There are many who question the existence of the Libertarian Party. They believe that all their needs will be met by either the Democrats or Republicans. But what of the individual who cherishes his civil liberties, all of them not just a convenient few, who is appalled at the state of our economy and its dependence on foreign investment to remain viable, who is tired of the policies of tax and spend or borrow and spend, and who had quite enough of a failed foreign policy that has alienated much of the world, including our allies. Where is this person to turn if not to the Libertarians?
There are many who share the basic Libertarian ideals, yet they remain with the old parties out of a fear to take a chance on something different. As FDR (I know he is probably the farthest thing from a Libertarian as possible) once so eloquently said, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." Take the chance vote with your principles, not with your habits.
Vote for Sean Shepard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)
3 comments:
FDR's great words came on the heals of the great depression and stock market woes and begged for goodness and common sense of Americans to renewed consciousness. I agree that we need that today, given deficit spending and all the stuff you mentioned. Does that translate into a Libertarian Party? Would it translate into a reinvigorated Democratic Party with Obama calling for change? What about the maverick John Mccain? Which would take longer to get done: introducing a Libertarian Party and still fighting 2 other parties against the odds which would take decades, or taking Libertarian ideas into the 2 existing parties and developing change from within? First you have to get there, and therein lies the problem. Ross Pereau tried a 3rd party, but had no chrisma and failed, and ended up endorsing Bush. The Libertarians have done a poor job of communicating their ideals and many times espoused by kooks. Their platform is poorly written and communication skills even worse. The mantra of 'fair tax' has enough holes to flood the grand canyon and most don't understand it, yet it is the first thing Libertarians cite when they run for office. Remember 'new' coke failed. It would take roughly 100 years for the Libertarian Party to gather enough votes in Congress to make a difference. That leaves us with what to do now and we get into the wasted vote for a Libertarian arguments. Perhaps FDR's fear statement could be applied in reverse. What is there to fear in joining the Rs or Ds and spread these ideas to make a difference more quickly? Roughly 35 yrs. in existence, and with no one in Congress, do we have 100 yrs. to wait to make a difference? The best way to make a difference now is to get there under 1 of the 2 major parties and start reforms by convincing your fellow congressmen of your principles and start voting.
I will admit that the Libertarian Party has had more than a few image problems. But the problem is that the two older parties do not readily welcome real change. Real change does not come from the office of the President. It lies within the Congress and the various state legislatures.
Look at Indiana for example in order to make a sucessful bid for election in one of the two older parties you must get slated, otherwise you will little or no support. To get slated you have to demonstrate that you are fundamentally in agreement with the ideology. Real change cannot happen if the only persons who get elected still see things the way they've always been seen.
Third parties can find sucess if the time is right. In Indiana the time is right to offer the electorate something other than the same old platforms and partisan bickering. The face of the Libertarian Party is changing.
Still think third parties don't have a chance? Go ask a Whig.
BTW, I'm more of a flat tax man myself.
The other factor is that some voters are ingrained with the idea of a two party system and can't grasp the concept that the best candidate may be someone else.
That's what has produced the problems we now face, voting for the party and not the man or woman.
Post a Comment