[616] in libertarians
Re: Harry Browne for President
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Thu Feb 9 15:27:46 1995
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Feb 1995 21:39:24 EST."
<199502080230.VAA01986@zork.tiac.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 13:37:27 EST
From: Vernon Imrich <vimrich@MIT.EDU>
|> >|> Brinkely and other places promoting it though). So why not support the
|> >|> candidate with a chance of winning, and of truly changing the debate?
|> >
|> >Several reasons. First, a few percent of the vote of any given state
|> >most likely will not change the election, so if Browne does pull in
|> >any such margin it will not matter.
|>
|> Yes. But in order to get Browne on the ballot, libertarian activists have
|> to spend a lot of time and money collecting signatures etc. What if they
|> spent their time promoting Gramm instead? Especially in New Hampshire,
|> where the LP actually has some presence, it is not inconceivable that LP
|> support and activism could make the difference between Gramm and Dole
|> winning the NH primary.
Acutally, we already have ballot status in NH and MA for 1996, so no other
efforts would be required. (We have ballot status already in 23 states,
have almost trivial access to about 10 more, doable access to the next 10-12,
and very difficult access to about 5 states.)
|> Second if Brown in fact pulls in
|> >something huge (ala Perot) then that is far more of a revolutionary
|> >statement than any GOP'er could make.
|>
|> This is a pretty big if -- we've been trying for what, 20 years with
|> minimal success! And Gramm is pretty revolutionary himself, with ties to
|> Cato and whatnot.
I agree absolutely that it's a big if. (I'd be shocked beyond belief
if we garner more than 2%.) My point was that only with such a hugh
percentage (10-20%) would the Browne candidacy spoil any Gramm race.
I very much like Gramm's health care stand, as well as his frequency
of talks to CATO. They seem to be having a good impact on him. I read
in the Globe the other day that Gramm intends to "play down" some
social issues (saying something like "I'm pro-life but I don't want the
abortion issue to be part of the campaign," and said he would not be
opposed to a pro-choice VP like Weld.
With the departure of Quayle, Kemp and Cheny from the race, it seems like
we're down to Dole, Gramm, and Lamar Alexander. Quayle was going to be
the big religious right poster boy. It will be interesting to see who
they try to nab now.
|> >Now, if Browne does "only" get a few percent of the vote then that
|> I really, really doubt that Browne will get this though: none of the other
|> recent candidates have even come close, and I think even more people are
|> going to defect to the GOP (like me). The last elections have done more
|> to propel free-market ideas into the mainstream than the LP has ever done.
I argue CATO has done more than the LP has ever done. The major parties
tend to co-opt minor ones as they get bigger. I'm keeping my eyes on
the RLC, but there are some very real problems that the GOP has. This is
the biggest reason I have for supporting the LP right now (or some other
libertarian party for that matter). There are impediments to
libertarian candidates within the major parties. There is huge pressure
to go along with a Gingrich for example. While he's doing tax stuff it
may be fine, but what about when he calls for your vote on school prayer,
increased military spending, and more drug crime sentencing. You can't
just buck the leadership like that and expect to last long (you'll find
your power diminishing, your funding base drying up, etc.). That's
the whole reason they have parties. Thus, one is left with the choice.
Is it easier to reform the existing leadership and direction of the GOP
(or the Dems for that matter) or is it better to start fresh?
I think there are so many fundamental flaws with both major parties that
their baggage is more of a drain than their advanced political position
is beneficial. It's not just libertarians talking like this, it's everyone
who's fed up with them. The "good" politicians end up resigining
(e.g Warren Rudmann, Tim Penny) while the others sell their souls bit by
bit to stay alive. That's the baggage you get by using the major parties.
In the short term, there isn't any other way. But I'm willing to make
a longer term fight.
|> Would a Gramm presidency end up like Reagan's? Doubtful. The Congress
|> will probably remain Republican, giving him an advantage Reagan never had.
I used to buy that argument too, except that it doesn't explain why
some of Reagan's budgets were for MORE spending that what congress
finally sent him. It doesn't explain why he didn't just veto all
the extra spending congress sent him (I don't think they'd have had
the 2/3 vote to override it). Furthermore, with the amount of damage
the Drug War has caused, both economic and social, I don't think trading
lower taxes for all that was worth it. Most of the war on guns is a
direct result of tactics developed in the drug war (eg. the BATF).
|> And I think the Republicans have learned a lot from Reagan's failures.
That could be. I hope so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT, Dept. OE | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (The Exchange) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| MIT LP: http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/libertarians/home.html |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
