-- Attachments:
(warning: posted attachments are not verified
or virus checked by the LPTN -- download at your own risk.)
-- /attachments/msg-25607-2.html --Interesting Commentary on Libertarians in Wash state Governors race.
----- Original Message -----
From: newsandviews_list@chuckmuth.com
To: newsandviews@chuckmuth.com
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Muth's Truths - January 23, 2005
To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.chuckmuth.com/remove
X-ListMember: brcnash@bellsouth.net [newsandviews@chuckmuth.com]
CHAIRMAN VANCE AND THE LIBERTARIAN FACTOR
by Chuck Muth
January 23, 2005
A couple weeks ago in this column, I took Washington state GOP Chairman Chris Vance to the political woodshed for foolishly taunting and agitating the Libertarian Party bull in his backyard. The underlying issue was November's gubernatorial election where the Republican candidate lost by a mere 129 votes (out of about 3 million cast)...while the Libertarian Party (LP) candidate chalked up over 60,000 votes.
Vance has since responded to that column, and I'll get to that in a minute. But first let me put to rest an argument which has been made by some folks who maintain the LP candidate in that race pulled more votes from the Democrat than the Republican. These folks are saying that more Democrats voted for the LP nominee because she was an "out" lesbian than Republicans who voted for the LP nominee because the LP is historically known for its limited-government bona fides.
I don't buy that argument for a minute.
But let's say these folks are correct. Let's say that 99 percent of the LP candidate's votes came from actual Libertarians and disaffected Democrats. That would mean that 1 percent of the 63,465 votes received by the Libertarian candidate came from Republican voters who weren't happy, for one reason or another, with the Republican Party or its gubernatorial candidate. That would be 634 votes.
Again, the Republican lost by only 129 votes.
And bet your bottom dollar there were a LOT more than 634 unhappy GOP campers who threw their "protest" vote to the LP candidate. No matter how you slice it, the GOP's failure to "reach out" sufficiently to citizens who support limited government public policies cost them that election...despite the voter fraud which apparently occurred in liberal King County.
That being said, let's get to the Chairman Vance's rebuttal to my initial column...
"Republicans must stop thinking of the LP as a wing of our party," Vance writes to a GOP grassroots organization which had posted my column on their website. "Like the Democrats, they are a party that competes with us for votes." He adds, "My objective has not been to convince Libertarians to vote Republican."
And that's Vance's problem. There are a LOT of "small l" libertarians in his GOP...whether he wants to admit it or not...and Chairman Vance wants to take the votes of such limited-government Republicans for granted rather than compete for them. Kinda like the way Democrats take the black vote for granted.
The big difference though, which the Chairman apparently fails to recognize, is that while there is no "black" party competing with the Democrats for black votes, there IS a limited-government party competing for Republican votes. Vance doesn't need to convince members of the Libertarian Party to pull the GOP lever; he needs to convince his own libertarian-leaning Republicans who are fed up with a party which has too often been all hat and no cattle when it comes to limited government.
"Our objective must be to make it clear to conservatives that the LP is not a conservative party," Vance continues.
I guess that all depends on your definition of "conservative."
In fact, Ronald Reagan himself saw "conservative" and "libertarian" as pretty much two sides of the same limited government coin. "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," the Gipper told Reason magazine in a 1970's interview. "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
Does anyone of sound mind and body question Mr. Reagan's conservative credentials?
"I have consistently emphasized their support of gay marriage, abortion, legalized drugs and prostitution; and their opposition to the war on terror," the Chairman writes. But his portrayal here is a distorted exaggeration of what diverse voters, in both parties, believe politically. And don't point simply to the party platforms. You can't swing a dead cat at a GOP convention without hitting a Republican who takes issue with some part of the Republican platform, including President Bush. Nevertheless, let's look specifically at the issues Vance chooses to "emphasize":
* Not all Libertarians support gay marriage; however, more than a handful of Vance's Republicans certainly object to a constitutional amendment banning it.
* There are significant numbers of pro-life Libertarians, just as there are significant numbers of pro-choice Republicans in Vance's tent.
* On the drug issue, there are large numbers of Vance's Republicans who support the legal use of medical marijuana, as well as a growing number who view the GOP's "war on drugs" to be a complete and utter failure, not to mention a serious threat to individual and constitutional liberties.
* And when it comes to the war on terror and Iraq, there is a large segment of the Libertarian Party which vigorously supports both, just as there is a large segment of Vance's GOP which opposes them.
To try to portray ALL Libertarians based on the characteristics of some of the dominant activist members is akin to describing ALL of Vance's Republicans as Bible-thumping, gay-bashing Victorians.
"One of my 2004 objectives was to file a Republican for every statewide office to make it more difficult for the LP to get the 5% of the vote they needed to remain a 'major party,' and we succeeded," Vance proudly boasted in his rebuttal. "As a result, for the next four years, LP candidates will have to collect signatures and hold nominating conventions in order to get on the ballot, rather than simply file as Republicans and Democrats do."
Wow. There's something to be proud of, huh? Rather than compete on the field with his opponents, Chairman Vance prefers to lock the gate in an effort to keep those opponents from even taking the field.
I'm sure Chairman Vance and others consider this to be smart, hardball politics, and I guess they have a point. But to me it smacks as...well, cowardly. You can smell the fear. The chairman's stated objective is to prevent competition, not beat it. And while he may have won a short-term victory by locking the gate and forcing the LP to climb the fence to get on the field next season, Vance is setting himself and the GOP up for long-term problems for years to come.
"The job of WSRP Chairman is to get Republicans elected, not help the LP compete with us," Vance concludes.
Well, in that case, the Chairman was, as former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle would put it, a "miserable failure." His ill-considered approach to the LP cost his party, at the very least, the Washington governor's office. So much for getting Republicans elected.
In addition, Vance has given LP'ers grist for the political mill for years to come. If you've ever played serious team sports, you know that coaches routinely post news stories in the locker room which highlight derogatory quotes by opponents in order to "fire up" their own players. "Coach" Vance has handed a library of such motivational quotes to his Libertarian Party opponents. Not very smart.
For their part, I don't think the Libertarians did themselves any favors in the credibility department by nominating for this race a "novelty" gubernatorial candidate who was generally far out of step with them philosophically on most core issues. It wasn't as embarrassing as nominating Howard Stern to be their gubernatorial candidate in New York some years ago, but it did nothing to promote the image of a serious party of principle.
Nevertheless, the LP is still in the political minor leagues these days. It can be forgiven for such electoral "rookie" mistakes. Chairman Vance, on the other hand, should know better. I'm sure he's a nice guy and committed partisan leader with lots of political ambition...but had he been manager of the Yankees, Steinbrenner would have canned him by now.
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com
-- (html alternate email has been deleted) --