Good evening Frank! (Sorry for the length.) > Good evening everyone! > > As I browse through all of these messages on this conference, > that is, from Travis, Robert, Lowell and others, there appears to > be a common thread with regard to Democrats and Republicans, > there are only two questions that all of us should be asking, > namely: > > 1. Political Expediency, e.g.: Doing what is most likely a > probability of getting a half of a loaf, versus nothing at all, > and > > 2. Doing what is the right thing, e.g.: Voting on the principles > upon which you stand, and what you believe is the absolute > correct course that ought to be followed.
Versus voting for a compromise candidate who might enact some of the principles you believe in. > Along with this, of course, is the U.S. Constitution, which > seemingly during the last seveal decades gets very little > attention, either from the politicians, or the people who elect > the politicians. It gets attention when it is convenient. For instance, Democrats who haven't cared about "States Rights" since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed now care deeply about them because it appears to be an argument for not passing the DC Personal Protection Act where Congress will override DC laws to allow residents to keep self-defense firearms at home in DC. > Travis points out, with facts I might add, that BOTH the bulk of > the GOP and the Democrats follow the first course, that is, doing > what is politically 'possible' or expedient -- getting what you > can, while you can, and for largely your own political survival. Yup. And Robert, Ed, and I point out, with fact I might add, that both parties can be swayed and that the Republicans tend to favor more of our issues than Democrats do. > I wonder sometimes if Libertarians would REALLY do things all > that differently -- I hope we would, and we stand on principle > always suggesting that things would be very different if > Libertarians were elected instead of the two other major > parties. But I sometimes wonder if we can find a way to get into > that power lane and actually win in enough capacity where perhaps > we also might fall into the same falacy of wanting to get half a > loaf rather than nothing at all! The problem is in coming up with a working majority. The highest estimate I've heard for the percentage of the population that is ideologically "libertarian" is 25%. (Which group, BTW, includes people who are against or wobbly on one or more "pure libertarian" issues. Some won't like one issue, others won't like another.) In order to get to 50%+1, you've got to find a way to work with people who disagree with you on some issues. If you're going to get elected as a L, you're going to have to give up some of the L platform to get elected. If you then turn around and implement that part of the platform any, once elected, people won't trust your promises and will turn you out and elect someone to undo EVERYTHING you did and won't trust anyone else who runs under the same label. So, just to get elected, you will have to compromise. > This does happen after all, within our own ranks. Robert Goodman > believes we should work within the two major parties and try to > achieve what we can, when we can, and incrementally try and go > somewhere in a direction different than might be possible doing > it alone as a political Party. I've also gone on record that we > can't possible achieve everything we want at a given moment in > time, and it will take a long while to even turn the ship around. > > On the other hand, I've also gone on record suggesting that > probably nothing we do will come to pass until such time arrives > that the majority of Americans awaken to a giant catastrophe in > which there is no immediate excape with the common mechanisms in > place that we have trusted and relied upon for a long, long time > that will take us through. Three points. (1) Much better the catastrophe never occurs. It must be the shits to wish catastrophe on your own country for political gain. (2) If there's no groundwork laid for solutions and trustworthy leaders ready to implement those solutions, in a catastrophe, no-one is going to turn to them. (3) In case of catastrophe, the overwhelming urge is to turn to government to "fix it" regardless of how much government contributed to the catastrophe in the first place. As Exhibit A, I give you the Great Depression. > I still hold to that premise. I've run for public office twice > in my district, and lost horrendously each time! The Republicans > and Democrats still hold the only field in which the majority of > voters care to tred. > > So, I ask, is there a real reason for this madness of even > raising the spectre of a third party? Given our 30-year history > of horendous losses, I don't even know if I have an answer to > that one! Several years ago, I volunteered to work the LP booth at the Spokane County fair. It was a VERY interesting and enlightening experience. I gave out and scored quizzes and chatted with people about freedom and how it was the best way to achieve the goals that people wanted and tried to make it relevant to the issues that the individuals happened to care about. One of the other people helping to run the booth mentioned that one of the County Commissioners (a Republican) had taken the quiz and scored a perfect 100% libertarian. Travis will probably say the guy must have been lying because he's since been re-elected and he hasn't done any of several things he could probably do to make this county more libertarian and more closely aligned with the Constitution he swore to uphold. But I'm sure he's made a bit of a difference. (I don't pay any attention to County politics--probably a terrible failing on my part. :-) And if he went too much the way he might like to go, he'd lose his job to someone who would undo what good work he's managed to accomplish. Now, if we could get 2 Commissioners like him (a working majority) that were relatively secure in their positions, we might be able to get a lot done. > I was raised by my parents to believe that principle means > everything. You're as good as your word. If you believe > something strongly enough, it's worth fighting for! Did they also explain to you that sometimes you have to work with people you don't entirely agree with on issues where you do agree? > One thing however that I was never brought up to believe or > practice was the art of compromise, or to put that a bit current > in this conversation, the art of what is possible, or political > expediency. I understand this is a popular notion today both in > politics, and in American society in general. We're stuck with > that, I guess. Uhm. It's been part of the political scene in this country since the very beginning. You know, things like the Electoral College? the House representation based on a state's population size? the Senate consisting of two Senators from each State? Those were compromises! When we get that bland, boring world where everyone agrees with everyone else about everything, we won't need compromise anymore. But until then.... > But what if, a political Party really meant what it says, and > demonstrates it really means what it says and doesn't play along > with the current drift? You mean, if people disagree with it? Then yes, its candidates don't get elected. Life and voting would probably be a lot simpler if every party and candidate did that. The American people would get to make their choices and be relatively certain that the officeholders represented what the majority wanted. > I think we've tried to do that very > hard. I also don't believe we should stop doing what we do. Well, if the LP keeps doing what it is currently doing, it will keep getting the same results. Would it be better to lie about principles in an attempt to get elected? No. Not even for a few more votes. But getting elected doesn't appear to be much of an option. > Sure, that's easy to do in this society -- principles are always > negotiable, right? Are you confusing the principles that one stands for with the strategy for achieving them? It does not necessarily mean that one has compromised one's principles to work with an anti-gun rights person on reducing taxes. Or vice-versa. > What if they are not? What do you do with a bunch of people, > actually the third largest Political Party in America today, who > say it shouldn't work that way? Principles really do matter. > This is what we stand for, and we hold to that at all times, on > all of the issues, and in all places? The question is: what is the best way of getting your principles into law? There are still a significant number of people (including many elected officials) who believe in a socialist/communist/fascist/authoritarian agenda. They are in a coalition of people who believe in parts of that agenda. The current governing majority was elected (barely) by a coalition of people that includes people who ALSO believe in parts of that socialist agenda. Yes. Principles matter. However, do electoral results matter? Does convincing people that your principles are more moral and will produce better results in society matter? If your principles involve what you think are moral choices for society, then is it moral for you to insist that all your principles be honored if that means a delay in having society honor some of them? > I think some of you might say, "Ya, I've heard all of this > before, and we're still losing." Yes. Because our ideas are only accepted by a small minority of the public. > Well. Whose losing? Now Frank, you switched gears from talking about strategies and tactics and electoral "losing" to what you perceive as society "losing." They are two different issues. > Certainly the MAJORITY is losing! The US dollar is in fast track > losing value; US foreign policy is an abject failure; the > majority's civil liberties are going down the shitter; we're > living in a police state growing on steriods; and the list goes > on, and on, and on. You left out Global Warming, the Next Ice Age, UFOs, rogue asteroids, and terminal halitosis which is coming to each and every one of us. Oh wait, you did say that the list goes on, and on, and on. In other words, you join the ranks of Malthusians, disaster mongers, conspiracy nuts and other assorted kooks. Look, the US dollar has gone down before and it's gone up before. It'll go up and down again. If US foreign policy is such a failure, why is North Korea looking like things are starting to move our way. Why is Iran at least attempting to show cosmetic compliance with the IAEA? Why are elections still scheduled in Iraq for 1/30/05? Why is the Ukraine scheduling new elections? Why are the Canadians making nice with Bush? Why did Afghanistan just hold elections? For a foreign policy in "abject failure," it's certainly chalked up a lot of success. And as for civil liberties, if the ACLU has the time to sue to Defense Dept. to get it to remove official support for Boy Scout troops on bases, then we really don't have a civil liberties problem or a police state. Sorry, it's just not true. > Should Libertarians stop doing the one and only thing we do best? > Pointing out exactly what is wrong in our society and point to > the only way to find our way out of this quagmire? No we should keep pointing out what we think is wrong and can be improved. But that doesn't necessarily mean running candidates. > That is what a real election means to me. It means if I win, > then I have an obligation to support the choice I made in the > voting booth. If I lose, then I have no reason whatsoever to > support or defend failed and reckless policies in which I did not > sign on to in the voting booth. Actually, you have no reason whatsoever to support or defend failed and reckless policies in which you DID "sign on to" in the voting booth. I'm not happy with the growing deficit and growing spending either. But I'm willing to support the politicians responsible for it because of other things. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
