Tag: Libertarian Party

Categories
ideological culture partisanship political challengers

Among the Ungovernable

What is the Libertarian Party up to in inviting former President Donald John Trump to address the party’s upcoming national convention?

The goal of this “third party” may be crystalline in its clarity — a free society as understood by Libertarians — but how this can be achieved by running candidates for office in Partisan Duopoly America is murky at best. The number of self-​identified libertarians in the country is small, though polling in the 1990s suggested that about a quarter of the population is of a general libertarian mindset: minimal government; private property; personal freedom as the tolerant community’s ideal; individual responsibility as the chief form of social regulation.

The difference between a self-​identified Libertarian and a libertarian-​ish citizen at large can be huge, in some ways: no taxes versus lower taxes, for example. These positions play dramatically differently, of course, in elections where most voters are not libertarian at all.

The 2024 convention will be held May 23 – 26 in Washington, D.C. (of all places). And Donald Trump (of all people) has accepted the invitation to speak (offered to both he and President Biden). The party is shilling registrations for the event by telling prospects that only registered attendees will be able to cast their votes to establish “the topics President Trump will address during his time at the podium.”* 

As a newsworthy event, this is one of the party’s best stunts. The very idea of inviting the presumptive Republican nominee to speak is … weird. And, therefore, newsworthy. It might make for an apocalyptic event — encompassing every meaning of “apocalyptic.”

The convention itself is titled, in traditionally flagrant Libertarian fashion, “Become Ungovernable.” While Libertarians mean this slogan in a good (and peaceful) way, its ambiguity and alarming nature is one of many reasons Libertarians get low vote totals. 

Trump addressing Libertarians could suggest a more negative interpretation of “ungovernable.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Good luck with that.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents media and media people national politics & policies

Conservatorships Now!

Joe Biden, senile, old

“Libertarians Want Control Over Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell,” the headline read.

That’s odd. Libertarians don’t usually want control over anyone.

But at issue is whether Sleepy Joe and Motionless Mitch have control over themselves.

“The U.S. Libertarian Party has filed for conservatorships for President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, referring to them as ‘geriatric elites’ mentally unfit to properly serve the American populace,” Newsweek reported on Tuesday.

“Both subjects’ ability to receive and evaluate information effectively, make decisions, and to communicate are impaired to such an extent that they lack the capacity to represent themselves or the interests of Americans,” explained a party news release.

“These men, and others like them (like Diane Feinstein and John Fetterman) are not well enough to be left alone in the house all day,” Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle argued. “How are they well enough to govern our lives and spend our tax dollars?”

She added: “so we’ve compassionately decided to step in and make those important decisions for them.”

At 80 years of age, Mr. Biden is the oldest president ever. If re-​elected in 2024, he would be 86 at the conclusion of his term. Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, 81 years of age, has been in public office in Washington for the last 38 years. 

The problem, of course, is not age as a number, but that both men have exhibited behavior that concerns us for their health and well-​being. Mitch has repeatedly frozen in public, to be led away like a zoned-​out sleepwalker, while the president, on his recent Vietnam trip, closed a press conference with “I don’t know about you, but I’m going to go to bed.”

Still, their string-​pullers persist in milking each to the last drool-​drip of inertial power. Their families should step in. 

Until then, the Libertarian Party will have to do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
political challengers

Vermin Competition

Vermin Supreme,

Should Lincoln Chafee invert a boot and place it on his head? 

It might help him compete. The famous Republican turned Democratic politician from Rhode Island — former U.S. Senator and Governor, both, and sometime presidential hopeful — has filed to run for the presidency.

But as a Libertarian.

The Libertarian Party started out nearly fifty years ago as a venue for libertarians disgusted with Richard Nixon and the Republican Party to make a pitch to the American people to abandon the lying, thieving, murderous statism of our times and swap it for freedom. In the words of its first presidential nominee, philosopher John Hospers, the idea was to “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.”

The Libertarian Party has pulled in supporters from left, right and center, but mostly from the GOP, as seen in a solid one third of its past presidential runs: 

  1. former Republican elector Roger MacBride (1976)
  2. former and future Republican U.S. Representative Ron Paul (1988) 
  3. former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr (2008)
  4. former Republican New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (2012; 2016)

The Libertarians are an earnest lot, trying to get the attention of earnest American voters by putting up men with political credentials. In the case of Gary Johnson’s last campaign, the strategy “paid off” with over 4.4 million votes. The LP attracts ambitious politicians and publicity seekers who do not quite fit in with the two parties, in no small part because Libertarians have done a great job of obtaining all-​important ballot status in most if not all 50 states in presidential elections.

Libertarian Party members have so far avoided non-​political celebrity candidates, such as the late activist and actor Russell Means (1988) and gonzo millionaire John McAfee (2012). Chafee would be the first Democratic pol to get the nomination. But he is running against some strong libertarian activists (Kim Ruff, Jo Jorgensen, Jacob Hornberger, et al.) as well as a return bid from McAfee (who also happens to be on the run from the IRS). 

A parody candidate calling himself “Vermin Supreme” and running on a joke (and quite anti-​freedom) platform (mandatory ponies for everyone!), has just won the Libertarian position in the New Hampshire Primary’s non-​binding preference poll — 26 to Chafee’s 4, perhaps because he wears a boot on his head.

Tough competition for Chafee, who seems only a little more libertarian than Vermin.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Vermin Supreme,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
video

The Hillary Loss, Are Libertarians to Blame/​Thank?

O, the Trump win was a thing to behold! Maybe you are like us here at Common Sense, and did not vote for the man. But you did not vote for Hillary Clinton, either.

So, are you to blame? Er, thank?

There were plenty of Jill Stein voters. And many more Gary Johnson voters — over four million, the largest return of any Libertarian Party candidate in the challenger party’s history.

At least one writer on the ostensible Left has argued that, had ALL of Stein voters “done their duty” and voted for Mrs. Clinton, and HALF of the Libertarian’s vote wised up and voted for the Anti-​Trump possibility, Mrs. Clinton would have won. So, these folks blame minor party voters for a Clinton Loss . . . and its allegedly horrible flip side record, the surprising Trump Win.

Well, what do the Libertarians think of it?

As you can see: Not much. That is what. Here is Nicholas Sarwark, Libertarian Party chairperson, doubling down on what Gary Johnson said:

And they are right. How, exactly? Well, it is not just that Hillary/​Tim voters took votes away from the Libertarians’ Gary/​Bill ticket. It is also the case that, well, the responsible parties for Hillary Clinton losing are . . . Democratic Party voters!

Read the graph and weep, folks:

SO, WHY THE PRECIPITOUS DROP?

Could it be that Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate . . . even by leftist standards? And that is why so many Democrats could not even be bothered to go to the polls and vote for “their” sorry candidate?

The obvious answer is: Yes.

 

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The New Centrism?

CNN, debates, town hall, libertarian, green, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, centrism, illustration

Have you noticed that CNN has been offering multiple “town hall” presentations of the Libertarian and Green Party presidential candidates?

I think this is not only great for the Libertarians and the Greens, but also good for the country — and I hope it proves good for CNN.

When the Cable News Network started, it was the only player in its league. Then Fox News pulled away its right-​leaning viewers. MSNBC followed, offering a safe space for the far left. And there remains the center-​left of the rest of major media.

So CNN has to distinguish itself. Why not appeal to those left … out of the political process?

By opening up to libertarians and radical environmentalists, CNN may bring in more viewers. And temper its well-​known bias.

With the libertarians, though, CNN may really be just appealing to the new center.

Which is now libertarian … -ish.

Surely, with Trump harrumphing from the apparent “right” and Hillary Clinton dominating the neo-​con left — and Dr. Jill Stein trying to soak up the far left — moderates need a voice.

And with moderate libertarian Gov. Gary Johnson and libertarian-​leaning centrist Gov. Bill Weld, there does exist a reprieve from the scary extremes. Surprised? Well, that is precisely the case Johnson and Weld make. They pitch themselves, as Walter Olson perceptively argues in Reason, as “the ‘sane’ choice, the ‘responsible’ and ‘adult’ ticket … campaigning not on fear and anger but on a positive message of problem-solving.”

More of that, please.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

CNN, debates, town hall, libertarian, green, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, centrism, illustration

 

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers

Libertarianish, Democratish?

Gary Johnson, Weld, Libertarian, moderates, presidential, election, illustration

With the two most disliked and distrusted politicians in American history snatching the two major party presidential nominations, lots of voters — free-​market conservatives, libertarians, liberals concerned about civil liberties and war, moderates, decency advocates — are looking for an alternative.

The Libertarian Party, our age’s perennial “third party” on state ballots, has a golden opportunity.

Perhaps that’s why delegates to 2016’s Libertarian Party nominating convention chose two two-​termed former Republican governors to take up the freedom banner: New Mexico’s Gary Johnson and Massachusetts’s Bill Weld.

Both are nice men. They are the most accomplished and credentialed politicians in the race — more than Hillary Clinton; far more than Donald Trump. They don’t seem radical or threatening.

But that might be a problem. They are too nice. They are not threatening enough.

I’m not suggesting they threaten anyone, but in ideological terms they often appear more as moderates than as libertarians, as Ilya Shapiro noticed last week when he asked the pointed question, “Is Johnson-​Weld a Libertarian Ticket?”

The Johnson-​Weld take, economist Mark Thornton noted, is more libertarianish than libertarian: the pair are “fiscally conservative and socially liberal for Republicans which is great, but they fall short of Libertarian.”

This isn’t exactly a shock. Anyone who watched the bizarre CNN town hall with Johnson and Weld will remember that odd moment when Johnson called Democrat Hillary Clinton “a wonderful public servant” and Weld dubbed her a “lifelong friend.”

No need to attack Mrs. Clinton personally, of course, but when a Libertarian cannot find one discouraging word about what a President Hillary would mean, it seems they want to appear Democratish.

And not libertarian.

Well, it’s a strategy. But it won’t appeal to #NeverHillary voters, or impress many #NeverTrumpers, either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.   

Printable PDF

Gary Johnson, Weld, Libertarian, moderates, presidential, election, illustration

 

Categories
links

Townhall: And Now, Behind Door No. 3

… a brand new future!

Well, maybe. Americans have so far shown a bit too much old-​brand loyalty.

Click on over to Townhall​.com, and then come back here. We’ve quite a good show:

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers U.S. Constitution

Faces Veiled, Fallacies Unveiled

Gary Johnson, libertarian, burka, Common Sense, illustration

A real-​life politician has admitted to having been wrong, even going so far as to dismiss his own previous comment as “stupid.”

He wasn’t abject about it — didn’t “apologize.” He simply explained how and why he had erred.

This … from a presidential contender.

No, it wasn’t Hillary Clinton, she of many errors and untruths. It wasn’t Bernie Sanders, whose love of Big, Intrusive Government is an error in and of itself. And it wasn’t Trump, known hyperbolist.

The erring politician? Gary Johnson, a former two-​term Republican governor of New Mexico.

Johnson, who is currently running for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, told Reason last year that banning the burqa would be a reasonable step in protecting the rights of women. Here in America.

Sound sort of Trumpian?

Earlier this month, Johnson retracted his statement. Last week on Fox Business Network’s Kennedy, he explained why prohibiting the face-​veil wouldn’t work.

“We need to differentiate between religious freedom, which is [sic] Islam, and Sharia law, which is politics,” he said — and I add a “sic” there because he is obviously driving at this point: religious freedom means we cannot prohibit the religion of Islam, but Sharia law amounts to a religious intrusion into the legal and political realm. And thus must be opposed as “contrary to the U. S. Constitution.”

The reason Johnson had earlier floated the banning of the Islamic face-​veil was to save women from Islamofascist enforcement of Sharia’s mandate to go around in public only when completely covered.

“We cannot allow Sharia Law to, in any way, be a part of our lives.”

I’m with him. Let’s hold tight to both religious and political freedom. And how refreshing for a politician to admit an error.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Gary Johnson, libertarian, burka, Common Sense, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture individual achievement national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Virus and Host

John McAfee, libertarian, presidential race, president, candidate

Presidential candidate John McAfee is an adventurer. Best known for founding the first successful anti-​computer virus company, he has also been shot at in tropical jungles, by men trained by U. S. forces, with American-​bought guns. This range of experience makes him the most interesting presidential hopeful, bar none.

His big issue is cyber-​security. He thinks Americans have placed themselves in a too-​precarious position. As he sees it, the war on terror has served as a grand distraction from the real threat, a prime example of doing foreign policy and national security completely upside-​down wrong.

He has a point.

But he’s neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and not long ago he realized that his own Cyber Party didn’t have the oomph to get him on the ballot in enough states.

So he has announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination.

Why? He’s obviously not a libertarian in any strict capital‑L sense. But the septuagenarian insists that he has been a libertarian at heart since before the word entered common use.

This is what the Libertarians get for their most obvious success: obtaining and keeping ballot status in more states for more election cycles than any other “minor party.”

Think of the Libertarian Party as the host, and one-​time Republicans like former Congressman Bob Barr and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson — and now McAfee — as viruses, aiming to commandeer the host’s operating system.

Of course, one might also view the LP as a virus attempting to do the same to the federal government.

Shall we root for the viruses, for once?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

John McAfee, libertarian, presidential race, president, candidate

 

Categories
ballot access political challengers

The Logic of the Instant Runoff

Reid Wilson, at the Washington Post, regales us with seven U.S. senatorial races where Libertarian Party candidates could swing elections, and thus control of the Senate. Last weekend at Townhall, I exhorted readers to work for transpartisan reforms “like term limits … and other measures aimed at greater representation, [such as] establishing ranked choice voting.”

The two articles are not unrelated.

Conservatives and libertarians are often united in wanting to replace progressive Democrats with small-​government contenders. But they are not united in how to do this. Many libertarians balk at voting for hardline social conservative candidates like Rick Santorum and middle-​of-​the-​road statists like John McCain.

So the Libertarian Party runs candidates that have in recent elections gained traction with voters — enough to pull independent voters away from Republicans and sometimes enabling Democrats to win.

Republican entreaties to libertarians (“you’re killing us out here!”) appear to be no more effective than libertarian entreaties to Republicans (“want our support? try taking your limited government stances seriously!”).

What to do? Republican partisans should support Instant Runoff Voting, which would

  1. Allow people to rank their choices for office, and
  2. Instruct vote-​counters to take the votes of those who selected a No. 1 pick of, say, a Libertarian who garnered the smallest number of votes,  and add those ballots’ second ranked vote (either for a D or an R) as the vote to count in the “instant runoff.”

This would allow for better expression of voter preference, solving the “wasted vote” problem and ceasing to make the “best the enemy of the good.”

Alternately, Republicans could continue their course, trying to limit ballot access, thereby alienating more of the electorate and ensuring that Libertarian votes can’t also be Republican votes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.