[830] in libertarians
Re: More from Browne
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Mon Mar 20 20:26:04 1995
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 20:23:44 EST
From: Vernon Imrich <vimrich@MIT.EDU>
|> Derek Rose:
|> >Browne campaign response:
|> > Finally, lets take a look at this issue of "support[ing] the candidate with
|> > a chance of winning, and of truly changing the debate." Understand that a
|> > chance of winning and changing the debate are mutually exclusive.
|>
|> Wait a second... the LP has been running candidates for what, 20+ years?
|> The debate has certainly changed somewhat, but more because of
|> institutions like Cato and libertarian writers than because of any great
|> strides of the party, I'd say.
The same can be said of the GOP in 1992 or the Democrats in 1930. Parties
by nature can only marshal troops, they do not generate the troops.
The importance of the LP is to be there when the troops arrive and to make
sure they don't give up.
|> I think this claim is really extraordinary in light of the last
|> elections, which propelled the Cato Institute into the status of the
|> "hottest think tank in Washington" and has led to the reexamination of a
|> whole lot of issues, such as the hazardous effects of affirmative action,
|> regulation, etc.
You have cause and effect backwards. The "re-examination" you mentioned
gave rise to the elections. The GOP was the only credible alternative
for that trend and so they benefitted. Admitedly, there is some snow ball
effect from media coverage. But remember, the media only covers things
(such as shifts in thinking) AFTER they happen.
So for "changing the landscape" CATO has done a lot, but not because of
the GOP election, but because of CATO (and all the others out there too).
The spread of ideas is often described in phases. The "visonaries" come
up with it against the grain. Then the "experts" or about 5% of
the population who care about such things in such abstract terms (in
political ideas these are the so called "pundits"). Then the population
at large. Libertarianism has cracked the pundit barrier.
|> > I believe that those who support big, sucessful, professional
|> > politicians are living in a fools near-paradise. They keep thinking
|> > such politicians are just going to hand them liberty. Wrong! We are
|> > going to have to fight for it and win the hard way.
|> Absolutely. But to quote Bill Clinton, insanity is doing the same thing
|> over and over again and expecting the different results. Just because
|> we've been hard at work collecting signatures and nominating LP
|> Presidential candidates doesn't mean that this is time well spent;
|> libertarians have been spending a tremendous amount of time and money to
|> get ourselves on the ballot and nominate candidates, but don't really
|> have a lot to show for it (and what we do have seems to shrink every
|> year; look at the decreasing ballot returns). I think it's foolish to
|> expect that Browne will be all that different, even if he is quite a
|> slick talker.
I suppose the best answer to this is, what else are you going to do?
I'm not looking for large vote totals. I know my views are going
to loose anyway. I'm at the point where a GOP victory does no more
for me than a Democrat victory. That's the key difference here. I
see the GOP as no closer to me than anyone. They're good on some
finance issues, but not on most things of importance to me: term
limits, free speech, civil rights (i.e. Bill of Rights), tolerance,
crime (I'm seriously anti-death penalty and anti-mandatory minimums),
drug policy. Money's not really a big issue for me right now. I
could pay 40% in taxes the rest of my life (I half expect to anyway)
and not get really angry about it. It's not the money sapping that bugs
me about government, it's the control of the economy and contol of
people. I see the GOP as wanting just as much control, only in
different areas. So, I might as well work with whatever alternative
is out there. Like 70 farmers out in 1775 Lexington, I have no hope
that there's enough of us to do any damage, but it'll make people
know we're there and maybe someday get something started. For me,
there is NO opposition to statism other than the LP.
(BTW Browne's theory is to try to get Clinton to insist that the LP
be more involved, knowing that Clinton can't win a two-way race and
that the LP is the most likely GOP vote splitter if taken seriously;
this is the kind of thing I think is good strategy for the LP).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
