Frustration with the Texas Libertarian Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
14,613
Location
Texas
(Please keep the comments constructive and civil and ON TOPIC.)

Recently over on AR15.com, we noticed the TSRA Voting Guide had missed a rating for the Texas Railroad Commissioner election. Now this position doesn't have much effect on RKBA; but it does make a good springboard to higher elected positions since it gives tremendous leverage over the oil & gas industry. All in all, it is a pretty important aspect of government in Texas. From an RKBA standpoint, I believe strongly in strangling the political career of anti-RKBA pols as early as possible.

Since we didn't have any guidance on how the people running were on these issues, the members their did there own research. Here is the Libertarian candidate:

Tabitha Serrano - recent (May 2006) graduate of the South Texas College of Law. Young. Asked to comment on her candidacy she said "Heck! I’m not actually sure what a railroad commissioner actually does, so the first thing I intend to do is figure that out and then get the darn thing renamed to something that makes sense, or maybe do away with it entirely.”

Recently sent out a resume stating: "I am criminal defense. I am particularly interested in appellate brief writing aspect of the job. As a result of this experience I am quite interested in appellate process and procedure, especially in the criminal side. “

I couldn't tell you what else she thinks about the job since she has blown off responding to such organizations as the League of Women Voters, Austin-American Statesmen, etc.

This is the best candidate the Libertarian party could come up with? A 20-something, unemployed, fresh out-of-law-school, got a blog type?

Sadly, this is not an anomaly among the LP candidates in Texas. I like libertarian philosophy. In the past, the Texas LP ran John Gonzales for Congressman because he was a freelance reporter for the Dallas Observer and they thought they might get a bit of publicity. Here is what Gonzales had to say about the experience:

John Gonzales said:
I took Michalski's advice and decided to run on the Libertarian ticket, even though I had no political experience, no money, no staff and no idea what the Libertarians believed. I didn't know that they're the fringe of society, the kind of people, in general, whom you cross the street to avoid. I didn't know that they're staunch individualists who dislike it intensely when "those government boys tell us what to do." I didn't know any of that. Bolstered by ignorance and a healthy sense of self-worth, I made the leap.

I ran as a Libertarian not because I agreed with their ideas but because I needed a party (I'm an Independent) just as much as they needed a candidate. To run for Congress as a Republican, Democrat or Independent in Texas, you must gather 500 signatures or pay more than $3,500. I wasn't going to collect signatures, and there was no way I was going to shell out the money. Running as a third-party candidate offered a better solution.
Click to expand...

I even voted for many Libertarians (including Ms. Serrano) despite the fact I knew they had a strong tendency to run candidates exactly like this because I wanted to "send a message" to the major parties. But I have to admit, I am pretty upset now. Here the Libertarian party is out there telling us the only way things will ever change is if we start voting for a third party. Yet they nominate someone who clearly thinks this is all a grand joke and is totally unqualified for the position she would hold. So I guess I feel frustration that the LP wants me to take them seriously, yet they make absolutely no effort to behave in a serious fashion.

Frankly, I question what is the point in giving the LP the reins of power (assuming we could get enough like minded people to do that), if their current plan of action involves nominating any guy who walks in off the street? Is it necessarily a good thing for us to elect a 100% pro-RKBA candidate if he is woefully unqualfied for the job? Given the past history of the Texas LP, how do I even know that he is 100% pro-RKBA? And for that matter, what leverage does the LP have over him if he wasn't at all in line with their beliefs?
 
You know the answer, of course

Those of us who are NOT brainless fluffheads, who do know what the Libertarian philosophy is about and who DO want to see change....

...need to run for office.

If I was healthy enough to do it, I would seriously consider this. I'd probably fall apart physically part way through any campaign so that's not an option. But unless intelligent, informed, and willing people get out there and do so, then this is what we're going to get.

Volunteers????

Springmom
 
What could any of us say that you and Ron Paul don't already know, Bartholomew?

Bummer that Texas' GOP platform is socially near fascist.

In California, the GOP is far more palatable for a libertarian.

Helluva dilemma.
 
This sort of frustration with the libertarians is, I think, growing.

I see the very same exasperation coming from places like Reason Magazine and CATO.
 
I concur.

From what I can see, the LP's amateurish shenanigans are pretty much universal. They do themselves discredit, and their recent pandering to the Left will be their undoing.

I really don't think there's much that can be done aside aside my 3 point plan:

1) Break the Leftist infestation of the DNC via sustained electoral evisceration.

2) Reform the GOP via direct grassroots involvement designed to suppress dark authoritarians in favor of minarchist freedom lovers

3) Dispatch a contingent to salvage whatever, if anything, of value can be found in the 3rd parties.
 
The problem with the Libertarian Party is that it has some good ideas but no objective means of accomplishing its goals. Therefore, its candidates come off sounding like wack jobs. I call it the "flip a switch" party, because the only thing the candidates can say is that the day they take office they are going to, essentially, flip a switch, cut off huge government programs, halt tax collections and the like. That is NEVER going to happen because chaos would unsue from such a radical change in such a short period of time, and people just won't go for it. If the party wants to become real, instead of remaining irrelevant, it needs to come up with a means of implementing policies over time, with short and long term objectives and benchmarks. Of course, that's a lot harder than just saying "We'll flip the switch."
 
Essentially a vote for the libertarian is a vote for NOTA.
Click to expand...

The only problem is that NOTA hasn't voted for, intoduced, signed or vetoed a bill. NOTA has never appointed, confirmed, or refused to confirm a judge. NOTA has never done a single thing in our government, in the history of the USA.

We live in a republic. That means that the way things happen is that we elect and influence representatives. NOTA can't represent us.

Yes, this is a problem. But NOTA can't introduce a bill to help change it, either.

What I am trying to figure out is how we get libertarian, minarchist, classical liberal, and similar people in office, and how we let them know that acting as such will bring them political success. That's how you win this game, and it's the only way.
 
Just opinions, for what they might be worth: If you're gonna start from scratch to build a political group, you start with principles and stay away from specific issues--at least at the beginning. Political philosophy, not politics.

You seek out like-minded people in your social group(s) and your neighborhood. You maybe do some advertising, to reach out further. And you keep pointing out, over and over, that your group is not ready to seek consensus or take votes on specific issues. Talk about them over coffee or a few beers, fine; but don't break up early because of internal strife over differences.

Start small, if you find a person who could be an attractive candidate. The person must be grounded on issues and have the time--and maybe some money--to be viable. Physical attractiveness and the ability to present good arguments in front of a TV camera is a definite plus.

Start small, as far as the goal: City council; maybe mayor. County commissioner. At most, state representative, depending on the district.

After twenty years of effort, some positive results might come about. After all, in Texas, it took from Reconstruction until the election of Bill Clements for the Republicans to have any voice, and even longer to achieve legislative power.

Depends on how good the selling of the philosophy of "less government" is done.

Art
 
Guess what? There are certifiable idiots in all political parties, but those in the two major parties actually hold office. The two major parties also have goals that they have no hope of achieving anytime soon.

Libertarians can no more “flip the switch” than can Democrats or Republicans, but we can for damn sure vote against or veto more taxes, more gun controls, and more attacks on our civil liberties. Is that so hard to understand?

If you really want change, then you had better start voting for it.

~G. Fink
 
Guess what? There are certifiable idiots in all political parties, but those in the two major parties actually hold office.
Click to expand...

If this was more a case of the occasional goofball who made it through the primary, I would be a lot more understanding. The problem is that to me this appears more the norm than the exception.

I tend to agree with Art that you have to build from the ground up in order to establish power. The problem I see is that while the Libertarian party may have good philosophy, they are selecting candidates who couldn't win a race for dogcatcher even with a D or R behind their name (and the money that goes with that).

The LP is asking a tremendous amount of trust from me. They not only want me to endorse their platform with my vote, they want me to take the much harder road of a third party. They want me to risk a worse outcome for 4, 8, 12 or more years in hopes it will ultimately be better down the road. I don't see these decisions as worthy of that trust. There is no question that the major parties have their share of idiots. The difference is that those idiots at least make an effort to be serious. They respond to people like the League of Women Voters. They don't nominate 20-something students to run for major statewide office.
 
but we can for damn sure vote against or veto more taxes, more gun controls, and more attacks on our civil liberties.
Click to expand...

We have no Libertarian representatives in office, Gordon.

Since this is a Republic, we therefore damn sure CAN'T vote against or veto more taxes (a VETO would require a Libertarian in an executive office, an even loftier goal than a representative), gun controls or attacks on our civil liberties.

Therefore, we can't really vote against a damn thing, as long as none of us is in one of these offices. That's not how the Constitution works.

Do over.

I understand that this truth is hard to take for a lot of Libertarians, including me until recently. Denial hasn't gotten us anywhere, though. In fact, we're losing votes, not gaining them. This has something to do with Libertarian foreign policy, which ranges from wishful thinking to nonexistent. We don't even have a full platform, really. Sad, but true.

Barring a cataclysmic change in the US -- and we're nowhere NEAR that -- the way you get a libertarian in office is by going through the proven paths, which would be through one of the two political parties that have been absolutely dominant for a century and a half.
 
bart, i totally agree. i voted libertarian at local and state levels until those nutballs were upstaged by the nutballs in the constitution party.

not sure what the answer is, but i imagine it takes substantial effort with little promise of return
 
My impression of the LP is that it is largely made up of people like Tabitha Serrano, and that the LP is a handled group being cultured specifically to lead truly conservative or otherwise truly independently minded folk on a wild goose chase to "reclaim their country" from a runaway Federal government co-opted by global socialists - which make up the core and leadership of the democratic republican party and the oligarchy that pulls their strings.

Of course a closer look at the LP platform dispel any such notion, but led on by some of their more appealing (and actually very sound) positions, many people have gravitated towards them as the only "viable" alternative to the current status quo.

Nice red herring - more controlled mock opposition. So putting a good smattering of useless (and easily manipulated) people at intermediate levels makes perfect sense.

I won't be voting for any of them.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
There are two fundamental flaws in the whole Libertarian shtick, regardless of how attractive the philosophy for any of us:

First, it requires far more personal responsibility for the consequences of decisions and actions than most folks are willing to assume. "Less government" means more personal responsibility. That's built into the philosophy.

Second, it is highly attractive to the "professional government hater" type who will unendingly spout off in the guise of being a capital-ell Libertarian. That chases potential allies away--far away.

IOW, great ideas, great philosophy, but zero chance of success beyond some minimum level. Micro-minimum...

The best opportunity for what might be called the Protest Party would have been to run on Republican tickets, and try to effect changes from within--and remain silent on the entire issue of libertarianism. That takes a bit of hypocrisy, of course, but politics isn't about moral purity. It's only about winning a majority of votes.

The reality check comes from around 70 years ago, with Speaker Sam Rayburn's comment, "You have to go along to get along." Nothing's changed. Not since Julius Caesar's day, anyhow.

Art
 
The libertarians don’t seem to be interested in actually doing anything to change things politically but rather they want to be a part of a group that allows them to complain. They take such outlandish and extremist positions on issues that guarantee they won’t get elected so they avoid any responsibility for being in office yet they can perpetually criticize those that are in office.

To actually get elected would mean the need to work in govt. and start rolling back socialist nonsense, and this is a lot less fun then simply arguing idealism. Repealing laws and reforming our govt. will not be a nice or simple job, and will also involve compromise to various degrees, something most utopian idealists Libertarians can’t fathom. Most libertarians would gladly spend 20hrs straight talking about privatizing the court system but they will not pick up the phone or knock on a single door to help get someone elected.
 
The TLP is one of the larger LP orgs, too.

If the TLP could not have found someone of substance to run, they could at least have found someone of substance to...not run, but appear on the ballot and answer the various questionnaires.

I guess I will take the LP seriously when the LP gets serious and is not a plaything/vanity party.
 
I am not a "professional government hater" but I can understand the concept.

I know that Libertarians will never win because I know that both wings of the major party have their snouts so deep into the .gov trough that even though they espouse "smaller .gov" and "cure the social ills" they will never back out of it for fear that somebody else will take their place.

Like hogs in the swill.

Yes, it may be cause for some consternation to these that there are some who will not drink of the koolaide on principle.

When the .gov goes belly up and we are all forced to demonstrate the concept of "Less government means more personal responsibility" and tote our own barge it will be hard times.

I will probably be dead by then but I will be looking down and sadly shaking my head and saying "I told them so." Enjoy the koolaide while you can.
 
ArmedBear said:
We have no Libertarian representatives in office, Gordon.

… the way you get a libertarian in office is by going through the proven paths, which would be through one of the two political parties that have been absolutely dominant for a century and a half.
Click to expand...

Actually, we do have Libertarians in office. These are the ones you’re always advising to run for the local (usually “non-partisan”) offices. You know, that whole “starting small” business.

As for changing the major parties from inside, good luck. The Democratic Party is controlled by Marxist authoritarians, and the Republican Party is controlled by Christian authoritarians. You will never convince either of these groups that their religion is wrong.

~G. Fink
 
both wings of the major party have their snouts so deep into the .gov trough that even though they espouse "smaller .gov" and "cure the social ills" they will never back out of it for fear that somebody else will take their place.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Depends on what they think will keep voters voting for them. The parties are reflections of what they believe voters will support.

Political parties exist as support systems for candidates. Parties are like football teams.

A lone football player, or even a group of them, no matter how good they are, would not be able to win a game without the coaches, strength coaches, promoters, administrators, scouts, accountants, facilities, etc.

The team tries to pick the players, strategies, plays, team image, cheerleaders, etc. to come out ahead financially and on the field. The team gets sponsors, a stadium, TV slots, etc. to make a profit.

Football teams do not stick to ideologies; they try to look at what works and how to win.

Political parties are similar. If one of the Big 2 (the Only 2) thought Badnarik had a good chance of winning one for their party, they would have done their damndest to make him their candidate. And parties, like "the public", are just groups of human beings; they're not a big carved piece of stone that never moves.

Now parties may hang on to ideologies or platform elements because they figure that these things get them a voting bloc. E.g., affirmative action and other parts of their platform and words they make sure to use get 89% of African-Americans to vote Democrat like clockwork; anti-abortion rhetoric -- just words, for the most part -- has brought the religious right into the GOP fold. I'm sure you can name plenty of other groups.

Which voting blocs are "in play" right now, as the Big 2 see things? It's pretty obvious, even if the Big 2 often screw up their strategies: retiring Baby Looters oops Boomers, and the growing Hispanic population.

So here's the Libertarian mistake: we think that the Big 2 parties are like us or the Greens, meaning that we are basically fundamentalist ideologues. THEY ARE NOT.

As for changing the major parties from inside, good luck. The Democratic Party is controlled by Marxist authoritarians, and the Republican Party is controlled by Christian authoritarians. You will never convince either of these groups that their religion is wrong.
Click to expand...

Above, Gordon illustrates this misunderstanding succinctly.

Yes, the academics and journalists who are one voting bloc among several in the Democrat fold are ideological Marxist authoritarians. But public employee union bosses and other beneficiaries of Democrat legislation are not. They're just in the Democrat coalition for the money. Environmentalists are in it because the Democrats tend to pass the laws they want -- these are de facto authoritarian a lot of the time, but there's a difference between that and deep-seated ideology.

And yes, the Christian fundamentalists are ideological "Christian" authoritarians. But the Chamber of Commerce, gun rights advocates, tax-cut advocates, etc. are not. They're in the GOP coalition because the GOP throws them a bone, just like the environmentalists are with the Dems.

Now the AARP goes with whomever promises the most largesse. They're one of the clearest non-ideological voting blocs, and that's why they're considered "in play" by both parties. That's where the Medicare Drug Debacle comes from, not some ideology on either side.

The real head-in-the-clouds ideologues can be found busily marginalizing ourselves in the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Peace and Freedom, and various Parties of the Week.

The Democrats and the Republicans are not monolithic "religions". WE ARE.

You can go on and on about how that's bad, but hey, the universe didn't ask you what reality should be, and it never will.

And if we do get a Libertarian elected to dogcatcher now and again, he/she needs to plan on working within the infrastructure of an existing major party to go any further. That's not as bad as it seems to some of us moralistic ideologues.

So, as many have said here again and again, it's the CANDIDATE that matters. Get a good CANDIDATE up for election. The 2 parties are support structures; USE THEM as such. They just want an R or D in office because that's their function, so they don't mind being "used" that way.

Zell Miller never brought the wrath of the Democrats upon himself as long as he kept that D by his name, no matter what he believed personally. Why? BECAUSE HE COULD WIN THE ELECTION. Something to think about.

I'm not suggesting we abandon our first principles as people. But parties exist to serve US, not the other way around.
 
ArmedBear said:
Gordon illustrates this misunderstanding succinctly.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that ArmedBear misunderstands the difference between control and membership, not unlike all those who misunderstood the difference between is and was.

~G. Fink
 
No, Gordon, you misunderstand the difference between this week and forever, as well as the difference between the image and reality.:rolleyes:

The Libertarian Party is a lot like a religion. Things that make sense to everyone on the "outside" don't make sense to people on the "inside", and vice versa. When that happens, it's time to re-evaluate.

It seems that the difference between the hopelessly arrogant Libertarian and the hopelessly arrogant Democrat or Republican is that, if he holds fast to his arrogance, the Democrat or Republican actually might be elected to office one day.:p
 
Well, it’s a futile effort anyway. If we can’t convince avid firearms enthusiasts to embrace the right to arms, we certainly aren’t going to convince authoritarians to embrace libertarianism.

~G. Fink :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Third Party Candidates Get Few Votes
Replies
0
Views
344
rock jock
R
P
  • Locked
What if the Libertarians....
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Mark Tyson
M
J
  • Locked
St Louis Post Dispatch article on MO Libertarians
Replies
1
Views
394
sch40
S
X
  • Locked
Congress Attempts to Kill the "Third-Party Threat"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
longeyes
L
2
  • Locked
Libertarians Support Al Sharpton For President
Replies
15
Views
794
Cactus
C
Back
Top