Why Libertarians Don't Win Elections...

J

JakeStratham

New member
Oct 28, 2009
2,641
177
0
Location, Location
A recent piece by Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic explores the reasons it it so difficult for libertarianism to be taken seriously as a political movement.


ron%20paul%20worst.jpg



If you want to get Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or another liberty-minded individual into the White House, Friedersdorf's article is worth a read. It reveals how long and bumpy the road is.


paul%20in%20car%20full.jpg





Side note: also worth a quick read:

Why Does Ron Paul Scare You? - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

Why the Press Loves Jon Huntsman but Ignores Ron Paul - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic
 


i wouldn't call these "truths"

"said climate change is caused by humans, and insisted that it was essential to raise the debt ceiling"

but it is the truth on why the establishment likes people like Huntsman. He knows that the banksters butter his bread.
 
I don't think anyone is truly expecting him to win.

Ron's place in this election is to make the libertarian party a viable option in the future.

Chances are from here on out we'll be seeing the republican party as a whole adopting libertarian ideals.
 
Thanks for posting this. As a foreigner, I find the US political system fascinating. The president has so much prestige, but so little power to get things done compared to a prime minister.

The presidential system/fptp will make it very hard for libertarianism to get a decent foothold in the US. It's been bad enough for the liberals over here - they had to wait for a hung parliament before they got a shot in power, and it could still prove to be disastrous for them.
 
Vigor said:
I don't think anyone is truly expecting him to win.

Ron's place in this election is to make the libertarian party a viable option in the future.

Chances are from here on out we'll be seeing the republican party as a whole adopting libertarian ideals.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I have definitely never heard as much clamoring about libertarianism in my life as I have in the past few months.
 
I didn't see the most obvious one there, which explains why libertarians have made so little progress on even the local level (it's actually kind of cute that the author suggests that they try it, as if it's never occurred to them.) Succinctly put, nobody wants what libertarians are selling. All the talk about freedom and prosperity through the invisible hand etc. ignores the fact that in the event of a libertarian revolution, the first thing that will happen is lots and lots and lots and lots of pain, as people try to wean themselves off of the udder state. There's no methadone for that addiction, and most people (Americans or otherwise) would rather just die a junkie's death than try to turn the situation around.

Libertarians promise things that some people do want, but the only way to get those things, most people aren't willing to do. Most people who see this just assume that anyone who identifies himself as a libertarian has never thought about those short-term shocks and consequences; and so libertarianism as a meme is looked down on as a thing young people do in college, like being bisexual or tripping on acid, even though many people do continue all three of these activities well on into life.


Frank
 
Doesn't make a difference when it comes to US politics anymore. Just look... you had Bush the "war-monger" who was dumb as shit, and then Obama the "socialist" elite guy. What difference has it made? Absolutely none whatsoever.

The only real difference is your current president can speak in coherent sentences, unlike his predecessor. That's about it though. The US is still on the same trajectory, with the same policies.
 
amateursurgeon said:
Thanks for posting this. As a foreigner, I find the US political system fascinating. The president has so much prestige, but so little power to get things done compared to a prime minister.

The presidential system/fptp will make it very hard for libertarianism to get a decent foothold in the US. It's been bad enough for the liberals over here - they had to wait for a hung parliament before they got a shot in power, and it could still prove to be disastrous for them.
Click to expand...

This is only half true. By wielding the veto pen he can basically let both houses of congress know that nothing goes through unless they agree to certain things he wants done. Plus I would imagine Ron Paul has some type of plan already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom