The Race for the Libertarian Nomination
ka1igu1a at FreedomDemocrats has a very nice roundup going of the current state of the LP race. Actually, the Libertarian nomination race is often exciting (relatively, anyway)—the one in 2004 between Badnarik, Russo, and Nolan had me wishing I had gone to that convention. And this year looks to be equally, if not more so.
Of course Mike Gravel and Bob Barr are the big names (again, relatively). But there are two other very strong candidates (I’m going to stop saying relatively now). The first, and current frontrunner, is Wayne Allyn Root, gambling guru and TV producer. The second is Dr. Mary Ruwart, who I know from the Advocates for Self-Government newsletter, The Liberator Online, which I’ve gotten in my email inbox twice a month since, I kid you not, 1996. Dr. Ruwart is a fixture at libertarian events, and has been for well over 20 years. The Root v. Ruwart race is very reminiscent of Russo v. Badnarik in 2004.
In any case, the way the LP voting works is through a runoff system, which makes it interesting. Root is polling 1st currently, but also has high negatives—and virtually nobody dislikes Dr. Ruwart, so despite being in second place, it’s pretty likely she would actually win the nomination, being just about everybody’s second choice.
Surprising nobody familiar with LP politics, Libertarians are not biting when it comes to Gravel, who is polling dead last among the major candidates, not yet breaking double digits.
Interestingly also, while Bob Barr, if he does declare officially, would be the frontrunner, there’s no guarantee he’d get the nom. Libertarians are sort of preternaturally and famously disinclined to just throwing the flowers at the feet of high profile pretenders to the throne, often preferring instead to buck them in favor of longtime no-name (relatively; last one) activists/loyalists. The polling with Barr:
Barr:30%
Root: 22%
Ruwart: 17%
Phillies: 9%
Gravel: 4%
Barr would be the favorite, but given the LP’s system of voting—and how convention-floor the whole affair is—he would have to not be considered prohibitively so.
For all this and more, after consuming ka1igu1a’s post, check out the freakishly-informed-on-this-subject Stephen Gordon at Third Party Watch for more than you’d ever want to know. I might have to put them back on the blogroll (they were there for a long long time, but I tired a bit of sifting through posts about the Californian Energy Independence regional convention breakfast spread; can’t blame the site for false advertising though).
Oh yeah, my own opinion:
I understood and sympathized with the LP voters’ decision in 2004 to go with Badnarik over my favoured candidate, Nolan, on the grounds that while Badnarik would be a less effective mainstream national figure (ugh: relatively) than either Nolan or Russo, he would be characteristically good for building up the party locally, the idea being “why waste ourselves shooting for 1% in the Presidency when we can instead build up the rest of us?”. But, the LP has been steadily backsliding by almost any relative (ha!) metric imaginable for some time now; a little starpower and national exposure, particularly on the heels of the Ron Paul movement making a splash of some note, would probably do them good. They need to get out there this election, and while I can understand why hardcore Libertarians (particularly left-libertarains) might be somewhat distrustful of Bob Barr, let’s face it, concerns about how well he’d adhere to libertarian orthodoxy were he elected to office are somewhat, shall we say, incidental. To put it in age-old diocesan terms, he’d get butts in the pews.
I guess my problem with the Libertarian Party is that while they stick to an ideological purity that makes them completely unelectable, the issue of who to pick as Unelectable In Chief doesn’t seem very important. As you say, they might realise that Barr is a good choice because, shucks, no one’s getting elected from the LP anyhow so why not pick someone that can draw a crowd. On the other hand, they might ponder why no one’s going to get elected from the LP and address something of the root cause of their problems.
Comment by Adam — 4/8/2008 @ 10:02 am
Adam:
Pure ideological libertarian purity is one of several variants of anarchism. You can’t even get libertarians to agree whether there should even be a political party or not. Indeed, if you put a gun to me head to choose, I would choose no political party.
The problem with the LP as with all 3rd parties is that the winner take all voting and electoral college system prevents ANY 3rd party from gaining traction.
Comment by Kaligula — 4/8/2008 @ 10:27 am
You’re right that they have no hope in the current electoral system. I fear, though, that they have no hope in any electoral system unless they try to build a larger and more diverse community. Of couse, that can itself go too far for your own political good (as it did with Paul’s campaign) and there’s always the issue that some of the activists are sort of, hmmm, nutty but last time I looked at the LP website (some time ago, I confess, so it may have been changed) it seemed to me that their platform included recommending that young men not register for the draft. Now, I can see the logic of the position, but politically that sort of stuff is death, so why say it? Why not just oppose the draft and not say the stuff about not registering?
Comment by Adam — 4/8/2008 @ 10:31 am
Of course, if one takes the view that the LP is much more use as a pressure movement, then fair enough (they can be effective in that role), but no one’s going to care who they pick as a candidate.
Comment by Adam — 4/8/2008 @ 10:33 am
Surveys generally indicate 20% of the electorate roughly hold libertarian views, enough to make a viable party in a multi-party system
Comment by Kaligula — 4/8/2008 @ 10:48 am
Only if the party chooses to represent, and to reach out to, the full 20%.
Comment by Rojas — 4/8/2008 @ 11:00 am
They would have enthusiasm for some elements of the platform, sure. But, as Rojas says, you need to fold all those people in, which means you can’t stand on ideological purity at all.
Also, of course, the surveys would have to be carefully worded. You can word any ideology to appeal on a survey (that World’s Smallest Political Page is a good example where, mirable dictu, you nearly all find that you’re into libertarian ideals).
Comment by Adam — 4/8/2008 @ 11:11 am
I will be a delegate to the LP National Convention. If any of you choose to attend, come by the Kansas table and say “Hi.”
Comment by RoTalMomska — 4/8/2008 @ 7:23 pm