Obama victory = Libertarian victory?

gnosis

If McCain loses to Obama there is a good chance of a "civil war" within the Republican party ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24794971/ ) in which many Libertarians would defect from the Republican party.

The Libertarian party platform is much more appealing to many progressive democrats than the Republican, also increasing the chance of Democratic party voter defections later.

Could a win for Obama mean a strengthened Libertarian party in the future?
_________________
"Agnostics: Atheists without balls." -Stephen Colbert

redraiderdude187 · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject:

I doubt it, usually in the US 3rd parties don't actually take over a system, they just make one of the parties adopt some or most of their ideology. I think the Republicans may adopt libertarian policies if a Libertarian candidate made a Nader-esque appearance in a race. Though, I doubt that philosophy would stick; when the Republicans actually had a libertarian ideology back before Nixon, they were pretty unpopular and were usually dominated in races except for the era of Teddy Roosevelt through Hoover and a small blip on the map with Eisenhower. Past that, the Republicans couldn't do anything in the South because they had to appeal to a more populistic, nationalistic voter-base.

Coincidentally, there was a great article about this in the New Yorker today. Here's a link: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer
_________________
Above the hive, beyond the lynch mob, where two and two always make four.

Jason_Harvestdancer · Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 12:43 am Post subject:

No need for the Republicans to worry - the LP just shot itself in the foot over the issue of whether or not the Libertarian Party represents libertarian ideology.

It doesn't anymore.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.

LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.

Visit my wife's art gallery

gnosis · Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:48 am Post subject:

Jason_Harvestdancer · Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:18 am Post subject:

Barr/Root
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.

LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.

Visit my wife's art gallery

Gettin' In Tune · Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:25 am Post subject:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JgWQ1erBnMo

Gettin' In Tune · Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:35 am Post subject:

Your issue with the state?

Godless Red Scum · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject:

tinker683 · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject:

Jason_Harvestdancer · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject:

I already explained.

Barr/Root

Two words contain a full explanation, but I see I will have to elaborate.

Both candidates - during the election cycle but not since they declared - endorsed Republicans. Root actually endorsed McCain himself, while Barr donated money through his pac to down-ticket Republicans against down-ticket Libertarians. He later made bigger contributions to Libertairans to make up for it, but he did this while A MEMBER OF the Libertairan National Committee.

He is better on the issue of drugs than other Republicans, but is far from the Libertarian ideal, as he would legalize marijuana. He straddles the fence on all other drugs by wanting them to remain illegal but by wanting the states to harshly prosecute everything else instead of the fed to harshly prosecute everything else.

On taxes, he doesn't want to lower taxes. His own description of his version of the fair tax is "revenue neutral." Some libertarians have fallen for the fair tax scam, but if you want an interim measure to lower taxes then the flat tax is the best option, not introducing a whole new tax plan.

On religious libert, on which he failed abysmally while in the House, he refuses to address this issue. He refuses to speak about it. He is a winner of the Burning Times Award from Religious Tolerance due to his attempt to forbid certain religions from being recoginzed by the military.

He is supported by the "Reform Caucus" of the Libertarian Party, and they are also the Pro-War wing of the Libertarian Party. Barr's only statement has been of a "reduced military footprint" in Iraq. Yes, he calls for withdrawl. No, he doesn't call for complete withdrawl.

Root, on the other hand, has flip-flopped during the primaries. He started out wanting a vastly expanded war on terror, but realized he'd never win that way so he switched to being against it. His switch had no impact on the pro-war following he has, which leads anti-war libertarians to wonder about his sincerity. It seems the entire pro-war faction of the LP was engaged in a "don't speak about it" campaign with regards to war so that they could get their candidates to the top. It's almost as if they knew that the candidates were pro-war in spite of their rhetoric.

Barr has some heavy campaigning to do to win over his own party if he wants to equal the vote totals previous presidential candidates have gotten. The Reform Caucus assure us he will bring in so many independent disaffected republicans that he will exceed previous vote totals. That can only happen with outside votes, he's not even trying to reach out to the Libertarian Caucus. If he fails to reach independents, he'll have the lowest totals of any LP presidential candidate with that strategy.

He claims he won't be a spoiler for McCain. He makes a good sounding argument that people who would vote for right-wing dictatorship probably wouldn't vote for Barr anyway, but another way of putting it is "I promise to not have any effect on the outcome of this race."

The Constitution Party was smart enough to reject a Republican Party takeover attempt. The Libertairan Party, thanks to the Reform Caucus (referred to as the Republican Caucus by detractors) apparently wasn't quite so smart.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.

LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.

Visit my wife's art gallery

Godless Red Scum · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject:

Jason_Harvestdancer · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject:

Yes, I do feel the RP is better at dealing with third parties than the DP. There have been three distinct infiltration efforts in my opinion in the last 10 years.

It is my opinion that Buchanan went to the Reform Party in 2000 in order to reduce the effectiveness of that party. Of course I've already mentioned Barr and Keyes.

Additionally Republicans actively donate to Nader and the Green Party. Democrats bitch about how unfair it is, when the could (and did in 1992 and 1996) do the same. But while the Democrats supported the Reform Party they never did so in as coordinated a way as the Republicans did. If the Democrats were to do so, the Constitution Party would be a bigger party. Perhaps the Libertarian Party, but it is more of a threat to both parties than just the Republican Party.

The Retard Caucus, excuse me, Reform Caucus did get the ticket, and in 2006 they won the platform battle, but they lost an important battle this year. The Executive Committee of the LP is not Reform Caucus anymore. Small consolation, but actual libertarians will have to see what can be done with that. Since the current exec-comm plans future conventions, this could be potent.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.

LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.

Visit my wife's art gallery

Materialist99 · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject:

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Political/Government General Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1