Libertarian Badnarik an Election Spoiler?

Mr. Slippery writes "The New York Sun points out that Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik could tip the balance in this year's presidental election, like Ralph Nader is accused of having done in 2000. Bush's policies may be driving some traditional conservative Republican voters into the Libertarian camp. Rasmussen polls have put him as high as 5% in New Mexico and 3% in Nevada, which could make a difference in which major party candidate takes those states."

Comments

So what? Just one Republican’s view.

[mpost4]

I would say who cares, I am a Republican and support Bush, but if some one wants to vote for Michael Dadnarik then let them vote for him they have all the right to, he has just as much right to run, just as Nadar does. Even if he "costs"* Bush the election, there are things higher in principle then victory at all cost.

I for one don't care who runs, and how many people, I have looked at some of the other candidate, I even looked at http://www.peroutka2004.com/ I like his pro-life stance, but he fails to do separation of church and state, and as a devout Lutheran that scares me, so I can not vote for him, and leaves be back at the only other pro-life candidate Bush, unless any one can give me another one to look at.

* I put costs in quoats, because in a republic like we have a politician does not own another persons vote, the person gives a vote as a gift to a candidate. I will be giving mine to Bush, but Bush does not own it.

Libertarians Draw from Democrats, too.

[mlmitton]

It's generally assumed that Libertarians draw from Republicans, but this isn't really true--I think they draw about 50-50. Libertarians have the small government philosophy associated with Republicans (although Bush has been anything but 'small governmetn'), but they also have the social liberties that are associated with Democrats (Who thinks the Libertarians want a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage?) So unlike Nader and the Greens, the Libertarians draw from both parties. They might have 5% of the vote in NM, but that doesn't mean they'll have any effect on the outcome of the election.

Re:Libertarians Draw from Democrats, too.

[overunderunderdone]

It's generally assumed that Libertarians draw from Republicans, but this isn't really true--I think they draw about 50-50.

I tend to doubt this. Some erstwhile Republicans will stray to the Libertarian party on account of the unlibertarian social policies of the Republicans... but that is because there were libertarians in the Republican party to start with. There has never been a big libertarian presence in the Democratic party. Their entire philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to the libertarian vision. There are libertarians that might vote on occasion for Democrats on account of social issues but they are not part of the Democratic base being lost to the Libertarian candidate... they are swing voters that just don't swing this time.

I figure the "lost" Democratic votes are probably no more than 25% of the Libertarian vote, another full 50% is lost Republican votes, the remaining quarter would just stay home if there wasn't a Libertarian candidate.

Re:Libertarians Draw from Democrats, too.

[EnronHaliburton2004]

There has never been a big libertarian presence in the Democratic party. Their entire philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to the libertarian vision.

I think you've been reading too much propoganda :) The philosophies are not diametrically opposed, even if Democrats and Libertarians disagree on some big issues.

Most Democrats are strong believers in civil liberty-- you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others. Practically every democrat will agree with the philosophy presented at the top of lp.org.

I think Democrats and Libertarians differ in the treatment of rights-- I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others. A well-designed government can be used to promote equality for all people, but right now there are many problems getting in the way to achieve those goals.

Sadly, my experience with most people who call themselves "Libertarians" is that they care mostly about low taxes and want less government interference in their buisness affairs, and could care less if the government prevent homosexuals from marrying each other, or if a business business pays white workers more then black workers. I call these people "Business libertarians".

Re:Libertarians Draw from Democrats, too.

[overunderunderdone]

Most Democrats are strong believers in civil liberty-- you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others

No... they are strong believers in SOME civil liberties almost exclusively limited to the area of sex at this point. You can do whatever you want as long as it's not smoking, owning a gun, saying something "insensitive", doing whatever you want with and on your own property, keeping your own income, associating, or NOT, with whomever you want for whatever reasons you want, taking risks with your health, educating your own children, etc. etc. etc.

A well-designed government can be used to promote equality for all people....

("business" libertarians) could care less if... a business pays white workers more then black workers

This is exactly the difference between libertarians and Democrats. That you use it as an example of something you think contradicts libertarianism shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what they believe. Libertarians place the highest value on liberty, Democrats place it on equality or perhaps "fairness". The two are NOT the same at all and are in fact VERY OFTEN in conflict. Your (sadly, not so) hypothetical is a perfect example of the difference. The arrangement between this employer and his black employees is one arrived at by the consent of both in liberty... A libertarian can think that employer a bad man, may personally shun him, may even organize a boycott of his business. A libertarian would likely think this man would eventually harm his own busines and be supplanted by another company that will properly values labor. A libertarian would point out that institutional racism ultimately REQUIRES government enforcement because of this truth. The one thing a libertarian would NOT do is advocate government action to FORCE that man to do something with his own money that he didn't want to do of his own free will.

Your example is at one extreme where even some libertarians today may see the case for government action. The problem with your argument is that Democrats see such justifiable violations of peoples liberty *everywhere*. Laws, upon laws, upon laws in almost every sphere of human activity, exercised by the most centralized government body available. Laws dictating when and where I can build a house, earn a living, employ other people, what I MUST pay for insurance against future calamity etc. etc. etc. All of them with excellent justification for why following them will make me and others happier, healthier, wiser... it's just that it's not my choice.

I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others

The problem with these "rights" is that they are not rights I carry in myself but OBLIGATIONS that must be imposed upon someone else. I could argue that I have a RIGHT to grow, or earn my own food... but to have a RIGHT to food itself government must FORCE someone else to give it to me, same with shelter, health, love etc.

Let me point out that I am NOT a libertarian. I'm perfectly OK with and approve many of these laws and think that government has some broader responsibilities beyond what a true libertarian would agree with. I do however understand the philosophy and can see that you don't... that is why you think (wrongly) that there is a large body of libertarians within the Democratic party that may bolt to the Libertarian candidate. Unless of course you think there is a large body of Democrats that would find the logic above regarding racial hiring practices perfectly sound, I rather doubt it.

Depends which conservatives, ala Bob Barr

[isotope23]

I posted this earlier, but I think it is important enought to do it again. The Republican party is showing signs of splitting. IMO it has gone too far to the Social Conservative side...

Republican Bob Barr (of all people) just wrote this article here is the last couple of paragraphs :

"Bush's problem is that true conservatives remember their history. They recall that in recent years when the nation enjoyed the fruits of actual conservative fiscal and security policies, a Democrat occupied the White House and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority that actually fought for a substantive conservative agenda.

History's a troublesome thing for presidents. Even though most voters don't take much of a historical perspective into the voting booth with them, true conservatives do. Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again?"

If someone like bob barr endorses Badnarik, this could get REALLY interesting.

Re:Depends which conservatives, ala Bob Barr

[drix]

You have good intuition to have picked up on. All the signs are there, yet very few have noticed the trend--except one If the thought of the Republican party imploding makes you wet your pants with glee, and you really want to brighten your day, I commend this article to you.

Re:So what? Just one Republican’s view.

[sweetooth]

Seperation of church and state is meant to go both ways. The state controlled the church in Europe, but the church also controlled the state for long periods of time. If a monarch didn't do what the Pope wanted the Pope would have him excommunicated. Go re-read your history because you clearly seem to have forgotten that. One of the things to remember is that at the time the Constitution was written you had many members of many differant religions and many people remembered the lack of religious tolerance in England (and other European nations, often state sponsored) just a 100 years previously. Religious influence on the state can be harmful to those of other religions hence it's a good idea to seperate religious doctrine from state decisions, any state decisions.

Just because your religion says abortion is wrong doesn't mean that mine agrees with you. Hence the government should stay out of the way as it can often come down to a religious belief. I'm not saying that a politician can't or shouldn't allow thier religion to influence thier decisions or morality, but they have to keep in mind that not everyone shares thier religious beliefs. With that in mind they should do what is best for the majority, not just what is best in the eyes of thier church.

Can you hear me now?

[Shihar]

I will vote libertarian this year. I will vote libertarian and hope that the libertarian vote costs Bush the election. Why? For the same reason why not all Democrats were unhappy when Gore lost to Bush. The idea is that if you make the next closest guy to your ideals lose, then next time around they will lean more your way. If the libertarian vote was to cost the Republicans the election, it might very well get them to put forward a candidate who isn't as eager to spend my money as any other democrat. As far as I can tell, Bush is a democrat who is pro life. That sure as shit isn't going to get my vote.

Re:Can you hear me now?

[wibs]

As far as I can tell, Bush is a democrat who is pro life.

I tried to come up with something witty to respond to this, like saying Nader is a republican who is pro environment, but nothing is really that funny because the idea of Bush being is a democrat is just so absurd. If that were even slightly true this country wouldn't be anywhere near as polarized as it is now.

This reflects the east-west "Republican" dichotomy

[j. andrew rogers]

It has long been a truism that there is a geographical philosophical split between those areas east of the Rockies exclusive and that west of the Rockies inclusive. Right now, this is mostly evident within the Republican party.

West of the Rockies, and in the mountain West in particular, the core political ideology of the region tends to revolve around a small-government, non-interference, live-and-let-live perspective -- real believers in rugged individualism. There are many historical reasons as to why this is that go back a century or two. While the people that live there are often conservative as individuals, they generally are not socially conservative in that they try and legislate the behaviors of society. A built-in distrust of government is stronger than their desire to control what other people do. East of the Rockies, big government social conservatism is deeply embedded in the culture.

Libertarians and similar have long held relatively strong positions in the mountain West due to the fact that Eastern conservatives often control conservative politics, primarily because of population differences. People like Bush reflect only the conservative issues that are unique to Eastern conservatives while not reflecting the issues shared by Eastern and Western conservatives. When more extreme examples of this come down the road in the Republican party, it tends to lead to defections to the Libertarian party out West. It is an old political and ideological tug-of-war.

In fact, if you look at the core philosophical components of Western conservatism, it is essentially libertarian. Which is why there are far fewer restrictions on what you can do and what you can own in the "conservative" mountain West than in "liberal" states, ironically. Nevada makes California look like a socially conservative police state by comparison if you actually compare laws, and they are next door.

The Irony

[HunahpuMonkey]

I am one of those the article it talking about. I tend to lean conservative, but I've been totally turned off by Bush. In fact, I made the decision early on not to give my vote to Bush.

So now what? Do I vote for Kerry? Well, that is no better. That leaves me with Badnarik.

What people don't realize, though, is that Badnarik will not cost Bush the election. Bush already lost my vote. My choice is only between Kerry and Badnarik. That is the irony of the whole thing. Do I vote for a liberal or a libertarian, even though I might lean conservative?

It is an odd election. That is for sure.

This just in: MICHAEL BADNARIK ARRESTED

[siriuskase]

http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346 and http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/n ews/nation/9872659.htm