[834] in libertarians
Re: More from Browne
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Rose)
Mon Mar 20 22:15:14 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 22:11:29 +0001 (EST)
From: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
To: Vernon Imrich <vimrich@MIT.EDU>
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9503210123.AA01187@america-3.MIT.EDU>
On Mon, 20 Mar 1995, Vernon Imrich wrote:
> 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.
I'm not so sure. For example, Dick Armey is currently going out and
promoting his flat tax scheme on talk radio, in the hopes of generating
enough support so that he can introduce the legislation in 1996.
And Congress really sets the debate for the rest of the country. Or at
least, they've been doing so. Look at welfare, tort reform, etc. Do you
think the Time article on abolishing social security would have been
published if the Dems were in power?
> 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.
Well, libertarianism has. The LP has not, though; nor are any of the
ideas being promoted by Browne even that revolutionary after the
elections!
I think the snowball effect is more than you realize. The media takes
their cues from the politicans a lot of the time, and therefore we are
seeing a lot of ideas previously sancrosanct being now talked about, like
Gingrich's claim that the FDA is the "biggest job killer in America."
> I suppose the best answer to this is, what else are you going to do?
Well, I think there are a lot more succesful organizations out there
gathering support for liberty, like Advocates for Limited Government.
As for political action, I see no reason not to support candidates who
may not be hard-core libertarians, but who at least support a) shrinking
the state and b) are not for any further restrictions on our liberty.
Gramm, Gingrich, Armey, Kaisich, Livingstone and quite a few more GOP
pols meet this test, IMO.
When the LP was started, it wasn't after large vote totals either. It
was to try and persuade people to become libertarians. But it hasn't
attracted as much media attention as people had hoped, and has had to
work much harder to get and maintain ballot status than people had
realized. (and yes, I know the Mass. LP now has it). If people have a
burning desire to get involved in politics, I would think helping elect
Republicans who meet the test I outlined above and getting libertarian
questions on the ballot through initiative petition would be a good idea.
> 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,
Well, the GOP is divided on this. You can't judge the whole party simply
by the acts of some wayward pols.
> free speech
What is the free speech you see them trying to do away with? It's
Democratics Senator James Exon who's trying to censor cyberspace.
>, civil rights (i.e. Bill of Rights)
same question
>, tolerance,
Are you speaking of toleration vis a via homosexuals? Again, the party
is divided here, but Newt seems very much into tolerance.
> crime (I'm seriously anti-death penalty and anti-mandatory minimums),
Well, I disagree with you on these..
> drug policy.
but agree with you here. Unfortunately, the Dems don't seem much better
on this one. And hey, the GOP is even cutting funds for the drug war!
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.
Aside from restricting abortion -- which isn't even a blip on the GOP
agenda right now, they can't even muster the votes to stop Medicaid
funding of it in cases of rape & incest -- what areas are you talking
about?
For me, a lot of the things are cultural, like affirmative action and
welfare and whatnot-- things the GOP is trying valiantly to address?
