Why isn't the Libertarian Party more popular?

[Ryno]

The common theme seems to be that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm someone else. Is this inaccurate?

The media doesn't give them fair time and the two major parties probably do whatever they can to squash them, but are there any policy issues holding them back?

The only stickler for me is abortion. This is a very important issue to many, including me, but I don't think that outweighs the 95% that I agree with.

I'm just curious what some of you think.

Condensed Platform:
http://www.lp.org/issues/

Full Platform:
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

[cartman]

I think one big reason is that there is too great an amount of focus on the drug legalization aspects of the Libertarian platform. To a great number of people, that is all they know about the party.

[Fritz]

Because the party is a big mess?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why not more popular?

Because many of their platform planks are out of step with mainstream America.
It's that simple.

[st.cronin]

They are a one-issue party that basically appeals only to fiscal conservatives and has no real credibility on foreign policy.

[Ryno]

They are a one-issue party

Which issue is that?

[rexallllsc]

Because it's not realistic?

That would be my answer. I agree with a lot of Libertarian ideals, but this world is not perfect, therefore, it could never work, IMO.

[weinstein7]

I remember a guy ran for governor of Jersey under the Libertarian ticket back in...97 I guess. As I recall, the main thrust of his platform was to lift restrictions on tinted windows in cars. I think there was probably something about drugs in there too, but the window thing is what stuck. Now, whether that's a result of him actually having no platform, or whether its a result of him being marginalized and turned into a joke by the media/mainstream parties, I couldn't tell ya.

[Ryno]

Because many of their platform planks are out of step with mainstream America.

I guess that's what I'm asking. Which ones in particular?

[Ryno]

As I recall, the main thrust of his platform was to lift restrictions on tinted windows in cars.

Yeah, maybe the candidates are just too far out there. I worked with a guy who ran for Senator in Illinois. He was one of the smartest people I've ever met, but some of his habits seemed somewhat strange to those who didn't know him.

[weinstein7]

Looking over their platforms real quick, it seems to me that most of their ideas are pretty silly, and based around the general principle that everything government can do, private business can do better.

edit: I don't mean to sound completely dismissive of this principle, as it certainly has some merit, but I think these guys just take it to a ridiculous extreme.

[st.cronin]

Which issue is that?

Personal liberty.

[Ryno]

Personal liberty.

That's a bad thing?

[st.cronin]

That's a bad thing?

It's a very good thing. The problem is, this is America, you know, and personal liberty is less of a problem than just about anywhere. I mean, the Patriot Act was bad, yes, and libertarian points of view are useful at times ... but there's just nothing there to really appeal to people.

[Ryno]

It's a very good thing. The problem is, this is America, you know, and personal liberty is less of a problem than just about anywhere. I mean, the Patriot Act was bad, yes, and libertarian points of view are useful at times ... but there's just nothing there to really appeal to people.

OK, I see where you're coming from now.

[Fritz]

Re: Personal Liberty

I think it is fair to say that American's seek to have less personal liberty rather than more. For instance, most personal safety laws have been passed in the last 25 years

[Desnudo]

Most people, at least subconsciously, like the idea of a father figure government. That's why there is support for social security, unemployment, and other social programs.

[Ryno]

I think it is fair to say that American's seek to have less personal liberty rather than more.

I really don't understand why that is. We certainly have more freedoms living here than in most countries, but I see us going in the wrong direction.

[Buzzbee]

I really don't understand why that is. We certainly have more freedoms living here than in most countries, but I see us going in the wrong direction.
American's are trading security for liberty.

[Klinglerware]

It seems to me that the Libertarian party is very big on maintaining logical consistency on all issues (i.e., limiting government intrusion in both economic and social spheres). Because of this, I think that many voters who take voting seriously are afraid (justifiably or not) that the Libertarians may not be able to govern pragmatically...

[rkmsuf]

Well if you already have tremendous personal liberty how or why would you seek more.

liberatarians would be unstoppable in an environment plagued with oppression.

[cartman]

I think that because of the dominance of the current two-party system, someone who would consider running as a Libertarian won't. That person would run as a Republican or Democrat in order to get elected. I consider this a "closet Libertarian". So the ones that would be conisdered most electable aren't running as Libertarians. That leaves the ones that do run as the "extremes" of the party, and are usually rightly labled as nutjobs.

[Desnudo]

One of the main problems is that the party is divided on a lot of issues, which makes it hard to present a united front.

[st.cronin]

I think also the transparent lack of compassion hurts them on both the left and the right. It's a very darwinian outlook.

[Desnudo]

I think also the transparent lack of compassion hurts them on both the left and the right. It's a very darwinian outlook.

I think a lot of people confuse self-determination and social darwinism. The party would argue that people, as an entire population, are better served with less government, and would end up being better off.

It's certainly a difficult position to argue though, since it advocates removing a lot of government programs.

[Ryno]

Interesting stuff. The main reason for posting this was that I don't particularly care for either of the main parties and I am looking for a viable alternative. I probably should have framed the question more along those lines.

I'll have to look more closely at the Darwinian suggestion, but nothing else has discouraged me from taking a harder look at their party.

[sabotai]

I think part of the puzzle is the "lesser of two evils" mentality that a lot of people have. There are quite a lot of people who like the libertarian party, agree with a lot of it and think the nation would be better if more libertarians were in office (and the same goes for the Green party and plenty of other "third-parties"). The problem is that the majority of those people, for whatever reason, are so scared of that "other party" (Dem or Rep) that they vote according to that fear. IOW, a lot of times, someone is voting against a party rather than for one.

[ISiddiqui]

Because of the 2 party system, any 3rd party has to be a bit extreme (except in rare cases). The Libertarians are very extreme. They want to legalize all drugs, which only a small minority (which I count myself one) agree with. They also want to basically abolish all government services and taxes. Most people, a vast majority of people, think that is utterly ridiculous. It's why I'm not a part of the Libertarian party (I consider myself a 'moderate libertarian').

[Ryno]

I think part of the puzzle is the "lesser of two evils" mentality that a lot of people have.

That's pretty much the way that I've been voting recently, and I just don't like it. The Libertarians certainly have an uphill battle, but so far I haven't seen any glaring reasons not to help them.

[ISiddiqui]

Put it to you this way, while I have libertarian sympathies (I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal), I will NEVER vote for a libertarian who advocates an abolition of the income tax. That's just living in la la land.

[Klinglerware]

I think that because of the dominance of the current two-party system, someone who would consider running as a Libertarian won't. That person would run as a Republican or Democrat in order to get elected. I consider this a "closet Libertarian". So the ones that would be conisdered most electable aren't running as Libertarians. That leaves the ones that do run as the "extremes" of the party, and are usually rightly labled as nutjobs.

I agree with this--there are a lot of libertarians who've run as a major party candidate for reasons of electabilty and pragmatism. That leaves the Libertarian party itself with a lot of true believer types that scares/amuses the electorate...

[Desnudo]

Put it to you this way, while I have libertarian sympathies (I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal), I will NEVER vote for a libertarian who advocates an abolition of the income tax. That's just living in la la land.

Like GW Bush? Wasn't there been some rumblings from the White House a while back about the desire to replace the IRS and the income tax with a national sales tax?

[ISiddiqui]

Like GW Bush? Wasn't there been some rumblings from the White House a while back about the desire to replace the IRS and the income tax with a national sales tax?
I think it was just rumblings, with absolutely no serious attempt to push this through. That's just the tax part of it though (the libs would never want a high sales tax though, just enough for bare bones), what about the services?

Oh, and I didn't vote for Bush in the last election either.

[Ryno]

the desire to replace the IRS and the income tax with a national sales tax?

I guess I'm a kook, but this seems logical to me, especially if you exempt food and possibly other necessities. The Republicans are happy because of the flat tax, and the Democrats are happy because the "rich" are still paying more.

[Ryno]

The services would be tricky. I think most charities are more efficient than government bureaucracies, so we could try to outsource as many as possible. Perhaps increase the deduction for charitable contributions. I would think there would be a way to at least decrease the need for a centralized government.

[tategter]

Libertarian looks waaaay too much like Librarian. Every time the party is mentioned I think of old ladies in reading glasses running for office somewhere.

[Solecismic]

Generally, any party that's based on theory alone is useless in practice.

I agree with many libertarian concepts, but I don't think it's practical to privatize the school system, for one. There just doesn't seem to be a dummy filter in that party.

Same reason I don't support socialism/communism. Noble idea, but completely impractical. Try it, and you get Lenin on one side, modern-day France on the other.

[Ryno]

Noble idea, but completely impractical.

Certainly, but I wouldn't expect them to get everything that they want anyway. I look at it as more of a bargaining position. You go in asking for more than you could realistically hope for and compromise down to something reasonable, but you come out with at least some of what you wanted.

I guess that really answers my question. If you take them literally at everything they say, they come off as a bunch of impractical kooks. Personally I've become cynical enough that I don't believe that a politician will legislate the same way they campaign. My hope is that if they are extreme enough, maybe some of the reforms that I would like may actually be implemented. I can see why others wouldn't want to think that way.

[Bubba Wheels]

Ron Paul, congressman from Texas I believe, used to be Libertarian before he became GOP. Word is that lobbyists are so assured that he cannot be bought they don't waste their time with him and hence he's the only member of congress that they totally ignore.

Noted Libertarians: Kurt Russell, Ted Nugent. Many Republicans are very sympathetic to Libertarian positions, differing mostly on legalizing drugs and looking the other way regarding abortion. Probably many of their positions regarding taxes, national defense, ect., are much more in line with original Constitutional thinking than either of the modern-day Dems or GOPs.

Could be a potent force if they ever got their act together, but IMO too many special interests with vested ties to both GOP and Dem Partys (including mainstream media) to really give them decent coverage so they get lumped in with all the other fringe parties. Harold Brown usually was the Presidential candidate in years past and had some good stuff to say in rare interviews done from time to time.

[panerd]

I think the main problem is that everyone can accept that the Libertarians can't accomplish 95% of what they profess to, but we are too stubborn to admit the same about the Republicans and Democrats. All the Democratic voters praise trying to get a national health care plan and Republican voters praise getting rid of social security which both have about a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, but when a Libertarian talks about legalizing drugs both sides laugh and call them a nutjob.

[lighthousekeeper]

I think that because of the dominance of the current two-party system, someone who would consider running as a Libertarian won't. That person would run as a Republican or Democrat in order to get elected. I consider this a "closet Libertarian". So the ones that would be conisdered most electable aren't running as Libertarians. That leaves the ones that do run as the "extremes" of the party, and are usually rightly labled as nutjobs.

Maybe the best thing the Libertarian party could do is rename itself to the "Moderate Libertarian Party"

[Klinglerware]

Maybe the best thing the Libertarian party could do is rename itself to the "Moderate Libertarian Party"

Unfortunately there is nothing moderate at all about the Libertarian party. It's a specific ideology that, when put in the context of liberal-conservative (a context which Libertarians no doubt try to fight), can be construed as many extreme positions some of which may be "extremely conservative", some of which may be "extremely liberal". The net may seem like a mixture of the two, but it certainly is not middle-ground moderate. Sort of like the difference between:

(1+9)/2=5 (libertarian)

and

(5+5)/2=5 (moderate)

[kcchief19]

I think it's popularity is hamstrung by its lack of practicality and the whack jobs who are the poster child for the party. It's not different that the Green Party and other parties of the same ilk.

The party's positions are too absolute. How many people do you know want to eliminate welfare and lower taxes while also legalizing crack cocaine? There aren't too many. Some are easy to spot -- they drive the hemp mobile and are always talking about "The Man" keeping us down. Then there are the types who look normal and run for office wearing a nice suit and tie and seem to make perfect sense until they start talking about eliminating all government services except or the police and fire department and eliminating almost all laws. And then there's Bucc. :)

As fractured as this county is along right/left ideological lines, there simply isn't much appeal for a party who has one foot firmly in the far left and one foot in the far right.

[Buccaneer]

Hey, I saw that. :)

FWIW, I'll respond later to what I think is a very interesting topic.

[BishopMVP]

Some discussion of the same topic here - hxxp://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_03_20-2005_03_26.shtml#1111522164 (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_03_20-2005_03_26.shtml#1111522164)Most people, at least subconsciously, like the idea of a father figure government. That's why there is support for social security, unemployment, and other social programs.I just liked this passage -
"He went on to generalize this to a "secret sin" theory of politics-- that people form their political views on the basis of a generalization of their own deepest darkests. So: if you think it's only the law that keeps you from plunging into a life of full-time sexual depravity and debauchery, you become a moralistic conservative. If you think it's only the law that keeps you from becoming Ebeneezer Scrooge and screwing the poor just for the sheer sadistic joy of it, you become a lefty. And if you look inward and detect a craving for power, you generalize that to everyone else and become a libertarian. The moral was that people should listen to libertarians, believe them, follow their policy recommendations-- and not elect them."

[CamEdwards]

Some discussion of the same topic here - hxxp://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_03_20-2005_03_26.shtml#1111522164 (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_03_20-2005_03_26.shtml#1111522164)I just liked this passage -
"He went on to generalize this to a "secret sin" theory of politics-- that people form their political views on the basis of a generalization of their own deepest darkests. So: if you think it's only the law that keeps you from plunging into a life of full-time sexual depravity and debauchery, you become a moralistic conservative. If you think it's only the law that keeps you from becoming Ebeneezer Scrooge and screwing the poor just for the sheer sadistic joy of it, you become a lefty. And if you look inward and detect a craving for power, you generalize that to everyone else and become a libertarian. The moral was that people should listen to libertarians, believe them, follow their policy recommendations-- and not elect them."

I know that the only reason I vote Republican is to keep me away from the orgies where I would snort cocaine off a hookers ass.

[cartman]

I know that the only reason I vote Republican is to keep me away from the orgies where I would snort cocaine off a hookers ass.

Sound plausible. Our current president arrived at the same conclusion... :p

/* runs and hides */

[Buccaneer]

To simply answer the first question, it is not more popular because - for the most part - there have been little grassroots organization to build the "party" from the ground up. Pretty much anytime hear of a Libertarian is when some wacko runs for President.

I am not nor have been a member of the Libertarian Party (or any other party for that matter) because any type of candidate can have libertarian beliefs. But I strongly believe that libertarian-minded citizens can and should have the more influence in the legislative branch at all levels. A libertarian for President doesn't make much sense is it the Federal Congress, State Congresses, local Councils, etc. that holds the purse strings on govt expenditures and taxations, as well as enacting laws. (This was the reason why in the previous election, I voted for all Libertarian candidates below the President.)

There is no reason to bring up the arguments that an ever increasing Federal Govt is not a good idea - not only in what it needs in keep itself running and in power, but intrusion in the name of security, protection and regulation as well - all I want everyone to think about is how we can slow down and reverse that growth. It all comes at a cost and I don't think for the most part, we can justify the benefits of the costs - not only monetarily, but legislatively as well.

[Cydney]

Could this perhaps be the reason?

hxxp://www.nazi.org/

[Breeze]

$$$$ has a lot to do with it too.

[Tekneek]

Put it to you this way, while I have libertarian sympathies (I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal), I will NEVER vote for a libertarian who advocates an abolition of the income tax. That's just living in la la land.

Are you joking? You do realize that we have not always had income tax, right?

[Tekneek]

My feeling is that it is also unpopular because it isn't for sale. The LP isn't granting special favors. The reality is that most businesses prefer goverenment regulations and existence because it gives them a chance to lobby for law that helps them, but might hurt their competitors. They don't have to compete equally with the other businesses in an area if they can lube up the local politicos for 'tax incentives' that no one else is getting. The masses don't want the LP because it won't give them something for nothing, and it won't use its supreme power to implement your religious or social dogma.

[mrsimperless]

Someone mentioned earlier in the post that they do not like the Libertarian foregin policy. For me, that is one of the biggest draws to the party. Basically the libertarian view towards other countries is the same as it is for everything else. Leave them alone and let them do what they want as long as they aren't bothering you. Why do I give a Shiite if Syria pulls out of Lebanon? If you keep pushing people around and being a bully eventually they will fight back. That is what we are seeing now with the War on Terrorism (TM) vs. the War on Democracy. People are tired of dealing with our crap. They're mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore!

Now that being said I think that libertarian policies are definitely extreme. However the underlying ideas are sound. Using Libertarian concepts as the basis for policy with moderation towards how things currently stand makes a lot of sense IMO.

[st.cronin]

The singular lesson of American (and world, for that matter) history is that isolationism is a disastrous policy. The libertarians don't call it isolationism, but that's what it is.

[Tekneek]

The singular lesson of American (and world, for that matter) history is that isolationism is a disastrous policy. The libertarians don't call it isolationism, but that's what it is.

The other extreme doesn't help either. All of our "enemies" over the past 12 or 14 years have been people we once tolerated or helped because we felt we had to pick a side in somebody else's dispute.

[CamEdwards]

The other extreme doesn't help either. All of our "enemies" over the past 12 or 14 years have been people we once tolerated or helped because we felt we had to pick a side in somebody else's dispute.

There was a little something called the Cold War that might have influenced our policy decisions.

[33sherman]

The Libertarian Party has nothing to do with the Green nazis at nazi.org.

In this entire thread I haven't seen mention of the Constitution and a return to basic Constitutional ideals.

THAT'S what the Libertarian party is all about.

Go Libertarians!

EDIT to add: Bubba Wheels did mention it. Thanks, Bubba.

[Ryno]

I haven't had much time today, but I've skimmed through most of the posts and I appreciate all of the responses. They all give me things to think about, and hopefully I'll be able to rejoin the discussion tomorrow.