Skip to main content

The Texas GOP to Texas Libertarians (and Gandhi): "How Dare You!"

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mohandas Gandhi *


Texas Republicans have a new solution for those pesky Libertarians: quit thinking you should have the right to organize a political party and go off to become the new ACLU. Or an anti-abortion group!? (Seriously.)

Here's the Travis Monitor:

It would be good if the Libertarians/libertarians attempted to aspire to real political effectiveness, because this country needs more freedom and less Government, and their influence could be salutory. But that would require taking off the big "L", abandoning a failed third party approach, and becoming libertarians working in the one major political party where their ideas are most at home: the Republican Party. Consider some of the most effective political activist organizations - the litigious ACLU, the social conservative Christian Coalition, the gay rights Human Rights Campaign. I would add another group from Texas: The Texas Alliance for Life. TAL has achieved multiple pro-life victories as a force that influences the two party system, working mostly with Republicans but also with prolife Democrats to achieve their goals. These groups successfully worked the two party system, rather than try to work outside it.


Yeah, that's a great idea, guys. We'll all go become good little robots and give up half our message--individual liberty from State coercion whether the State is liberal OR conservative--in order to insure GOP electoral success.

So here's the score: In Texas, they've stopped ignoring us. They've stopped laughing at us. Now they're starting to fight us. This is progress.

Unfortunately, at national Libertarian Party headquarters, the efforts of State and local candidates still seem to be stuck back on Ignore.




*Whose words, thankfully, have been dropped from the masthead of most increasingly rabid websites in Delaware.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Thanks for completely and utterly missing the point. I point out that the ACLU and pro-life organizations are far more successful in achieving their goals than the LP because their STRATEGY is better.

As a pro-liberty conservative, it's not a matter of 'fighting you', it's more a matter of shaking my head at the LP's pinheaded inability to see the actual political consequences of what they do.

This was written in August 2008. I predicted spoilers and I was right.

This article CREDITED THE LP WITH A DEM VICTORY >..
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A699379

Not a SINGLE LP party candidate won in Texas, but liberal Democrats Diane Moldanoda and about 5 other LIBERAL DEMOCRATS won statehouse races.

Those state races meant more votes for higher taxes, nanny-statist anti-smoking bills, eco-extremism and other things libertarians abhor.

It would be fair to ignore a complaint about how the LP party is hurting the GOP as a party ... but that's not the point. The point is the LP is even hurting the cause of liberty.

United we (pro-liberty folks) stand, divided we fall.
Anonymous said…
"Not a SINGLE LP party candidate won in Texas, but liberal Democrats Diane Moldanoda and about 5 other LIBERAL DEMOCRATS won statehouse races."

To clarify - the LP acted as spoilers and in the process handed multiple races over to the Democrats.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...