The late Mary Travers once sang a song called "Where Have All the Flowers Gone? It was a lamentation about the human cost of war and it was a popular protest song during the Vietnam era. Well it seems to me that someone could write a song, or at least ask the same question, about Libertarians. Specifically, where have all the Libertarians gone?
In the din and roar surrounding politics in America today much is made of the importance of Libertarian thinking. Some have pointed out its importance to the Tea Party Movement: "More recently, the Libertarian theme of the "tea party" began with Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters as a fund raising event during the 2008 presidential primaries to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement." That said it's interesting to consider the following two questions: First, if Libertarian ideas are so compelling, how come Libertarians garner such a small portion of actual votes during major electoral campaigns? Secondly, if Libertarians command such low voting totals, how is it that there is such a disproportionate number of Libertarian organizations and who is putting up the money to support them?
During the 2008 election cycle, America's Libertarian's had a clear choice among those vying for the Republican nomination for president. Ron Paul was an outspoken Libertarian and had been so for many years. Paul's Libertarian bona fides were well established, widely known and beyond question. But Paul wasn't even remotely competitive within the G.O.P.'s contest for candidate in the 2008 presidential election cycle. Yet even though Paul was eliminated from the race, Libertarians still had a choice in the person of Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman of Georgia, and the Libertarian Party's presidential pick for 2008. The irony of it all is that even though they still had a horse in the race, in an election that offered four different choices for president, the Libertarian candidate finished dead last with a paltry 523,686 votes or 0.4% of the total votes cast in 2008. With the aforementioned facts in hand, we can only conclude that Libertarians either do not vote, fail to vote for their own candidates or that there aren't very many of them in existence after all.
Well, if it's hard to discern the actual existence of Libertarians in any precise number, then how is it we have over sixty five Libertarian organizations afloat in the body politic according to Wikipedia? The Stason Organization lists 11 "Major Libertarian Organizations" and 33 "Think Tanks". But this begs the question: Why so many organizations for just over a half of a million voters, or less than one half of one percent of the voting public? It seems a bit fishy to me that we have all of these "Libertarian" organizations in a country that seems to have so few Libertarians. If we have so few Libertarians, then where does the cash that fuels all of these "Libertarian" organizations come from? After all it would be pretty hard to fund this large number of organizations out of the pockets of just 0.4% of the voting public. Could it be that these "Libertarian" organizations are propped up by those with a specific agenda and deep pockets or do these 523,686 voters just all happen to be billionaires? So can someone tell me where have all the Libertarians gone, long time passing?
Forty-six congressional candidates and 17 activist organizations released a statement on Monday opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and inviting more candidates, incumbents, and organizations to sign on. The 46 candidates include 16 Libertarians, 15 Democrats, 14 Greens, 1 Independent, and thus far 0 Republicans (and more may be added to the website by the time you read this). Forty-two are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and four for the Senate. They do not all agree with each other on many topics, including their reasons for opposing war spending. But they all back this short statement:
There has been a lot of talk about Rand Paul's view on the Civil Right's act today. But, in addition to race, as long as the company in question does not receive any public funds, here are some more reasons that Rand Paul--and his supporters--thinks it should be legal for the owner of a private company to fire you:
Not being the same religion as the boss
Not having sex with the boss
Having children, or not having them
Not liking the same sports teams as the boss
Not voting for different political candidates than the boss
Not eating the same food than the boss
Not liking different colors than the boss.
Basically, any reason at all.
Furthermore, another key point is that Paul's supporters seem to think the problem is not that Paul holds these views, but that he expressed them in public. For example, James Joyner of Outside the Beltway:
Further, in the context of 2010 America, I absolutely think that business owners ought to be able to serve whomever they damned well please - whether it's a bar owner wishing to cater to smokers, a racist wanting to exclude blacks, or a member of a subculture wishing to carve out a place for members of said subculture to freely associate with only their kind out of purely benign purposes.(...)
All that said, I agree with Doug that this is a pointless and harmful debate for Paul to get sucked into. This has been settled law since before I was born and a Senate campaign isn't a political science seminar. This is the sort of question that more seasoned politicians know how to dodge.
And his colleague, Doug Mataconis, in the same article:
I think the decisions are wrong, but they are the law of the land. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not going to be repealed, and it serves no purpose for Paul to let himself be dragged into a debate about it.
Which is the main reason I cringed when I watched this unfold last night. It's fine for libertarian bloggers to debate this issue among themselves, but a politician can't allow himself to be trapped into a debate where he ends up defending segregated lunch counters in an election in the South.
Bottom line: Rand Paul is basically right when he says it is wrong for the federal government to do anything about discrimination, in hiring and serving, and when he implies that the Civil Rights Act should have been overturned by the courts. The problem is that he shouldn't say those things in public, because it makes libertarians look bad. Don't want the plebs to know what you actually think.
Dean: You are here on a work-study scholarship for low-income students. Your job is to maintain the fountain, but you unplugged it, ripped out the wires, drained it, and paved it over with cement. Why did you do that?
Howard: Because I hate esthetics. I want to create buildings that are structurally sound, and that are also God-awful eyesores. I have a cousin, Moe, who also hates esthetics. He was in school to be a chef. He hated spices: salt, pepper, paprika... all of them. He used to take raw ingredients, run them through a blender, and serve them as shakes. He drank a bacon-and-eggs shake every day for breakfast.
Dean: Did he graduate from chef school?
Howard: No, he was expelled. Now he and his two unlicensed, tax-evading friends operate a plumbing business: Drip Boys: Larry, Curly, and Moe.
Dean: I see. So, do you also want to be expelled?
Howard: Sort of. I am full of unconscious self-hatred. You see, my idol is another unlicensed, tax evading plumber. He has a right-wing radio show, and his stage name is "Flush Limpo". Anyway, he has me convinced that every person who earns less than a six-figure income is a willfully-lazy Socialist parasite who deserves a swift kick in the crotch. I would kick myself in the nuts every day, but I'm not that limber. So, I think I'll just get expelled from school, then start my own business, without any experience or network of referrals. After that, I will alienate every potential customer by insisting that my buildings should only look good to me, and not to my customers, or their customers, or anyone else on Earth. Then maybe I'll work in a rock quarry for awhile.
Dean: Congratulations. You're expelled. Let me know how that works out for you.
Former Rep. Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party's Presidential nomination at the party's convention in Denver Sunday afternoon. He defeated long-time party activist Mary Ruwart, 54 to 46 percent, on the sixth ballot.
Fourteen candidates ran for the nomination. Former Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel was defeated in the fourth round.
Third place finisher Wayne Allyn Root, an internet gambling entrepreneur, is the vice-presidential nominee. (...)
"I'm sure will we emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr said in his victory speech.
For a great play by play of the convention, click here.
Now, if Barr-Root actually will be "with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," it would require at least 1.07% of the popular vote, surpassing the 1.06% Edwards Clark scored for a fourth-place finish in 1980. Since that election, the best libertarian performance was 0.50% by Harry Browne in 1996, also for fourth place. In fact, 1984 and 1988 are the only elections where the Libertarian nominee even managed to finish in third-place.
As a former congressman, Bob Barr appears to be a more formidable candidate than the typical third-party crusader. Also, Ron Paul's campaign demonstrated that there was both activist excitement, and a 2-3% national voting base, for an effective libertarian candidate. So, there does seem to be an opening, at least in theory.
However, I just don't think that Barr is going to be able to make a real impact on this election. In fact, he probably won't even break the 1.06%, 1980 high-water for Libertarians. For one thing, after decline sets in, third-parties in American never recover. The No Names, the Populists, the Socialists, The Progressives, the Reforms, the Greens-all of them went into permanent decline after an initial splash. Further, you can't change leaders in mid-stream, and Bob Barr is not going to attract the same support that Ron Paul had. The activist excitement around Ron Paul over the last year was closely connected to Ron Paul himself, and will not be easily transferable in such a short period of time. Yet further, even if the activist excitement around Ron Paul was transferable, it isn't going to a Libertarian-come-lately like Bob Barr. Even the Libertarian Party was lukewarm about Barr, as it took him six ballots to receive a narrow delegate majority of 54%.
So, while I would like to believe that Bob Barr will receive more than 1.06% of the vote, I just don't think it will happen. In fact, with Ralph Nader in the field, he won't even get all of the non-ideological, "f**k you" vote, which is the roughly 1% of the electorate that always chooses third-parties no matter what. It is nice to dream of Barr pulling down 3% of the vote, with his supporters drawing roughly 2-1 from the McCain camp, but in truth he will probably get about 1% of the vote, with about two-thirds of his supporters being people who would never vote for either McCain or Obama. So, Barr might swing the election 0.1% in favor of Obama, and thus probably cancel out Nader. There is an outside chance even this small amount will swing a state or two, but not much.
Third parties will not be a significant factor in this presidential election. If Ron Paul himself had run for the Libertarian nomination, it would be a different story. Alas, 'twas not to be.
Update: Another reason Barr is unlikely to be a factor is that third-party performance is actually on the decline (or, at best, stagnant). Click here and here for my post-2006 election analysis on this subject.
STATE BLOGS
