Is this the Libertarians' Year?

The Green Party got all the third party attention in 2000, but that was just because they had a big name candidate. Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party has been doing all the things the Greens and other third parties should have been doing -- getting organized and fielding candidates for lots of down ticket races. And now Kos reports the Libertarians are close to getting a strong presidential candidate (at least by third party standards): Hollywood producer Aaron Russo.

To me the Libertarian Party has an interesting paradox. The most energetic party faithful embrace libertarianism as a philosophy that applies across the spectrum of what I would call economic and social issues. (And it's their stand on economics where they really lose me.) But the appeal of the Libertarians as a third party to the larger population comes from their stands on specific issues where they go where neither major party dares: Gun rights and drug legalization. If the Democrats moved away from their strong reproductive freedom stand they'd lose people to the Libertarians on that issue too. And while some who claim the libertarian label have mercilessly promoted the war in Iraq, we can expect the Libertarian Party to come out against the war in Iraq and against reinstating the draft (an issue on which I agree with them completely).

So in 2004, we'll see a Libertarian campaign that is unambiguously anti-war, anti-draft, anti-PATRIOT Act, pro-gun, pro-choice and pro-drug legalization. Here in Colorado that could be a pretty strong combination.

Comments

[Blue the Wild Dog]

I think Russo will drain significant votes away from Bush. There are many Republicans who have vowed not to vote for Bush, but won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Kerry. The Libertarian candidate is a natural protest vote for them. Personally, I know one such person.

[Luis]

That may be. But I also think there will be a lot of people who won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Kerry because he voted for the Iraq war resolution. Combine that with some popular positions on other issues (e.g., drug legalization) and I think a strong Libertarian campaign is at best a wash, if not actually a negative, for Kerry in Colorado.

[Walter]

Of the voters who change party affiliations to register Libertarian, about a third come from the Democrats. That's my personal observation, and I wish I knew of some more concrete polling data.

People who switch affiliations are usually ones who discover that the party more closely fits their own personal philosophy. That may be an entirely different group than people who just vote for an occasional Lib when voting for an otherwise straight ticket.

[severin]

Russo will make an impact this year, but probably only a small but significant one (probably more of an impact then Nader this year). Still I think he will lay the groundwork for an even more well known candidate in 2008 who carries many libertarian principles, and who by running in 2008 will really put that election up for grabs and that is when Jesse Ventura runs for president, even though he will run as an independent many of his ideas are pretty libertarian and a strong voice like Russo's will help inject libertarian ideas into the debate making them more palatable come 2008 when Jesse runs, and he (even with his faults) will be the most libertarian leaning person since Barry Goldwater to have a real chance at the presidency.

[SnoopBlogyBlog]

I know this is off topic but I felt that it was pretty important. The state of Ohio is trying to use electronic voting machines that have no paper record. We have to protect the vote. Go here http://www.act4victory.org/act.php/home/petitions/diebold_ohio and sign this.

[eric jenes]

I think Russo is certainly a rising star, but I'm concerned he might have just as negative effect on Kerry as he does Bush. I had hoped that a lot of anti-war/libertarianish Republicans would reluctantly pull the lever for Kerry, and at this point are resolved to vote against Bush, but perhaps those votes may now go Russo's way. The question is then whether this bloc of voters is larger than the bloc of voters who would never vote for Kerry, but will be pulled away from Bush and towards Russo. But his anti-war, anti-draft, pro-drug legalization stance might have the same effect on Kerry voters. I'm salivating at the possibility of the NRA shunning Bush and endorsing Russo, at which point I might start using that L-word a lot more.

[eric jenes]

And sign that petition above!

[severin]

Eric, I don't believe anyone who is really antiwar would vote for Kerry. He voted to give Bush the power to unilaterally go to war. He did not help in the effort to force congress to declare war like the constitution requires. He voted for the patriot act, he supported Clinton when Clinton wanted to go in to Bosnia, and on and on. He is definitely not the antiwar candidate. Russo and Nader would be the only truly antiwar candidates. Sure he voted against funding the war, but only once he was sure it would pass anyway.

[eric jenes]

I am really antiwar and I am definitely voting for Kerry. I know Kerry's record is quite far from being antiwar, and that pisses me off to no end (and is a big reason why I busted my ass 100 hrs/week for Dean in NH) but at this point preventing Bush from serving another four years is antiwar. We probably won't have a true dove as president for a number of years, but given the choice between a maniac and a hawk, I'll take the hawk.