There is another thread on this board which asks the question “will libertarianism ever be more than a fringe movement”? A few people have answered the question, but the thread has been dominated by the usual debate over libertarian philosophy.
So I have a very direct question: If indeed libertarians want to take their philosophy beyond the discussion and message board stage, what is the plan to make libertarianism a viable and successful political movement that competes, even successfully, for elected office and actual political power?
Is there any plan beyond discussion and holding forth on the internet?
Probably it will mostly just depend on a viable and centrist leader to emerge to lead the party. He (or she) will need to gain at least a mayoral position and do an impressive job gaining a lot of support and then move on to being governor of the state. This will bring in more centrist libertarians (and more fringe people as well of course) and give the party respect as a serious contender in the eyes of the public. Moving on to try and take the presidency can wait.
The main difficulty will be that if support for a libertarian platform grows, both or either of the two big parties can shift their base to follow and steal all those people back via having a larger budget and a viable presidential bid.
So really, unless one of the big parties begins to lose viability, it’s unlikely for a new party to come up. The presidential system of government isn’t favorable to more than a two party system.
Having people who proclaim themselves “libertarian” elected to office is not the only measure of success. There are not many elected officials who self-identify as liberal, and yet I don’t think that anyone would conclude therefore that “liberalism” as a political philosophy has no influence on the nation.
Having one or both major parties change their policies and/or platforms in order to attract a bloc of voters sounds a lot like “success” to me.
The challenge for libertarianism is not building a political mechanism: it’s getting its ideas disseminated and accepted. If more voters embrace the ideals of personal freedom and smaller government – not just in rhetoric, but as applied to actual issues – the political influence will come, one way or the other
I think my uncle may have hit the nail on the head.
The people of the USA are incompetant, when it comes time to vote.
Libertarians stand little chance. I nearly voted Libertarian straight ticket, but I really wanted Mitch Daniels gone, so I voted Democrat for Governor. Didn’t help.
I think everyone can agree that the Libertarian Party’s chances are pretty bad, but that’s not what the OP was asking. There’s no Neoconservative Party, yet the ascent of the neoconservative movement under Bush was clear. The nature of the two-party system is that movements within parties are more viable.
I doubt that government malpractice could get bad enough to make libertarian philosophy an attractive option. The typical voter doesn’t stand to gain anything from, say, abolishing social support agencies. It’s more attractive to argue that your opponents can’t do government properly than that nobody can.
If I’m correct in my notion that Libertarianism is essentially a philosophy of selfishness, then its adherants will never muster up enough coöperation and compromise to produce an effective movement.
As I recall, the Whigs had pretty much faded into oblivion. The Republicans (many former Whigs, as Lincoln was) simply filled a vacuum.
This is why you don’t understand Libertarianism. Self-interest != enlightened self-interest. There is no commandment not to cooperate towards a common goal; we just think the best way to go about it is to treat everyone equally and allow the greatest viable amount of personal freedom.
Regardless if it is called selfishness, self interest or enlightened self-interest, it all pretty much comes down to taking care of yourself and forgetting about the rest of the world. That type of thinking is the opposite of what you need to build a social or political movement.
BJMoose has hit the nail firmly upon its head.
I loved Smapti’s idea…
I can see it now…
Mother: Linus, why are you spending all that time on the computer? You really need to get out and meet a nice girl.
Linus: I’m a solider Mom. I am on the front lines bringing the revolution to America.
Mother: Soldier… revolution … you are 385 pounds and failed gym class four times in high school. What do you mean revolution?
Linus: Relax Mom - its the new libertarian strategy … we have all been assigned a message board to make 25 daily posts extolling the virutes of libertarian thought.
Mother: And which board do you have?
Linus: I have the “Love Your Golden Retriever” board… but if I do a good job I hope I can move up to Theforce.net. Thats where all the heavy hitters play.
Nitpick: Our current electoral system is not favorable to more than two parties. We could have a multiparty system without changing over to a parliamentary system. If we elected our presidents and other executives by instant runoff voting, it would make a difference. See also electoral fusion and proportional representation, both perfectly compatible with a separation-of-powers system.
These are all reforms in which Libertarians should be extremely interested – even if they present the risk of simultaneously opening the doors to the Socialists and the Greens and the Constitution Party.
Indeed. I very much support these and similar measures (I like what I’ve heard about Condorcet methods, too).
While it’s true that the Consitution does not demand it, it makes things harder than they could be, especially since it’s the *states *that are responsible for sending electors to Washington, so this reform would have to somehow be accepted everywhere.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: And if you don’t believe that Americans could ever support a third-party candidate, look at he success of Ross Perot in acquiring 20% of the vote, even in a system that practically guaranteed his loss (and despite the fact that he was a bit weird and had a laughable appearance).
I think you all three are wrong. Many Libertarian are libertarians because they believe in minimal violence. Have you ever thought that some may believe in individual altruism, and that they just do not like the violence, or threat of violence, involved in liberalism or any other economic and social system?
The “plan” seems to be to wait for the entire existing system to collapse catastrophically, so that everyone will come to the libertarians pleading for them to save us.
Any government, by its nature, uses violence or the threat of violence to enforce its social and economic policies. Could it be possible that some libertarians want to minimize this violence and the threat thereof thus desire less government? I am such a libertarian, I believe in helping others. I do not believe that using the force of arms to threaten others into helping others is correct. Thus I am a libertarian because I desire to minimize violence not out of an selfish ambition.