Chip Taylor

What to do?

Some would like to see the Libertarian Party "become a serious political force to keep the GOP honest, especially on spending."

Of course, to do that the LP would have to (among other things) actually cost the GOP some votes in a way that they realized that was what had happened.

Of course, that possible outcome garners little support among the "anybody-but-a Democrat" crowd.

Others feel the LP would have more success with a more realistic and pragmatic platform.

They might. I for one would welcome an LP that was more pragmatic and less, well... embarrassing. (Actually, I find this much more embarrassing.)

Alas, I have no time at this point in my life for partisan political activism -- especially of the variety aimed at changing the direction of an established party -- so I pretty much have to take the parties, their platforms, and their histories (which, in the case of the two dominant parties, tell me more about their priorities than their platforms tell me) as given.

Votes are a very inefficient means for registering preferences, because you vote on the whole package. I can't vote for a GOP candidate and have that register as support only for lower taxes; my vote would get lumped in with all the other pro-GOP votes and be taken as general approval of the direction the GOP is taking us. It would be considered as showing approval for the whole package of policies they've implemented in the past two to four years.

Of course, the same can be said for my vote for LP candidates. But the LP has the advantage of wanting to at least head in the same direction that I would like to go: towards a limited government with greater respect for liberty. I have that much in common even with the anarchists among the party -- we have a long way to go before we reach the point at which they and I have to part ways because our different destinations lie in different directions.

But, back to the main point. What about the LP? Would it have more success -- would the country be more free and government be more limited -- if the LP adopted a more pragmatic platform?

I think the answer to both questions is "no." Because what most voters want most of all is not greater freedom and limited government. They either actually support less freedom (or at least more "security") and more pervasive government or are willing to subordinate their desires for greater freedom and limited government in order to pursue other goals.

After all, the GOP-led Congress and Administration didn't expand Medicare and increase federal involvement in elementary and secondary education just because they are craven and unprincipled powermongers, but also because they calculated that advancing those programs would gain them many more votes than it would cost them.

So, putting aside all the LP's problems with marketing and execution (and thos problems are legion) the one problem they can't solve on their own is the fact that most people aren't buying what they are selling.

This is the main reason that I have come to agree with those that feel that the best way to advance liberty is through issue activism -- not partisan political activism.

But until I become convinced that voting for Libertarian candidates is actually hurting the cause of liberty and limited government, I'll keep voting for them.