Skip to main content

Astounding: A Post in Libertarian Republican that I can actually recommend reading....

....although, sorry to say, Eric, you didn't write it.

I'm referring to Kevin Tracy's Libertarian Bob Barr will have an enormous impact on the Republican Party for years to come, even if he loses the race for the Presidency. {FYI, Kevin, got to cut down those titles].

This post is intriguing in that it parallels a Jeremy Lott argument about which I posted back in early June. There Lott argued that Ralph Nader's 2000 success in crippling Al Gore's campaign essentially forced the Democratic Party to spend the next eight years moving closer to his beliefs.

Tracy is essentially saying the same thing about the Barr candidacy: assuming that McCain loses and Barr is attributed with at least some major share of his defeat, the GOP is going to have to move in the direction of trying to win back the Libertarian wing it has shit on in favor of the social conservatives for the past decade or so.

This, in itself, is interesting, but the true value of Tracy's post may lie in a single sentence:

Well, believe it or not, most of the world doesn’t live under a “two-party system.”


By world Tracy means democratic nations, and his prime example is India:

In India, for example, there are countless political parties divided along political, ethnic, regional, and ideological lines.

As a result of the complex multi-party system, it is absolutely impossible for any single political party to take control of the government. So in order to accomplish anything, political parties have to come together, compromise, negotiate, and find a solid solution to whatever problem they are trying to solve.

At the same time, Indian politics still very much resemble ours. That’s because the largest political parties have organized “coalitions.”


This raises an interesting question: if Tracy is right, and in the aftermath of a McCain loss the GOP comes calling on Libertarians, wouldn't the most innovative response be: OK, you want us? Fine, but this time we're retaining our own party structure as a coalition partner.

What would happen if the Libertarian Party said to the GOP: we'll caucus with you in Congress, but the price is that you have to agree that in the following ten House districts you won't support a Republican against our Libertarian candidate.

Well, we all know what would happen. Still, it would be nice to see Karl Rove with an aneurism, don't you think?

Comments

The flip side of India is, of course, Italy and Israel, where the multiplicity of parties breeds weak coalitions that break down after a coupe of years.
Anonymous said…
Only problem is that Barr isn't a Libertarian, so if he makes McCain lose, the GOP will just have to get closer to itself...

Since Barr isn't running on anything that the LP has wanted in it's stands for years (Barr has plenty of evidence of support for foreign invasions BTW) so the GOP doesn't have any reason to move in our direction to get the Barroids to support them... (All they have to do is run a candidate that is less of a reject than McCain...)

ART
LP Presidential Elector, NOT voting for Barr!

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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...