why the Libertarian Party Fails

Many in America’s freedom movement still hope that the Libertarian Party will one day become a power on the political scene to challenge the Democrat-Republican monolith. But in 42 years it hasn’t happened, and it probably won’t happen. There are some very distinct reasons why the LP and all other alternative / independent parties fail. This essay will examine them.

Let’s take, for example, the top independent parties out there: the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Even though each of them haveappeared at times to be a start toward genuine political reform, they repeatedly fail because they have structured themselves upon the mistake of instant idealism, which leads to their marginalization.

This mistake is made because these two parties both have “ideal visions” of the way they feel society should be politically organized, and they attempt to implement their visions all at once through the political process. They ignore the fact that politics is a game of incrementalism, that it is not an arena in which an “ideal society” can suddenly be voted into place. Because they try to do this, they are perceived by the public as not living in the real world.

For example, when asked what tax policy they advocate for the country, libertarians reply that the income tax should be abolished and government should be stripped down to a minimal state that can exist upon excise taxes and tariffs. This would be the limited government that the Founders advocated, which, of course, would be wonderful to have. But it is not a credible political platform to be gained through a political campaign today. It is rather an “ideal” that we can approach over the next 50-100 years. The members of the Constitution Party respond in the same way. Both of these parties wish to instantly implement their visions of the ideal. There is no acceptance of the need for incrementalism upon which all of politics is based.

As a result, both of these parties frighten the electorate with dissolution of the welfare state. Consequently they are marginalized as foolishly utopian. They end up getting at best 1% of the vote on Election Day. They remain obscure fringe voices. No national media pursue them, no nationally prominent candidates seek to run under their banner, no big money flows into their coffers, and most importantly they are never invited to the national TV presidential debates.

This is the crucial mistake that any independent party challenge of the establishment must avoid: instant idealism. If an independent party wishes to become viable and succeed, it must offer radical enough change to separate itself from the Democrat-Republican monopoly, but not so radical that it frightens the voters and becomes marginalized.

This is how the National Independent Party (www.afr.org) is structured. Its Four Pillars of Reform for our tax, monetary, immigration, and foreign policy systems will stop the growth of government, but will not create fear among the voters and lead to marginalization. This will allow the party to attract a nationally prominent candidate to head the ticket who can command 30% plus in the polls (like Ross Perot in 1992), which will mandate that he be invited to participate in the national TV presidential debates. This will bring major media to hang out on his front doorstep as well as major money into the campaign’s coffers.

To bring this about will require a blend of idealism and practicality, which means incremental policy proposals. For example, the National Independent Party candidate cannot campaign on “ending the income tax and the Fed” like Ron Paul did. This will marginalize him (as it did Ron Paul) and bring him only 10%-12% of the vote, which will keep him out of the national TV presidential debates. Absence from the debates guarantees failure.

What needs to be done is to recruit a prominent free-market conservative ticket such as Ted Cruz (President) and Michelle Bachmann (Vice-President) to campaign on the Four Pillars of Reform upon which the National Independent Party is structured. These Four Pillars are:

1) Enact a simplified 15% flat tax, explaining that it is the only tax compatible with our founding principle – “equal rights under the law.” By ending progressive tax rates, we will stop the redistribution of wealth that allows government to grow so relentlessly.

2) Enact Milton Friedman’s 4% auto-expansion plan for the Federal Reserve. By ending the arbitrary expansion of money by the FOMC, we will reduce annual price inflation in our economy to zero.

3) Vigorously crack down on illegal immigration by eliminating the magnets of jobs, welfare services, education, etc. that draw illegals to America. No amnesty will be granted; self-deportation will be implemented.

4) End our militaristic, police-the-world foreign policy that is bankrupting us both financially and morally. The dangers to America do not lie in foreign lands; they lie here at home in Washington.

The above four reforms do not achieve the ideal. But they will dramatically stop the runaway freight train of government growth and restore freedom and sanity to America.

Yes, Ron Paul is right. We eventually need to abolish the income tax and the Fed. But this will take 40 years to bring about, maybe longer. A whole new generation of scholars and pundits will have to be ushered in to educate the people as to the merits of such goals. These proposals are not something that a political candidate can base his campaign on today if he wishes to get into the national TV presidential debates, which he must do if he intends to be effective. No candidate or party has a chance unless they are in the debates.

This means the national “election” debates, not the primary “nomination” debates. The primary nomination debates, are viewed by only about 15 million viewers on cable TV and are minor league affairs. Also they are not mandated to give equal time to all candidates. Thus the statist moderators can ignore a freedom candidate, which is what they did to Ron Paul.

The national election debates, with 70 million viewers, are carried by the major networks and are big league affairs. Also they are mandated to give equal time to all candidates. A freedom candidate cannot be ignored. This is why the national debates are so important in the fight to save freedom; they give us a means to dramatically reach the people.

The Libertarian and Constitution Parties appear to be oblivious to these crucial facts of reality about politics in America. As a result they get only 1% of the vote on Election Day. If freedom is to be saved, it cannot be marginalized. It must be portrayed in a sane, non-threatening manner. Unfortunately, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties do not do this, and consequently they fail.

Tragically our media pundits don’t think these things through and, thus, ritualistically condemn alternative / independent political parties to the American people. They fail to see that it is not independent parties that “will never work.” It is independent parties that marginalize themselves that will never work.

Avoid marginalization, and an independent party challenge to the Democrat-Republican monopoly would sweep to victory. The American people are ready for such a challenge. The latest Gallup poll in January of 2014 shows that 42% of voters identify as “independent,” while only 31% identify as Democrats and 25% as Republicans.

The people are overwhelmingly with us, but just don’t know it yet because nobody has come along to explain it to them. This is what a National Independent Party ticket (such as Cruz and Bachmann) would do. Subconsciously Americans are sick to death with the Democrat-Republican monolith. An NIP candidate will bring all this to the surface in tens of millions of voters.

Ross Perot showed us the way strategically in 1992. By getting into the national TV presidential debates, a candidate can tap into the massive antagonism toward the Democrat-Republican monopoly lurking in the American voters’ minds. All we need to do to improve on Perot’s performance (and win) is run a nationally prominent conservative candidate that espouses “freedom” instead of the “vague reformism” that Perot preached. The American people are ready for this. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, this revolution is coming to America. Victor Hugo said it best: “There is nothing more powerful in history than an idea whose time has come.”

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. His articles have appeared over the past 20 years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values

I have known too may “Libertarians” that were “sexual libertarians” but who wanted this and that government program that benefited them...

Also the Open borders and Free trade morons that don;t understand that free trade and open borders work well enough with Canada and the UK, but really stink on ice when used with countries that are a far ways behind us (think Mexico and South America) or have social policies that are draconian, ie,. China.....

[ 1) Enact a simplified 15% flat tax, explaining that it is the only tax compatible with our founding principle – “equal rights under the law.” By ending progressive tax rates, we will stop the redistribution of wealth that allows government to grow so relentlessly. ]

I would rather have a lower flat tax with a flat Tariff to make up the difference so the total adds up to 15%, but ideally 10% total between the two.

Tariffs also make it within the federal government interests to SECURE THE DAMN BORDER because stopping smuggling of goods that are not taxed across borders is incentive to stop humans moving across those same borders as well.

[ 4) End our militaristic, police-the-world foreign policy that is bankrupting us both financially and morally. The dangers to America do not lie in foreign lands; they lie here at home in Washington. ]

A big chunk of saving money would be to stop sending any aid to countries that hate us...

It would do more to support countries like Israel for us to take away for every 1 dollar we give to Israel to also take away 1 dollar foreign aid we give to every country that surrounds Israel. (and it would save US a LOT of money too).

We still need bases in Europe and Asia, but we should see about giving some of those resources back via rent/lease agreement to the governments we support. For instance Japan, we could have an agreement that they start paying some of the upkeep on bases there and that both we and their SDF can use it jointly for the next 50 years.

A big chunk of saving money would be to stop sending any aid to countries that hate us...

We don't send that much money out as international aid. We never really have. In 2012, the US gave a total of $ 17.2 billion in economic aid and $ 31.2 billion in military aid to other countries, totaling $ 48.4 billion. In 2013 the total was just over $ 50 billion.

Even if each of those counties hated us, we won't be saving much money if we did away with it.

This is correct, with the addendum that libertarianism is reductionist. The world is complicated. We have many goals, which must be balanced. Many of them, pursued in isolation, can subvert the others. We also have many principles and moral values, any of which, pressed to an extreme, may become destructive of the others. Again, there must be a balance. The core of moral reasoning involves the understanding that virtues, carried to an extreme, become vices, and therefore must be understood in the context of the whole.

A consistent libertarian is every bit as monomaniacal as a dogmatic socialist. The difference is that the libertarian has a better founding principle, which counts for a lot. Under our present circumstances, libertarians and small government conservatives can be allies of convenience most of the time, which is usually enough for a happy marriage. The libertarian, unlike the socialist, is happy to let others march to a different drummer, and that is important. But it's easy enough to pick quarrels. It is the looming threat of the leviathan that tends to keep both libertarians and conservatives concentrated on the main enemy.

I would like to see some specifics around item #4.

Does this imply the US would not pursue it strategic national interests in the world, when not threatened by imminent attack?

Would this precept have prevented us from pursuing our national interests in Iraq and the Persian Gulf in general in accordance with the Carter Doctrine?

Would you cede the Monroe Doctrine?

And, what about NATO? Taiwan, Korea and Japan?

In 2013 the total was just over $ 50 billion.

Since the government admitted they have no idea where 700 billion in stimulus went, that number would be highly suspect.

I guess a budget that accounts for government spending is just too much trouble. Boehner will however raise the debt limit again after the election and tell us once more that we must wait until we have the House, Senate and Presidency.

Nice essay.

But no mention of their pro-drug agenda and cops shooting dogs?

You can’t seriously discuss libertarianism without at least mentioning the (so called) WOD and no-knock SWAT Teams.

After all - these are the key components of today’s social liberal.

Not enough addiction to power. Political parties succeed when their primary ideology is winning and everything else in window dressing. Also the modern age of voter, on both “sides”, really want to hear your active government solution, and libertarianism is built under the assumption that governments don’t really solve much and the best government solution is getting out of the way, that really doesn’t sell to the masses.

“when asked what tax policy they advocate for the country, libertarians reply that the income tax should be abolished and government should be stripped down to a minimal state that can exist upon excise taxes and tariffs. This would be the limited government that the Founders advocated, which, of course, would be wonderful to have. But it is not a credible political platform to be gained through a political campaign today. It is rather an “ideal” that we can approach over the next 50-100 years. The members of the Constitution Party respond in the same way. Both of these parties wish to instantly implement their visions of the ideal. There is no acceptance of the need for incrementalism upon which all of politics is based.”

I must respectfully disagree with this assertion. America cant afford fifty to a hundred years to end big government, entitlements, and progressivism. It needed to be ended a century ago! Part of the problem is that too many Americans still believe in political parties. They believe that they can just vote for the Man/Woman with an R or D next to their name, and carry on without thinking twice. In order to effect change, perhaps a focus on electing independent candidates would help? An independent isn't beholden to the whims, desires, and money of Republican and Democratic leadership. By supporting parties, we are continuing to support corrupt institutions. Instead of voting by party, why not vote by ideology? Let us not forget that America's Founding Fathers were radicals, they were radicals in the cause of liberty, and they effected significant change in less than twenty years!

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue”

1) Enact a simplified 15% flat tax,

Way too simple to actually work. You need to combine this with a complete overhaul of how the tax code works. ALL subsidies/item-specific taxes would need to be removed (oil, farms, gas, tobacco, electric cars, etc), as well as corporations defined as a taxable person (or else everyone will form individual corps and just not pay taxes), although possibly a tax deduction for wages paid. Eliminate any/all other deductions/credits/etc. Allow every individual a single $5-10000 deduction, with additional $2-5000 deduction per dependent claimed (who cannot then claim their own). (Random numbers here, may go higher/lower.)
Combine this with a taxes-paid requirement to be allowed to vote (implicitly, voter-ID required), with an option on your tax form to pay $10 or whatever if you're under the deductible amount, if you want to be allowed to vote.
Bam. Easy taxtime, all your form has is incomes gained, deduction/dependents, and check boxes for donating a minimum of $10, and a checkbox if you want withholding the following year. Great to get rid of withholdings for those that would rather pay at the end of the year, or just not have withholding on the first deduction's worth of income. Think of the saved dollars that people would otherwise waste on tax accountants and IRS fines for simple mistakes. Think of the savings from eliminating 90%+ of the IRS staff.

4) End our militaristic, police-the-world foreign policy that is bankrupting us both financially and morally.

Yea, except we are part of the world and we interact with it. A lack of US policemen will leave a gap filled by China or Russia. Yes, we need to be more careful about getting bogged down in wars with no real goals, Commander's intent being left blank. We can stop giving free aid to anyone, Pakistan, Africa, or Israel. The government is not a soup kitchen. We need to be financially smart about what we do and where we go, but we do have a moral obligation to deliver freedom around the world. Two quotes really point this out, by Edmund Burke and Bishop Tutu, respectively:
- "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.."

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.