AHB: A more influential Libertarian Party

[TwiliAlchemist]

What the heck's an AHB?
An Alternate History Brainstorm
Uh-huh... And what's the point of it?
I'm stumped and figure I might as well ask some people who might know more than I.
And why does this look like a TLIAD intro?
Because it works, now hush!
Whatever.

How could the Libertarian Party become a more influential party in American politics? It doesn't need to be winning Presidential electors or even State level legislative elections. It just needs to be able to cause an impact in elections.

The only thing I can think of is the Free State Project, but even then that's only in New Hampshire and didn't actually start until around 2001-2003 and didn't reach the point of enough signatures until 2016.

POD can be as far back as the 1950s or as current as the year 2016.

 

[Asp]

It's really hard to do because the Libertarian Party is nuts and their platform is pretty much pure social darwinism.

The best chance is for them to get a remotely serious nominee (Bill Weld is probably best) and run him in an election in which the two main party candidates are massively compromised/hated by most Americans.

 

[TwiliAlchemist]

It's really hard to do because the Libertarian Party is nuts and their platform is pretty much pure social darwinism.

The best chance is for them to get a remotely serious nominee (Bill Weld is probably best) and run him in an election in which the two main party candidates are massively compromised/hated by most Americans.

Weld isn't ((according to most Libertarians)) a libertarian with his support of biggish government. Though I do agree that they do need a serious candidate, part of the problem is also a lack of message to non-libertarians other than, "we're not democrats or republicans!"

Maybe a politician switches to the libertarian party earlier and helps it gain influence that way? Pulling it slightly away from the fringes of the political spectrum.

 

[Asp]

Weld isn't ((according to most Libertarians)) a libertarian with his support of biggish government. Though I do agree that they do need a serious candidate, part of the problem is also a lack of message to non-libertarians other than, "we're not democrats or republicans!"

Maybe a politician switches to the libertarian party earlier and helps it gain influence that way? Pulling it slightly away from the fringes of the political spectrum.

The Libertarian's Party includes 1930s-era isolationism, total drug legalization, open borders, a gold standard, no student loans, no entitlements, etc. The reason voters have never bought their platform is that it sucks and is way out of step with what nearly everyone in the country believes.

I'm aware Weld doesn't play well with a lot of their vanishingly tiny base but he's about the only serious one over there. The ones who are true believers in the platform are way too fringe to ever get any play.

 

[TwiliAlchemist]

The Libertarian's Party includes 1930s-era isolationism, total drug legalization, open borders, a gold standard, no student loans, no entitlements, etc. The reason voters have never bought their platform is that it sucks and is way out of step with what nearly everyone in the country believes.

I'm aware Weld doesn't play well with a lot of their vanishingly tiny base but he's about the only serious one over there. The ones who are true believers in the platform are way too fringe to ever get any play.

Fair point. So, we have (of serious politicians) in the Libertarian Party: Bill Weld and (kind of) Gary Johnson, if he wasn't so... odd, and maybe Ron Paul and that's it off the top of my head. Not that many to work with. So, either more serious politicans need to defect or the Libertarian Platform needs to move more into the 21st century.

 

[Riain]

Here minor fringe parties have influence due to the voting system; preferential in lower houses and proportional in upper houses. The major parties have to align to a small extent with these minor parties to pick up their preferences, so a local MP will make an election promise that the minor parties care about and approve of. In this case if the Libertarians had some electoral power in some places the big 2 would promise to loosen weed legislation or whatever to pick up the Libertarian voters 2nd preference.

As for their platform; while they say all sorts of things they only do so because they are not a party of government, if they were actually a contender they would moderate their official platform and also maintain party discipline. Their small government platform would play out as promising to defund or limit X and Y programme and department and their freedom of choice would be loosening this or that law, e.g. IIUC Gary Johnson increased the speed limit when he was a State governor.

 

[Ariosto]

Next person who brings up William Weld needs to get out; Gary Johnson barely managed to get him confirmed by the Party at the convention as is, and at the present he is absolutely detested by the rank and file. There is no chance of that man leading any sort of improved performance, and if anything it would cause a schism and collapse of the Party proper should he by some act of God get it.

Having skimmed the surface in recent weeks, what kneecapped the Libertarian Party's growth was when the Radical Libertarians took over the Party in the 1982-1983 period, which drove away a lot of more Moderate members, principally major donors such the Koch brothers. If the Radical Libertarians had been kept at bay you probably would have seen the Party's membership continue to grow and its performance improve, but that still wouldn't result in it being competitive on the Federal level, least I wouldn't think.​

 

[TwiliAlchemist]

Having skimmed the surface in recent weeks, what kneecapped the Libertarian Party's growth was when the Radical Libertarians took over the Party in the 1982-1983 period, which drove away a lot of more Moderate members, principally major donors such the Koch brothers. If the Radical Libertarians had been kept at bay you probably would have seen the Party's membership continue to grow and its performance improve, but that still wouldn't result in it being competitive on the Federal level, least I wouldn't think.​

So, how do you keep the radical Libertarians at bay? A more successful run in 1980? A slight platform shift in the 1970s that keeps the radicals from gaining as much ground in the 80s?

 

[Jaguars4life]

They need to stop nominating moderate Republicans

 

[brokenrobot00]

I could see a scenario where instead of the Tea Party movement people and large business interests like the Koch Brothers start funding Libertarian candidates with a lower taxes and deregulation platform. This could be a combination of actual Libertarians and Republicans from Libertarian wing of the party. Have these candidates start at lower levels of politics and build that into a national movement over the course of 2 or 3 election cycles. Portray themselves as outsiders in a political landscape where the general population is very sick and tired of the usual Washington games.

 

[Ariosto]

So, how do you keep the radical Libertarians at bay? A more successful run in 1980? A slight platform shift in the 1970s that keeps the radicals from gaining as much ground in the 80s?

Unfortunately I am not all that knowledgeable about the takeover, but the Radical wing has always been more active and dedicated to inter-Party politic then the more Centrist faction, though that could be said of most Parties. There isn't any easy fix that comes to mind.​

They need to stop nominating moderate Republicans

Their best performances have been with Moderate Republicans, so I doubt that is an issue except to the Radical Libertarians.​

 

[Somedevil]

what if some Libertarian leaning democrats joined them for some reason? Think the Bluedog democrat types

 

[SiddFinch1]

an earlier more robust free state project- if majority of those who vote libertarian moved to one state like NH, they could take it over and get congressional rep and senators.

If trends continue and Republicans become more anti-free trade and anti other rights, could create more of a wedge with part of republican base. If Democrats veer from the more moderate Clinton branch towards the more radical Bernie/Warren branch- maybe some moderate Democrats look to the libertarians as well

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . start funding Libertarian candidates with a lower taxes and deregulation platform. . .

This has been the game plan of the Republican Party since maybe George Bush, Sr,. in 1988!!!

I'd say libertarian philosophy and advocates have already have had a large influence, and I'd personally say a disproportional influence.

-------------

of course, we can debate how much of this influence has been from the Large-L Libertarian Party

 

[Asp]

Fair point. So, we have (of serious politicians) in the Libertarian Party: Bill Weld and (kind of) Gary Johnson, if he wasn't so... odd, and maybe Ron Paul and that's it off the top of my head. Not that many to work with. So, either more serious politicans need to defect or the Libertarian Platform needs to move more into the 21st century.

Calling Ron Paul a serious politician is...questionable.

I might have something for you. Barry Goldwater was pro-gay marriage and pro-marijuana towards the end. He also despised how the Christian Right was taking over the party. Maybe Pat Robertson somehow gets nominated and he decides to rage-run for President on the Libertarian platform in the late 1980s/early 1990s? That gives them a serious, respected person with national name recognition. He was actually pretty close to them on most major issues, but not on foreign policy.

 

[TwiliAlchemist]

an earlier more robust free state project- if majority of those who vote libertarian moved to one state like NH, they could take it over and get congressional rep and senators.

That would be interesting, a larger Free State Project having a large scale effect on politics.

If trends continue and Republicans become more anti-free trade and anti other rights, could create more of a wedge with part of republican base. If Democrats veer from the more moderate Clinton branch towards the more radical Bernie/Warren branch- maybe some moderate Democrats look to the libertarians as well

There are some Libertarian Democrats, but they aren't as numerous and the Libertarian Republicans.

Calling Ron Paul a serious politician is...questionable.

Hence the "maybe" Ron Paul.

I might have something for you. Barry Goldwater was pro-gay marriage and pro-marijuana towards the end. He also despised how the Christian Right was taking over the party. Maybe Pat Robertson somehow gets nominated and he decides to rage-run for President on the Libertarian platform in the late 1980s/early 1990s? That gives them a serious, respected person with national name recognition. He was actually pretty close to them on most major issues, but not on foreign policy.

The way to get Robertson as the Republican nominee (probably in 1988 since that is when he was running) you would have to get HW Bush to not run and for no one to run against Robertson. I do like the idea though.

 

[Prussian1871]

While there is a space for a socially left, fiscally right party because of the decline of the Rockefeller Republicans, the Libertarians are not in the shape of the party to fill that position. So long as it's the fringe of people who question whether drivers licenses should exist, they aren't going anywhere unless they moderate significantly. They would have to bring in more defectors from the Republican Party of people like Rand Paul or Bill Weld-Republicans if they have a hope of competing on the state level and building up strength.

 

[Asp]

The way to get Robertson as the Republican nominee (probably in 1988 since that is when he was running) you would have to get HW Bush to not run and for no one to run against Robertson. I do like the idea though.

The alternative being that HW could die from assassination or some freak accident (car crashes are usually the most plausible ones).

 

[Somedevil]

The alternative being that HW could die from assassination or some freak accident (car crashes are usually the most plausible ones).

Or just have him go down politically during the Iran Contra hearings. Have evidence become public that he lied about not knowing and that ends his political career

 

[Riain]

The way to get Robertson as the Republican nominee (probably in 1988 since that is when he was running) you would have to get HW Bush to not run and for no one to run against Robertson. I do like the idea though.

The alternative being that HW could die from assassination or some freak accident (car crashes are usually the most plausible ones).

When the hell did Bush Snr, or GHB pick up the 'W'? And perhaps more importantly, WHY?