Skip to main content

kavips on the importance of third-party voices in political debates

I won't have to note this for Delaware readers, but for my out-of-state Libertarian visitors, progressive blogger kavips (who is rightly considered one of the intellectual heavyweights in the DE blogger mafia) has taken up the issue of third-party treatment (using Libertarians as the example) in the current political year.

From Don’t Even Say It: kavips found a Common Thread Between Libertarians and Dennis Spivack:

What I am comparing in my title above, are the numerous long articles detailing the plight of Libertarian candidates across this country, to the controversy reported ably in Down with Absolutes back in 2006, where candidate Spivack objected to allowing the Green’s third party candidate to participate in a debate. Spivack did not want his message watered down; Castle obviously benefited from having the Spivack message watered down, and a Green Party walkout ensued, which looked just petty. Spivack lost points in that exchange. Two years later, I think we can safely say: it was petty. Castle won that round…

But today Libertarians are facing challenges all across this country. Many of them are sharp candidates, better mentally prepared, than the party regulars with which they are competing…..

I think we can learn from this year’s unlimited number of Presidential Debates. The debates were better when there were more candidates debating. In fact, I remember someone feeling strongly that ABC should be boycotted for Jerry-Springertizing one of the later debates. Early in a campaign, ideas should be the star. Later its the candidates turn…. The best example of a third party influencing the entire election, would be the 20% Ross Perot garnered in 1992. He controlled the topics which were discussed, and neither candidate got a chance to derail the topic from what America needed to hear. To this day, I firmly believe it was Ross Perot who gave us our balance budget in 1999, by making it a campaign issue that had to be accepted by a major party, therefore get acted upon. I do not remember Bill Clinton having any intention of balancing the budget until he started getting outflanked by Perot….

The benefit of having a third party candidate, is that no gentleman’s or gentle-woman’s agreement “not to discuss” certain controversial topics, can continue. The issues seeking redress, get asked by the 3rd party candidate who has nothing to lose…… I have become convinced that limiting a third party candidate like Michael Munger in North Carolina, from speaking in debates, limits the quality of the entire campaign as a whole. There is no accountability with either of the two primary party candidates……


There are several hurdles that Libertarian and other third-party candidates must overcome before they get truly into the mainstream in open competition with the Demopublican monopoly:

1) Sustained, regular coverage of Libertarian candidates as serious contenders rather than curiosities in the mainstream media, such as is occurring in North Carolina and Georgia for candidates like Mike Munger and Allen Buckley, but is not yet happening for Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root.

2) Regular, reported inclusion in polls, which is happening in North Carolina (but not Georgia) and to the Libertarian presidential ticket.

3) Attention in major political blogs as legitimate participants in the public debate, which is beginning to happen everywhere, as the one ideal that seems to unite conservative and progressive bloggers alike is a commitment to open government and a fair electoral process.

4) Inclusion in the major candidate forums and debates, which has happened in Georgia and Wyoming, but not yet in North Carolina or the Presidential debates.

To kavips, to BlueNC, and to all the other bloggers who are not Libertarians, but whose sense of fairness and commitment to the best possible public examination of all options and candidates, please accept our thanks: you're helping us make a difference.

Comments

Anonymous said…
(you can now erase the "David" since it no longer is reflected in the original post....

I wouldn't want my faux paux to insult more North Carolinians...)

By the way, thank you for the mention.

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 ...