Excellent blog, Tom! I knew you were going to respond to Babka when the time warranted it.
Yours in Liberty,
Todd Andrew Barnett
Vice-Chair, Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://www.bostontea.us
I. for one, see no reason why the BTP and LP have to exist in a hostile atmosphere--other than the egos of some people who take their toys and go home when they are not happy. I see no reason why there cannot be cross-support between the two parties, fusion when it's appropriate, and a chance to build up a coalition that opens up the US to four, five, or six parties.
I strongly support both Tom Knapp for Congress and Jason Gatties for Lake Michigan College Board of Trustees, and I really don't--at this point, anyway--give a rip whether their nomination says LP or BTP.
I have some problems with the world's shortest party platform, because unfortunately I can think of some very limited instances in which I would extend some government power or obligations, even though 90% of the time I would be for reduction.
And yet, I can't honestly say I have a bigger difference with that platform than the LP platform, which makes all sorts of committee-driven statements that are ... well, just plain awkward and unappealing.
If being a libertarian is about freedom of association, then I find myself welcoming the BTP and wishing it well. If American cannot handle two freedom-based parties to go with the two State-based parties we already have, then we've lost already.
How can the presidential slate possibly be on the ballot in Guam? They have no presidential electors there.
Jeremy,
You're correct, Guam has no electoral votes. However, they do have a presidential election, "to send a message." This year, they're having it in September, presumably because that gives the rest of America two months to notice what the voters of Guam think.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Great! Now Tom Knapp is quoting the one and only David Bergland. The man who is singlely responsible for the downfall of the Libertarian Party post-Ed Clark Campaign in the 1980s. The man who brought the LP's vote total from a high of nearly 1 million to 228,000 with his awful Presidential campaign in 1984. The man who squandered ballot access for the LP, bringing the Party down from all 50 state ballots to 39. The man who caused Party membership to dip below 4,000.
Just remember, if you subscribe to Tom Knapp's version of what the Libertarian Party should look like, you're endorsing very low vote totals, down membership figures, and shitty ballot access.
Knapp's LP = Losertarian. But hey, if ya go that route, maybe you too can once again, be a big fish in a tiny pond, just like Knapp aspires to be.
Mr. Dondero,
You're right -- Bergland polled 228,000 votes, where Clark/Koch had polled 914,000.
Bergland's campaign, however, was a one-off thing, a digression from the real fight. It was an artifact of disunity.
The real history that you ignore is this:
In 1980, the Libertarian Party ran a presidential campaign from the left, focusing on nuclear disarmament and portraying libertarians as "low-tax liberals." That campaign secured 1.1% of the popular vote.
Starting in 1988 and coming down to this very day, the LP has nominated "right-wing" candidates, none of whom has managed more than about half of the Clark total.
I suspect that Barr will FINALLY do better than 500k, but I'll be surprised if he breaks Clark's record.
"Libertarian Republicans" don't have any standing to talk about "losertarianism." They've been utterly ineffective in their own party (the GOP), and they've actively held their alleged second party (the LP) back from success for 20 years.
As I observed on the H&R thread at Reason, the whole Boston Tea Party splinter strikes me as very "People's Front of Judea." To borrow your phrase, there was one irrelevant libertarian political party on America's landscape. Now there will be two... at least until the factions further subdivide.
Shake, for the love of Steely Dan, crawl back under your rock already. You're an ignorant, barely lettered churl. You embarrass yourself every time you say something. You're such a ridiculous actualization of the boastful idiot caricature that you are effectively beyond caricature. I can't possibly satirize you. I note that the individuals responsible for ericdondero.com stopped posting spoofs ages ago. It's impossible to tell from the real thing.
Mr. Knapp, if you stop wasting your time correcting this wife beating rotten creep he might go away.
Brian,
I'm unaware of any credible accusations of domestic violence on Mr. Dondero's part. Ms. Moore plays that card damn near every time she finds herself at odds with an assertive male, myself included. It seems to be tied with "X is a Likudnik, and maybe even a Mossad agent" for the position of "Carol Moore's favorite canard."
Good point Tom,
I put Carol Moore and Eric Dondero on about the same level of credibility and respectability based on my encounters with them.
Starting in 1988 and coming down to this very day, the LP has nominated "right-wing" candidates...
Well... I'm not sure Harry Browne was exactly from the "right wing"... before getting involved in the LP I think he was a staunch defender of the right NOT to vote at all and actually recommended avoiding involvment in political "causes" altogether, since they're just futile "traps" that impede personal freedom...
I wonder how often he regretted diving into the muck anyway...
svf,
Good point on Harry Browne, but let's explore that a little.
Yes, Harry was a voluntaryist/anarchist/anti-voting advocate for at least two decades before deciding to run for president on the LP ticket.
However, as a candidate, Harry definitely angled his appeal toward "small-government conservatives."
That approach may have been an artifact of the timeframe. In 1996, the "establishment" was Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party, and for that matter the same applied in 2000. During his campaigns, the obvious -- and valid -- approach was to try to out-opposition the opposition, which meant going the Contract With America one better, etc.
In 1988, the LP nominated former (and future) Republican congresscritter Ron Paul for president, and naturally got a right-leaning campaign.
In 1992, the LP nominated former Republican state legislator Andre Marrou for president, and naturally got a right-leaning campaign (the only thing I remember about Marrou, from the standpoint of someone who was not, at the time, an LP member and only vaguely beginning to self-identify as a libertarian, was his opposition to socialized health care).
In 1996 and 2000, the LP nominated Harry Browne, who emphasized a "cut programs, cut taxes" approach and, I would hold, in general ran a campaign geared toward getting the support of disgruntled Republicans, Republicans who didn't think that Bob Dole or George W. Bush were "conservative" enough, especially fiscally, etc.
In 2004, the LP nominated Michael Badnarik, who ran as a constitutionalist and flogged a book with a forward by the 1988 LP nominee (see above).
It's certainly possible to overstate how "right-leaning" LP candidates/campaigns since 1988 have been, but I don't think it's unreasonable to portray them as generally targeting the "right." And those campaigns have consstently performed at around, or less, than half the votes that "low-tax liberal" Ed Clark got in 1980.
Knapp: "In 1996 and 2000, the LP nominated Harry Browne, who emphasized a "cut programs, cut taxes" approach and, I would hold, in general ran a campaign geared toward getting the support of disgruntled Republicans, Republicans who didn't think that Bob Dole or George W. Bush were "conservative" enough, especially fiscally, etc."
I don't agree with this conclusion. How exactly did HB run a campaign geared toward "disgruntled Republicans"? In nearly every media interview, Harry talked about ending the Drug War, bringing US troops home from overseas, and honoring the Bill of Rights. Of course, he also talked about ending the income tax, ending Social Security, and ending Medicare and Medicaid. He publicly and consistently criticized both Democratic AND Republican politicians for forsaking America's libertarian heritage. I think HB ran a very balanced campaign from a left-right perspective, although perhaps it wasn't EXACTLY 50-50 in its rhetoric or outreach.
Of course, some libertarians (not necessarily Tom Knapp) think that if a presidential candidate wears a suit and looks well-groomed, that means he's trying to appeal to right-leaning people. They don't understand that looking sharp and well-groomed is just good politics.
Marrou - Neither leftwing or rightwing Libertarian
Harry Browne - Hardcore Leftwing Libertarian
Michael Badnarik - Off the Charts Leftwing Libertarian
So, you're sort of right on Marrou, completely wrong on the other two.
BTW, Clark's official vote total was 922,000 votes, not 914,000 as you say.
And his campaign was a "Rightwing" or Mainstream Libertarian effort, certainly no Berglandista or Harry Brownite Piss on America Leftwing Daily Kos type effort.
Commenting by HaloScan
