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 — ...

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 ...