Posted on 10/25/2004 8:15:35 AM PDT by Mike Fieschko
Dear Libertarian:As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972, and was the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in 1972. I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year -- more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party -- I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans.
There is a belief that’s common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties -- between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty.
The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a transformation in recent years; moderate, pro- American, and strong defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the Democratic Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of the contemporary Democratic Party.
Today’s Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it, including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is construed as a defeat for them.
The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property. It is opposed to free speech – witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and Kerry’s threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will call it “defending human rights.” This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents.
There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing violence against Republican campaign headquarters all over the country, and Democrat thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. Yet not a word about it from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous trend to increase dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly accepted by the liberal-left mainstream media. This is an ominous sign of worse things to come.
Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed repeatedly in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on the United Nations than on the United States: for example he favors the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and opposed the withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. He has been quoted as saying that it is honorable for those in the U.S. military to die under the flag of the U.N. but not that of the U.S. Presumably he and a small cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, via the U.N. or some other world body which will make all decisions for the whole world concerning private property, the use of our military, gun ownership, taxation, and environmental policy (to name a few). In his thirty-year career he has demonstrated utter contempt for America, national security, constitutional republicanism, democracy, private property, and free markets.
His wife’s foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry administration.
Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming election via a legal coup, e.g. to claim victory on election night no matter what the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere and everywhere they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a mockery of our election process, throwing the entire process into chaos -- possibly for months -- and significantly weakening our ability to conduct foreign policy and protect ourselves domestically. Let me repeat: we are facing the very real possibility of a political coup occurring in America. Al Gore very nearly got away with one in 2000. Do not underestimate what Kerry and his ilk are going to attempt to do to America.
George Bush has been criticized for many things – and in many cases with justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the First Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on failing to protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great virtue, however, is that he has stood up -- knowingly at grave risk to his political viability -- to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property. Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence, to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with “the big one”: 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. and indeed to the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s involving weapons of mass destruction, including “suitcase” nuclear devices.
Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens the world just as Nazi fascism and Soviet communism did in previous decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.
The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal with the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot Act seem to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on reality). But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face of it, and in spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation campaign that any American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam’s regime is no longer a major player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah. Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude safer.
National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I attended in l962, in response to complaints that “taxes are too high” (then 20%), “Pay 80% if you need it for defense.” It is not the amount but the purpose served that decides what is “too much.” And the purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face of vastly increased threats to its existence.
Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other projects in the wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. For example:
(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax. If such a change were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of liberty and prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry.
(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone, could bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it would make his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has already repudiated any such change in social security laws.
The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans, who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political misconceptions. It will involve a near-total restructuring of the educational system, which today serves the liberal-left education bureaucracy and Democratic Party, not the student or parent. It will require a merciless and continuous expose of the bias in the mainstream media (the Internet, blogs, and talk radio have been extremely successful in this regard over the past few years). And it will require understanding the influence and importance of the Teresa Kerry-like Foundations who work in the shadows to undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances.
Most of all, it will require the American people -- including many libertarians – to realize the overwhelming dangerousness of the American Left – a Fifth Column comprised of the elements mentioned above, dedicated to achieving their goal of a totally internationally dominated America, and a true world- wide Fascism.
Thus far their long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide, and along the way it might well succeed in preserving Western civilization against the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, and may shortly have the weapons capability, to bring it to an end.
When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a ‘minor party’ candidate who cannot possibly win, just to “get the word out” and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical “Battle Ground” states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.
We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote Libertarian, we may win a tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.
John Hospers
Los Angeles, CA
Astounding!! I have voted for the Libertarian candidate(s) since 1976 and have only recently abandoned them. John Hospers has spelled out exactly why. THIS needs to be published everywhere as well.
ping
Bump
Well said.
"Astounding!! I have voted for the Libertarian candidate(s) since 1976 and have only recently abandoned them."
This is my voting pattern also. I more closely adhere to Libertarian principles than R or D, but Sept. 11, 2001 changed everything for me. I can no longer afford a vanity vote to promote a more than two party system. The security and future direction of America is too important at this time.
Please heed his plea and vote for Bush.
I already have. Proudly!
I'm pretty much right there with you. I understand, from a philosophical standpoint how open borders (i.e., freedom to travel) would be a an issue of percieved greater liberty, but it just doesn't work because controlling borders is important from a sovereignty POV. I'm not willing to die for that little bit of ideological purity.
I'm still 90% libertarian in my outlook, (I was born that way), but as long as the LP can't support this war of survival, the party can't have my support.
Below is the text posted to the Free Republic site which purports to be a letter from John Hospers. I do not know if it is genuine, but the sentiments expressed reflect concerns expressed by many who call themselves Libertarians, and so, I believe that they require a thoughtful response. Interspersed below within the text are my reactions:
>LIBERTARIAN PARTY FOUNDER ENDORSES BUSH
>Free Republic
>LIBERTARIAN PARTY FOUNDER ENDORSES BUSH
>AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL LIBERTARIANS | 10-24-2004 | Dr. John Hospers
>Posted on 10/24/2004 10:37:30 AM PDT by Y2Krap
>LIBERTARIAN PARTY FOUNDER ENDORSES BUSH
>From Elder Statesman John Hospers * * *
>AN OPEN LETTER TO LIBERTARIANS
>Dear Libertarian:
>As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first
>presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972, and was >the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing
>libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party's
>Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention
>in 1972.
For which I heartily thank you. My first vote for President was for John Hospers (Even tho it was a write-in that got lost in the "voids"), and I have been proud to vote for our Libertarian Presidential candidates ever since. I also thank you for the glorious Statement of Principles, and urge all Libertarians to prevent it from being watered down by mealy mouthed soft-peddlers.
I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but >this year -- more than any year since the establishment of the
>Libertarian Party -- I have major concerns about the choices open to
>us as voting Americans.
>There is a belief that's common among many libertarians that there is >no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties -- >between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse:
>that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion
>could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to
>the cause of liberty.
>The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly
>realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current
>campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the
>International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill
>Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of >the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a
>transformation in recent years; moderate, pro-American, and strong
>defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson >are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party
>belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the
>Democratic Socialists of America.
>That caucus is the heart and soul of the contemporary Democratic
>Party.
>Today's Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that
>they are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve >it, including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; >for them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is
>construed as a defeat for them.
How interesting that Hospers didn't voice these concerns when he ran in 1972 against Richard Nixon and George McGovern. How much different were the Democrats in 1972 from the Democrats of 2004? Yet, John Hospers saw fit, in a time of war, to challenge a sitting Republican on principle. What has changed?
>The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists,
>radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government
>employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise
>the Constitution and loath private property. It is opposed to free
>speech; witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation >on college campuses, and Kerry's threat to sue television stations
>that carry the Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats >will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints,
>particularly on talk radio and in the university system. They will
>attempt to enact "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws and re-institute >the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations
>designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political >adversaries. They will call it "defending human rights." This sort of >activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice
>Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a
>weapon to use against opponents.
Again, the Democrats were doing all that crap in 1972. What else is new? Remember the so-called "free speech" movement at schools like Columbia, and UC at Berkeley?
>There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing
>violence against Republican campaign headquarters all over the
>country, and Democrat thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. >Yet not a word about it from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous >trend to increase dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly
>accepted by the liberal-left mainstream media.
Harassment is not a new Democratic tactic. Ballot boxes were stuffed in Chicago from time immemorial. The Ku Klux Klan delivered the South to the Democrats for many years. Yet Hospers saw fit to dismiss both Democrats and Republicans in 1972.
>This is ominous sign of worse things to come.
>Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us
>that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed
>repeatedly in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military
>establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on >the United Nations than on the United States: for example he favors
>the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and opposed the >withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. He has been
>quoted as saying that it is honorable for those in the U.S. military
>to die under the flag of the U.N. but not that of the U.S. Presumably >he and a small cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, via the
>U.N. or some other world body which will make all decisions for the
>whole world concerning private property, the use of our military, gun >ownership, taxation, and environmental policy (to name a few). In his >thirty-year career he has demonstrated utter contempt for America,
>national security, constitutional republicanism, democracy, private
>property, and free markets.
All this crap has been going on for a very long time. All of its precursors were in place, and their advocates were in full throated roar in 1972. Yet, Hospers saw fit to go the third party route.
>His wife's foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left
>organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian
>principles.
>Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency to the >American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry
>administration.
Again, fat cat foundations were subsidizing the leftist screamers even in 1972.
>Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming
>election via a legal coup, e.g. to claim victory on election night no >matter what the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere
>and everywhere they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a
>mockery of our election process, throwing the entire process into
>chaos -- possibly for months -- and significantly weakening our
>ability to conduct foreign policy and protect ourselves domestically. >Let me repeat: we are facing the very real possibility of a political >coup occurring in America. Al Gore very nearly got away with one
>in 2000. Do not underestimate what Kerry and his ilk are going to
>attempt to do to America.
If George McGovern had been even close to winning in 1972, his screeching, screaming followers would have pursued a coup. Indeed, in a sense, they did: the Watergate affair WAS a coup. Yet, John Hospers did not shed a tear for the hapless Nixon.
>George Bush has been criticized for many things; and in many cases
>with
>justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the First
>Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on
>failing to protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or
>conservative would fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great
>virtue, however, is that he has stood up -- knowingly at grave risk to >his political viability -- to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford,
>Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their
>administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property.
>Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as
>bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence, >to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with >"the big one:" 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than >a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. and indeed >to the entire civilized world long before his administration. He
>decided that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s >involving weapons of mass destruction, including "suitcase" nuclear
>devices.
This is one of the most serious issues raised in the Hosper's letter. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and concede that Bush has responded more forcefully to terrorism than his predecessors. I'll even overlook the fact that Bush's concern didn't blossom until after 9/11. However, Bush's actual reactions to terrorism should not be considered beyond criticism just because those reactions were more gutsy than his predecessors. One may find good cause in attacking Afghanistan for harboring Ben Laden, but is hard pressed to find good cause in attacking Iraq.
>Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens >the world just as Nazis fascism and Soviet communism did in previous
>decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-
>Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in
>wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of
>nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the >same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal
>religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.
I don't deny it. But, many Americans were dismissive of Nazism and Communism in the past as well. Many of McGovern's supporters in 1972 Pooh-poohed the Commie threat, even when the Viet Cong were blasting our troops. Again, this didn't hinder Hospers from speaking his mind in 1972.
>The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal
>with the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot > Act seem to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than >on reality). But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face >of it, and in spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation
>campaign that any American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is >no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam's regime is no longer a >major player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished
>their weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass
>destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah.
>Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands >of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude
>safer.
Past wars were used to justify "States of Emergency" whose ulterior motive was to expand state power. Vigilance and history compels us to look hard on things like the "Patriot Act." Hospers, of all people, should know this.
As for whether we are safer as a result of Bush's wide ranging interventions, the jury is still out. Iran and North Korea have responded with "full speed ahead" nuclear programs. Syria has profited from Iraq's demise. Gains are balanced with losses elsewhere.
>National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely
>excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a >party I attended in l962, in response to complaints that "taxes are
>too high" (then 20%), "Pay 80% if you need it for defense." It is not >the amount but the purpose served that decides what is "too much." And >the purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the >face of vastly increased threats to its existence.
It has been truly said "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute." However, the volume of expenditure doesn't compensate for money that is poorly misspent. Afghanistan may have been worth the cost; Iraq much less so.
>Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These
>cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all
>economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs
>have been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other
>projects in the wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. >For example:
>(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning >whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax. If such a
>change were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of >liberty and prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry.
>(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone,
>could bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it
>would make his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has >already repudiated any such change in social security laws.
This is the real value of a Libertarian Party. The ideas of cutting taxes and privatizing social security weren't hatched in the Republican Party. There was no incentive for these things before the Libertarian Party came on the scene. The motivation to pursue them will vanish if the Libertarian Party disappears.
>The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a
>completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes
>time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans, >who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political
>misconceptions. It will involve a near-total restructuring of the
>educational system, which today serves the liberal-left
>education bureaucracy and Democratic Party, not the student or parent. >It will require a merciless and continuous expose of the bias in the
>mainstream media (the Internet, blogs, and talk radio have been
>extremely successful in this regard over the past few years). And it
>will require understanding the influence and importance of the Teresa >Kerry-like Foundations who work in the shadows to undermine our
>constitutional system of checks and balances.
All of these conditions were even worse in 1972 when Hospers ran. I have seen the mind set of many Americans change since then. I believe that the Libertarian Party has been instrumental in this. The value of the party as an educational vehicle has been underestimated by everyone, including Libertarians.
>Most of all, it will require the American people -- including many
>libertarians to realize the overwhelming dangerousness of the American >Left; a Fifth Column comprised of the elements mentioned above,
>dedicated to achieving their goal of a totally internationally
>dominated America, and a true world-wide Fascism.
>Thus far their long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry
>presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-
>funded cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency
>would help to stem this tide, and along the way it might well succeed >in preserving Western civilization against the fanatic Islamo-fascists >who have the will, and may shortly have the weapons capability, to
>bring it to an end.
People said this about McGovern versus Nixon in 1972. Among them, Hosper's hero Ayn Rand. Yet, he chose to run as a Libertarian.
>When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even
>desirable, to vote for a "minor party" candidate who cannot possibly
>win, just to "get the word out" and to promote the ideals for which
>that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in
>this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the
>candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one
>available who has the most favorable chance of winning.
Again, people said this in 1972. What's different?
>The forthcoming
>election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats >that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the
>election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make
>the difference as to who wins in various critical "Battle Ground"
>states and therefore the presidency itself.
God, I hope so. It's one of the most useful things we can do. Only then will the other parties feel compelled to give our views a hearing!
>That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is >why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing >we can do.
The most libertarian thing you can do is vote Libertarian. You cannot get what you want if you don't ask for it. And, if you vote for anything or anyone else, no one knows why.
>We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of >liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty >and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the >Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote libertarian, we may win a
>tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.
True, the party is a means to an end, not an end in itself. But that end cannot be realized if our vote becomes a means to some other party's end.
>John Hospers
>Los Angeles, CA
-Walter Ziobro
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr
Consulting, LLC.
This libertarian already cast his vote via his absentee ballot. Wasn't for Bush.
I wrote Mr. Hospers back c/o johnhospers@sprintmail.com
I also sent him a pre-emptive letter of apology in case the piece was not written by him, but was instead another GOP dirty trick.
Mr. Hospers...
I have just read your "Open Letter to Libertarians" with slack-jawed horror. Your promotion of Bush at the expense of Kerry is one of the most insulting things ever to come out of a libertarian typewriter. You need to immediately disassociate yourself from the name, the cause, and the party of remaining "Libertarians."
Thankfully, this election, few people will listen to you. But I did, and I feel like giving you a brow-beating. I'm only sounding as strident as I do to match your own illogical, almost hateful tone.
I had wanted this letter to be about 10 pages. Going paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, and point by point to refute your unbelievable assertions. You are probably too busy to read them. If you'd like, I could continue in another letter, if you desire to keep your mind open, as I do mine...every day.
It is with this open mind that I have learned all that I could. I've educated myself on all party's platforms, the real dialogue as well as the polarizing force-feeding done in the name of "Party Politics" (translate: Democrat/Republican). I have gone to the websites, the articles, the people. I've read behind the news stories, the ones fictionalized by Bush as well as real news stories. I've gone to the heart of the SYSTEM of politics, as well as what we commonly call politics. As such, I've identified myself as a left-leaning Libertarian independent. I disagree with parts or all of every party, not just the major ones. And I realize that my individual perspective is just that. That I have to play ball with the balance of the country. And I go to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, those near-perfect documents for sustenance and perspective. As I know you do.
For every blast you make against Kerry and the Democratic Party, I could give you 3 similar blasts back at the Republicans and Bush. Whatever you accuse the Dems of, the Bush Boys have done, even worse. It's politics, professor, and we're all used to the way they play it. Bush's people just play it much, much dirtier. For every attack you make on the "5th Column Left" (a noxious term) I could give you two back for the "5th Column Right." (though I'd never stoop to such a propagandizing misnomer). Those fundamentalist neo-con anything-but-conservative single-issue button-pushers who have co-opted the true Republican Party, the true conservative cause are at best, equally bad. I feel that they are significantly worse to the average American. I could go on and on with specifics, and maybe you've heard it all, but never from one who ostensibly agrees with you on principle.
You have done a great disservice to the BIG CAUSE. Whatever your apologies as to "the tiny rhetorical battle" having to be put off in favor of "most favorable chance of winning," you have undermined the larger cause and your own principles. That is not the Libertarian way. You might believe that Bush is a better Libertarian than Kerry, others disagree. I think they're both way off, and I think a lot of the country thinks they're both way off, and every time you get an individual to take a poll on issues, they are more in line with Libertarians than anyone. That's a true start.
The system is unfair, undemocratic, and unrepresentative. The way political campaigns and elections are funded and carried out is unfair at every step. Financing, ballot access, primaries, debates, media, returns, it's all a sham, designed to keep all the power with the two parties. And what do we get? We get two watered-down candidates that no one really wants. They just don't want the other guy.
The fight to change the system seems overwhelming. I've proudly "wasted" my vote on 3rd party fringe candidates and independents my whole life. And worked where I can to advance systemic change, locally as well as nationally. And where are we now? In blue states, and red states, and swing states, in which despite the propaganda, our votes don't really count or matter. The biggest lie in this country is the one we tell our kids: "Anyone can become President."
The second biggest is "your vote counts." How does it count when 50% don't feel impelled to vote, and the ones who do vote don't vote for who they want to win?
So what does the former head of the Libertarian party cry: "Waah, waah, I don't like Kerry, so vote Bush." You are now...part of the problem, and my new adversary. Just like the PARTIES want you to be.
Face it. You sold out. Shame on you.
(name)
(RED STATE)
More on Hospers...
Reprinted from Badnarik for Pres. Libertarian site:
http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/25/in-response-to-benedict-arnold/
REPORT on DISCUSSIONs with Dr. Hospers.
"I spoke with John from 9pm to 4:30 a.m. the night Oct. 25th-26th, 2004. He was on the phone speaking to a Libertarian from East Coast as I knocked on his Hollywood Hills Door. Only a young nephew is now living with John Hospers.
He can’t answer all the emails and phone calls. But he said tells all who inquire, that he did indeed author the letter. But he told me: Bush is better than Kerry, because Islamic [murdering] extremists are the greatest threat to Liberty. Hospers was bsolutely “fixated” on “Islamic extremists intent on killing
every non-Islamic person in the world".
This “threat trumps all other concerns".
I attempted to reason with Dr. Hospers from several angles of logic, but logic
seemed not to work. “Only Bush perceives
the great danger” was his reply.
After more than 8 hours of two way discussion, I concluded, that Dr. Hospers, has been isolated too long! He was unaware that David Cobb and Michael Badnarik had been arrested, unaware of several of the Patriot Act provisions, and numberous other factoids that most Libertarians knew for fact. He was not sure that Badnarik had been arrested at St. Louis, but was for the sake of arguement willing to take my word for it, without conceding it as a fact, known to be true.
My Conclusion:
Dr. John Hospers, is not in the same mental level of sharpness, he was even 3 years ago when I did a Tv interview for a documentary on the Libertarian Party with him at the 2001 San Jose Ca. State Convention. Randy Debber is more the author of the “Hospers” “Open Letter", than Dr. John Hospers, even though John
is quick to claim “credit” for it, while acknowledging “it probably won’t change many minds, least of all Libertarians".
Lastly, Dr. Hospers is now of somewhat fragil physical condition. He is certainly in a state of decline, but still wanting to not be forgotten… to have some impact … to save us all from
murdering Islamic extremists. Many elderly become obsessed with “security” as they become less able to care for themselves.
Therefore, even though a very aged Dr. Hospers accepts credit for the “Open Letter", I conclude Randy Debber used his knowledge of Dr. Hospers current condition and proclivities, and worries to put Dr. Hospers name on a document, that Debber coached out of Hospers. Dr. Hospers did indeed write his concerns in the letter, and will acknowledge that Dr. John Hospers considers Cheney the real brains, and Bush a bad debater and “not too bright", but still feels that “Kerry will not stop the Islamic Extremist intend on murder every non-islamic even in America".
He finally stated, that he did NOT think his “open Letter” would do much to bring Bush votes, but felt impelled to do it, when asked by a certain, Randy Debber. Finally, by way of long discussion, Prof Hospers let out that Debber had written the final draft, and Randy Debber had sent the email, because supposedly John is not computer savy [according also to what Mr. Debber emailed].
I indicated that since Kerry will sweep California, his letter will do no go whatsoEver since all CA electorial votes in the Electorial college will go to Kerry, even if Every BADNARIK supporter defected to Bush. Dr. Hospers agreed and acknowedged that, but stated he hoped it would reach Libertarians on “independant” voters in battleground states. Dr. john Hospers in the course of 8 hours stated, that the Libertarian Party was not even a blimp on the political radar screen as far as Presidential things go. then why bother to write a Open letter? John “hoped” it might do some good, while acknowledging, again, he probably did not change any votes.
For a man whose life was centered around rational thought, I felt I was talking only to a shadow of that mental giant. Logic, reason, were absent. The clich’es of logic and reason were there, but not the actual substance.
So I conclude, the Letter IS a FAKE, in that without Randy Debber, it would never have been. John Hospers has his own PC and is still capable of using it, and still answers some email, but DEBBER is the one who SENT the “open Letter".
Randy Debber, whom I have never met, and never heard of until I tracked down the Email author is in my view, the author of the John Hospers “OPEN LETTER”
John will stand there and tell you it is his, but I think what John Hospers wants most, is not to be forgotten, while he is still alive. He talks about Islamic Extremists, yes. But I think if he had met Mr. BADNARIK, and been invited to any discussion, Randy Debber would not have been able to get this aging elder philosopher to put his name on this letter. There is more to say, in detail, but this is my conclusion after more 8 hours of discussion.
What Randy Debbers motive was or is in this, I can only speculate, and that I won’t do.
William “B.J.” Wagener
I am a registered Libertarian-- and I am VOTING FOR BUSH. Loudly and proudly. This is no time to be involved in shades of grey-- Bush is a proven hawk on the WOT, Kerry is......????
Phony. That's what he is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.