I’ve seen a lot of discussion of late about how the Republican party, in response mainly to the tea party activists, is trying to reaffirm itself as the party of conservatism. As a big believer in conservatism myself, I see this as a great thing. However, I recognize that there are a lot of libertarians who want to branch off into a new party and try to get elected on something resembling the Mises platform.
My question is if the people on this forum think this is a good idea or do you guys think the libertarians should try to go through the Republican party and try to run candidates (like Peter Schiff or Rand Paul) in general elections under a Republican banner?
I personally think that dividing the two parties will only weaken both. I would like to see the Republican party run more candidates with a limited government message that can appeal to both the libertarian base as well as what one might call the social conservative base. Thoughts?
Use people like Ron Paul but of course their priority should be getting themselves elected. Where are you hearing this rumor? I can’t imagine that Mises wouldn’t love the Libertarian party.
It’s not that Mises people wouldn’t support the Libertarian party, it’s that I’m not sure whether or not they’d back a candidate running under the Republican banner who represents a lot of their positions. I’m trying to find out what people on this forum think.
As a life-long loyal Republican I have seen the party swing to many poles, but over the last 60 years, in general, it has grown more power-hungry and less “old-conservative”. Remember Newt Gingrich and the “Contract with America”. He actually succeeded in getting a large enough group of committed people elected to do it. But those committed people surcumed to power very quickly once they had a taste of it. It is for this reason that in my heart I have become an Anarchist. I no longer believe that any group strong enough to be effective can survive the call of power.
But as a practical person I have joined the Campaign for Liberty and the Libertarians. If enough could be elected to the House, or to any state, who are true believers and are willing to be very unpopular and just vote NO until they are strong enough and large enough to run for Senate or President, it could work, at least for a while.
They seem to me to lack the numbers to be anything other than a party that takes votes away from the Republicans. That being said, I agree with a lot of libertarian ideology and policy but, from my point of view, it will be difficult for the Libertarian party to win elections. It’s my personal opinion that the libertarians should try to take office under the Republican banner and then just vote libertarian once they’re elected.
I see, however I see the distinct possibility of a world not to long from now in which the libertarians are very powerful indeed. I don’t like alot of republicans, their facists in American colors. However I have great respect for those conservatives who are in it for the economic rights and individual freedom part… You know those who would probably be considered classical liberals
I am definitely in favor of a third party approach. Even though you might be able to get a couple of people elected throughhe republican party, in the end, the republican party is and always will be controlled by the neocons. The people that run the Rs will no be uprooted from their positions no matter how hard libertarians try. It’s been tried in the past to take over the Republican party, but it’s always ended up as a time wasting distraction.
The Libertarian Party goes for a long term approach. The LP is building structure and running candidates at the local level that can actually win.
The one thing that would make third parties more effective would be instant runoff voting, which allows voters to rank their selections.
I see how this worked with Ron Paul in the 2008 election. Calling yourself a republican doesn’t help much with elections unless you say what your voters want, like starting another war for freedom!
I see a much better chance under a third party because otherwise people will associate all of the big government, war mongering republican failures on libertarians running as republicans.
Now that doesn’t mean there will be a good chance that libertarians will get elected either way, both the libertarian party and libertarians running as republicans have both failed miserably. Ron Paul only manages to keep himself elected in his extremely conservative district and he has had no influence in Washington whatsoever.
According to Gerald Celente, there will be a libertarian(ish) party rising up within the next few years. It would make perfect sense for it to be the Libertarian Party, which is already the third-largest party…
The Ten Points of the Libertarian Party Rothbard Caucus
1
Principled Populism—The Libertarian Party should be a mass-participation party operating in the electoral area and elsewhere, devoted to consistent libertarian principle, and committed to liberty and justice for all. The Libertarian Party should trust in and rely on the people to welcome a program of liberty and justice and should always aim strategically at convincing the bulk of the people of the soundess of libertarian doctrine.
2
Rights Are Primary—The central commitment of the Libertarian Party should be to individual liberty on the basis of rights and moral principle, and not on the basis of economic cost-benefit estimates.
3
Power Elite Analysis—American society is divided into a government-privileged class and a government-oppressed class and is ruled by a power elite. Libertarian Party strategy and pronouncements should reflect these facts.
4
Resistance & The Oppressed—The Libertarian Party should make a special effort to recruit members from groups mosts oppressed by the government so that the indignation of those who experience oppression is joined to that of those who oppose oppression in principle. The Libertarian Party should never approve of the initiation of force, nor should it rule out self-defense and resistance to tyranny.
5
No Compromise—The Rothbard Caucus insists that all reforms advocated by the Libertarian Party must diminish governmental power and that no such reforms are to contradict the goal of a totally free society. Holding high our principles means avoiding completely the quagmire of self-imposed, obligatory gradualism: We must avoid the view that, in the name of fairness, abating suffering, or fulfilling expectations, we must temporize and stall on the road to liberty.
6
No Particular Order—The removal of a harmful government policy should never be held up as a condition for removing another, for this throws self-imposed barriers in the path of liberty and removes potential pressures for change. For example, saying that borders may be opened only after welfare is eliminated is unacceptable; the proper position is to push for both changes. Should we succeed in achieving open borders only to find that welfare burdens are increased, this should be used as an additional argument to abolish welfare.
7
Strategic Centrism—Avoiding the twin errors of sectarianism and opportunism is key. Simply repeating our basic principles and not proposing transition measures is ineffective in the short run because only a small part of the populace is interested in liberty in the abstract, and hiding or abandoning our principled positions is ineffective in the long run because it fails to sustain us as a movement and attract and retain new Libertarians.
8
Radical Abolitionism --As the word radical means “going to the root” of something, radical Libertarians should not merely propose small changes to the status quo and debate the fine points of government policy with their opponents, but should propose the abolition of State institutions and programs while calling attention to the evil at their base: the coercion, force, and tyranny inherent in the State. Because morality and logic are on our side, the best candidates and spokespersons will sound eminently reasonable while maintaining radical libertarian positions.
9
Anti-Imperialism & Centrality of Foreign Policy—Because the United States government aspires to world-wide control of events, foreign policy is always potentially the most important issue of our time. The Libertarian Party should bring to the public the truth about the continuing threat to world peace posed by U.S. foreign policy. No one should be deceived by the notion that any government, like the American, which has a relatively benign domestic policy, therefore has a relatively benign foreign policy.
10
Anti-State Coalition—The Rothbard Caucus agrees to the view, adopted by the Libertarian Party at its 1974 Dallas convention, that for purposes of party programs and activities the issue of the ultimate legitimacy of government per se is not relevant. We oppose all efforts to exclude either anarchists or minimal statists from party life.
As a Republican and a recovering neocon (thanks to you guys), I think the best way would be to do both, run a third party and run in the Republican party. Ron Paul is very popular with young people and many conservatives who are now questioning the stupidity of neoconservatism. If you had someone in the Republican party and the Libertarian party preaching the same policies, the Libertarian party then sounds more mainstream to voters. Heck maybe even run a libertarian under the Democratic ticket too. I’m sure there are a lot of people in the Democratic party who hate the government telling them what to do (ex: gay rights activists, legalizing drug activitists, etc). Ultimately, it’s about the ideas, so it doesn’t really matter what banner they run under.