Asymmetrical Information

By the way, some of the goofballs who comment on Kevin Drum's blog are convinced that any criticism of Ehrenreich is just a matter of not taking women seriously because you big jerks are all evil sexists who think women are too emotional, etc. They also are convinced for some reason that no center-right types have ever complained about what a pain in the ass Ann Coulter is.

(Anyone ever wonder why is every commenter on Kevin's blog way crazier than Kevin himself is? Kevin Drum's blog is the greatest argument I've seen for not enabling comments on a hellaciously popular blog. Kevin's this reasonable, generally careful center-left type, but the commenters on his blog seem to think they're in yet another Democratic Underground forum screaming like banshees about Bu$hitler and the Dark Demon Armies of Halliburton, etc.)

Anyway, speaking specifically on the topic at hand, I've always told my friends from parliamentary countries that the two big American political parties are not precisely analagous to the parties in parliamentary countries, but rather are analagous to the party coalitions that have to form in parliament in order to create a government and an opposition. This has cleared up a lot of their questions about why you can find people as ideologically diverse as Ron Paul, Linc Chafee and Rick Santorum all in the same party, for example. It's also why third parties in the U.S. serve mainly as trial balloons to see what specific issues have enough of a constituency behind them to make it worthwhile for the major parties to try to grab (or, the third-party types would say, "co-opt") that constituency, as with the larger parties in a parliamentary country trying to get the new upstart bloc to join in a coalition with them.

Some pro-parliamentary folks have tried to convince me that the ability of a parliamentary government to fall apart at just about any old time and new elections to be called are a great democratic strength of their system. And while there is some merit in that, it seems there's some merit in a system with more stability and predictability too. My personal opinion on that particular matter is that it's a six of one, half dozen of the other sort of thing.

A third party is a good place for one-issue voters. Take them out of the way of the more nuanced parties and candidates, let them have a say -- even address their issue in good time -- but don't let them take over the machine.

Prohibition being the archtype -- the prohibition party never won many elections, but they advanced their agenda. Slavery, even. Lincoln was anti-slavery, but as he said, if he could preserve the union by freeing no slaves, some slaves, or all slaves; he would do it. Union was more important to him than the single issue of slavery. Abolitionist voters, though ... In 1992, after the "no new taxes" pledge, Perot showed up with his ridiculous line charts and made fiscal responsibility and the abdication of that responsibility by BOTH main parties the core of his Reform effort. Shortly thereafter the Gingrinch people contracted with America for line-item vetos, balanced budget amendments, and term limits -- and won huge. (That they never delivered on such promises simply goes back to the third party voter as evidence not to trust the two major parties.)

I consider it a major pity the one-issue anti-war voters don't have a third party candidate on the ballot now - to allow the "war is hard but necessary; maybe we need the UN maybe we don't" debate to be seriously considered between the two major parties. As is, the pro-war people are stuck with inarticulate spokesman, and the anti-war people are stuck with the guy who promises to stay the course, continue the war, and merely change the color of the helmets the US troops will wear... If Bush wins he'll continue the war. If Kerry wins, he continue the war -- and drag the rest of the world into it too. So, what's an anti-war voter gotta do to be heard?

Vote Socialist Workers Party, I guess.

I'm thinking I ought move to Alberta and support the Separatists. They got proportional voting up there ...

"Anyone ever wonder why is every commenter on Kevin's blog way crazier than Kevin himself is? Kevin Drum's blog is the greatest argument I've seen for not enabling comments on a hellaciously popular blog. Kevin's this reasonable, generally careful center-left type, but the commenters on his blog seem to think they're in yet another Democratic Underground forum screaming like banshees about Bu$hitler and the Dark Demon Armies of Halliburton, etc."

You must be reading an entirely different Kevin Drum than me.

Given that, I think the only power that Uncle Ralph, or any far left third party has, is the power to make the Democratic president lose -- and ditto the Libertarian party, if it ever manages to get its act together and nominate someone with a decent media profile.

Isn’t that just as likely to send a message to the losing party that they lost because they were too liberal (for Democrats) or too conservative (for Republicans) rather than not liberal (for Democrats) or conservative (for Republicans) enough?

Case in point if Kerry loses, I doubt that Democrats are going to say to themselves “gee we should have picked a guy who was more antiwar or pushed for a single-payer health care system” and by the same token should Bush lose, I find it equally doubtful that Republicans are going to say “gee we should have cut spending more to reduce the deficit or moved quicker to privatize Social Security.”

IMNHO whichever party loses the presidential race this fall is probably going to look to “reinvent” themselves for 2008 and probably end up moving more towards what they think is the center. In which case those ideologues who vote for a purer third-party candidate are simply going to screw themselves over.

I think you're spot on in the difference between Parliamentary and Primary based electoral systems. My speculations on third party politics run somewhat differently

javascript:openSaveWindow('/saveitem?mode=3&itemid=16')

Reposted since I botched the URL in the prior post
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/CryptoSenex?id=16

CB,

You mean that Jane's blog is not "hellaciously popular?"

I agree completely, Jane, but I would add another consideration. There are two distinctions between, say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and the other parliamentary democracies (on one hand) and the US (on the other hand). One is the difference in the way the government is formed. The second is that it actually matters what the US government chooses to do, and so it matters what decision the US voters make. The same can't be said for the parliamentary democracies (with the possible exception of Britain).

I think that has an effect on voters in those countries. As an illustration, the evidence of the June 28th election in Canada suggests Canadian voters are getting a pass on the tough decisions. Some Canadians seem to believer that if we don't look after our own security - and the Liberal government has essentially gutted the armed forces since 1993 - no worries because the Americans will protect us. Other Canadians seem to believe that the only real threat to peace in the world is the US, but that they would never dare attack us because the UN would object. Either way, there is no serious grappling with the issues of security and terrorism.

It's an interesting question why this correlation should exist - is the US the hyperpower because it has a better form of government with elected legislators who really have power (while legislators in the parliamentary system, in contrast, are subservient to the chief executive)? Would voters in parliamentary democracies be more serious if their armed forces were powerful and so had a meaningful role in world affairs?

Both major parties have a large financial intrest in keeping the US a two party system. They have made the debates and the ballot very difficult for third party candidates to access. Without very substantial campaign finance reform it will remain a two party system. Unless a third party candidate with massive charisma and qualifications come around at the right time, like Perot(scratch the charisma, replace it with $$$) before he self destructed. Im not sure if a third party is a good or bad thing, though I use to strongly support the idea of a third party.I do think the electoral college should be done away with. I live in South Carolina, my vote for Kerry means nada.

Great topic, Jane.

I understand there are differences between a republic such as the United States, and a parliamentary system such as Canada's. But that still to my eyes doesn't explain why alternative parties can't spring up in the U.S. that occassionally at least win a seat or two in congress (or in state legislatures). After all, the Bloc Quebecois or the NDP haven't succeeded in winning the premiership, but they still manage to send people to parliament.

I think the real story is at least partly explained by the fact that the two dominant parties in the U.S. now have a quasi official status. For instance, in many states, when you register to vote, you're automatically asked by a government official which party you want to register in. Thus, making a government transaction also doubles for a party transaction. Similarly, the machinery of state government is used by the two parrties to hold party elections (primaries), often in state property such as school buildings (one wonders: do the parties have to reimburse the government for the use of such facilities, of for the labor of the local municipal officias who staff such events)?

I think it's none of the government's business which party you belong to, and I think state governments have no business getting mixed up in the affairs of political parties. I think if we had a wall of separation of these two spheres in the U.S., there'd be much less of a Soviet-style blending of the lines between party and state, and a less dominant position for the Democrats and Republicans, leading to a greater voice for third parties.

The US two-party system goes way back and we've actually had a discussion on that previously (and which reached conclusions similar to what Combustible Boy noted earlier in the thread):

In the US system, 50+1% of the vote is an ironclad guarantee of power. So it is rational that any given party will spend resources and take positions to aquire roughly half the interests of the electorate, and then draw in the additional 1% by overlapping on hot-button issues. When a third party becomes large enough to show that there is an unserved interest looming, one or both parties will begin assimilating that interest into the respective platforms, and the momentum of the third party dissolves (why keep fighting ideologically for a chimerical "third party" that will give you all of what you want at some vague future time, when you can get some of what you want, right now, by joining the major party that just co-opted your interests?).

I don't think we need to resort to conspiracy theories to explain that...

Patrick - at least two parlimentary democracies where the votes might actually mean something are Indonesia and India, but generally, you have a good point. I saw a piece on the internet recently about the very small group of people who scared most of the world: US voters. The reason was because more than any other group (even much larger ones), their opinion matters to everyone.

Combustible Boy, your insight of thinking of American political parties as similar to parlimentary coalitions is wonderful. It is precisely the way the parties function and I have often even heard of, e.g., the FDR coalition. This insight helps explain the reason that many odd groupings can be found in American political parties and also the reason that very few people support the entire platform of either party.

The need for a party to form a majority coalition also explains my lack of patience for people who distain coalition building. To take a historical example, every time I hear someone tell me that the southern segregationists were not "real Democrats" I want to kick them in the shins. The southern segregationists were an essential part of the Democrat coalition for 80 or more years and one of the most revered Democrat presidents (Woodrow Wilson) was a segregationist, born in Virginia and raised there and in Georgia and South Carolina. Today, I constantly hear the call for a "financially conservative/socially liberal" party. I am personally sympathetic to these ideas, but I seriously doubt that such a party could get a majority of the vote. Therefore, if they wish to have a voice in governing, the "financially conservative/socially liberal" people must join one of the other parties as part of a coalition. This coalition will mean compromise, it may mean associating with "unfashionable" people, and, above all, it requires tolerance. Just remember, whatever odd combination of people you may find yourself with, it is likely to be far less bizarre than the combination of Eleanor Roosevelt and Orval Faubus.

New Zealand no longer (not since 1996) has a plurality electoral system. It was replaced by a proportional system a'la Germany.

As for the idea that "that it actually matters what the US government chooses to do, and so it matters what decision the US voters make." this presupposes that (1) the only issues being voted on are foreign policy ones, and (2) that U.S. voters take the preferences of people in other polities into account.

Neither of these propositions has any empirical basis.

Patrick Brown's idea that "Would voters in parliamentary democracies be more serious if their armed forces were powerful and so had a meaningful role in world affairs?" seems to suppose that U.S. voters are more serious than those in parliamentary democracies. Yeah, that's why U.S. voters turn out at a lower rate than in most other democracies!

Evan, I could not understand Patrick Brown's comment either. It struck this US citizen, who will gladly go on at great length about the virtues of the USA, as being somewhat jingoistic. Maybe he just did not express himself clearly. For now, I shall remain puzzled about his comment while giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Since America's elites have chosen to 'latinize' the United States, it seems likely that we will eventually get 'caudillo' politics. Some super wealthy guy will create a party as a personal vehicle, and win.

Wasn't jingoism, Average Joe. I'm Canadian, not American. And Evan, my point certainly doesn't presuppose that "(1) the only issues being voted on are foreign policy ones, and (2) that U.S. voters take the preferences of people in other polities into account."

I'll put it a different way. The US actually matters in the world, not in the touchy-feely sense of "Everyone is special" but in the practical sense of the US keeps the peace. The US keeps the sea lanes open all over the world. When conflicts flare, for example, in Bosnia, the US can ignore them, in which case those conflicts go on, or end them. The US can make dictators go away. In other words, the US matters, in ways that the other countries I mentioned don't matter.

So, those other countries, Canada being a prime example, get to ignore and underfund their armed forces. But more than that, voters in those countries don't have to take real security issues into account when voting in their elections. We let the Americans handle that for us. And we can have election campaigns in which everyone talks about how to expand health care spending an no-one talks about rebuilding the military. We have elections in which five different parties get some seats in Parliament and no-one can really make decisions

So my point was simply that American voters are used to considering these security issues when voting. Some Americans think the security challenge is overstated, some think it is understated, but they are at least thinking about it, which is not the case up here. I didn't say it was the only thing they were thinking about, but certainly foreign policy and military strength are important issues for American voters.

And the other part of my point is that when what you do matters, when you actually have to come up with a decision, a plan of action, a parliamentary government may be less useful than the US form of government. With just two parties, one or the other has to win and have the power to do things. Dividing power among a lot of groups isn't acceptable.

Isn't this just the Median Voter Theorem?

Patrick Brown, that comment is more clear than your previous comment. Now I think I understand what you are saying and it is interesting. Thank you for the clarification.

The reason why you tend to get more parties in a Parliamentary system is that you can actually win things that way. The NDP can get 10% of the vote and win a few seats(generally big city or union town seats), whereas someone like Perot can get something like 23% of the vote and have absolutely nothing to show for it. There's still concerns over vote splitting(the NDP and the Conservatives are each other's best friends), but you can at least have something to show for it in a Parliamentary system.

As for creating a party to pull another one, we've spent the last 15 years going through that process up here. Reform invented itself because they were disillusioned with the PCs, and wound up getting twice the vote and having 5x as many seats very shortly thereafter. It was mostly a regional party, but it wound up doing better than the PCs even in Quebec last time(pretty good for a leader who didn't speak French). Anyways, the two parties have recently merged, and the Reformers are in the dominant position. Pretty good for a party that didn't exist until 1987. That's basically what people are suggesting, but that plan almost NEVER works. Even here it resulted in 10 years of Liberal rule, and that's onre of the better cases. The only working example I know of is when the Republicans supplanted the Whigs in the 1850s.

Since America's elites have chosen to 'latinize' the United States, it seems likely that we will eventually get 'caudillo' politics. Some super wealthy guy will create a party as a personal vehicle, and win.

Patrick Brown's idea that "Would voters in parliamentary democracies be more serious if their armed forces were powerful and so had a meaningful role in world affairs?" seems to suppose that U.S. voters are more serious than those in parliamentary democracies. Yeah, that's why U.S. voters turn out at a lower rate than in most other democracies!

Screw you guys, Crystal Pepsi was AWESOME! :(

I had a friend who was fond of describing the Vice-President's job as sitting around waiting for the President to die. I'd say that 3rd parties play a simular role in waiting around for a major party to die so that they can take that party's place as one of the dominant two. Last time it happened was when the Republicans replaced the Whigs so while it is possible I don't blame the 3rd parties if they feel a bit like the Maytag repairman.

One problem they have comes to this: As Combustible Boy pointed out, major parties are coalitions. But usually if the people who form 3rd parties were any good at coalition building they'd've made themselves a part of one of the current coalitions instead of trying to form their own. This may be changing though since an insistance on a "1 size fits all" mentality does seem to have become stronger among the Democrats of late. If it reaches the point where Greens or Liberterians have more tolerance of diverse ideas and better social skills than the Democrats do then you *might* see the Democratic party replaced. I emphasize might because institutional decline tends to take a long time, is something everyone can see coming, and is therefore something that may be reversed at any time with a little bit of gumption. A more normal thing is an old monk's summation of the way things went with monastic orders: "self-discipline and hard work leads to prosperity, prosperity leads to complacency and sloth, complacency and sloth leads to ruin, ruin leads to self-discipline and hard work, and so the cycle begins again." The sticking point is when and whether a party, or any other institution in decline, can still do the "ruin leads to self-descipline and hard work part or no. If the answer is no then that is where the opportunity for a third party will lie.

Sure, libertarians would get a couple of representatives, but so would Uncle Ralph's Raiders, counterbalancing and possibly overriding any libertarian influence.

I believe using Proportional Representation for Congress and Condorcet for the presidency (I don't support moving to a Parliamentary system -- I like checks and balances) would make government more libertarian because the two parties have become big and powerful enough that neither one really wants to shrink the power and influence of the government (although one party pays lip-service to it, we've seen no progress in that direction despite one-party rule the past few years). Both parties instead, as political entities, seek to increase their own power, which means increasing the power and influence of the government while they are the ruling power.

So I think the libertarian voice is underrepresented in our two-party system and this bias would be corrected by PR and Condorcet.

"(although one party pays lip-service to it, we've seen no progress in that direction despite one-party rule the past few years)"

Uh, fling93? The Republicans have only had control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency together for less than 2 years since the election of 2002. That's hardly "a few years" unless you count "a few" as "less than 2". This is further complicated by the fact that they came to power at a time of war when a government *must* think in terms of expansion and spending in order to survive. So it's hardly worth saying they won't do it until they've had a chance to show what they can do in peacetime.

That said, I've no doubt that the longer anyone is in power the more comfortable with government they will become. If and when the Liberterians win power you will find them to be the same no matter how sincere they initially are. Reforms tend to be the first few years of power which is one reason why I still favor term limits for Congressmen.

Small Pink Mouse: That's hardly "a few years" unless you count "a few" as "less than 2".

You're right.

This is further complicated by the fact that they came to power at a time of war when a government *must* think in terms of expansion and spending in order to survive.

That might explain increases in defense spending, but not domestic spending, like Medicare.

If and when the Liberterians win power you will find them to be the same no matter how sincere they initially are.

I suspect that might be the case in a two-party system where the parties themselves acquire a large amount of power. In a multi-party system, especially a non-parliamentarian one where different coalitions are formed for each issue being voted upon (and not just after each election), ideology would play a much larger role than party politicking.

Besides, I don't envision the Libertarian party coming to power, but just being represented and heard much more than in our current system, where both parties can afford to completely ignore libertarianism because libertarian voters are stuck having to vote for two parties that are generally unfriendly to libertarian ideas because they would decrease the power of the ruling party.

Indeed libertarians have even less of a voice because they end up being split between the two parties depending on whether they value economic or social liberty more. Meanwhile, the social conservatives have a very strong incentive to have their voices heard in the Republican party, because they have nowhere else to go. Thus, they have a disproportionately large amount of power compared to libertarian and fiscal conservatives, who likely grealy outnumber them in the general population.

hi patrick,
"With just two parties, one or the other has to win and have the power to do things. Dividing power among a lot of groups isn't acceptable."

i wonder what madison of the federalist papers would make of your argument concerning factionalism and its role in the amercan polity?

as to questions of participation: in australia, for example, not voting in parliamentary elections leads to a monetary fine. though this may be an anathema to libertarian concerns concerning the freedom to choose here, the fact is that it provides an elegant solution to the question of why anyone would rationally choose to actually vote, given the small effect any individual vote can be expected to have on an election. in other non-mandatory voting elections, such as local elections, australian voter turnout is very low-comparable with the us experience.

the american system is very third party unfriendly. i would submit that much of the behaviour that you see in american politics that appears to shore up the lack of need for a third party is actually a RESULT of the lack of a viable third party to actually emerge. thus, when megan argues the following:

"In the United States, on the other hand, being the guy in the little third party won't get you the presidency, and will be a positive handicap in the legislature, because our legislature, for various reasons, doesn't have anything like the party discipline of British-style parliamentary systems. Thus, our opposition often gets to help shape policy. This means that there is a large benefit to voting for the dominant opposition party."

we should ask: why is this sensible in the us? why don't us parties have the discipline of their foreign parliamentary counterparts? i submit that the answer lies not in relying on the peculiarly robust individualism of american politicians, but in the incentive and penalty structures of the two systems of government. if one did dissent in an ongoing way in a parliamentary system, one would just go off and form one's own party (with one's former colleagues' blessings!), and compete for votes that would enable one to be a swing vote in a "hung" parliament (which in parliamentary systems is the root of legislative and executive power).

i.e., american individualism in politics is a compensation for a lack of viable third party alternatives.

I think Thorley Winston raises an important issue when he talks about Americans being involved in campaigns rather than limiting their activities to simply voting. I would add that Americans also vote for many more offices than just their elected representatives - for example, they elect judges and sheriffs, which we do not do in Canada. In Canada, judges (including Supreme Court judges) are appointed and not even Parliament gets to question the appointments (i.e., no meaningful review process). Senators are also appointed, without review.

In fact, about ten years ago, the people of Alberta said "we don't want someone in Ottawa to appoint a Senator for us, we'll hold an election." They did. Their favored candidate won, and the federal government ignored the result. The winner never took office. So, in Canada, people have less opportunity to express their opinion about who should make, interpret, and enforce laws. To me, this is telling - Americans expect to be involved much more intimately in their democracy than Canadians do.

Cas, one thing that distinguishes the US system from the parliamentary democracies is that in the US citizens vote separately for the chief executive (the President) and for the legislature (Congress). In Canada and other places using the British system, you can't do that. The chief executive is chosen from members of the legislature by the party with the most seats. But that doesn't make the leader the party's poodle - rather, once chosen, the leader has essentially absolute power.

I think an argument can be made that the US gets the best of both worlds out of this system: On one hand, having only two parties means that someone is going to have a majority in the House and the Senate and on their respective committees. On the other hand, elected representatives in the US system are not under the control of the chief executive the way they are in parliamentary democracies. That allows those representatives to express a wider variety of opinion within one party. Consider the range of opinion represented by David Bonior and "Baghdad Jim" McDermott, on one hand, and Blue Dog Democrats and other conservatives on the other (or, more briefly, the Howard Dean/Joe Lieberman divide). In the Canadian system, such a range of views would be represented by different parties - perhaps the NDP on the left, the Liberals center-left, and "Red Tories" in the center.

It's basically two different ways of dealing with the fact that large groups of people will, amongst them, hold lots of different views. But I think that the basic difference between systems is, the Canadian system makes expression of opinion the highest good, more important than the ability to decide what to do and do it. That is a teenager's worldview. The American system also values the ability to get things done.

So I think I disagree with your concluding point: "american individualism in politics is a compensation for a lack of viable third party alternatives." I see the two party system as a way for a country composed of thoroughly individualistic people to temper their individualism and get things done.

I think an argument can be made that the US gets the best of both worlds out of this system: On one hand, having only two parties means that someone is going to have a majority in the House and the Senate and on their respective committees. On the other hand, elected representatives in the US system are not under the control of the chief executive the way they are in parliamentary democracies. That allows those representatives to express a wider variety of opinion within one party. Consider the range of opinion represented by David Bonior and "Baghdad Jim" McDermott, on one hand, and Blue Dog Democrats and other conservatives on the other (or, more briefly, the Howard Dean/Joe Lieberman divide). In the Canadian system, such a range of views would be represented by different parties - perhaps the NDP on the left, the Liberals center-left, and "Red Tories" in the center.

How about instead of joining a third party, activists join one of the major parties at the grassroots level to balance out the people that are already there? They get their voices and views heard.

The void in the GOP because of the loss of libertarians has left the party to social conservatives, and we see what influence they have.

The Dem's have a different problem. Their move to the center has alienated their left wing, spawning Nader.

The void in the GOP because of the loss of libertarians has left the party to social conservatives, and we see what influence they have.

Thorley WInston: Moreover, there is little conflict between being a libertarian and being a social conservative (WFB comes to mind).

Buckley doesn't strike me as very libertarian, at least from what little I know about his stance on abortion and gay marriage. His criticism of the drug war is very recent, as I understand it.

I don't agree with Liberty Lover that the GOP is losing libertarians. My stance is that libertarians have been split between the two parties based on whether they value social or economic liberty more (nevermind the Libertarian Party). This dilutes their political power compared to the social conservatives, who are all concentrated in the Republican Party.

Perhaps a simpler way of making my point is that parliamentary systems give chief executives so much power over elected representatives that those who hold strongly different opinions have to form their own party. In the US system, the chief executive doesn't have such power over elected representatives, so those who disagree can stay in the same party. Staying in the same party allows them access to power when their party wins and that means getting part of what they want. If this analysis is correct, there's no reason to expect a third party will take root in the US.

I base my statement on the votes LP candidates receive for US Senate and House contests. In many races over the past ten years the GOP candidate lost by fewer votes then by what the LP candidate received (500 vs 1200 for example). Its reasonable to assume that the GOP candidate would have gotten some of those votes if he leaned more libertarian or the LP candidate was not in the race at all. More recently, maybe Bush chased libertarians away from the Senate or House candidate. In any case, people who voted LP did not vote GOP. Many articles have been written about this topic.

fling93 makes a good point about libertarians splitting among Dems and GOP but I would also add social conservatives vote Democrat also - those Reagan Democrats.

but this is more infrequent as less relevant. There. cbs Often when I'm walking around wearing my headphones, south park I see other people also wearing headphones, and of linux course I wonder what they're listening to. Today casino I had a very strong urge to start a new project, pichunter or maybe not even anything that well defined - just, california lottery to start behaving in a different way. I would like staple to walk up to all these strangers and offer to switch master

Dang, that's some surreal spam.

Anyway...

Liberty Lover: social conservatives vote Democrat also - those Reagan Democrats.

I don't think Reagan Democrats were social conservatives. They were liberals who crossed party lines not because of ideology, but because of the character and popularity of the candidates.

"Pretending that it's something else -- some deep structural flaw that prevents the American public's true preference for subsidized day care, $5/gallon gasoline and nationlised health care--is the kind of self-delusion that is going to keep the American left in its current state of disarray for as long as its members continue to cling to tired old practice of looking for outside conspiracies to explain its failures."

Have you seen the polls on nationalized health care and subsidized day care? Don't think the right's going to be able to fend those two off; we'll get them in the next 20 years at some point.

Buckley doesn't strike me as very libertarian, at least from what little I know about his stance on abortion and gay marriage. His criticism of the drug war is very recent, as I understand it.

In contrast there are a whole host of unambiguously libertarian issues such as the RTKBA, school choice, support for freedom of association, and opposition to government-mandated racial preferences and setasides in which there has long been a fusion between libertarian and social-conservatives.

Thorley Winston: In the case of abortion, it comes down to whether and/or at which stage abortion is the taking of a human life, in which case prohibiting abortion is no different in principle that stopping any other sort of killing.

I'll grant you that, but it seems to me that, when the answer isn't clear (and it isn't in this case -- the point when a fetus becomes human life is a core part of the debate), libertarians tend to err on the side of less government control. So most libertarians end up identifying more with the Pro-Choice side than social conservatives.

In the case of “same sex marriage,” it’s a question of privileges rather than rights

Yes, but libertarians support removal of such privileges, since we oppose government efforts at social engineering. This is the same reason libertarians oppose the war on drugs, whereas most social conservatives support it. And the same reason we oppose sodomy laws.

Yes, there is closer agreement on the other issues you listed, but those are rarely campaign issues.

The problem is very simple. With a very few exceptions the third party candidates in my lifetime have fallen into two unelectable categories. Obvious lunatics and professorial lecturers who are incapable of talking to most of the electorate.

Interesting story in the Saturday NY Times about young people trying to define a new Conservatism.

The rebuttals to my original post about a dozen up from this post diverted attention away from my main point which was, "How about instead of joining a third party, activists join one of the major parties at the grassroots level to balance out the people that are already there? They get their voices and views heard." They become base voters.

Nicely said, Jane (as a former L-libertarian candidate, even).

If you look at ex-Czecho-Slovakia, you would conclude that national party slates, instead of local districts, will lead to Iraq breaking up.
Because in each of the three main areas, a nationalist party will arise claiming that the inevitable problems are because they don't have more power/ independence.

Comments are Closed.