Votes Not Only Measure Of LP Success

Over the the last week or so I've been involved in a lively (and at times rancorous) email debate, initiated by Attorney General candidate Rich Shepard, regarding the future of the Libertarian Party, and especially the LPWS (see Rich's instigating article here).

While Rich raises some important questions and voices some understandable disappointments, the facts, in my estimation, don't justify the conclusion some readers may draw from his remarks, namely, that supporting the Libertarian Party is an exercise in futility.

Rich's pessimism—-which I realize is shared these post-election weeks by many other libertarians around the state and the nation—-appears to rest on two sets of facts: the LP's meager successes in races around the country in November, including his own here in Washington, and the apparent inability of the LPWS to organize itself effectively and produce results in our state.

That portion of the pessimism attributable to the first set of facts is not surprising; it arises after every election, when the LP's returns fail to meet the unrealistic expectations generated by campaign enthusiasm.

The excitement of a campaign invariably generates unwarranted optimism; like the supporters of every other candidate (or football team, for that matter), we want our guys to win, and that ardor precludes our making realistic judgments of their chances while the campaign is underway. Every innovation or perceived improvement in the current candidate or campaign, as compared to the previous, deepens the rosy hue of our glasses. In 1996 we expected Harry Browne to do dramatically better than the hapless Andre Marrou because of Browne's articulate command of the issues and telegenic presence, and because he ran a professional, energetic campaign, garnering much more exposure on talk radio and television than any previous LP candidate. In my own case, I expected the emergence of widespread Internet communications since 1992, and Browne's popularity among the wired crowd, to yield hundreds of thousands of votes we'd never had in the past.

But the hard reality to which we must glumly return after each campaign is that the electoral framework in this country demands a two-party system. The lion's share of the money will always go, and the best qualified, serious candidates will always run, as a Democrats or Republicans, holding their noses if necessary. Contributers to PACs are essentially buying insurance that the next government will keep their gravy trains on the tracks (or that it will not run new tracks over their backs); they see no profit in promoting principles for their own sake, and will not put money on long shots. Their spending decisions are relentlessly pragmatic. Most donors to environmental PACs, for example, are probably ideological supporters of the Green Party—-but their campaign money goes to Democrats. I do not expect the LP or any other minor party to ever win a majority in a state legislative house—-much less the US Congress—-barring a major national crisis on the order of the slavery question and the Civil War, which tore the Whig party apart and created the vacancy the Republicans filled.

A better criterion of success of the LP, in my judgment, than how many candidates we elect is the extent to which we set the terms of the political debate in the nation. And by that measure the LP (and the libertarian movement generally) has been very successful in the last four years. A recent full-width bannerline in the Spokesman-Review read, ''Turn Social Security Over to Wall St.?'' 'T'was a report on the recommendations of the Social Security blue-ribbon committee, which released it's recommendations a few weeks ago. All of the research, all of the analysis, and most of the effective shmoozing for this idea have been done by the Cato Institute—-an offspring of the Libertarian Party. The marijuana victories in Arizona and California would not have happened without the sustained, reasoned challenges to this nation's inane and destructive drug laws pressed by the LP and other libertarian groups. Libertarian organizations like the Institute for Justice are at the forefront of the school choice movement, and libertarian scholars like Richard Epstein have laid the groundwork for the favorable Supreme Court rulings in cases like Lopez and Nollan-Lucas-Dolan.

Of course, as a political party, rather than a think tank, it is our role to run candidates and take positions on public policy issues. But a sufficient reason for doing these things is to get air time and column inches for libertarian views; to change the questions voters ask, and the answers other candidates are willing (and know how) to give. If we win an election from time to time, that is lagniappe. And by that measure, the 1996 campaign was our most successful ever. Consider this sample of press attention, culled from a recent press release from the national LP:

''I've found myself attracted to the political philosophy of the Libertarian Party. I don't have any delusions about the Libertarian Party sweeping into office. But I consider the philosophy of Libertarians as having already won the public debate, if not the political one.'' — Mike McNeill, News Messenger (Marshall, Texas), November 3, 1996.

''Libertarians are, just as they claim, principled and consistent—they believe in individual liberty.'' — Molly Ivins, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Texas), September 14, 1996.

''The Libertarian Party has influence in today's politics dramatically disproportionate to the number of votes its candidates receive in elections . . .Taken one by one, most Libertarian ideas resonate with most of us. Most of all, we should admire the consistency and determination of Libertarians, who certainly can't be accused of flip-flopping on demand as most politicians do.'' — Columbia Daily Tribune (Missouri), September 10, 1996.

''There is a peculiar passion that pervades the ranks of the Libertarian Party. . .These folks are driven by principles.'' — Mark Davis, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Texas), July 10, 1996.

''The Libertarians are energized by a vision to a greater degree than either major party. Libertarians add yeast to the United States' political culture, and their success means that any [other] parties can't fairly be called third parties, but fourth or fifth.'' — The Register-Guard (Eugene, Oregon), July 16, 1996.

''Republicans and President Clinton may talk the talk of smaller government and personal freedom, but Libertarians will never veer from the walk.'' — Jonathan Peterson, Los Angeles Times (California), July 7, 1996.

''Libertarian scholarship is reasoned, non-ranting, often fresh and as worthy of a place in the national debate as any agenda advanced by those of conventional mind.'' — Colman McCarthy, Washington Post, July 13, 1996.

''A vote for the Libertarians is a vote for the only coherent ideological political approach now heard in the nation.'' — James Ridgeway, Village Voice (New York), September 24, 1996.

''Libertarians . . . have the vision thing. Because their philosophy begins (and ends) with liberty, they reverse the standard political equation . . . The Libertarians set high standards—too high, indeed, for a fallen world. Men are not angels. But someone needs to set the ideal standards; someone needs to ask the questions Libertarians ask.'' — Richmond Times-Dispatch (Virginia), July 21, 1996.

''The Libertarians are in the process of spreading a lot of ideas that could eventually change the nature of the debate between the two major parties . . . [their] entire platform is based on a word that the major-party politicians use so rarely that it might as well be called the F-word—freedom.'' — Paul Mulshine, Star-Ledger (New Jersey), September 1, 1996.

Ron Paul, the LP's 1988 presidential candidate, won his Texas race for a U. S. House seat despite his opponent's campaign strategy of portraying him as a ''libertarian extremist.'' The voters found Paul's libertarian views quite congenial—-but had he not run as a Republican he would not have raised the money to wage an effective campaign.

Anyone who is curious about the extent of libertarian influence within the Republican Party should read the interview with Grover Norquist in the February issue of Reason. Norquist is head of Americans for Tax Reform, and perhaps the most influential idea man and strategizer in the GOP camp. His Wednesday morning breakfasts, attended by 50-100 Washington movers & shakers, have been called the ''hottest meeting in Washington.'' Hint: Norquist cut his teeth working with an anti-tax group chaired by Ed Clark.

We are a strongly ideological and intellectually sophisticated party, which means we'll never be very large nor have a majority in any legislative body. But if we understand our role and play it right we can have influence far beyond our numbers. We already have.