How long before the libertarians die out?

[MaC]

looks like this.  Either we bust our ass and nominate candidates that are worth running in the next several decades or internal factions (neolibertarians v standard libertarians) will cause the movement to dissolve, or the hybridization of the libertarians (most moving back to paleo-conservatism), or the party will become rabidly single-issue motivated and people will become disenchanted.  I'd say the party itself only has until about 2040 or so.  "staying afloat" won't do anything or have any real value if our candidates don't win more than 3% of the vote.

Opinions on this?  (I am especially interested to hear from libertarians on this)

[© tweed]

'dying out' requires that the subject was/is at one point in time actually alive.

[MaC]

'dying out' requires that the subject was/is at one point in time actually alive.

If you want to get technical, I was more or less refering to the party.

[NDN]

If you guys want to survive, you need to get real. Forget about Presidential Elections, those are costly and the position is unattainable. Focus your resources on local elections, PACs, and/or fighting ballot access laws. And please, try to drop positions like "legalize child labor" in your platform. I know you've started to, but you still have a long way to go.

[MaC]

If you guys want to survive, you need to get real. Forget about Presidential Elections, those are costly and the position is unattainable. Focus your resources on local elections, PACs, and/or fighting ballot access laws. And please, try to drop positions like "legalize child labor" in your platform. I know you've started to, but you still have a long way to go.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#ii

Now obviously, you must be illiterate if you are able to say that in there "legalize child labor" is part of the platform.  Well, I shouldn't say obvious, you could be one of those assholes that tries to resort to straw man attacks.

[tik 🪀✨]

NDN was correct on his first point, though. Focus on local and state elections. This will provide a base and provide wider recognition and support from which national elections can become a possibility.

But his second point wasn't that bad either.. you're focusing on the specific example he gave instead of looking at the general idea. The current Libertarian party is seen as anything but moderate, and that pushes people away and causes them not to take you seriously.

[nlm]

NDN was correct on his first point, though. Focus on local and state elections. This will provide a base and provide wider recognition and support from which national elections can become a possibility.

But his second point wasn't that bad either.. you're focusing on the specific example he gave instead of looking at the general idea. The current Libertarian party is seen as anything but moderate, and that pushes people away and causes them not to take you seriously.

True and true.

There are also way too many Libertarians that think being a wing of the Republican party is good enough. Sharing the stage with neocons and members of the religious right and supports of corporate welfare in order to beg for table scraps, that are more often than not denied to them, has washed out much of what should be the base of Libertarian Party.

They have a chance to make real gains in '08 with the likely GOP candidate being Mitt, or Rudy, or 4 more years Fred Thompson - but they seem to clearly lack the electoral vision or organization to take advantage of that chance and will more than likely support being back begging for table scraps, that will be denied to them, from one of those three.

The Libertarians are the bitch that the GOP punches in the face from time to time while verbally abusing - I think they suffer from battered wife syndrome, and just can not get enough of being crapped on. That's not an image that attracts support.

[StateBoiler]

I think entryism would be a good strategy if the LP ever did die. We enter into the Republican Party or Democratic Party, elect libertarians under those party labels while staying true to our real party, and when enough get elected to become somewhat viable, split off.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Entryism is a classic Commie/Trot tactic. Just saying.

[StateBoiler]

Entryism is a classic Commie/Trot tactic. Just saying.

Entryism is a classic tactic, period.

It's best described as Machiavellian, which I think we all agree U.S. politics resigned themselves to long ago.

[David S]

One concern I have is that Ron Paul's entry into the Republican primary race may deflate the Libertarian party, since so many of us are supporting him. If he were to win the election that might give the LP a big boost, but if he loses that could leave the LP in disarray. But then again those of us who believe in libertarian principles have nowhere to go other than back to the LP.

[NDN]

If you guys want to survive, you need to get real. Forget about Presidential Elections, those are costly and the position is unattainable. Focus your resources on local elections, PACs, and/or fighting ballot access laws. And please, try to drop positions like "legalize child labor" in your platform. I know you've started to, but you still have a long way to go.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#ii

Now obviously, you must be illiterate if you are able to say that in there "legalize child labor" is part of the platform.  Well, I shouldn't say obvious, you could be one of those assholes that tries to resort to straw man attacks.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I'm aware that it's no longer in the platform. But at one point it was there, just google "1994 Libertarian Party Platform" if you don't believe me. Hence the "I know you've started to" bit. But even still, there are probably plenty positions that are equally loopy to the majority of the population.

[StateBoiler]

One concern I have is that Ron Paul's entry into the Republican primary race may deflate the Libertarian party, since so many of us are supporting him. If he were to win the election that might give the LP a big boost, but if he loses that could leave the LP in disarray. But then again those of us who believe in libertarian principles have nowhere to go other than back to the LP.

I tend to look on the bright side. I watched him on the Daily Show, he kind of stated to Stewart that him being in the debates is giving him a forum to spout libertarian views, which if he'd stayed third party he would have never had. So if Republicans tuning in to a Republican debate causes more people to come to agree with Paul's views, that means more libertarian-minded people and that's a good thing for libertarianism (the small l). There are some candidates on the Republican stage that are about as un-libertarian as you can get, and if those people are nominated which from polls it looks like one of them will, some of those will be disgusted and not vote for the Republican.

I know we're not allowed to apply rational thought to politics, but that's just my $0.02.

[Gabu]

They'll die out as soon as I launch my planned mass genocide.

Oh wait, I guess I wasn't supposed to mention that out loud.

[David S]

One concern I have is that Ron Paul's entry into the Republican primary race may deflate the Libertarian party, since so many of us are supporting him. If he were to win the election that might give the LP a big boost, but if he loses that could leave the LP in disarray. But then again those of us who believe in libertarian principles have nowhere to go other than back to the LP.

I tend to look on the bright side. I watched him on the Daily Show, he kind of stated to Stewart that him being in the debates is giving him a forum to spout libertarian views, which if he'd stayed third party he would have never had. So if Republicans tuning in to a Republican debate causes more people to come to agree with Paul's views, that means more libertarian-minded people and that's a good thing for libertarianism (the small l). There are some candidates on the Republican stage that are about as un-libertarian as you can get, and if those people are nominated which from polls it looks like one of them will, some of those will be disgusted and not vote for the Republican.

I know we're not allowed to apply rational thought to politics, but that's just my $0.02.

I hope you're right. Anyway I think Ron Paul is someone we libertarians have to support. He is our best hope for getting a libertarian candidate in the White House. Its now or never in my estimation.

[MaC]

One concern I have is that Ron Paul's entry into the Republican primary race may deflate the Libertarian party, since so many of us are supporting him. If he were to win the election that might give the LP a big boost, but if he loses that could leave the LP in disarray. But then again those of us who believe in libertarian principles have nowhere to go other than back to the LP.

I tend to look on the bright side. I watched him on the Daily Show, he kind of stated to Stewart that him being in the debates is giving him a forum to spout libertarian views, which if he'd stayed third party he would have never had. So if Republicans tuning in to a Republican debate causes more people to come to agree with Paul's views, that means more libertarian-minded people and that's a good thing for libertarianism (the small l). There are some candidates on the Republican stage that are about as un-libertarian as you can get, and if those people are nominated which from polls it looks like one of them will, some of those will be disgusted and not vote for the Republican.

I know we're not allowed to apply rational thought to politics, but that's just my $0.02.

I hope you're right. Anyway I think Ron Paul is someone we libertarians have to support. He is our best hope for getting a libertarian candidate in the White House. Its now or never in my estimation.

Our ideology rests with Ron Paul.  Since Harry Browne, the former ideological leader of the libertarian movement has died (although he still influences a little bit), most libertarians are interested in Ron Paul.  What I'm worried about is how, after Paul dies, who would lead the libertarian movement?  Right now it's a bunch of intellectual computer nerds with no personability or charisma that make up the majority of the party membership.

I am, however stocking up on ammunition for when the Canuck army led by Generals Gabu and EarlAW take over.  I don't think they should be that hard to defeat though, since they love their gun control making for a damn weak army  

[nlm]

I hope you're right. Anyway I think Ron Paul is someone we libertarians have to support. He is our best hope for getting a libertarian candidate in the White House. Its now or never in my estimation.

That's fairly bleak David - since Paul has next to no chance what so ever (which is a shame, but is also the truth of it).

I like Ron Paul. He's giving a voice to some important libertarian ideas by appearing in the GOP debates that would otherwise not be voiced on such a large stage. But after he has been washed out of the race and beaten down by the those that run the GOP (who are in direct conflict with his ideals) it will leave the libertarian cause in perhaps even worse shape than it is today (which is in pretty bad shape already). The only way anything good comes out of this is if Ron Paul uses the GOP deabtes as a platform for a Libertarian run at the President that allows him to help lift up a few Libertarians running for Congress (if they can find some that are solid enough that such help will actually mean something to). It's a long shot, but if such an effort gets one Libertarian into Congress it would be
 meaningful. If it gets enough votes to get the party recognized in some states that don't currently even recognize the Libertarian Party as a political party - it would be meaningful.

The current GOP is miles away from libertarianism (not that the Dems are any closer) and looking at their batch of candidates that are polling well - they are just getting farther and farther away. Ron Paul's time in the Cogress as a member of the GOP has done nothing to shift the direction of the party. He hasn't been a cause of it drifting away - but he is unable to effect the GOP - even as an insider. All he's really done is diminish the libertarian cause by confusing much of what should be the Libertarian base into thinking the GOP is an OK place for them to hang their hats.

Of course the more savvy libertarians (such as yourself) are not confused by this, but there are a lot of folks out there that think in fairly libertarian terms - but don't know the words or the party to associate with their thinking. Until they hear Ron Paul - and then they do, or at least they think they do - and the party they associate their thinking with is the GOP (who are happy to take their votes and slap 'em in the face afterwards). Thanks Ron. I think Ron is making the cardinal sin of over estimating the American people and their ability to seperate ideas.

[SPC]

Our ideology rests with Ron Paul.  Since Harry Browne, the former ideological leader of the libertarian movement has died (although he still influences a little bit), most libertarians are interested in Ron Paul.  What I'm worried about is how, after Paul dies, who would lead the libertarian movement? 

I will.

[Dr. Cynic]

The Libertarians will continue to flounder about until they find a YOUNGER, energetic, charismatic leader.

Original leaders such as Ed Clark, David Bergland, Roger MacBride, and Andre Marrou, and Harry Browne are either too old to be effective, dead, or in Clark's case, compounded with age, have some serious ideological disagreements with the party.

Ron Paul is a good leader, but he's old, and likely won't do well in the Republican primary... On top of that, he's never been a member of the Libertarian Party.

Without someone like the successful third parties (The Populists, The Socialists, etc... Although neither are a force today) had, the Libertarians will eventually collapse as a party.

[Alcon]

Ron Paul is a good leader, but he's old, and likely won't do well in the Republican primary... On top of that, he's never been a member of the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President?

[MaC]

Ron Paul is a good leader, but he's old, and likely won't do well in the Republican primary... On top of that, he's never been a member of the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President?

He was, but was he a card carrying LP member at the time?  I'm not too sure there.

The Libertarians will continue to flounder about until they find a YOUNGER, energetic, charismatic leader.

What I'm worried about is how, after Paul dies, who would lead the libertarian movement? 

I will.

ah, problem solved

Personally, I wish the libertarians would morph-not water down positions, but change to fit with the things I care about.

Platform would consist of:
1.Abolish the Federal Reserve
2.Get the Federal Government completely out of education
3.Stop subsidizing factory farms
4.Work for business friendly solutions to energy and environmental problems
5.Place a monetary standard on metal
6.Stop commercial funding of the FDA
7.Political contributions from the U.S. Treasury are not allowed (BCRA)
8.Work to make federal programs run by states and local governments

It would be more of a hippie, populist oriented libertarian movement than the current one.  It would be a government of the people who's concern would be aimed at health and environment while making money a tangible form of exchange.  It would be very populist in that it would cut subsidies and political pork and welfare.  There'd also be oversight available on how programs and institution are run through reports posted on the internet by committees that investigate policy.

The current party's too concerned with gay marraige, regulation, and the War in Iraq.  Moreso than I am.  Not that these issues don't matter...

[CultureKing]

Ron Paul is a good leader, but he's old, and likely won't do well in the Republican primary... On top of that, he's never been a member of the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President?

He was, but was he a card carrying LP member at the time?  I'm not too sure there.

The Libertarians will continue to flounder about until they find a YOUNGER, energetic, charismatic leader.

What I'm worried about is how, after Paul dies, who would lead the libertarian movement? 

I will.

ah, problem solved

Personally, I wish the libertarians would morph-not water down positions, but change to fit with the things I care about.

Platform would consist of:
1.Abolish the Federal Reserve
2.Get the Federal Government completely out of education
3.Stop subsidizing factory farms
4.Work for business friendly solutions to energy and environmental problems
5.Place a monetary standard on metal
6.Stop commercial funding of the FDA
7.Political contributions from the U.S. Treasury are not allowed (BCRA)
8.Work to make federal programs run by states and local governments

It would be more of a hippie, populist oriented libertarian movement than the current one.  It would be a government of the people who's concern would be aimed at health and environment while making money a tangible form of exchange.  It would be very populist in that it would cut subsidies and political pork and welfare.  There'd also be oversight available on how programs and institution are run through reports posted on the internet by committees that investigate policy.

The current party's too concerned with gay marraige, regulation, and the War in Iraq.  Moreso than I am.  Not that these issues don't matter...

The libertarian platform always freaks me out, no offense. I just cant see how our nation could function or provide for its citizens without many of those government programs that would be cut.

[MaC]

When did I say 'cut programs'?  Not that I think it would be bad, but de-centralizing them would be key because each state can operate how it sees fit and deal with problems on a more personal level.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

'dying out' requires that the subject was/is at one point in time actually alive.

If you want to get technical, I was more or less refering to the party.

I agree w/ Tweed

But if I'm answering according to your definition, probably never.

[Erc]

Any chance for a John Anderson-type campaign by Paul when he doesn't get the nomination?