The Third Party Game refers to all the ways the major parties use or manipulate third parties for their own advantage. The Republicans are far better at it than the Democrats are.
One way that it is played is to make donations to third parties that rival the opposition party. Democrats are still complaining about how Ralph Nader "stole" the 2000 election from Al Gore, but what made that "theft" possible was Republican donations to Nader. It is no secret that many of the donations for Nader's campaign came from Republicans.
If someone were to suggest to a Democrat that a donation be made to, say, the Constitution Party, the response would be shock and horror. "Oh no, they're evil, they want to destroy everything I believe in, I could never donate to them." Republicans didn't donate to Nader in order to advance Nader's agenda, but their donations weren't intended to advance Nader's agenda.
The other way that the Third Party Game is played is to nullify threats. Republicans also are better at this, sending Patrick Buchanan into the Reform Party, Alan Keyes into the Constitution Party, and sending Bob Barr into the Libertarian Party. Patrick Buchanan was able to destroy the Reform Party through an internal civil war. Alan Keyes didn't get the Constitution Party nomination, but did get the ballot line in California and thus lowering the nation-wide totals for their candidate Chuck Baldwin. Bob Barr (who has since endorsed Newt Gingrich) and Wayne Root (who has since endorsed Mitt Romney) alienated a sufficient portion of the Libertarian Party base that many wrote in Ron Paul, and thus lowered the totals for the Libertarian Party as well.
These tactics may be underhanded, but there are no rules saying not to do either of those actions with regards to third parties. What is interesting is that the Democratic Party leadership does such a poor job of doing the same thing. Perhaps it is a lingering sentiment of there being "no enemy to the left" so they cannot bring themselves to label parties such as the Green Party as enemies. Republicans have no such compunctions holding them back. Democrats are quite willing to share a stage at allies with various independent groups of a shared platform; the Republicans did a deliberate take over of the Tea Party when it appeared that a stage might be shared.
It will be interesting to see how the Third Party Game might be shared in the 2012 election cycle.
It is also possible, but somewhat far fetched, to suggest that occasionally Republicans support a party or candidate outside their own party that they would normally squash. This would be done to prevent a different third party from gaining prominence. Although Ross Perot did much to spoil George Bush's chances at re-election, he also gathered up all of the internal dissent that might have gone to more established third parties and catapulted them to prominence. Although John Anderson did not threaten Reagan, he did absorb much of the third party protest vote without even having much to offer in the way of concrete ideas. Perhaps Republicans are willing to throw an election in order to preserve the status quo of two parties interchangeable.
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Friday, May 04, 2012
Friday, July 29, 2011
Eliminate the Debt Ceiling
The official position of the Libertarian Party is to say "No" to raising the debt limit. It is a perfectly sensible position, because the alternative is the destruction of the dollar through inflation, and then hyper-inflation. The federal government is going to have to adopt austerity measures someday, whether by choice or by circumstance inflicted on the country. Of all the major party presidential candidates, only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have spoken about the need to bring the finances of the government under control, and have spoken about how if the hard choices aren’t made now they will be made for the country later.
The problem is, the sane voices won't be heard. The Keynesians and Monetarists who control fiscal and monetary policy in the government will never accept that anything should actually be cut, other than a few token items of window-dressing. Their plan is to keep raising the debt limit every time it is reached. The entire show is Kabuki Theater because the Congress and the President know that the voters are actually watching this time and actually demanding that something be dome about the excessive spending.
But they do not believe in restraint. So perhaps the opposite approach should be taken on the debt ceiling issue. Give them exactly what they want, but give them more of what they want than what they are asking for. Eliminate the debt ceiling. Pass the necessary legislation to tie all government debt issuances to the budget, so that the Department of the Treasury can automatically sell debt as needed when needed without any restraint other than the budget passed by congress.
As crazy as that idea sounds, it has some advantages. The first is that, since sane voices are not able to engineer austerity measures directly, this would be a way to engineer them sooner rather than later, perhaps avoiding the final stage of hyperinflation. Although the Keynesians and Monetarists will never understand it, eliminating the limit entirely will signal to lenders that the United States government has no intention of getting spending under control and therefore is not a good risk for lending. This will cause the austerity measures to start sooner rather then after hyperinflation ruins the country.
Another benefit is that it ends what is a side-show, albeit a side-show that is much closer to the real issue than those in charge would like. Even after two congressmen in a row have resigned over sexual misconduct issues the attention of the public is still on excessive spending. Since the public is actually watching the government instead of the tabloids the debt limit is what is being debated instead of the actual imbalance. A "ten year plan," reminiscent of Soviet five year plans, is introduced with back-loaded spending cuts, and the public isn't buying it. Tax increases, which will eventually be necessary, are proposed without actual cuts, and the public isn't buying it. So everyone in Washington is debating the debt limit, and how the government will shut down without an increase to the debt limit. Eliminating the debt limit will force discussion on the budget instead of on an artificial self-imposed limit.
Although it would be disaster, there is a disaster coming anyway. So perhaps the best thing is to be intentionally wrong so that when the San Sebastian Mines are seized, the truth about them is laid bare for the world to see.
The problem is, the sane voices won't be heard. The Keynesians and Monetarists who control fiscal and monetary policy in the government will never accept that anything should actually be cut, other than a few token items of window-dressing. Their plan is to keep raising the debt limit every time it is reached. The entire show is Kabuki Theater because the Congress and the President know that the voters are actually watching this time and actually demanding that something be dome about the excessive spending.
But they do not believe in restraint. So perhaps the opposite approach should be taken on the debt ceiling issue. Give them exactly what they want, but give them more of what they want than what they are asking for. Eliminate the debt ceiling. Pass the necessary legislation to tie all government debt issuances to the budget, so that the Department of the Treasury can automatically sell debt as needed when needed without any restraint other than the budget passed by congress.
As crazy as that idea sounds, it has some advantages. The first is that, since sane voices are not able to engineer austerity measures directly, this would be a way to engineer them sooner rather than later, perhaps avoiding the final stage of hyperinflation. Although the Keynesians and Monetarists will never understand it, eliminating the limit entirely will signal to lenders that the United States government has no intention of getting spending under control and therefore is not a good risk for lending. This will cause the austerity measures to start sooner rather then after hyperinflation ruins the country.
Another benefit is that it ends what is a side-show, albeit a side-show that is much closer to the real issue than those in charge would like. Even after two congressmen in a row have resigned over sexual misconduct issues the attention of the public is still on excessive spending. Since the public is actually watching the government instead of the tabloids the debt limit is what is being debated instead of the actual imbalance. A "ten year plan," reminiscent of Soviet five year plans, is introduced with back-loaded spending cuts, and the public isn't buying it. Tax increases, which will eventually be necessary, are proposed without actual cuts, and the public isn't buying it. So everyone in Washington is debating the debt limit, and how the government will shut down without an increase to the debt limit. Eliminating the debt limit will force discussion on the budget instead of on an artificial self-imposed limit.
Although it would be disaster, there is a disaster coming anyway. So perhaps the best thing is to be intentionally wrong so that when the San Sebastian Mines are seized, the truth about them is laid bare for the world to see.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Monadnock Valley
One thing that a political party does not want is to be the party in charge during a disaster, especially one that the public considers preventable. An economic downturn is a prime example of this sort of event, where both parties try to take credit for any economic upswing and blame the other for any economic decline.
As bad as the current economic decline has been, something much worse is on the horizon, something that is preventable assuming even a little bit of political courage. Of course, needing a little bit of political courage is exactly why nothing will be done about the bust of Social Security in 2016. So rather than do anything about it, Obama may be playing to lose.
Now it appears that the Republicans may have caught on to that strategy. The Tea Party may have given the Republicans an unexpected victory, which would add yet one more reason for the mainstream Republican Party to dislike the Tea Party movement. But interestingly enough, before the 2010 victory, Republicans were not talking about Sarah Palin as a viable presidential candidate.
This could be an example of "Play to lose will you? Well then, take this: Candidate Palin."
Of course finding political connections between Palin and Soros adds an interesting twist.
But there is one more outcome if the Republicans have also decided to play to lose in 2012. They could pull a Monadnock Valley.
In "The Fountainhead," a con-man hires Howard Roark to build the Monadnock Valley vacation resort. Nobody can figure out what is wrong with the project until it is completed and starts turning a profit. It turned out that the con-man expected to fail and double sold the stock. If the project had failed he would keep the money from the excess stock sail, but since it succeeded he had to pay $2 in dividends for every $1 in profit.
The con-man chose Howard Roark because conventional wisdom said he was the worst architect, but it turned out that conventional wisdom was wrong he was actually the best architect.
The Republicans may wind up picking a “Monadnock candidate" in the 2012 elections. They may pick a candidate who they expect to lose, but will not only win but be able to handle the economic woes afflicting the nation. They wouldn’t handle then in a way that keeps the elite in their privileged positions, but the problems would be taken care of.
Who would be a "Monadnock candidate" if the Republicans did this? It would have to be someone that conventional wisdom considers to be a poor candidate but has the potential to deliver far more than conventional wisdom could ever anticipate. The list is not large, but it includes Representative Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Governor Gary Johnson. Of course, the Democrats probably have their own "Monadnock candidates" but they will probably not run as Obama will likely be the Democrat candidate in 2012.
As bad as the current economic decline has been, something much worse is on the horizon, something that is preventable assuming even a little bit of political courage. Of course, needing a little bit of political courage is exactly why nothing will be done about the bust of Social Security in 2016. So rather than do anything about it, Obama may be playing to lose.
Now it appears that the Republicans may have caught on to that strategy. The Tea Party may have given the Republicans an unexpected victory, which would add yet one more reason for the mainstream Republican Party to dislike the Tea Party movement. But interestingly enough, before the 2010 victory, Republicans were not talking about Sarah Palin as a viable presidential candidate.
This could be an example of "Play to lose will you? Well then, take this: Candidate Palin."
Of course finding political connections between Palin and Soros adds an interesting twist.
But there is one more outcome if the Republicans have also decided to play to lose in 2012. They could pull a Monadnock Valley.
In "The Fountainhead," a con-man hires Howard Roark to build the Monadnock Valley vacation resort. Nobody can figure out what is wrong with the project until it is completed and starts turning a profit. It turned out that the con-man expected to fail and double sold the stock. If the project had failed he would keep the money from the excess stock sail, but since it succeeded he had to pay $2 in dividends for every $1 in profit.
The con-man chose Howard Roark because conventional wisdom said he was the worst architect, but it turned out that conventional wisdom was wrong he was actually the best architect.
The Republicans may wind up picking a “Monadnock candidate" in the 2012 elections. They may pick a candidate who they expect to lose, but will not only win but be able to handle the economic woes afflicting the nation. They wouldn’t handle then in a way that keeps the elite in their privileged positions, but the problems would be taken care of.
Who would be a "Monadnock candidate" if the Republicans did this? It would have to be someone that conventional wisdom considers to be a poor candidate but has the potential to deliver far more than conventional wisdom could ever anticipate. The list is not large, but it includes Representative Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Governor Gary Johnson. Of course, the Democrats probably have their own "Monadnock candidates" but they will probably not run as Obama will likely be the Democrat candidate in 2012.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Did Obama Play to Lose?
The election put Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives and weakened the Democratic majority in the Senate. Commentators, both right and left, are wondering if the influence of the Tea Party was more of a help or a hindrance, given that in the Nevada and Delaware Senate races, the people elected Democrats over Republicans supported by the Tea Party, but overall it was a gain for the Republicans.
But of greater influence was Obama himself. Even the influence of the Tea Party is a derivative of his own influence. And President Obama has been quite a different person from Candidate Obama. When he was a candidate, he played the "Hope and Change" mantra to the fullest, inspiring audiences with the possibilities of what he would accomplish. In many ways he was a blank slate on which people would draw whatever they wanted to see in a presidential candidate.
Upon assuming office, much of the glamor quickly faded. He got mired in the details, and failed to lead his own party in pushing issues favored by his party’s base. Those who are more observant knew that Obama wasn’t a peace candidate, that he only appeared that way because he was running against Hillary Clinton and later John McCain, and those two were so militaristic that anyone would appear peaceful compared to them. The genuine peace candidates in the Democratic Party primary washed out quickly, one of them transferring to the Libertarian Party.
Since he assumed office, he has alienated two of the traditional bases of the Democratic Party; feminists, and those who support gay rights.
On the issue of gay rights, it was a Republican appointed judge who overturned California Proposition 8, and it was a Republican plaintiff who launched the most successful attack on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Obama has refused to do anything about Don't Ask Don't Tell, allowing Harry Reid to stick it in a bill in such a way to guarantee its failure, and he has refused to move on marriage equality.
On the issue of feminism, it was reported that a woman who was an actual DNC delegate in 2008 reported that she could barely stomach voting for Democrats in the comment section of a New York Times opinion piece. Unable to link to the comment, this paraphrase will have to do to express her complaints:
*misogynistic tactics used against Clinton in the 2008 campaign (which apparently still lurks unhappily in some women's memories)
*freely slung accusations of racism to anyone who does not support Obama past or present
*democratic/liberal assertions that Islam is religion of peace, while, to any western woman's perspective, it is polluted by the subjugation and abuse of women
*reproductive rights no longer hold the sway over female voters that they once did, either because they believe them to be ironclad or they have developed pro-life leanings to whatever modest degree
*Democrats have done little more for women than have Republicans in the past 30+ years
Obama's proudest achievement is a version of Healthcare Reform so watered down and compromised that most progressives are unable to actually claim it as an achievement without holding their nose. As a candidate, he was in favor of Universal Health Care. As president, he was in favor of Single Payer. The bill he signed contained nothing but countless new regulations and a mandate to buy insurance or be fined.
While some analysts are suggesting that the Republican victory in 2010 will result in an Obama reelection in 2012, perhaps that is not Obama’s plan.
The winner of the 2012 election will be in a very bad situation. The economy will have made little improvement at best, and according to current projections the breakeven year for Social Security is 2016. That means whoever wins the 2012 election will have to deal with the fiscal mess of the collapse of Social Security, an unenviable position.
Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Primary in 2008, it would have guaranteed a Republican victory in the general election. Continued economic woes as started under President Bush would continue, and the Republicans would have nobody to blame and the public would not blame anyone else, resulting in a Democratic victory in 2012 and leaving them with the "hot potato" as a result.
Instead Obama entered the race to beat Hillary, and then went on to use popular dissatisfaction with the status quo and Republican leadership to win the presidential race in 2008. By then failing to achieve anything, and giving the country laughable examples of attempts to fix the economy, by alienating his own base by failing to lead, he may be working to ensure a Republican victory in 2012 and thus leave them with the upcoming financial catastrophe.
One does not succeed in politics by only thinking in the short term. The leadership of both parties know this, and have to think beyond the next election even if those who are in office seldom think that far ahead.
But of greater influence was Obama himself. Even the influence of the Tea Party is a derivative of his own influence. And President Obama has been quite a different person from Candidate Obama. When he was a candidate, he played the "Hope and Change" mantra to the fullest, inspiring audiences with the possibilities of what he would accomplish. In many ways he was a blank slate on which people would draw whatever they wanted to see in a presidential candidate.
Upon assuming office, much of the glamor quickly faded. He got mired in the details, and failed to lead his own party in pushing issues favored by his party’s base. Those who are more observant knew that Obama wasn’t a peace candidate, that he only appeared that way because he was running against Hillary Clinton and later John McCain, and those two were so militaristic that anyone would appear peaceful compared to them. The genuine peace candidates in the Democratic Party primary washed out quickly, one of them transferring to the Libertarian Party.
Since he assumed office, he has alienated two of the traditional bases of the Democratic Party; feminists, and those who support gay rights.
On the issue of gay rights, it was a Republican appointed judge who overturned California Proposition 8, and it was a Republican plaintiff who launched the most successful attack on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Obama has refused to do anything about Don't Ask Don't Tell, allowing Harry Reid to stick it in a bill in such a way to guarantee its failure, and he has refused to move on marriage equality.
On the issue of feminism, it was reported that a woman who was an actual DNC delegate in 2008 reported that she could barely stomach voting for Democrats in the comment section of a New York Times opinion piece. Unable to link to the comment, this paraphrase will have to do to express her complaints:
*misogynistic tactics used against Clinton in the 2008 campaign (which apparently still lurks unhappily in some women's memories)
*freely slung accusations of racism to anyone who does not support Obama past or present
*democratic/liberal assertions that Islam is religion of peace, while, to any western woman's perspective, it is polluted by the subjugation and abuse of women
*reproductive rights no longer hold the sway over female voters that they once did, either because they believe them to be ironclad or they have developed pro-life leanings to whatever modest degree
*Democrats have done little more for women than have Republicans in the past 30+ years
Obama's proudest achievement is a version of Healthcare Reform so watered down and compromised that most progressives are unable to actually claim it as an achievement without holding their nose. As a candidate, he was in favor of Universal Health Care. As president, he was in favor of Single Payer. The bill he signed contained nothing but countless new regulations and a mandate to buy insurance or be fined.
While some analysts are suggesting that the Republican victory in 2010 will result in an Obama reelection in 2012, perhaps that is not Obama’s plan.
The winner of the 2012 election will be in a very bad situation. The economy will have made little improvement at best, and according to current projections the breakeven year for Social Security is 2016. That means whoever wins the 2012 election will have to deal with the fiscal mess of the collapse of Social Security, an unenviable position.
Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Primary in 2008, it would have guaranteed a Republican victory in the general election. Continued economic woes as started under President Bush would continue, and the Republicans would have nobody to blame and the public would not blame anyone else, resulting in a Democratic victory in 2012 and leaving them with the "hot potato" as a result.
Instead Obama entered the race to beat Hillary, and then went on to use popular dissatisfaction with the status quo and Republican leadership to win the presidential race in 2008. By then failing to achieve anything, and giving the country laughable examples of attempts to fix the economy, by alienating his own base by failing to lead, he may be working to ensure a Republican victory in 2012 and thus leave them with the upcoming financial catastrophe.
One does not succeed in politics by only thinking in the short term. The leadership of both parties know this, and have to think beyond the next election even if those who are in office seldom think that far ahead.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
On Voting
There are three common arguments made about voting by libertarians. The first is made by those who are too ready to sacrifice principle; that a person must vote for the lesser of two evils. This is a wasted vote. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat on the premise that the candidate from the other major party is worse really makes no difference. First of all most districts are safe districts and the winner of the general election is really determined in the primary. For state-wide races, such as senators or the president, most states are safe states as well.
Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t send the message the voter generally assumes will be sent. If a person votes against candidate A by voting for candidate B, all the vote totals show is another vote for candidate B. Votes do not come with labels saying "this is actually a vote against the other candidate", it is counted as a positive endorsement of all the flaws of candidate B.
Maybe in some particular races the counter argument could be made. In Minnesota, for example, the margin of victory in the 2008 senate race was less than the third party total, and Republicans bitterly complained about Libertarians allowing a Democrat to win the office - but Republicans forgot that the votes do not belong to the Republican Party, that they had not earned them, and in fact had acted in such a way as to guarantee that those voters will vote Libertarian. In attempting to make the lesser of two evils argument in that particular case, defenders of lesser of two evils not only undermine their own case, they support showing that the case is the exception and that most races are not nearly that close.
Except for the very extreme case, the vote for a third party will not decide the race between the major party candidates. In Texas, a voter trying to choose between Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party or Barack Obama of the Democratic Party will not swing that state. In California, a voter trying to choose between Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party or John McCain of the Republican Party will not swing that state. Also, a voter choosing between McKinney or Obama in California or Baldwin or McCain in Texas will not change the outcome.
But put it another way, take a theoretical voter trying to decide between Cynthia McKinney as his first choice or Barack Obama as the lesser of two evils candidate. If he votes for McKinney he increases her vote total from 161,603 to 161,604 (a percentage increase of 0.0006), but if he votes for Obama he increases his vote total from 64,639,738 to 64,639,739 (a percentage increase of 0.000000015). Clearly voting for McKinney would have a greater impact.
The two arguments on effective voting center on whether or not someone should vote at all. Well reasoned arguments are made on both sides of the issue. Those against voting are attempting to withhold consent from the state, consent that the state claims to have from participation in the system. Theoretically if someone votes, the person agrees to abide by the outcome of the election. Those in favor of voting, and not for the lesser of two evils, say that only by voting can the voice of the voter be heard, however faintly, alerting those in power to the wishes of the voter.
On the consent issue, the state has constructed an inherently contradictory case. If a person does vote the person is said to have given consent through participation; however, if a person does not vote the person is said to have given consent through not bothering to participate by expressing that the voter is content with any outcome. The two arguments contradict each other, but that is no concern to those who support gaining the illusion of consent. Whether or not someone votes, it is counted as consent, so therefore there is no reason to not vote; better to vote in a way that sends a clear message on the voter’s preference.
It is true that if there is no good candidate then there is no point in voting, but if there is actually a good candidate then by voting for that person it does increase, in however small a number, the chances that said candidate would win and does relay the message of who the voter actually supports and what the voter actually wishes of the government. Since the leaders of the major parties seem to believe that the votes belong to the major parties, by voting outside the two party framework a voter sends a disproportionately loud message by not "giving" to the parties that which "belongs" to them. The more voters fail to "deliver the goods" the more the parties start to work on how they can adjust to cause those voters to return. It is even possible, though unlikely, that the major parties could move towards greater liberty without ever attracting a pro-liberty vote. They will never move in that direction if they can get the pro-liberty vote without effort, or if they do not know that the vote is out there.
But there is one area in which the message sent by voting is unmistakable: ballot propositions. There are only two sides to a ballot proposition: yes and no. One of those options is clearly better, and there is no splitting of the vote with third options on ballot propositions. Sometimes the right side of the ballot proposition wins, such as Proposition 13, and sometimes it loses, such as Proposition 14, but every vote on a ballot proposition counts. There is no argument against voting for a ballot proposition.
Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t send the message the voter generally assumes will be sent. If a person votes against candidate A by voting for candidate B, all the vote totals show is another vote for candidate B. Votes do not come with labels saying "this is actually a vote against the other candidate", it is counted as a positive endorsement of all the flaws of candidate B.
Maybe in some particular races the counter argument could be made. In Minnesota, for example, the margin of victory in the 2008 senate race was less than the third party total, and Republicans bitterly complained about Libertarians allowing a Democrat to win the office - but Republicans forgot that the votes do not belong to the Republican Party, that they had not earned them, and in fact had acted in such a way as to guarantee that those voters will vote Libertarian. In attempting to make the lesser of two evils argument in that particular case, defenders of lesser of two evils not only undermine their own case, they support showing that the case is the exception and that most races are not nearly that close.
Except for the very extreme case, the vote for a third party will not decide the race between the major party candidates. In Texas, a voter trying to choose between Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party or Barack Obama of the Democratic Party will not swing that state. In California, a voter trying to choose between Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party or John McCain of the Republican Party will not swing that state. Also, a voter choosing between McKinney or Obama in California or Baldwin or McCain in Texas will not change the outcome.
But put it another way, take a theoretical voter trying to decide between Cynthia McKinney as his first choice or Barack Obama as the lesser of two evils candidate. If he votes for McKinney he increases her vote total from 161,603 to 161,604 (a percentage increase of 0.0006), but if he votes for Obama he increases his vote total from 64,639,738 to 64,639,739 (a percentage increase of 0.000000015). Clearly voting for McKinney would have a greater impact.
The two arguments on effective voting center on whether or not someone should vote at all. Well reasoned arguments are made on both sides of the issue. Those against voting are attempting to withhold consent from the state, consent that the state claims to have from participation in the system. Theoretically if someone votes, the person agrees to abide by the outcome of the election. Those in favor of voting, and not for the lesser of two evils, say that only by voting can the voice of the voter be heard, however faintly, alerting those in power to the wishes of the voter.
On the consent issue, the state has constructed an inherently contradictory case. If a person does vote the person is said to have given consent through participation; however, if a person does not vote the person is said to have given consent through not bothering to participate by expressing that the voter is content with any outcome. The two arguments contradict each other, but that is no concern to those who support gaining the illusion of consent. Whether or not someone votes, it is counted as consent, so therefore there is no reason to not vote; better to vote in a way that sends a clear message on the voter’s preference.
It is true that if there is no good candidate then there is no point in voting, but if there is actually a good candidate then by voting for that person it does increase, in however small a number, the chances that said candidate would win and does relay the message of who the voter actually supports and what the voter actually wishes of the government. Since the leaders of the major parties seem to believe that the votes belong to the major parties, by voting outside the two party framework a voter sends a disproportionately loud message by not "giving" to the parties that which "belongs" to them. The more voters fail to "deliver the goods" the more the parties start to work on how they can adjust to cause those voters to return. It is even possible, though unlikely, that the major parties could move towards greater liberty without ever attracting a pro-liberty vote. They will never move in that direction if they can get the pro-liberty vote without effort, or if they do not know that the vote is out there.
But there is one area in which the message sent by voting is unmistakable: ballot propositions. There are only two sides to a ballot proposition: yes and no. One of those options is clearly better, and there is no splitting of the vote with third options on ballot propositions. Sometimes the right side of the ballot proposition wins, such as Proposition 13, and sometimes it loses, such as Proposition 14, but every vote on a ballot proposition counts. There is no argument against voting for a ballot proposition.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
The Greater Freedom Movement
After the Libertarian Party Convention there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that Mark Hinkle beat Wayne Root for national chair. The bad news is that on the final ballot Wayne Root received a significant percentage, about 45%, of the final vote. The first is a good sign that the Libertarian Party is moving back in a more libertarian direction, the second is a sign that there is still a great distance to go before the Libertarian Party can be restored.
Wayne Root was supported by the Reform Caucus. The Reform Caucus was founded on a good idea, that the Libertarian Party could attract greater numbers by working with others who are freedom oriented but who are not as purist as the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately it went entirely the wrong direction - the members of the Reform Caucus started steering the Libertarian Party in a much more Republican direction, giving a big boost to Bob Barr and Wayne Root, ultimately resulting in Aaron Star trying to purge purists from the National Committee.
While there were some in the Reform Caucus who had the best of intentions, trying to reshape the Libertarian Party in that direction was entirely the wrong way to collect the energy of the greater freedom movement. Becoming more like one of the two major parties, or moving more towards the center of the Nolan Chart, is not the way to bring together the greater freedom movement.
The way to go isn't to be more like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but to find a way to build alliances with the disaffected of both parties. The way to do that isn't to eliminate what it means to be libertarian, but to encourage the other disaffected fringes to grow and to work with them. It was once pointed out that if Cindy Sheehan's anti-war movement were to join forces with the Tea Party protests it would be a coup for the freedom movement. It has been noticed that the way the parties divided in the bailout separated the mainstreamers of both parties from the mavericks of both parties (with the alleged maverick John McCain a bailout supporter unlike real mavericks Paul and Kucinich).
The greater freedom movement can be considered "libertarian" in the sense used in "Tribesman, Barbarian, Citizen … and Libertarian", but it actually is more diverse than the Libertarian Party Platform could ever be. The Pournelle Chart is a better model in certain respects because it separates the Anarcho-Syndicalists from the Anarcho-Capitalists. It differentiates the Counter-Culture from the Objectivists, while acknowledging that they are both part of the same greater freedom movement that combines the best elements of the Tea Party with the best elements of the Sheehan protests.
The Campaign For Liberty could have been that, by inviting the four leading third candidates on to one stage. It probably still could be, and in doing so is taking the place that should have been taken by the Reform Caucus, and doing it in the way the Reform Caucus should have in the first place. The trick is to acknowledge the differences in the Issues Designed to Divide (abortion being the biggest, and also whether a system without government would be capitalist or syndicalist, but don't budge on the definition of capitalism) instead of fighting over them, and to concentrate on the common foe. That way both purity of ideology can be maintained while making the necessary compromises to work together. Instead of becoming less radical in order to stop scaring voters, the trick is to become more radical by embracing the other, different radicals.
If that is accomplished, then it will be possible for the greater freedom movement to succeed, which will be a victory for the Libertarian Party, both the purists AND the reformers.
Wayne Root was supported by the Reform Caucus. The Reform Caucus was founded on a good idea, that the Libertarian Party could attract greater numbers by working with others who are freedom oriented but who are not as purist as the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately it went entirely the wrong direction - the members of the Reform Caucus started steering the Libertarian Party in a much more Republican direction, giving a big boost to Bob Barr and Wayne Root, ultimately resulting in Aaron Star trying to purge purists from the National Committee.
While there were some in the Reform Caucus who had the best of intentions, trying to reshape the Libertarian Party in that direction was entirely the wrong way to collect the energy of the greater freedom movement. Becoming more like one of the two major parties, or moving more towards the center of the Nolan Chart, is not the way to bring together the greater freedom movement.
The way to go isn't to be more like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but to find a way to build alliances with the disaffected of both parties. The way to do that isn't to eliminate what it means to be libertarian, but to encourage the other disaffected fringes to grow and to work with them. It was once pointed out that if Cindy Sheehan's anti-war movement were to join forces with the Tea Party protests it would be a coup for the freedom movement. It has been noticed that the way the parties divided in the bailout separated the mainstreamers of both parties from the mavericks of both parties (with the alleged maverick John McCain a bailout supporter unlike real mavericks Paul and Kucinich).
The greater freedom movement can be considered "libertarian" in the sense used in "Tribesman, Barbarian, Citizen … and Libertarian", but it actually is more diverse than the Libertarian Party Platform could ever be. The Pournelle Chart is a better model in certain respects because it separates the Anarcho-Syndicalists from the Anarcho-Capitalists. It differentiates the Counter-Culture from the Objectivists, while acknowledging that they are both part of the same greater freedom movement that combines the best elements of the Tea Party with the best elements of the Sheehan protests.
The Campaign For Liberty could have been that, by inviting the four leading third candidates on to one stage. It probably still could be, and in doing so is taking the place that should have been taken by the Reform Caucus, and doing it in the way the Reform Caucus should have in the first place. The trick is to acknowledge the differences in the Issues Designed to Divide (abortion being the biggest, and also whether a system without government would be capitalist or syndicalist, but don't budge on the definition of capitalism) instead of fighting over them, and to concentrate on the common foe. That way both purity of ideology can be maintained while making the necessary compromises to work together. Instead of becoming less radical in order to stop scaring voters, the trick is to become more radical by embracing the other, different radicals.
If that is accomplished, then it will be possible for the greater freedom movement to succeed, which will be a victory for the Libertarian Party, both the purists AND the reformers.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
What can I do?
It is a common question that haunts anyone who wants to increase liberty. When looking at all the ways government is advancing and liberty is diminishing, it is tempting to give in to despair. It is true that there is little that one person can do. Any large scale changes will involve large group efforts, true. So should a person give up and wait for said group efforts?
No, there is no reason to give in to despair. There is no reason to give up. There is still something that can be done. One can be prepared to ride the depression out and come out and prepare to come out on the other side.
The first thing to do is make sure that one is not fooled by the official propaganda. Anyone who has an evidence based view of economics knows that the current depression has utterly disproven Keynesian and Monetarist economics and vindicated Austrian economics. In spite of that, government economists and major media economists continue with the party line about government managed economies.
Keeping the facts in mind reveals that this is the worst time to sell gold for cash and to get further into debt. In spite of pronouncements that the depression is over, it is clear that the money pumped into the economy has done nothing more than re-inflated a few bubbles and paid off the major bankers. Using the knowledge gained by Austrian Economics, it is much easier to avoid the remaining bubbles.
Individually, the only thing a person can do is ensure his own house is in order. That's why many people advise starting a farm and other common sense measures.
Given how the police have gotten more dangerous, the best plan is not to confront them but to stay out of their sight as much as possible. Any talking back, even if in the right, is considered "contempt of cop" and results in an arrest for "disorderly conduct". A lucky person won't be tasered during the arrest for the crime of saying "what am I being arrested for?"
Of course, be armed, be ready to defend yourself. Be as prepared as possible for the various emergencies that may come up if the predictions of Austrian Economists continue to come to pass as they have done to this point. The only way to act to advance liberty is if the activist is able to act in the first place.
No, there is no reason to give in to despair. There is no reason to give up. There is still something that can be done. One can be prepared to ride the depression out and come out and prepare to come out on the other side.
The first thing to do is make sure that one is not fooled by the official propaganda. Anyone who has an evidence based view of economics knows that the current depression has utterly disproven Keynesian and Monetarist economics and vindicated Austrian economics. In spite of that, government economists and major media economists continue with the party line about government managed economies.
Keeping the facts in mind reveals that this is the worst time to sell gold for cash and to get further into debt. In spite of pronouncements that the depression is over, it is clear that the money pumped into the economy has done nothing more than re-inflated a few bubbles and paid off the major bankers. Using the knowledge gained by Austrian Economics, it is much easier to avoid the remaining bubbles.
Individually, the only thing a person can do is ensure his own house is in order. That's why many people advise starting a farm and other common sense measures.
Given how the police have gotten more dangerous, the best plan is not to confront them but to stay out of their sight as much as possible. Any talking back, even if in the right, is considered "contempt of cop" and results in an arrest for "disorderly conduct". A lucky person won't be tasered during the arrest for the crime of saying "what am I being arrested for?"
Of course, be armed, be ready to defend yourself. Be as prepared as possible for the various emergencies that may come up if the predictions of Austrian Economists continue to come to pass as they have done to this point. The only way to act to advance liberty is if the activist is able to act in the first place.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
The Is / Ought Fallacy
"Without Taxes, how will we pay for roads and schools and medical care?"
It is a common enough question whenever someone objects, not just to all taxes as is proper to do, not just to the current level which is excessive to all minarchists and many other thinking people, but even to proposed increases in taxes which will be used to fund new programs.
At first glance it appears to be an application of the Statist Fallacy, there is also another fallacy at play here, the Is / Ought fallacy. It is a Statist Fallacy because the assumption is that if the government doesn't provide these services than nobody will, and that by opposing the government being the provider of these services one also opposes the services being provided at all.
But it is also an is / ought fallacy. The speaker is assuming that the way things are, that the government provides these services, is the way things ought to be, and by expressing the point in that particular way the speaker is hoping to lay a verbal trap for any opponent of expanded government. One can either deny that taxes should pay for those and because of the statist fallacy agree that those should not exist, or one can agree that those services are valuable and because of the is / ought fallacy agree that the government should fund them.
A good answer is "since currently those are paid for by taxes, we currently need taxes to pay for those" and then immediately accuse the speaker of engaging in the is / ought fallacy. The inclusion of the word "currently", twice in one answer, allows the libertarian in the argument to sidestep the trap of either embracing the statist fallacy or the is / ought fallacy, and it becomes very difficult for even a determined statist to pull a quote out of context. Leaving out either instance of that word eases decontextualization and the ability to try to argue that the libertarian is actually agreeing on some level with the statist.
"Since currently those are paid for by taxes, we currently need taxes to pay for those. What a fine example of the is / ought fallacy, where since that is the way it is therefore that is the way it ought to be. Why ought it be that way? Is there no other way to fund those besides taxes?"
It is a common enough question whenever someone objects, not just to all taxes as is proper to do, not just to the current level which is excessive to all minarchists and many other thinking people, but even to proposed increases in taxes which will be used to fund new programs.
At first glance it appears to be an application of the Statist Fallacy, there is also another fallacy at play here, the Is / Ought fallacy. It is a Statist Fallacy because the assumption is that if the government doesn't provide these services than nobody will, and that by opposing the government being the provider of these services one also opposes the services being provided at all.
But it is also an is / ought fallacy. The speaker is assuming that the way things are, that the government provides these services, is the way things ought to be, and by expressing the point in that particular way the speaker is hoping to lay a verbal trap for any opponent of expanded government. One can either deny that taxes should pay for those and because of the statist fallacy agree that those should not exist, or one can agree that those services are valuable and because of the is / ought fallacy agree that the government should fund them.
A good answer is "since currently those are paid for by taxes, we currently need taxes to pay for those" and then immediately accuse the speaker of engaging in the is / ought fallacy. The inclusion of the word "currently", twice in one answer, allows the libertarian in the argument to sidestep the trap of either embracing the statist fallacy or the is / ought fallacy, and it becomes very difficult for even a determined statist to pull a quote out of context. Leaving out either instance of that word eases decontextualization and the ability to try to argue that the libertarian is actually agreeing on some level with the statist.
"Since currently those are paid for by taxes, we currently need taxes to pay for those. What a fine example of the is / ought fallacy, where since that is the way it is therefore that is the way it ought to be. Why ought it be that way? Is there no other way to fund those besides taxes?"
Saturday, October 03, 2009
But are they right?
The internet has made it possible to find articles on any topic detailing both the pro-liberty and anti-liberty side of any position. That has ultimately been a good thing for the pro-liberty side as traditional sources can be bypassed for accurate material.
It often happens in internet debate that libertarians will find a relevant article on LRC or Cato or Reason (or dozens of other libertarian sites) and link to it in a debate. The reaction from those who oppose liberty is invariably "the author is biased" or "the website is biased".
Usually this successfully derails the debate. From that point onward the discussion center around the bias of the article or the bias of the hosting site.
Although it may be irksome, the best way to get the discussion back on track is to simply respond with "yes, but are they right?" Conceed any allegation of bais while simultaneously engaging the content of the article. This isn't just agreeing with the bias. Proving bias usually subsitutes for refuting an article, and "Yes, but are they right?" puts the onus back on the other person to go in and investigate the content in order to answer that question. Instead of declaring victory due to an accusation of bias the other person must either get back to the topic or conceed that the article was right.
This is also useful in reverse, The report on California's regulatory mess was posted on a government website. Libertarians are confronted with "but it's a government website you don't like government." The proper response is "yes, but are they right?" It forms a useful defense against accusations of hypocrisy with regards to using a government website - the important feature isn't if the article is from the government but is the content.
It often happens in internet debate that libertarians will find a relevant article on LRC or Cato or Reason (or dozens of other libertarian sites) and link to it in a debate. The reaction from those who oppose liberty is invariably "the author is biased" or "the website is biased".
Usually this successfully derails the debate. From that point onward the discussion center around the bias of the article or the bias of the hosting site.
Although it may be irksome, the best way to get the discussion back on track is to simply respond with "yes, but are they right?" Conceed any allegation of bais while simultaneously engaging the content of the article. This isn't just agreeing with the bias. Proving bias usually subsitutes for refuting an article, and "Yes, but are they right?" puts the onus back on the other person to go in and investigate the content in order to answer that question. Instead of declaring victory due to an accusation of bias the other person must either get back to the topic or conceed that the article was right.
This is also useful in reverse, The report on California's regulatory mess was posted on a government website. Libertarians are confronted with "but it's a government website you don't like government." The proper response is "yes, but are they right?" It forms a useful defense against accusations of hypocrisy with regards to using a government website - the important feature isn't if the article is from the government but is the content.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Statist Fallacy
A common argument in favor of any new proposed law is that if someone opposes the law then the person who opposes the law is in favor of whatever the law is supposed to prevent. For instance, whenever someone suggest that laws against drugs be repealed then the argument is then made that anyone who makes that argument is therefore in favor of drug use. Or when someone suggests that prostitution be legal the argument is made that anyone who makes that argument is a proponent of prostitution.
Also when a new government program is proposed, if someone dares suggest that the government has no business providing a good or service then whoever dares make that suggestion doesn't want that service provided at all. For instance, anyone who dares suggest that the government has no role in providing health care is accused of wanting people to not be able to access health care.
These are two variations of the same fallacy. It is assumed that if the government isn't involved then the issue is unresolved, and anyone who opposes a government solution then opposes a solution at all.
It's a very nasty fallacy, as it often puts those who oppose government solutions on the defensive. They have to defend themselves against many spurious vice charges, such as indulgence in prostitution or drugs, or the vice of greed since they allegedly want to keep their money rather than solve some problem that the government would use that money to solve. Loaded questions such as whether anybody who opposes welfare ever gives to charity are thrown up to distract from the main argument of the program itself.
As any proponent of liberty knows, it is quite possible to oppose something and oppose laws against it at the same time, such as opposing racism and opposing thought crime laws. It is also possible to support something and oppose laws mandating it at the same tme, such as charity. The simple solution when faced with the statist fallacy is to call it for what it is. A more argumentative solution is to say "so you require a law for you to do what is right?"
Also when a new government program is proposed, if someone dares suggest that the government has no business providing a good or service then whoever dares make that suggestion doesn't want that service provided at all. For instance, anyone who dares suggest that the government has no role in providing health care is accused of wanting people to not be able to access health care.
These are two variations of the same fallacy. It is assumed that if the government isn't involved then the issue is unresolved, and anyone who opposes a government solution then opposes a solution at all.
It's a very nasty fallacy, as it often puts those who oppose government solutions on the defensive. They have to defend themselves against many spurious vice charges, such as indulgence in prostitution or drugs, or the vice of greed since they allegedly want to keep their money rather than solve some problem that the government would use that money to solve. Loaded questions such as whether anybody who opposes welfare ever gives to charity are thrown up to distract from the main argument of the program itself.
As any proponent of liberty knows, it is quite possible to oppose something and oppose laws against it at the same time, such as opposing racism and opposing thought crime laws. It is also possible to support something and oppose laws mandating it at the same tme, such as charity. The simple solution when faced with the statist fallacy is to call it for what it is. A more argumentative solution is to say "so you require a law for you to do what is right?"
Friday, November 07, 2008
The Path Ahead
Now that the election is over, and Obama has beaten McCain, the question for libertarians is "now what?"
There are several things that a lover of liberty must do now that the socialist and reluctant warmonger beat the warmonger and reluctant socialist.
First, it is important to keep pressure on the Democrats to remember that one of the reasons Obama won their support was because he was allegedly the peace candidate. Granted that compared to McCain in the general election or Clinton in the Democratic primary he does appear to be a peace candidate, but compared to actual peace candidates like Paul or Kucinich he’s very much a hawk.
Pressure must be kept on the Democrats to actually work to disengage militarily. During the next year they are going to discover that they do like war after all, because the President leading the war effort is of their party instead of the other party. The appointment of Rahm Emmanuel to Chief of Staff is disturbing because it shows the process is already underway.
Second, all libertarians should prepare for when Obama (and a compliant congress) tries to introduce Universal Health Care or some other version of Socialist Medicine. It may even be necessary to work with the underdog Republicans on this. A necessary step for the Democrats to take if they want to implement this will be to change the cloture rules so that the Republicans cannot filibuster the proposal. Loudly and publicly proclaim any tinkering with the cloture rules to be a power grab and vociferously denounce it.
Third, be prepared to oppose calls for national service. Obama already wants us to perform national service simply in order to graduate from high school. His Chief of Staff has different plan for forcing everyone to do community service, and it is even less voluntary than the allegedly voluntary plan of Obama.
Fourth, many Obama supporters believed he was going to act in direct contrast to his record on issues other than the war, on issues like the USAPATRIOT Act and FISA Amendment, the Wall Street Crisis, and NAFTA, as well as a few others where (perhaps by accident) Obama was actually right and his supporters still believed he held the opposite view. Every time Obama acts in a manner consistent with Obama's record but inconsistent with how his supporters thought he would act is another moment to say "see I told you so." It will not likely work as on each of those positions his supporters will discover that the position Obama actually supports was what they supported all along, just like Oceana was always at war with EastAsia.
Fifth, the Republicans are busy trying to figure out where they went wrong. Be sure to tell them that they had a candidate who could have beaten Obama, and they wouldn’t even count his votes at the convention. Be sure to remind the local Republican organizations about that. Send them the message "don't blame me, I voted Paul." Even if it isn't true, because not all libertarians did so, it should be said because all Republicans need to hear that.
Sixth, work should not stop on trying to open up the electoral process, a task that is never finished.
Seventh, there will be an effort by Democrats to blame the depression on a hypothetical laissez faire attitue of Bush that must be countered at every turn. Do not allow anyone to describe the financial meltdown as the result of deregulation as Hoover leaves office and Roosevelt enters office.
Finally, never forget to ask the Reform Caucus where are the additional votes Barr was supposed to deliver.
There are several things that a lover of liberty must do now that the socialist and reluctant warmonger beat the warmonger and reluctant socialist.
First, it is important to keep pressure on the Democrats to remember that one of the reasons Obama won their support was because he was allegedly the peace candidate. Granted that compared to McCain in the general election or Clinton in the Democratic primary he does appear to be a peace candidate, but compared to actual peace candidates like Paul or Kucinich he’s very much a hawk.
Pressure must be kept on the Democrats to actually work to disengage militarily. During the next year they are going to discover that they do like war after all, because the President leading the war effort is of their party instead of the other party. The appointment of Rahm Emmanuel to Chief of Staff is disturbing because it shows the process is already underway.
Second, all libertarians should prepare for when Obama (and a compliant congress) tries to introduce Universal Health Care or some other version of Socialist Medicine. It may even be necessary to work with the underdog Republicans on this. A necessary step for the Democrats to take if they want to implement this will be to change the cloture rules so that the Republicans cannot filibuster the proposal. Loudly and publicly proclaim any tinkering with the cloture rules to be a power grab and vociferously denounce it.
Third, be prepared to oppose calls for national service. Obama already wants us to perform national service simply in order to graduate from high school. His Chief of Staff has different plan for forcing everyone to do community service, and it is even less voluntary than the allegedly voluntary plan of Obama.
Fourth, many Obama supporters believed he was going to act in direct contrast to his record on issues other than the war, on issues like the USAPATRIOT Act and FISA Amendment, the Wall Street Crisis, and NAFTA, as well as a few others where (perhaps by accident) Obama was actually right and his supporters still believed he held the opposite view. Every time Obama acts in a manner consistent with Obama's record but inconsistent with how his supporters thought he would act is another moment to say "see I told you so." It will not likely work as on each of those positions his supporters will discover that the position Obama actually supports was what they supported all along, just like Oceana was always at war with EastAsia.
Fifth, the Republicans are busy trying to figure out where they went wrong. Be sure to tell them that they had a candidate who could have beaten Obama, and they wouldn’t even count his votes at the convention. Be sure to remind the local Republican organizations about that. Send them the message "don't blame me, I voted Paul." Even if it isn't true, because not all libertarians did so, it should be said because all Republicans need to hear that.
Sixth, work should not stop on trying to open up the electoral process, a task that is never finished.
Seventh, there will be an effort by Democrats to blame the depression on a hypothetical laissez faire attitue of Bush that must be countered at every turn. Do not allow anyone to describe the financial meltdown as the result of deregulation as Hoover leaves office and Roosevelt enters office.
Finally, never forget to ask the Reform Caucus where are the additional votes Barr was supposed to deliver.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Campaign for Liberty
Ron Paul attempted to get the four leading third party candidates together at a joint press conference. The concept was that there were certain principles that all four were supposed to agree upon, although for different reasons, and most importantly the principle that third parties should be heard.
Unfortunately Bob Barr did not show, snubbing Ron Paul’s effort. If he had been there the message of the Campaign for Liberty would be unmistakable. The candidates that did show also received criticism for doing so. Chuck Baldwin is criticized for sharing a stage with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. Alan Maass of the Socialist Worker newsletter objected to Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader for sharing a stage with Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin supporter are sniping at Barr supporters over who is better fit to carry Ron Paul’s torch into the general election.
That is not the message Ron Paul was trying to send.
The message is not that supporters of one candidate should vote for the other candidates. The message is not that the four invited candidates are equally good. The message is actually pretty clear, and would be more so had Barr done the right thing and attended this joint press conference.
The message is as follows:
Take any average American voter. Take stock of what he wants of the government, what he wants a politician to do. It is more likely that said voter will find one of those four candidates to be in greater agreement than said voter would be with Barack Obama or John McCain. The four candidates on the stage collectively represent the different poles of political opinion in their four different directions than Obama or McCain can hope to.
The message continues:
Third party voters shouldn’t vote against their conscience by supporting a candidate with whom they truly disagree. They should vote for a candidate for whom they truly agree. The obligation third party supporters have towards each other is assistance in getting the candidates on the ballot so that the American people can have a choice. Third party supporters are not required to vote for each others candidates or donate to each others parties. They should assist in every other way.
Given that message, there is no reason at all for supporters of the fourth candidate to fight, beyond the fact that Barr apparently does not fully support the four points:
Unfortunately Bob Barr did not show, snubbing Ron Paul’s effort. If he had been there the message of the Campaign for Liberty would be unmistakable. The candidates that did show also received criticism for doing so. Chuck Baldwin is criticized for sharing a stage with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. Alan Maass of the Socialist Worker newsletter objected to Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader for sharing a stage with Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin supporter are sniping at Barr supporters over who is better fit to carry Ron Paul’s torch into the general election.
That is not the message Ron Paul was trying to send.
The message is not that supporters of one candidate should vote for the other candidates. The message is not that the four invited candidates are equally good. The message is actually pretty clear, and would be more so had Barr done the right thing and attended this joint press conference.
The message is as follows:
Take any average American voter. Take stock of what he wants of the government, what he wants a politician to do. It is more likely that said voter will find one of those four candidates to be in greater agreement than said voter would be with Barack Obama or John McCain. The four candidates on the stage collectively represent the different poles of political opinion in their four different directions than Obama or McCain can hope to.
The message continues:
Third party voters shouldn’t vote against their conscience by supporting a candidate with whom they truly disagree. They should vote for a candidate for whom they truly agree. The obligation third party supporters have towards each other is assistance in getting the candidates on the ballot so that the American people can have a choice. Third party supporters are not required to vote for each others candidates or donate to each others parties. They should assist in every other way.
Given that message, there is no reason at all for supporters of the fourth candidate to fight, beyond the fact that Barr apparently does not fully support the four points:
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The Importance of Strategy
One thing libertarians often lose sight of is strategy. This applies to both those inside the party and those outside, and to both the libertarian caucus and the reform caucus.
In California two ballot propositions were up for vote. Both of them promised eminent domain reform. Proposition 98 included very strong eminent domain reform, and also included rent control reform. It was a perfect libertarian initiative in that if it had passed it would have restored and protected the right of private property. Proposition 99 was a very weak eminent domain reform that basically left the balance of power in the hands of the city and county governments. Proposition 98 was written because of the discontent with Kelo versus New London. Proposition 99 was written to protect the cities and counties from proposition 98.
The advertisements for 99 pointed out that 98 was advertised as an eminent domain reform but contained a "hidden agenda" against rent control. The advertisements neglected to mention that rent control is a failure every time it is tried. Instead they simply ended by saying 98 was against rent control as if that alone were proof of the sinister nature of 98, and they correctly pointed out that 98 was a bundled measure and if one part passed the whole thing passed.
Proposition 99 feed on the discontent against eminent domain, and the measure that protected eminent domain rode to victory with the votes of those who wanted to reform eminent domain. Proposition 98 was defeated by the same margin by those who felt that the measure was dishonest.
At the 2008 Libertarian Party convention, the Reform Caucus beat the Libertarian Caucus. Mainstream libertarians are not represented on the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential ticket. It would have been a good move on the part of the Reform Caucus to sponsor a unity ticket with a prominent member of the Libertarian Caucus in the Vice Presidential Candidate slot. Failing to think strategically the Reform Caucus wanted their victory over the Libertarian Caucus to be thorough. Now the result is a weakened candidate. There is much discontent within Libertarian Party ranks over this ticket.
Bob Barr is campaigning for votes outside the Libertarian Party. What he is neglecting is that he should be campaigning for votes inside the Libertarian Party as well. The Reform Caucus has, by choosing victory over strategy, alienated a large portion of the Libertarian Party. The reaction from the candidate himself has been "I'm the candidate so you will vote for me." The reaction from the Reform Caucus has been to accuse everyone who hasn't warmly and happily embraced the ticket of being sore losers, wanting to destroy the party, et cetera. The truth is that by placing victory at the convention over strategy, the Reform Caucus is more guilty of trying to fracture the party than the disenfranchised Libertarian Caucus is.
Barr does need to spend time advertising to the base. He is neglecting that duty, relying on "you have to vote for me" to get the votes from the base. Libertarians are notorious for rejecting calls for "you have to vote for me" as a substantial portion of libertarians are converts from major parties and those converts realized that they don’t have to vote for the candidate of the party. It doesn’t matter that the hated other party will win if the candidate for the party is just as bad. That’s not to say that Barr is as bad as Obama or McCain – he most certainly is not as bad as them. The question resolves to is he good enough to get the vote of those who will actually analyze a candidate instead of showing blind party loyalty.
Strategy is important. A better thinking of strategy by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assocation and Proposition 98 would have passed. A better thinking of strategy by the Reform Caucus and Barr wouldn’t have to worry about getting the libertarian vote and could concentrate on the independent vote. As it stands now he has the potential to gain one at the expense of the other, and that will not result in the growth that the Reform Caucus promised the rest of the party when they rammed a double reform ticket down the throats of everyone else.
In California two ballot propositions were up for vote. Both of them promised eminent domain reform. Proposition 98 included very strong eminent domain reform, and also included rent control reform. It was a perfect libertarian initiative in that if it had passed it would have restored and protected the right of private property. Proposition 99 was a very weak eminent domain reform that basically left the balance of power in the hands of the city and county governments. Proposition 98 was written because of the discontent with Kelo versus New London. Proposition 99 was written to protect the cities and counties from proposition 98.
The advertisements for 99 pointed out that 98 was advertised as an eminent domain reform but contained a "hidden agenda" against rent control. The advertisements neglected to mention that rent control is a failure every time it is tried. Instead they simply ended by saying 98 was against rent control as if that alone were proof of the sinister nature of 98, and they correctly pointed out that 98 was a bundled measure and if one part passed the whole thing passed.
Proposition 99 feed on the discontent against eminent domain, and the measure that protected eminent domain rode to victory with the votes of those who wanted to reform eminent domain. Proposition 98 was defeated by the same margin by those who felt that the measure was dishonest.
At the 2008 Libertarian Party convention, the Reform Caucus beat the Libertarian Caucus. Mainstream libertarians are not represented on the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential ticket. It would have been a good move on the part of the Reform Caucus to sponsor a unity ticket with a prominent member of the Libertarian Caucus in the Vice Presidential Candidate slot. Failing to think strategically the Reform Caucus wanted their victory over the Libertarian Caucus to be thorough. Now the result is a weakened candidate. There is much discontent within Libertarian Party ranks over this ticket.
Bob Barr is campaigning for votes outside the Libertarian Party. What he is neglecting is that he should be campaigning for votes inside the Libertarian Party as well. The Reform Caucus has, by choosing victory over strategy, alienated a large portion of the Libertarian Party. The reaction from the candidate himself has been "I'm the candidate so you will vote for me." The reaction from the Reform Caucus has been to accuse everyone who hasn't warmly and happily embraced the ticket of being sore losers, wanting to destroy the party, et cetera. The truth is that by placing victory at the convention over strategy, the Reform Caucus is more guilty of trying to fracture the party than the disenfranchised Libertarian Caucus is.
Barr does need to spend time advertising to the base. He is neglecting that duty, relying on "you have to vote for me" to get the votes from the base. Libertarians are notorious for rejecting calls for "you have to vote for me" as a substantial portion of libertarians are converts from major parties and those converts realized that they don’t have to vote for the candidate of the party. It doesn’t matter that the hated other party will win if the candidate for the party is just as bad. That’s not to say that Barr is as bad as Obama or McCain – he most certainly is not as bad as them. The question resolves to is he good enough to get the vote of those who will actually analyze a candidate instead of showing blind party loyalty.
Strategy is important. A better thinking of strategy by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assocation and Proposition 98 would have passed. A better thinking of strategy by the Reform Caucus and Barr wouldn’t have to worry about getting the libertarian vote and could concentrate on the independent vote. As it stands now he has the potential to gain one at the expense of the other, and that will not result in the growth that the Reform Caucus promised the rest of the party when they rammed a double reform ticket down the throats of everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)