Good evening again, Frank! Frank Gilliland wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote:
If you happen to live in Hawaii, and you are a Libertarian, then you enter a given race as a Democrat candidate and spew a radical Libertarian platform agenda. Conversely, in Idaho, you enter a given race as a Republican candidate and spew the same Libertarian-driven agenda. Most of the "sheep-herd" populace won't see anything other than perhaps the Democrat or GOP label as attached to the candidate.
To which, you replied:
That tactic only works if the imposter can sneak through the primaries. After that, some votes are automatic since many voters punch a party-line ballot.
Actually, the point that I was attempting to make, was that there are an awful lot of 'imposers' in Idaho. I can name a handful of 'em right here in Region I, beginning of course with our three State Legislators!
When you take a look at the Legislative races last time, I ran for State Representative for Region I, as a Libertarian. One of my two opponents naturally got elected, Mr. Eric Anderson (the GOP candidate). He virtually copied my entire campaign line, and made it his own. I was even conned insofar as I called him up the next day after the election, and offered him my own support. However, once elected, he showed his true colours, that he was the preferred PAID FOR candidate for his special interest group donors. His voting record was dismal, and reflected nothing whatsoever in a manner in which I would have voted, if by chance the people had had enough and actually voted for a third party candidate who might honestly represent their own interests.
The point I am trying to make here should be rather obvious. I guess it revolves around the question pertaining to whether or not Libertarians ought to be so inclined to run under major Party banners, as in Hawaii (Democrat) or Idaho (GOP) for the sake of getting elected, or at least having a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected? On a practical matter, to get elected that is, it might have some merit for consideration certainly.
On a moral matter, if one believes in such these days, is it really the right thing to do?
Another way to look at this might be to consider things that really are an aversion to a Candidate such as myself. I hate the Democrat Party in all and virtually everything the Democratic Party platform enforces. Qualifying this somewhat: NOT everything, but just about everything!
You seem to have suggested: Go ahead. Lie between your teeth and do it anyway! At least in this instance when Hawaii is obviously controlled entirely by the Democrats! I probably would not have such a messy problem running in Idaho under the GOP banner, since historically there are a great many Republicans who might be considered as a tremendous reservoir of champions for Libertarian causes, such as the late Barry Goldwater and the present Dr. Ron Paul.
You replied last time:
People aren't born Democrats or Republicans, and people don't change political ideology based on their state of residence. The fact is that people are pretty much the same wherever you go. The source of the political differences between Idaho and Hawaii are pretty obvious; economics. Hawaii has been politically 'stable' because income from both tourism and the military has been stable. Idaho, OTOH, has a history of political trends that closely follows the many variations of it's economic history. Right now the tourism industry is booming and the Republican party is losing its base (the state income has become less dependent upon agricultural subsidies, the traditional "buy-your-vote" tactic of the GOP).
Maybe you see the picture in Idaho, but probably this isn't really it. It likely has a lot more to do with in-migration of a vast horde of disenfranched migrants from California and elsewhere that find a way to move up here and VOTE! Unfortunately, they bring their baggage with them, and often they call themselves Republicans! Sometimes they call themselves Democrats, but they seem to quickly notice that label doesn't work here as well as it might have back 'home' in California, so they shift Party labels and support Phsydo Republicans who give them the satisfaction at least, that their previous morphed 'California' lifestyle will be protected here in Idaho!
So, as far as a Libertarian riding into office on the back of a donkey or an elephant, the key thing to remember is economics: people will vote for anyone who can bring home the pork and against anyone who will take it away. People would vote for Hitler if they thought he could put more cash in their wallets. After all, the tactic worked for Ronald "It worked in Califonia" Reagan, George "Read my lips" Bush, and George "Rebate checks for everyone" Bush, didn't it?
Yes it did. But at least one qualification might be in order here. Ronald Reagan started out on the right plane of thought into his first term, and was large sabotaged in short order when the rubber met the road. You might wish to scroll back in this message to my mention of Ron Paul, however, since he has a rather long history in the US Congress, and he also once abandoned the GOP in favour of running for US President under the Libertarian Party label. He seems to be the best example, so far, of anyone actually doing what you originally suggested. He went back and ran again under the GOP banner and was elected again to represent his District.
This example is probably the ONLY current example where a principled Libertarian has actually pulled off something like this honestly in the national Legislature! There are other examples, of course, such as the late Barry Goldwater who were always within the GOP orbit (and normally associated with the radical right wing of that Party), and Phillip Crane (God only knows what happened to him), and then there was (and probably still is somewhere) the likes of Idaho's former Senator and Congressman Steve Symms.
The point is, at least in a practical matter, where are any of these guys today? Barry Goldwater is dead. Where, other than Ron Paul do we find a viable Libertarian presence in the US Congress today? Is there anyone else these days really doing any of this and making a physical presence for Libertarian causes today (other than the exception, Dr. Ron Paul)? I would suggest that there isn't anyone, other than the above exception to this rule, doing that today.
I would honestly like to hear more from you on a couple of things. First, namely, why do you believe that lying is the best way to get elected for expediency's sake to get elected to a Party label for the purpose of really promoting Libertarian causes? Second, should the Libertarian Party resign itself, on principle of surrendering 'principle' on the bases of such lies and deceit? And, third, is there any forward movement possible to get Libertarian candidates elected based upon a sure principle that is transparent and open to the public?
I believe these questions need to be examined and answered by those of us who still claim that Libertarian idealism offers the best opportunity for everyone to have any standing on deciding what is ultimately the best for ourselves as individuals, and the tremendous opportunities that are inherent within the overall context of individual self-government.
I want to thank you for your spirited and obviously reasoned reply. I hope to hear a lot more from you in the not so distant future.
Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
