Successful presidential candidates don't just materialize out of the ether. If the LP (or any third party) really wants to be a player in national politics, they have to take a longer view. No one is going to sue their way into presidential viability. They're going to have to work their way in from the ground up. To my mind, that means stop wasting time on symbolic presidential runs. For that matter, stop wasting time on symbolic governor and senate runs, too. What needs to happen is a focused, coordinated, and well-researched identification of cities, counties, and (maybe) congressional districts where the LP could become the second party. And with that, a focused and coordinated recruitment of good candidates to run in those races. Candidates that, if they actually won, might do a good job in the office to which they are elected. Candidates with an interest in actually governing, rather than just "getting the message out".Yep. Go read the rest.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
il miglior fabbro
I saw this piece in the Atlantic from Conor Freidersdorf and was thinking about using it for a blog post, but Brian has already covered the ground well. So go see Brian's piece, which not only discusses the particulars of Freidersdorf's article, but also the eternal problem of the Libertarian Party's willful commitment to ineffectiveness. A little taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Take the same message and apply it to the local scene - the Independence Party.
The IP was given numerous opportunities to make itself relevant. "Major" party status, complete with state-subsidized campaign funds, debate inclusion, a fawning media arm in the Star Tribune and lastly, an honest-to-goodness elected governor.
And where are they now?
If the IP had been focused on grassroots building instead of trying to have lightening strike twice in a statewide race, they might have elected a few legislative candidates and have a presence in MN politics as something more than a spoiler.
Thanks!
Like all minor parties, the Libertarians are only the latest in a long line of splinter groups who refuse to form coalitions with those whose ideas differ slightly from their "pure" ideology while continuing to vastly overestimate their own numbers and influence. Reality, at some point, always comes crashing down on their dream.
And frankly, I believe that is the way it should be. The two-party system forces the two parties to be "big tents," meaning that a change in party control of the government does not cause the nation to lurch wildly from one policy pole to another after each election. If minor parties can move one of the major parties ideologically in their direction without being so radical as to lose the centrist voters, they eventually reach their policy goals, which they never would do as a separate party.
J. Ewing
The LP aren't even late-comers; they've been around since 1971. (And therein lies most of my frustration with them.)
JE's point about coalitions is well-taken, though coalition governments happen all the time in parliamentary systems with multiple "major" parties. And that can produce interesting outcomes. The policies of the current Tory/LibDem coalition in the UK are in some respects much closer to the LP than anything the Dems or Reps have ever produced (a balanced approach to reigning in budget deficits, broad view of civil liberties).
In my view, the more dynamic coalitions are, the more of a voice the smaller coalition partner has. The long-term, "permanent" coalitions forged in the two-party system are kind of a raw deal for smaller constituencies.
Of course, the US is not a parliamentary system, so this is really just talk-talk in the end. A third (or fourth, or fifth) party is going to have to do the hard work to change things within the system we have, because the only other path would be constitutional reforms which the Big Two will never allow.
There is a vast difference between a two-party system that requires both parties to moderate their extremes and a multi-party system that gives great power to minor parties in order to create a fragile governing coalition. The reason for that should be obvious, if you think about it. By having a party/candidate stand up and announce a set of governing principles and action plans in advance means that, if that candidate wins election is because those principles and plans are favored by the majority – a mandate. If a coalition comes together AFTER the election, then the government is forced to continually compromise between what the largest plurality wanted and what the noisiest minor party wanted, which are often too widely divergent things. The problem with ALL compromise in government, especially in the US (and Minnesota) in recent years, is that it prevents problem-solving. For example, if one party wants to spend no more than available revenues and the other party wants to spend $6 billion beyond available revenues, where is the sensible compromise?
J. Ewing
Good comments, all.
FR, if anything the IP is more egregious than the LP, because it's had all of the institutional advantages you mentioned, but has nothing to show for it. Then again, what does the IP stand for other than the above-it-all hubris of its small membership? As far as I can tell, they aren't even bothering with this cycle. We have a Constitution Party candidate in my House district, but I can't find too many IP candidates about.
JE says:
The problem with ALL compromise in government, especially in the US (and Minnesota) in recent years, is that it prevents problem-solving. For example, if one party wants to spend no more than available revenues and the other party wants to spend $6 billion beyond available revenues, where is the sensible compromise?
The answer of course is to blame the Republicans.
Post a Comment