Skip to main content

Will A New Kind of Libertarian Party Come Of McCain vs. Obama?


Cato's Niskanen Suggests Different Sort of Libertarian Party.

William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute is suggesting a Libertarian Party in which members surrender to internal discipline, following the instructions of party strategists for the good of overall progress. (To read his entire article click: A Case for a Different Libertarian Party)

Before we dismiss the idea as some kind of Utopian "herding of cats," let's remember that almost every one of the platform planks outlined by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto has been implemented in America without an overtly socialist party being exclusively in control for long periods. The coming Obama dictatorship will be the first fascist total control since Woodrow Wilson, yet the "progressive" socialists have always achieved their every incremental goal. The reason: disciplined adherence to strategy.

Niskanen points to the dismal success of small parties in which members work toward relatively unattainable goals rather than focusing energy on definitely attainable strategic goals. His argument is that unified party action toward actually achievable goals is much more successful, even when membership is relatively small. The success of Karl Marx's followers is proof that "cats allowing themselves to be herded" works.

Niskanen's most important points are:

1) The size of the (libertarian) party (in a given district) must be larger than the expected vote difference between the major party candidates. (i.e., there must be evidence they can deliver the winning votes.)

2) After the major party candidates are selected, the party leadership must have the opportunity to bargain with each of the major party candidates on the issue positions of highest priority for the libertarian party. (i.e., what major party candidate wouldn't listen to a little bribery or extortion?)

3) The party, as much as possible, must act in concert to support the major party candidate that is preferred by the members of the party in that district. (i.e., party discipline.)

It's an idea worth considering, but the party leaders would have to be extremely wise and persuasive ... wise to know which major party candidates might be receptive, wise to know which issues to focus on, and persuasive to make sure all the "cats are herded."

If a party leader was that wise and persuasive, he or she would have no trouble persuading a majority of the voting public and getting elected without the need for bargaining with major party candidates.

Ironically, current members of the Libertarian Party can become extremely wise and persuasive, and make the Libertarian Party itself a major party, if only they would diligently work the lessons of Course in Political Miracles. Influencing libertarians to take the Course might be first step in "herding the cats," don't you think?





For the last election year studied (1998) some of the highest percentage of votes for Libertarian Party candidates were for candidates who had been studying free of charge the lessons of: Course in Political Miracles

For a great discussion on Christianity vs. State Socialism see: Christianity vs. State Socialism



“I did not understand what made me free, nor what my freedom is, nor where to look to find it. Father, I have searched in vain until I heard Your Voice directing me. Now I would guide myself no more. For I have neither made nor understood the way to find my freedom. But I trust in You. You Who endowed me with my freedom as Your holy Son will not be lost to me. Your Voice directs me." (Prayer from A Course in Miracles)

Comments

Anonymous said…
I don’t think the Libertarian Party and Niskanen’s ideas are mutually exclusive.

Why not create a Liberty PAC and only apply Niskanen’s plans in districts where there are no Libertarian Party candidates? Then both approaches could be tried and we could compare the results in the competitive free market.

I would be willing to help with such a project.

Popular posts from this blog

Ron Paul is Wrong; Mitt Romney is Right!

"Ron Paul does not believe we went into Iraq because of 9/11. But Mitt Romney obviously believes we did. So who’s right?" ~Gary Benoit The strained arguments of some libertarians that Dwight Eisenhower is somehow responsible for the 9/11 attack in New York is equivalent to arguing that President James Buchanan was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre of the Baker-Fancher emigrant party on 9/11 in Utah. It is truth in the sense we are all responsible for everything in our world. This is a very valuable truth, wouldn't you say? The twisted leftist argument is that Islamic Jihadists would not have declared war on Western societies if it hadn't been for Western government policies reaching back through the years. But anyone who studies the Koran knows this argument is bullshit. The Koran demands that war be waged on "infidels" until everyone on earth is either converted to Islam, enslaved by Islamists, or killed. Mitt Romney is right. The United States

Is Sarah Palin's Joy Ayn Rand's Ideal?

Lesson 50: "I join Ayn Rand, educating spiritually." Government worshippers are in control of most universities, virtually every public school system, and almost every major media market. The general public has been thoroughly brainwashed to believe that if there is a problem, or the illusion of a problem, government solutions are the answer ... a new government program, a new government bureaucracy, more power to government. Because almost all avenues of education and information have been under the control of government worshippers, the vast majority of people are stuck in thinking habits which will never for long periods of time serve liberty. Because people's underlying thinking habits will rise to the surface again and again, any libertarian political victory can only be short-lived ... unless people's underlying way of thinking is changed. As much as I might hate to admit it, thorough re-education of the public cannot not be a number one priority for libertaria

Libertarian Mantra Exposes Obama Cruelty

President Obama has no choice but to offer you up as a sacrifice to his god.  His worship of the illusion that there can be a "common good" for society which transcends the good of individuals in the society demands your sacrifice. Yet libertarians fiddle. Are you amazed that libertarians blab about marijuana while the economy of the entire world is crashing?  Are you astounded that libertarians nit-pick about bedroom issues while the entire populace is being reduced to slavery?   Many libertarians spend their time forever addressing puny little issues which (a) make them look to the public like petty teenagers, and (b) serve only to side-track the public’s thought from an infinitely more important underlying truth. Okay, let's suppose you want to do some real good for the libertarian cause.  How about addressing  the one and only truly meaningful issue?  Maybe a little story would illustrate what libertarians should be talking about. One upon a time there was a