Subject:
|
Re: Can Harry Browne do it?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:55:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
260 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> > Late last night on C-Span they re-ran a Harry Browne rally from November 1.
> > I thought he did a good job of introducing the LP philosophy and I think a
> > lot of people would hear his message loud and clear if he could get any
> > decent normal TV spots or a position in a national debate.
Indeed. Don't get ME started either. The Commission on Presidential Debates
is a "bipartisan" not "nonpartisan" and the bar has been set so high to
ensure no candidate other than a demopublican can participate. This enusures
perpetuation of the duopoly.
Even polls are skewed. Check the Gallup for example, they have decided who
to allow to be chosen by not including all candidates in their questions. If
there is interest I can post an LP newsflash about that from a few weeks back.
> I haven't actually seen him speak, but he will be the third LP presidential
> candidate that I will have voted for. I think it all comes down to money, and
> the LP isn't willing to get enough of it to actually take hold. I am a "belly
> up to the trough" libertarian, but I hold the minority opinion within the LP.
Yep. I'm on the other side of this one, the "party of principle" means that
we can't take money that we think was stolen in the first place and be true
to our principles. Even if we're using it to abolish the very program that
gave it. At least that's the argument. Sometimes I wonder, though
I think the traction comes from the bottom. The LP can and does win small
races and needs to do more of that.
> What beats personal and group responsibility with as much liberty as you can
> swallow? Almost everyone I talk to will admit that they agree largely with
> Libertarian ideals, but that they think they're radical zealots and so they'll
> go ahead and vote for their Republicratic candidate.
Yep. And it doesn't help when we Libertarian Macho Flash and say stuff like
"Privatize the national parks"! :-) It's a logical outcome of our principles
but it would be about last on my list of things to do (except for roads).
There are much more important things to do like fix Social Security.
> > My question is: Can Harry Browne get one million votes that he wants this
> > year? And will that be enough to propel the LP forward to progressively
> > better positions in 2004 or 2008?
>
> No, the votes won't be enough. It still takes huge gobs of money that you
> can only get by being taken generally seriously
Our ideas are taken more seriously, even if the party itself isn't.
> and representing special
> interests.
Which I hope we never do.
The large L Libertarian Party may never elect a president. But small L
libertarian ideas *have* become more common, people don't automatically
assume that government can solve all problems. The ideas have gotten
coopted, and that's great. Without saying I *like* Clinton, I can honestly
say that he is more libertarian than FDR or LBJ... Not nearly libertarian
enough, but we move in the right direction anyway.
That makes all the time and energy and money I (and the rest of us) poured
in over the years worth it. Not the best outcome, but good.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Can Harry Browne do it?
|
| (...) I haven't actually seen him speak, but he will be the third LP presidential candidate that I will have voted for. I think it all comes down to money, and the LP isn't willing to get enough of it to actually take hold. I am a "belly up to the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
