The Libertarian party is a party of principle. This fact is an enormous comfort to the party each election year when its candidates lose every major race. Being free from the burden of mattering, we can all be proud of the purity of our untested principles. OK, it is a little harsh to say that the Party does not matter. After all, occasionally one of its candidates may, in a tight race, siphon off just enough votes from the least abominable candidate to push the more abominable one over the top and on to Washington! Husah!

At some point though, even the purist must wonder just what it might be like to actually put a Libertarian into office and see our principles put into action and law. If you are among the select group for whom principle alone is wearing thin, then please take a moment to indulge me in an immodest proposal to overhaul the movement's playbook just a little.

Traditionally, the Libertarian party has run its campaigns along the following model. A candidate is chosen. A primary is usually not necessary, since the Libertarian living in each district can run unopposed. The candidate is often young and eager to indulge in political debate between jobs or classes, or older and eager to engage in political discussion between jobs or teaching classes. Upon cleaning out his couch cushions, the candidate has a campaign budget and then files the necessary paperwork to appear on the ballot. This is the crux of the campaign strategy, too, since appearing on the ballot will not only allow people to vote for the candidate, but it is also to be the candidate's big announcement of his campaign to most voters. "Huh! There's three people running for this office. Who knew? And what the Hell is the Librarian Party, anyway?" Chunk! One more Republicrat vote is cast.

Now, it's a good game plan -- don't get me wrong -- but as Dr. Phil would say "How's that working for you?" So in lieu of a billion dollars to get the Party rolling as a pure entity, allow me to contribute two observations to our plan for 2004:

1) The two party system is unfairly entrenched in law and habit. It is a self-protecting, self-perpetuating system that has managed to marginalize all third party competition for decades and it just got about 15 times stronger through the McCain/Finegold Incumbent Protection Act.

2) Wah! It doesn't matter. The two party system is an illusion.

It is an illusion because each party, in an effort to win 50% of the population's votes in every election, in every district, in every state, among every race, gender, industry, and income group, has had to turn itself into a big tent coalition consisting of individually self-interested and organized components. In effect, both parties resemble the multi-party parliamentary coalition governments of Europe. The only difference is that the coalitions must be formed up before the election and are very stable for that reason. But other than that, they even function like coalition governments once in office. One interest group is promised trade policy, another gets dibs on civil rights law, a third is given farm policy, and so on. The subparties even threaten to leave the coalitions when ignored or hungry for more power: Reagan Democrats, Southern Dixiecrats, Buchananite Republicans etc.

A further similarity is the way in which a dedicated and organized minority within each party can have a disproportionate influence upon the direction of the coalition as a whole and achieve goals that it could never otherwise. Conservative Christians, Neocon Republicans, Green Leftists, Black Democrats, Economic Socialists, Social Engineers and many, many others have -- at one time or another -- taken disproportionate control of one Party and achieved history altering goals that would have been laughable dreams had the groups organized themselves into independent parties.

Ponder, for a moment, the relative power of a 22-year-old self-declared "Vegan Ecowarrior" wearing a "Free the Cows!" T-shirt at a campus meeting for Ralph Nader, versus that same mental giant in New Hampshire at a Democratic Party Rally wearing an "I'm a Howard Deaniac" T-shirt. One is a cartoon character. The other is a future Washington staffer. It doesn't matter if Dean wins or loses. The kid is in the system.

This same option is open to the proponents of Libertarian ideas. We can continue to be a voice in the wilderness, or we can preach in the Temple and be heard. Consider the following thought experiment with me. A Libertarian candidate does "very well" in a general election and pulls in 6% of the vote. His supporters are educated, dedicated, and idealistic. He performed well in the one debate that he was allowed to attend, and large numbers of voters liked his message but did not want to "throw away their vote" on a third party.

Great job, but the net result is that the message is not advanced. The candidate lost by more than 90 percentage points and five minutes after the election he is back writing software code and trying to find time to write an article for National Review to reject. Hopeless.

Now consider the same candidate and his same level of support in a Republican primary (could be a Democrat primary as well, but in general Republicans are more attracted to Libertarian ideas, since small government is the inevitable result and we will never sell that to the party of The Nanny State). The district is evenly split between registered Republicans and registered Democrats, so his dedicated 6% of the vote has just become 12%. Turnout for primaries is usually under half of that for the general election, so the 12% is now 24%. The Libertarian candidate enters the primary with a larger body of core support than almost any other candidate could hope for. Now he is a viable candidate that can be seriously considered by all those who have found the Libertarian philosophy attractive in the past but could never bring themselves to vote for a Libertarian candidate in a general election and risk putting a Swedish Socialist in charge of the economy. Suddenly the Libertarian "joke" candidate is polling above 30%. Again he does well in the debates, he gets a little luck, his opponents stumble and voile! The Libertarian candidate wins the primary. It is frighteningly doable. The same candidate then goes into the general election with party money, advice, consultants, support, even ADVERTISING. He is still the same man, his belief in liberty is still resolute, but now he could actually be a US Representative. Now people know his name. They hear his message. He makes converts. Undreamable possibilities are still remote, but dreamable at least.

All it will take is for the Libertarians of this country to start thinking of themselves as The Libertarian Party and Caucus, rather than solely as The Libertarian Party. Like the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Labor Unions, and a gaggle of lobbying interests, the Libertarians of this country can leverage their dedication into an influence well beyond their numbers by forcing the two great coalition parties to begin competing for their votes, campaign work, and donations. The Libertarian Party can still run candidates under its own flag, but it can also begin acknowledging candidates of Libertarian beliefs running under other flags. Think of it as a Two and a Half Party system.

This is not just a mental exercise either. If you agree with this philosophy "that Libertarian ideals are more important than the Libertarian Party" then you can support this experiment in the here and now. Libertarian thinkers have entered into the two party system many times over the years. The response of the Libertarian Party has generally been to declare such people lost sheep or even traitors. That should end. Instead, we should support candidates like Andrew Horning.

Horning has run as a Libertarian candidate in Indiana several times. He has run for Indianapolis Mayor, State Governor and US Representative from the 7th Congressional District. He has been the most effective Libertarian candidate in the state, in my opinion, always generating interest far beyond his means. Andrew Horning is running in the 7th district again, but this time he is running as a Republican. You see, Andrew Horning wants to win and he has a real chance. The 2002 7th district Republican primary was voted in by only 26,000 people. Horning was able to garner 4000 votes in the general election. This was an absolutely remarkable feat given that the race was very tight and the Republicans of the district believed they actually had a chance to unseat the Big Government incumbent, Julia Carson, due to redistricting. Horning's 4000 votes therefore were composed only of his core supporters and I imagine that more than a few of those were peeled off by the prospect of defeating Carson. If only 200-300 of those supporters get involved in his campaign early, Horning has a real shot at being the nominee. If a fraction of Libertarians statewide or nationwide donate even a pittance to his campaign, Horning will be the nominee.

At some point we need to decide to win. Andrew Horning has figured this out and the rest of us should learn from his example.

© Copyright 2001-2010 John Hawkins
	hit counter