnarik up to even 1% makes a huge difference.

    Also, I don’t believe in the Democratic Party. I am sincerely of the belief that the Democratic Party today is driven by corporate graft as much as the Republican Party. The current Republican regime in the White House is exceptionally bad – and a big enough threat to my safety and civil rights that I am cheering Kerry. I still don’t like or trust the Democratic Party. In terms of political platforms, the Democratic and Republican Parties are definitely different, though they seem to be amalgamations which target broad and often mutually incompatible groups (Republicans make sure their platform can appeal to fiscal conservatives, the religious right, moderate libertarian-like voters, and rural voters, to name a few, while Democrats need to appeal to unions, moderate socialists, progressives, socially conservative Christians of disenfranchised ethnic backgrounds.) W’s administration has been especially incompetent and dangerous to civil rights and prosperity, with the Patriot Act, two expensive and ugly wars, and a contempt for the free press, but Clinton openly backed the Exon Internet censorship bill and a few anti-gay marriage bills. I’m pretty fond of what I’ve seen from Kerry, and I am making efforts to help Kerry, but the Democratic Party doesn’t really do much better on two issues that are important to me: corruption on the federal level, and the excessive influence of Christian values on laws regulating victimless crimes. As far as civil rights go (another big issue for me) the Republican party is definitely driving the attack on civil rights, but the Democratic Party hasn’t done an incredible job of protecting them.

    For most elections, I pretty much choose my vote between Green, Libertarian and Independent, and only vote for a major party if the candidate really impresses me as competent for the job.

  3. Well put Tacit, well put.

    I worry about too many people taking the tact of “california is already going to kerry”. Yeah, i’m 99% certain it willl, but man, I hope too many people dont think that.

    Bush MUST go. Plain and simple. I think that more than anything else will influence my Kerry vote.

  4. Well put Tacit, well put.

    I worry about too many people taking the tact of “california is already going to kerry”. Yeah, i’m 99% certain it willl, but man, I hope too many people dont think that.

    Bush MUST go. Plain and simple. I think that more than anything else will influence my Kerry vote.

  5. I almost voted for Nader in the last election because I figured that California was a Democratic state and we could afford it. But I decided to vote for Gore on the day before – because the whole thing just seemed too damn close.

    Here’s what freaks me out about California. How in gods name did a Democratic State elect a Republican Governer?? Do liberals really hold that tight of a majority?

  6. I second what said about federal funding. In addition to the Libertarian party and candidate accurately reflecting my personal values, that is the major reason why I don’t feel as though my Libertarian vote is a wasted vote. If anything, it’s even more important!

    If you vote Libertarian, or whatever, you’re voting for George W. Bush.

    Why does everyone assume that Libertarians prefer Kerry to Bush? I hear that sentiment echoed from both sides. In my case (and I know I’m not alone) Badnarik isn’t taking a vote from Kerry- he’s taking it from Bush.

    This may come as a surprise, but I came to the Libertarian party from the Republican party, and still hold to many (though certainly not all) of the tenets of the Republican platform. I would most likely still be a Republican, if only the Republicans were. Bush’s implementation of conservatism is a radical departure from the Reagan-era Republican party that I grew up with and supported during my early voting years, but a Republican administration is still closer to reflecting my beliefs than a Democratic one.

    Don’t get me wrong- I don’t support Bush. I think he’s a monster and has to go, but the points of his platform which I find most odious (Homeland Security, the PATRIOT act, and the prohibition of gay marriage) are also supported by Kerry.

    I do agree that John Ashcroft is the devil incarnate, however.

    You want to vote your conscience? You want to cast your vote for the person who best matches your ideas? Fine, but do so with your eyes open

    My eyes are open, and here’s a truth for you- my vote will never elect the President. Never- not even in Florida. Even ignoring the Electoral College, never in the history of our country has a presidential election come down to a single vote, and it never will.

    You want to vote Libertarian, and have your vote mean something more than Bush in the White House? Vote Libertarian in the place where you can do the most good: in your local elections.

    I do. Badnarik is not by any means the only Libertarian candidate. Libertarians have run for and currently serve in hundreds of positions in local governments all over the country, typically with great success. Wherever possible I vote for and support them also. Check out lp.org- they frequently cover the activities of the scores of Libertarians in local government.

  7. The Republican Governor thing was actually a weird quirk of the constituion that nobody noticed until it was exploited. The Democratic Party couldn’t rally a good defense against it because they were still supporting Davis.

  8. On the influence of votes on the upcoming election

    Forgive me if I’m asking an opinion (or as many opinions as come) on something less controversial than it looks. I find the idea of Kerry winning frightening, but even ignoring the maxim of my action becoming universal law (forgive the unfunny joke if you aren’t as surrounded by CI junkies as I have, at times, been), I acknowledge that going to the voting booth and pulling a lever is near the bottom of the list for ways I could influence the choosing of the next president. My question is as follows. Would the message sent by adding one to the Bush tally or the Badnarik tally would have more meaning (I know the difference is small, but I’m still interested.)? I have heard that the majority of third party votes are just interpreted as an action of the independent-in-the-same-uniform-as-my-independent-neighbor lot, though not I don’t think from a reliable source. It also seems to me that many of the Bush votes would have a chance of being interpreted as “Well my daddy always voted GOP…” “You don’t change a horse mid-stream” &c. irrational votes. Suppose for the sake of example that I feel four to four and a quarter times more strongly about Badnarik being the best man for the job than about avoiding how much damage Kerry would do (…in my humblest of opinions, of course; I’ve no intention of making this case here, just assuming it.), though if it is close, please let me know the approximate cutoff favor ratio. Thank you in advance for your feedback.

  9. On the influence of votes on the upcoming election

    Forgive me if I’m asking an opinion (or as many opinions as come) on something less controversial than it looks. I find the idea of Kerry winning frightening, but even ignoring the maxim of my action becoming universal law (forgive the unfunny joke if you aren’t as surrounded by CI junkies as I have, at times, been), I acknowledge that going to the voting booth and pulling a lever is near the bottom of the list for ways I could influence the choosing of the next president. My question is as follows. Would the message sent by adding one to the Bush tally or the Badnarik tally would have more meaning (I know the difference is small, but I’m still interested.)? I have heard that the majority of third party votes are just interpreted as an action of the independent-in-the-same-uniform-as-my-independent-neighbor lot, though not I don’t think from a reliable source. It also seems to me that many of the Bush votes would have a chance of being interpreted as “Well my daddy always voted GOP…” “You don’t change a horse mid-stream” &c. irrational votes. Suppose for the sake of example that I feel four to four and a quarter times more strongly about Badnarik being the best man for the job than about avoiding how much damage Kerry would do (…in my humblest of opinions, of course; I’ve no intention of making this case here, just assuming it.), though if it is close, please let me know the approximate cutoff favor ratio. Thank you in advance for your feedback.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.