The Problem with Third Party Candidates

[Fletch]

I'm finding dburkhead's arguments persuasive. I like the idea of infiltrating the R's with libertarian candidates. Hell, I like the idea of infiltrating the D's the same way. In Oklahoma, it is just about the only way libertarians can get on the ballot, because our ballot access laws are stacked against third parties to an extreme that exists nowhere else I can think of.

That said, in 2004 I abstained from voting in the presidential race. We got Bush. In 2008 I swallowed every ounce of self-respect I had and voted McCain. We got Obama. So from my perspective, if I agree that Republicans are slightly less bad than Democrats, not voting at all produces better results.

 

[jsgolfman]

I think it would help if people understood that you can be libertarian without being Libertarian. As an example, being an AC hasn't stopped me from being active in the republican party and attempting to change it from the inside, as dross mentioned. Though my ultimate goal and reason for change differs from others, at least until they understand.
As for Ron Paul, it's extremely difficult to garner support from the mainstream of the party when you are being labeled as a kook by the MSM and the "leaders" of the party.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Differences with who? What do these votes represent to you?

Differences with me. I thought that was implied based upon the first part of my sentence fragment... "I agree with a lot of what this man has voted for". Sorry...Engrish Fail!

Some of those votes represent some pretty big opportunities for erosion of our liberties. Others represent greater opportunity for governmental corruption.

 

[Rizzo]

If only we could have infiltrated the Nazi party with libertarian candidates. We wouldn't have needed WWII.

 

[Rizzo]

There is a difference between shooting yourself in the heart and shooting yourself in the head. Shooting yourself in the heart will not kill you as fast as shooting your self in the brain. But both are going to kill you. If I die from a gunshot wound, it will not be self inflicted. And I may not be able to stop someone from killing me but I will not help them do it.

There is a difference between voting for Rhinos and voting for Dems but they are both killing freedom. I may not be able to stop them from doing it but I WILL NOT HELP THEM do it. I will resist. I will not compromise with evil.

I will vote for someone who wants freedom even if I am the only one in the whole country, just so history will records there was at least one man who wanted freedom. I want future generations to know not everyone drank the cool aid of the republicrats.

Someday free people will look back on this time and shake their heads at how foolish compromise was ... because freedom will triumph in the end. ... just as we look back with disdain on slave traders, Soviet revolutionaries and Nazi soldiers failed tyranny.

I will be one of the few who were part of the start of the resistance who would no longer compromise freedom for false promises of wealth, heath and security. I will be one who resisted the tyranny of the republicrats.

I will be on the right side of history. There is not compromise with tyranny. And those who compromise with tyrants will be shown for the gutless, unprincipled, pragmatic cowards they are.

You can win elections and lose freedom, honor, and your very soul.

 

[Prometheus]

Well, under Bush we got some bad stuff. But it wasn't as bad as the "stimulus" bill, the nationalization of the financial industry, buying GM, and this healthcare bill. Bush helped to increase the deficit, Obama has managed to triple? quadruple? I'd have to look it up. Under Bush, we weren't talking about unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Under Bush, we got a broken arm. That's bad. Under Obama we've gotten lung cancer. That's worse.

There you go, justifying treason again...

Pami's friend is spot on, I've been involved with changing things via the GOP for years now. It's impossible.

The Federal and top state spots are so firmly entrenched with NEOcons it's insane. The money and bribery that goes on makes the DNC looks like an afterschool lunch program.

It cannot be changed.

That said, any time a 3rd party or tea party movement gets started the GOP spends millions of dollars locally, tens of millions on a state level and BILLIONS on a national level to first discredit it and it that doesn't work to try and place neocons at the wheel and steer it into a GOP furthering group.

Were guys like Dross or Burkett to actually get invovled in politics and do something besides typing up outlandish reasons to justify treason, they'd realize you can't fight the money, power and corruption at the top levels of the GOP.

 

[mrjarrell]

I'm finding dburkhead's arguments persuasive. I like the idea of infiltrating the R's with libertarian candidates. Hell, I like the idea of infiltrating the D's the same way. In Oklahoma, it is just about the only way libertarians can get on the ballot, because our ballot access laws are stacked against third parties to an extreme that exists nowhere else I can think of.

That said, in 2004 I abstained from voting in the presidential race. We got Bush. In 2008 I swallowed every ounce of self-respect I had and voted McCain. We got Obama. So from my perspective, if I agree that Republicans are slightly less bad than Democrats, not voting at all produces better results.

In a place like OK, that may be your only option, Fletch. In the rest of the country, where ballot access is easier and the gop is a sustained presence it just doesn't work. I've seen it happen right here in Indiana when candidates tried it. In other locales in the last election cycle we saw what happened to Ron Paul libertarians who attempted the same thing. They were marginalised or denied standing in the local and state parties and refused participation by the gop. It's a losing strategy, as I've seen time and time again.

 

[CarmelHP]

(Lost most of this post and don't feel like retyping it)

 

[dburkhead]

Dave, you should know I am not a Libertarian.

So pick whatever candidate you care for.

Answer the question. Or let me answer it for you. Less free. Yet the same pattern continues. Comparing the last few years worth of dems/repubs is extremely nearsighted, the trend is obvious if you expand your view by a few decades.
You've got some serious anger for the Libertarians, yet claim to actually lean that way?

Again with the mindreading. No anger. Some frustration at tactics that are counterproductive.

As I've asked before. Where has Ron Paul been most influential in working against the deterioration of Freedom: As a Republican Congressman who's actually in office or as a Libertarian candidate losing a Presidential election? Where has Bob Barr been most effective: Republican Congressman from Georgia, or Libertarian candidate for President?

When Ross Perot ran for President, he didn't garner a single electoral vote. Had he instead run for, say, Senator and put his resources into getting a Republican nomination he could very likely have won--particularly if he'd made a point of establishing residency in a congenial State first. How much influence would he have on US policy as a Republican Senator as opposed to someone who ran for President and lost?

The problem I have with libertarians as a political party (as opposed to as a political philosophy) is that all too often they focus on that 98 yard touchdown run only to give the other side a safety. Focusing on the shorter plays--getting 10 yards over the course of four downs without fumbling the ball or giving up an interception--and you can eventually get to the end zone. But trying to run out onto the field, steal the ball from both teams, and scoring, rarely accomplishes more than getting you dogpiled by both sides.

Once again, it's not the philosophy that I am calling into question, it's the tactics.

Your "are we free-er now than we were X years ago works both ways. We didn't suddenly go from "Libertarian paradise" (or as close as things have ever been) to "abject tyranny" in the course of a single election. It took a lot of small steps, one at a time, to get there.

Getting back will also be a lot of small steps. Instead of focusing on the "perfect" candidate who cannot win, try o find someone "better than we have now" who at least has a shot.

Don't just let the party machine hand you a pre-selected Republican candidate, get involved at the Primary level to get the candidate you'd like--or at least the best candidate out of the "possibles"--into the slot for the general election.

Compromise is not a dirty word. If nobody compromised every voter would simply write in him or her self as the candidate. (Is there really anybody, anybody at all, who agrees with you in every particular in every single issue without exception?)

Instead of looking for perfection now and complaining while things just get worse look at achievable goals that make things better, even a little bit better. Or if you can't get an achievable goal that actually improves things, at least find one that prevents things from becoming worse. And in the process of trying to prevent things from getting worse--or getting worse faster than otherwise--try to set yourself up to get that improvement.

There have been improvements. Heller means that we have actual, official, legal recognition that gun ownership is an individual right. It's a small step but the first steps of the "civil rights movement" were equally small. And you can thank Bush and the justices he appointed for it. Do you think a Gore or Kerry appointee would have voted for Heller? The AWB did sunset. You can thank a Republican Congress for that.

So make the choice that gets the best we can get this time, however small that improvement is. Then work for further improvement, however small, next time. And again the time after that.

Many complain about that approach as being too slow and ask "where does it end". Well, I hate to tell you but it never ends. The only time it ends is in tyranny. If you want to avoid tyranny, you've got to work at it constantly, every election.

And trying to win the whole game in a single play is not, generally, a productive approach.

 

[CarmelHP]

In a place like OK, that may be your only option, Fletch. In the rest of the country, where ballot access is easier and the gop is a sustained presence it just doesn't work. I've seen it happen right here in Indiana when candidates tried it. In other locales in the last election cycle we saw what happened to Ron Paul libertarians who attempted the same thing. They were marginalised or denied standing in the local and state parties and refused participation by the gop. It's a losing strategy, as I've seen time and time again.

In other words, you couldn't win a primary. What does, "denied standing in the local and state parties mean?" No one has "standing" in the local and state party, no one gets any party funds in the primary and very, very, very few in any general election.

 

[dburkhead]

I think it would help if people understood that you can be libertarian without being Libertarian. As an example, being an AC hasn't stopped me from being active in the republican party and attempting to change it from the inside, as dross mentioned. Though my ultimate goal and reason for change differs from others, at least until they understand.
As for Ron Paul, it's extremely difficult to garner support from the mainstream of the party when you are being labeled as a kook by the MSM and the "leaders" of the party.

If you'll go back and read my OP you'll find out that this is exactly what I have been saying all along.

 

[CarmelHP]

I'm finding dburkhead's arguments persuasive. I like the idea of infiltrating the R's with libertarian candidates. Hell, I like the idea of infiltrating the D's the same way. In Oklahoma, it is just about the only way libertarians can get on the ballot, because our ballot access laws are stacked against third parties to an extreme that exists nowhere else I can think of.

Precisely. Why should the label be so important? State and National parties care very little about anything but winning elections. If a candidate can win a primary, in which it is generally wide open for anyone to sign up, you're in for the general. If you win the general, you now have a great big stick to wield to sway the party however you want. The most powerless people in the world are the party officials who cannot tell candidates what to do. Most candidates raise their own money at the state level and I've never heard of a primary candidate get any monetary support. Just lots of sour grapes going on from people who could not persuade the electorate that they should support them. They won't do better by changing the label to a 3rd party, in fact, they'll do worse.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Really? Why did Obama allow him to sign a bill that was passed after he left office? Never heard of such a thing. And for GM, it was done as an executive branch funtion also after Bush left office. Did Obama appoint Bush to something I didn't hear about? Edumacate me, please.

And if Bush had vetoed it?

He signed it. Obama spent it. That is an alley oop slam dunk right there.

 

[dburkhead]

And if Bush had vetoed it?

He signed it. Obama spent it. That is an alley oop slam dunk right there.

What Bush signed was TARP. TARP was bad enough but it was not the "stimulus package."

The Stimulus package, the really big one to which CarmelHP is referring was the one that was passed after Obama took office.

I was returning from a business trip, sitting in an airport, watching Obama touting that bill "I have read this bill and can say that there are no earmarks anywhere in it."

And he said it with a straight face, too.

Bush didn't sign the stimulus package because it was passed after he had left office.

Last time I looked, they didn't allow ex-presidents to veto legislation passed under the current president.

 

[dross]

I used to argue on a left-wing blog where my libertarian beliefs were completely incomprehensible to them. They were sometimes even insulting. I can't ever remember however, being compared to Nazi collaborators, being called gutless, unprincipled, treasonous, or cowardly. Apparently I had to join a gun owners board and get in an argument with FELLOW libertarians for that.

I respectfully and politely invite any of you to call me a gutless coward should we meet in person. I'll bet you decide not to.

I'm out of this discussion.

 

[hornadylnl]

What Bush signed was TARP. TARP was bad enough but it was not the "stimulus package."

The Stimulus package, the really big one to which CarmelHP is referring was the one that was passed after Obama took office.

I was returning from a business trip, sitting in an airport, watching Obama touting that bill "I have read this bill and can say that there are no earmarks anywhere in it."

And he said it with a straight face, too.

Bush didn't sign the stimulus package because it was passed after he had left office.

Last time I looked, they didn't allow ex-presidents to veto legislation passed under the current president.

You're right. Bush only got us a "little bit" pregnant.

I'll say it again, we've been trying the approach of working at the ballot box to return freedom for 200 years. Yes, we win a few battles here and there but when you tally up all the battles, we are losing BIG TIME!

dburkhead,

I want to see you stop John Galt from stopping the motor of the world. John Galt is not a singular individual. He is every producer in the world. Since the beginning of time, man has worked to his own benefit. Take away those benefits of producing and soon, there is no incentive to produce. Yes, there will be a few Hank Reardons who will continue to work until 100% of his wealth is confiscated and forced to work under the government gun but the majority of us producers will drop out long before that. Are you going to show up for work when 40,50,60,70,80,90, or 100% of your income is taken away from you so that others can sit on their duffs and have more for it?

When you figure out how to redirect human nature (going Galt), I've got a few more projects for you. I want to know the true meaning of life, what women really want, the cure for cancer, aids, etc. All of the above are equally achievable.

 

[Fletch]

I used to argue on a left-wing blog where my libertarian beliefs were completely incomprehensible to them. They were sometimes even insulting. I can't ever remember however, being compared to Nazi collaborators, being called gutless, unprincipled, treasonous, or cowardly.

You must have found the peace & love lefties. All I ever meet are the other kind.

 

[dburkhead]

You're right. Bush only got us a "little bit" pregnant.

I'll say it again, we've been trying the approach of working at the ballot box to return freedom for 200 years. Yes, we win a few battles here and there but when you tally up all the battles, we are losing BIG TIME!

dburkhead,

I want to see you stop John Galt from stopping the motor of the world. John Galt is not a singular individual. He is every producer in the world. Since the beginning of time, man has worked to his own benefit. Take away those benefits of producing and soon, there is no incentive to produce. Yes, there will be a few Hank Reardons who will continue to work until 100% of his wealth is confiscated and forced to work under the government gun but the majority of us producers will drop out long before that. Are you going to show up for work when 40,50,60,70,80,90, or 100% of your income is taken away from you so that others can sit on their duffs and have more for it?

When you figure out how to redirect human nature (going Galt), I've got a few more projects for you. I want to know the true meaning of life, what women really want, the cure for cancer, aids, etc. All of the above are equally achievable.

And you can add creating your "free society" by "stopping the motor of the world" to that list as well.

Which would you rather be, pregnant or infected with aids, cancer, and heavy metal poisoning? Because that's the "abortifacent" that "Going Galt" represents.

John Galt was the biggest looter and moocher in the book. He was evil. What is a looter but one that destroys the production of others? Since he set out over the course of the novel to destroy Taggart Transcontinental, how does that not make him one of the very looters he despised?

Take away Galt's Gulch (since the real world is decidedly lacking in magic force fields to allow one to hide such a place) and what advantage is there to Hank Reardon to quit? Sure it "deprives" the moochers and looters of the result of that production but it also deprives Hank Reardon, the folk who worked hard in his plant for years, any investors who provided him capital to build and expand, and other producers (like, say Dagny Taggart) of the results of that production.

Nose, face, knife, some assembly (or, in this case, disassembly) required.

 

[CarmelHP]

Nose, face, knife, some assembly (or, in this case, disassembly) required.

If you listen to almost anyone who knew Ayn Rand, she was a misanthrope. When viewed in that context, a desire to destroy civilization and cast humanity into an abyss becomes eminently reasonable.

 

[Fletch]

Take away Galt's Gulch (since the real world is decidedly lacking in magic force fields to allow one to hide such a place) and what advantage is there to Hank Reardon to quit? Sure it "deprives" the moochers and looters of the result of that production but it also deprives Hank Reardon, the folk who worked hard in his plant for years, any investors who provided him capital to build and expand, and other producers (like, say Dagny Taggart) of the results of that production.

"Going Galt" in the real world amounts to deliberately reducing production or moving it elsewhere. A short while ago, I saw an article about someplace on the east cost (New Jersey?) that hiked taxes on folks making "rich people money". They figured it would cover all of their budget shortfalls for the next year. Instead, they wound up in the hole by twice as much because the "rich folks" decided to move and/or find ways to earn less income.

It's not as extreme or dramatic as Atlas Shrugged, and it doesn't take a conspiracy to pull off... it happens when people seek their own best interests. I will readily agree that there are no magical force fields in our future, but the story does illustrate a truth -- people as a rule do not like being food for parasites.