For the largest third party in America, the Libertarian Party never quite manages to make it to the big time. To say that the Libertarians generally fail to make an impressive showing would be a vast understatement, but why exactly has a party which is built around people who agree on a clear, consistent set of driving principles failed to garner more than a few thousand votes in its three-decade history? The answer lies partly in the politics of the party and partly in the American electorate.
For the most part, the average American has never even heard of the Libertarian party, much less the philosophers whom they claim as their intellectual forefathers, but many Libertarians are still of the opinion that it is only a matter of time before a Libertarian is elected to major office. If the party continues its present course, I find this hope to be entirely without basis.
One of the primary reasons that the Libertarian party is so unpopular amongst lower-case “l” libertarians is that the Libertarian Party is widely regarded as a party filled with outcasts. Adding fuel to this rumor, a wide variety of Libertarians are renowned activists who often find themselves on the wrong side of a government property line and consequently, on the wrong side of a truncheon. The party is also somewhat infamous for its more eccentric members including a former Branch Davidian (one of only nine who escaped the F.B.I. raid), numerous transgendered activists, and a wide array of people supporting drug legalization, firearm legalization, and other, less savory legalization causes.
These members often know as little about the platform of the Libertarian Party as the average Joe on the sidewalk, yet their faces are often the most visible of anyone in the LP as their exploits often become front page news. Their rhetoric remains some of the most inflammatory in the political spectrum. Many of these special interest sub-groups of the LP have considerable influence amongst the party elite, and they have added planks to the party platform which go against the opinion of most of the libertarian intelligentsia. For instance, Hate Crime legislation remains officially supported by the LP despite the libertarian insistence upon equal punishment for equal crimes under the law. The most famous Libertarian Party gay, lesbian, and transgendered organization, Outright Libertarians, curiously does not support hate crime legislation viewing it as inconsistent with the equal protection principle. This is simply one of the cases where libertarian principles have been sacrificed in the party in favor of special interest groups who often keep their pet causes close at heart while keeping libertarian causes on the back burner.
But what about the thousands of less extreme libertarian positions which the LP does support but which fail to garner support within the country as a whole? In many ways, the Libertarian Party has a rightful claim to the Republican Party’s ideology. Strong fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility are perennial battle cries for Republicans, but they have consistently delivered candidates who fail to practice what they preach. Libertarians both within the Republican Party and without have dramatic opportunities to claim themselves the true heirs of fiscal conservatism, individual rights, and non-aggression during the heated election which will pit an incumbent president responsible for a pre-emptive war, massive deficit spending, PATRIOT Act infringements on civil liberties, and religious pandering against a contender chosen from a field of moderately liberal, weakly supported, and party divided candidates. A synthesis of civil rights, anti-pre-emptive-war policy, fiscal conservatism, and strong ideology could prove a formidable contender in the upcoming election. However, I predict a strong, sweeping defeat for the LP in the upcoming election, and I doubt I could find more than two or three people who would take a bet against me.
Perhaps the most striking disadvantage facing the LP is sheer lack of monetary and celebrity support. In modern American politics, the only thing that gets more votes is more money. Few Americans ask for a statement of principles from their presidential candidates, and even fewer candidates are willing to give one. The presidential race is an intricate, convoluted process in which the candidates try to raise a maximum of funding and fervor with a minimum of promises and wave-making. In this atmosphere, it is simply impossible for third-party candidates to hope for election. This is nothing new, but what is new is that the role of third-parties as ideological beacons effecting change within the major parties is gradually diminishing with the winner-take-all ideology of past and present administrations. Politicians are elected without a clear ideological mandate, and they proceed to force their own, unrevealed ideologies through in the form of legislation or judicial decision.
For America to return to a free-market system of political ideas (or arrive at it in the first place as some would argue), candidates must begin discussing real issues during the campaign instead of focusing upon electability, party loyalty, and rhetorical posturing. For the Libertarian Party to ever hope to effect political change, both internal and external changes must be made. The Party needs to shed its image as a party of hedonistic weirdos, and America needs to start caring about candidates’ stances on real issues.
Comments