A Real Third Party

Arthur Silber asks what needs to be done

Short of impeaching the entire Republican Party (can that be done? -- it would be great if it could), maybe the time has arrived for a new party. Can the Libertarian Party be saved from some of the idiots that populate it? Is there anyone sensible -- and who actually understands what limited government, and national self-defense mean -- who could lead it? Perhaps a critical moment has arrived, and enough people are tired of the same old, same old Democrats and Republicans. I'm not suggesting that a new party could actually win in the next election (maybe some Congressional seats, but nothing more), but perhaps a new party, with new leadership, could begin to change the way the game is being played right now.

What do you think? And who could lead such a new party, either reshaping the Libertarian Party or starting a whole new one? Any candidates come to mind? Or can you think of any other strategies to begin some meaningful change? This whole charade has genuinely become sickening beyond belief.

I'm still all rather new in my observations of the political landscape, so I'm no good for names. But ideas are something I can contribute.

Disenchanted Republicans, libertarians, and free-marketers should join forces with disenchanted organizations and individuals who fight government intrusion in our lives, from the DMCA to restrictions on free speech to judicial and law enforcement overreach. It's a generalization, but it seems most of these "civil libertarians" don't view government intrustion into the economy in the same negative light. It's time to show them the error of their ways and demonstrate that we want the same thing: individual freedom.

If we could somehow manage to expose the contradictions in the civ-libs' thinking and explain that respect and support for individual liberty must be carried out in all aspects, I think we'd have a viable third party. It would have the numbers (Libertarians + free-market Republicans + civ-libs) that the other third parties lack. Given that this new party would be unwaveringly devoted to upholding individual freedom, it would be internally consistent and present a clear message that would attract others from each side of the current political spectrum.

"blabla" remarked in Mr. Silber's comments section:

The solution is to move away from politics and towards natural rights. Any and every party eventually becomes corrupt as it vies to gain control of the monopoly on the initiation of force the government claims.

No more parties. More individualism.

The gut feeling is he or she is correct. History is certainly sobering in this regard. However, I don't see the utility of running as an individual seperate from a structure that can support you and distribute your message more efficiently. It all depends on how well the new party would remain focused on its goals, which are simple enough.

Often, I get the feeling that parties get bogged down in the process of raising money. Advertising your message costs money, as does the human and material infrastructure of a party. Where does this money come from? The ideal is self-funding through voluntary donations and the refusal all government handouts. However, unless a sea change in attitudes or involvement occurs, donations aren't likely to provide much money.

Of course, given the nature of the people behind this movement, it would be expected of us to balance risk and make investments in the most productive things, to rationally use our minds and our talents to the best of our ability. Find new ways of getting the message out, of combating the opposing messages.

Optimistic and maybe even borderline Utopian? Possibly. Is it something that should be tried? Absolutely.

Posted by Drizzten at December 18, 2002 01:40 AM