As it says on the tin, wank the U.S. Libertarian Party to the best possible extent. This includes the local, state, and national level. Bonus points if you can have them participate with the debates and have at least some presence in Congress.
AHC: Wank the Libertarian Party
- Thread starter Prussian1871
- Start date
I heard once there was a suggestion by a Libertarian somewhere they all move to the same town so they could at least rule there. Eventually their policies would lead to success and the Libertarian area would expand, County, State, Region, etc.
I wish I could remember where I heard it, possibly some show at a Libertarian presidential convention on CSPAN.
I wish I could remember where I heard it, possibly some show at a Libertarian presidential convention on CSPAN.
The best way to do that, would be to kill off the Republicans, TBH. Maybe Reagan and co. are consistently kept out by a convention system that favors the moderates, and they walk out and into the Libertarians. A 1912 later, many conservative Republicans defect to this growing new party.
You would need to ensure the Libertarians are more relevant than OTL before-hand, but this is a decent way to go.
You would need to ensure the Libertarians are more relevant than OTL before-hand, but this is a decent way to go.
Find a way to get more Americans to agree with the proposition "All currently illegal drugs should be legalized right away".
And that's just one of about half a dozen libertarian positions that, right off the top of my head, would be definite deal-breakers for most Americans. I guess you could have the libertarians renounce those policies, but in that case, they wouldn't be libertarians, since it is a rather either/or philosophy.
And that's just one of about half a dozen libertarian positions that, right off the top of my head, would be definite deal-breakers for most Americans. I guess you could have the libertarians renounce those policies, but in that case, they wouldn't be libertarians, since it is a rather either/or philosophy.
I think one of the main limitations of the libertarians OTL is their ideology. I think that a lot of their ideological appeal is directed towards entrepreneurs and the middle-class. After all libertarianism is the ideology of the true free market will allow anyone to succeed if they have the talent and ambition, which is understandably appealing to small business owners looking to expand their business and other entrepreneurial minded types. However, it also means that they don't have much to offer the average working stiff trying to make ends meet, who may well regard such talk as pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Likewise for the other end of the spectrum, with the exception of anomalies like the Koch brothers, libertarianism doesn't have much to offer the super-rich captains of industry and Wall Street Bankers, especially given their strong anti-corporate welfare view. Even within the small demographic that they target, however, they have to compete with the already well-established Democrats and Republics, both of which have programs and support among the middle-classes. Ultimately, the main problem with libertarian ideology is that it offers too little to too few, and what it does offer in terms of promises rests on gambling that a radical free market approach will benefit everyone, which I think is far too much of a risk for people to be willing to back, especially when compared to more concrete policies offered by the Republicans and Democrats.
One thing that libertarian as a whole could do to improve their popular position is to rediscover and embrace the American populist tradition and present themselves as the modern day versions of William J. Bryan and Huey Long. As a result they would embrace some of the traditional policies and goals of the populist movement, such as trust-busting and trade unionism.
It would also inherit some of their class politics, which OTL the libertarian movement has tended to shy away from. For all their talk they are often unwilling to go after the corporate side of corporatism, tending to focus almost entirely on the role of the state. A populist libertarian movement would probably be much more willing to attack the big banks and businesses directly, perhaps even arguing in favour of forcibly breaking them up. After all (according to them), they only got that big and powerful because of statist corporatism, and thus they are a distortion of the free market. Therefore they would be entirely justified in breaking these undeserved monopolies up.
When it comes to welfare they could attempt to revive the Share Our Wealth movement as a replacement for the welfare state. This isn’t too farfetched as various libertarian thinkers, most notably Hayek, were flirting with the idea of universal basic income. Another area where they might try to develop a libertarian approach to welfare could be through actively encouraging and supporting mutual aid societies and other non-state institutions. This could lead to a radical pro-union stance as an alternative to government mandated welfare. After all, why have state mandated pensions and minimum wages when a strong union movement would be able to negotiate these sorts of things in the free market? Indeed the mixing together of radical free-markets with strong unions is not unheard of in American politics, most notably John L. Lewis, who argued that unions would only be able to bargain effectively with private bosses, and that they would be powerless against state bureaucrats. A strong union stance could also help to build support for the Libertarian Party amongst the working class, especially in the 70s. It's also worth noting that quite a few classic liberals like J. S. Mill and Adam Smith were quite pro-union, which would also serve as an ideological justification for taking this stance. Likewise for the cooperative movement, which a more successful Libertarian movement would probably seek to build ties with.
In terms of taxes I could see them embracing a Geolibertarian approach that sees land and natural resources as common property and therefore proposes a tax system based a single tax on land (basically as a form of rent that businesses pay the community in exchange for using the land). In addition there would also be a 100% inheritance tax. Another possible source of income they might try, especially if they are cribbing from Huey Long’s sheet, is a wealth tax above a certain threshold (say $50 million). Whilst this would probably alienate the superrich, I suspect that a large portion of the alt-Libertarian support base is going to come from small-businesses owners for whom $50 million is going to be an incredibly distant goal.
On environmental policies I can see a number of ways that they might attempt to appeal to environmentalists. They could probably justify some measure of environmental protection based on protecting property rights especially if they go the Georgist route. After all, if you dump a load of chemicals in a river and it damages someone’s farm that constitutes a violation of the non-aggression principle and must be rectified. OTL some green libertarians advocate carbon taxes as a means of preventing environmental damage from being externalised. They might also attempt to establish an early form of carbon trading. Abolishing federal sovereign immunity is also supported by some libertarians IOTL, one the grounds that the state should also be held accountable to the same regulations that are placed on businesses. I can also see the alt-Libertarians enthusiastically supporting and patronising green technologies and green businesses, and in particular I think the organic movement would gel quite well with them. These policies don’t necessarily have to be effectively environmental, indeed I suspect that a lot of greenwashing and marketing would be involved, but if they can at least be seen to be environmentally savvy they could gain quite a few supporters in environmentalist circles.
On the issue of affirmative action I can see things going two ways. Either they dismiss the issue as liberal statist nonsense, which would earn brownie points with conservatives and racists. Alternatively, they could embrace it, which could help build support in the black middle-class. Either they could support mandatory affirmative action as a necessary short term corrective to the problems of institutional racism (which they would have no trouble linking to corporatism and state intervention), or they would morally support it, but attempt to enforce it through non-state means i.e. through the unions and organised boycotts.
As a result this would probably mean that American libertarianism ITTL would be a fairly different beast than IOTL, with strong left-libertarian, distributivist, Georgist, and perhaps even left-wing market anarchist and individualist anarchist tendencies. This form of libertarianism would also be in a much better position to pull off the proposed alliance between libertarians and the New Left proposed by the likes of Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess in the 60s, especially over issues like imperialism, LGBT rights, prohibition etc. I suspect figures like Kevin Carson or Hillel Steiner are going to be a lot more prominent ITTL's libertarian movement.
This shift to the left is also likely to alienate Ayn Rand and the Objectivists even more than IOTL, especially if they appeal to Christianity like many of the OTL populists, so I could also see a fringe Objectivist Party trying to present themselves as the true libertarian option against these “hippies of the right”. I would consider this a bonus in terms of popular perception and credibility.
Ultimately a Libertarian Party based on this ideology would be in a much better position to establish a wide following in American society, offering a radical, but non-socialist program, that can appeal to entrepreneurs and small business owners, students, unions, oppressed sexual minorities, and the rural poor (a demographic that has pretty much been ignored since the 1930s).
In addition to ideological changes, another thing that would likely help the Libertarians would be electoral reform. One of the key features of American libertarianism is that it’s eclectic. People from across the political spectrum can look at it and find at least some thing they like even if they disagree with it fundamentally (I myself am a radical socialist, yet I can appreciate their anti-imperialism, opposition to the war on drugs, and criticism of corporatism, even if I think everything else is wrong). Therefore, if America implements a voting system that allows for alternative or multiple votes (AV/STV) then they could end up benefiting from their lesser evil status in many people’s eyes.
One thing that libertarian as a whole could do to improve their popular position is to rediscover and embrace the American populist tradition and present themselves as the modern day versions of William J. Bryan and Huey Long. As a result they would embrace some of the traditional policies and goals of the populist movement, such as trust-busting and trade unionism.
It would also inherit some of their class politics, which OTL the libertarian movement has tended to shy away from. For all their talk they are often unwilling to go after the corporate side of corporatism, tending to focus almost entirely on the role of the state. A populist libertarian movement would probably be much more willing to attack the big banks and businesses directly, perhaps even arguing in favour of forcibly breaking them up. After all (according to them), they only got that big and powerful because of statist corporatism, and thus they are a distortion of the free market. Therefore they would be entirely justified in breaking these undeserved monopolies up.
When it comes to welfare they could attempt to revive the Share Our Wealth movement as a replacement for the welfare state. This isn’t too farfetched as various libertarian thinkers, most notably Hayek, were flirting with the idea of universal basic income. Another area where they might try to develop a libertarian approach to welfare could be through actively encouraging and supporting mutual aid societies and other non-state institutions. This could lead to a radical pro-union stance as an alternative to government mandated welfare. After all, why have state mandated pensions and minimum wages when a strong union movement would be able to negotiate these sorts of things in the free market? Indeed the mixing together of radical free-markets with strong unions is not unheard of in American politics, most notably John L. Lewis, who argued that unions would only be able to bargain effectively with private bosses, and that they would be powerless against state bureaucrats. A strong union stance could also help to build support for the Libertarian Party amongst the working class, especially in the 70s. It's also worth noting that quite a few classic liberals like J. S. Mill and Adam Smith were quite pro-union, which would also serve as an ideological justification for taking this stance. Likewise for the cooperative movement, which a more successful Libertarian movement would probably seek to build ties with.
In terms of taxes I could see them embracing a Geolibertarian approach that sees land and natural resources as common property and therefore proposes a tax system based a single tax on land (basically as a form of rent that businesses pay the community in exchange for using the land). In addition there would also be a 100% inheritance tax. Another possible source of income they might try, especially if they are cribbing from Huey Long’s sheet, is a wealth tax above a certain threshold (say $50 million). Whilst this would probably alienate the superrich, I suspect that a large portion of the alt-Libertarian support base is going to come from small-businesses owners for whom $50 million is going to be an incredibly distant goal.
On environmental policies I can see a number of ways that they might attempt to appeal to environmentalists. They could probably justify some measure of environmental protection based on protecting property rights especially if they go the Georgist route. After all, if you dump a load of chemicals in a river and it damages someone’s farm that constitutes a violation of the non-aggression principle and must be rectified. OTL some green libertarians advocate carbon taxes as a means of preventing environmental damage from being externalised. They might also attempt to establish an early form of carbon trading. Abolishing federal sovereign immunity is also supported by some libertarians IOTL, one the grounds that the state should also be held accountable to the same regulations that are placed on businesses. I can also see the alt-Libertarians enthusiastically supporting and patronising green technologies and green businesses, and in particular I think the organic movement would gel quite well with them. These policies don’t necessarily have to be effectively environmental, indeed I suspect that a lot of greenwashing and marketing would be involved, but if they can at least be seen to be environmentally savvy they could gain quite a few supporters in environmentalist circles.
On the issue of affirmative action I can see things going two ways. Either they dismiss the issue as liberal statist nonsense, which would earn brownie points with conservatives and racists. Alternatively, they could embrace it, which could help build support in the black middle-class. Either they could support mandatory affirmative action as a necessary short term corrective to the problems of institutional racism (which they would have no trouble linking to corporatism and state intervention), or they would morally support it, but attempt to enforce it through non-state means i.e. through the unions and organised boycotts.
As a result this would probably mean that American libertarianism ITTL would be a fairly different beast than IOTL, with strong left-libertarian, distributivist, Georgist, and perhaps even left-wing market anarchist and individualist anarchist tendencies. This form of libertarianism would also be in a much better position to pull off the proposed alliance between libertarians and the New Left proposed by the likes of Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess in the 60s, especially over issues like imperialism, LGBT rights, prohibition etc. I suspect figures like Kevin Carson or Hillel Steiner are going to be a lot more prominent ITTL's libertarian movement.
This shift to the left is also likely to alienate Ayn Rand and the Objectivists even more than IOTL, especially if they appeal to Christianity like many of the OTL populists, so I could also see a fringe Objectivist Party trying to present themselves as the true libertarian option against these “hippies of the right”. I would consider this a bonus in terms of popular perception and credibility.
Ultimately a Libertarian Party based on this ideology would be in a much better position to establish a wide following in American society, offering a radical, but non-socialist program, that can appeal to entrepreneurs and small business owners, students, unions, oppressed sexual minorities, and the rural poor (a demographic that has pretty much been ignored since the 1930s).
In addition to ideological changes, another thing that would likely help the Libertarians would be electoral reform. One of the key features of American libertarianism is that it’s eclectic. People from across the political spectrum can look at it and find at least some thing they like even if they disagree with it fundamentally (I myself am a radical socialist, yet I can appreciate their anti-imperialism, opposition to the war on drugs, and criticism of corporatism, even if I think everything else is wrong). Therefore, if America implements a voting system that allows for alternative or multiple votes (AV/STV) then they could end up benefiting from their lesser evil status in many people’s eyes.
So your solution is the make the Libertarians far-leftists? Everything you listed for potential changes would be the complete 180 of what the Libertarian Party supports.
"The Probabiliry Broach"
Is a book by Neil Smith that posits Albert Gallatin making an alternate USA libertarian from beginning; OTL not foiled by Hamilton. Or something.
ITL Koch brothers are imposing Libertarian ideas across the states, across the Republican party. Flint disaster is a direct by product of privatizing-at-all-cost memes.
Is a book by Neil Smith that posits Albert Gallatin making an alternate USA libertarian from beginning; OTL not foiled by Hamilton. Or something.
ITL Koch brothers are imposing Libertarian ideas across the states, across the Republican party. Flint disaster is a direct by product of privatizing-at-all-cost memes.
To a certain extent yes, although I would argue that whilst it may be at odds with what the Libertarian Party IOTL supports, its not incompatible with market libertarianism as a whole. Market libertarianism has many different trends and tendencies, most of which are based on a number of shared philosophical starting points: the centrality of individual self-ownership, absolute property rights, the non-aggression principle, and a belief in the free market as the best possible way to organise production. None of what I have suggested would violate those principles, or at the very least could be justified as a form of restitution in response to pre-existing state coercion (except for the wealth tax which I would see as more of a practical move), and much of it is based on actual ideological trends within market libertarianism.
Ultimately, if the Libertarians are going to get any popular support they are going to have to offer a program that is able to offer things to people that they can't just get from the other parties. In order to do that I think the alliance with the New Left has to go through, it needs to appeal to Average Joe workers, which in the 60s and 70s is going to include unionised workers, it needs to be able to tap into the anxieties and popular struggles of postwar America (environmentalism, civil rights, employment, crime, woman's liberation etc.), and quite frankly I think a non-socialist left-libertarian movement would be in a far better place to do that than the OTL Libertarians. From there it would be just a short step to linking up with the Populist and Georgist traditions.
The main trouble with the OTL Libertarian Party is that, whilst they may offer things that many people would agree with, taken as a whole, most people would probably stick with the mainstream parties or would be Socialists/Communists/Trotskyists/Nazis/Fascists/Anarchists/too-disillusioned-to-give-a-damn.
Last edited:
Sabot Cat
Banned
John Malone, a libertarian CEO of the cable television provider Tele-Communications Inc. during the 1990's founds Liberty News Channel in 1991, which has rightward-yet-libertarian lean with John Stossel as a prominent anchor. Liberty becomes the voice of the right by default, and also launches the libertarian California talk show John and Ken to new heights of popularity, so much so that their program is syndicated nationwide. They begin to shape a new consensus around themselves, and lead a right-wing revolt against George Bush because of the perceived violation of his infamous 'no new taxes' pledge.
The Libertarian Party develops a strategy to contest primaries in safe Republican state legislature and House of Representatives seats in states they received their highest totals during the Presidential elections. This is justified on the basis that the legislative branch - and the House on a federal level - has more control over the budgetary process than any other, and that they don't want to be tarred as spoilers. Their goal is to eventually hold the House hostage by refusing to pass a budget without some of their key fiscal demands being met, after which they hope to point to the success of these measures to win the entire House and Presidency later on.
The Libertarian candidates are aided by free publicity on the Liberty Channel and on libertarian talk radio and a strong infusion of funds from the Koch brothers. Due to extremely low turnout and very effective advertising, they are able to mobilize enough voters in the Republican Congressional and state legislative primaries of 1992 to accomplish this:
Alaska at-Large Congressional district: Betty Breck (L) failed to defeat inc. Representative Don Young in the Republican Primary. Young loses the general election.
Arizona's 4th Congressional district: Tim McDermott (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representatives Jon Kyl in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Arizona's 5th Congressional district: Perry Willis (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Jim Kolbe, and wins the general election.
Colorado's 5th Congressional district: Keith Hamburger (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Joel Hefley, and wins the general election.
Kansas's 1st Congressional district: Steven A. Rosile (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Pat Roberts in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Kansas's 3rd Congressional district: Frank Kaul (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Jan Meyers in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Kansas's 4th Congressional district: Seth L. Warren (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Dick Nichols in the Republican Primary, but loses the general election.
Montana at-Large Congressional district: Jerome Wilverding (L) failed to defeat inc. U.S. Representative Ron Marlenee in the Republican Primary. Marlenee loses the general election.
Nevada's 2nd Congressional district: Dan Becan (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Barbara Vucanovich in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Oregon's 2nd Congressional district: Frank Wise (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Robert Freeman Smith in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Wyoming at-Large Congressional district: Craig Alan McCune (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Craig L. Thomas in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
By the end, the Libertarian Party has picked up eight seats in the House of Representatives by candidates who identify as Republicans for seniority and future primary purposes. Even their defeats are victories, as in Alaska and Montana, the Republicans they failed to displace were defeated by Democrats, and the Libertarians were able to successfully spin this as a result of low enthusiasm for the Republican incumbent that would've been their for a Libertarian candidate. Representatives McDermott (L-AZ), Willis (L-AZ), Hamburger (L-CO), Rosile (L-KS), Kaul (L-KS), Becan (L-NV), Wise (L-OR), and McCune (L-WY) form the Libertarian Caucus on July 4, 1993.
They took the most dramatic stand against the proposed Brady Bill, colluding with the NRA in threatening to primary any Republicans that favored it, which failed to dissuade many. They also opposed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act from almost every angle, from gun control to harsher sentencing.
In 1994, the Libertarian Party unveiled a series of proposals to reform government, including term limits and a change to a Proportional Representation system for the United States, with statewide multi-member districts on a federal and state level, and Instant Runoff Vote for at-large districts as a solution to gerrymandering. They began collecting signatures for ballot initiatives to reform the electoral system in every state they had a party, with favorable coverage from the increasingly popular Liberty Network in conjunction with anti-Clinton backlash that was brewing.
The results were as follows:
Alaska- Passed
Arizona- Passed
California- Passed
Colorado- Passed
Florida- Failed
Idaho- Passed
Illinois- Failed
Michigan- Failed
Montana- Passed
Nebraska- Passed
Nevada- Failed
North Dakota- Passed
Oklahoma- Failed
Oregon- Passed
South Dakota- Passed
In Congress, all eight of the Libertarians were re-elected, as an insurgent campaign was mounted against Republicans across the board for allegedly betraying conservatives in compromising with President Clinton at several points. They receive a major infusion of funds from the National Rifle Association, an increase of money from the Koch brothers due to their success in 1992, as well as grassroots support. Finally, all of the candidates were aided by even lower turnout due to the midterms. Their picks up include:
House of Representatives
Alaska at-Large Congressional district: Betty Breck (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then the general election.
Arizona's 1st Congressional district: Bob Howarth (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then the general election.
Arizona's 3rd Congressional district: James Bertrand (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Bob Stump in the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election.
Arizona's 6th Congressional district: Sequoia R. Fuller (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then the general election.
California's 39th Congressional district: Jack Dean (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Ed Royce, and then wins the general election.
California's 43rd Congressional District: Gene L. Berkman (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Ken Calvert, and then wins the general election.
California's 46th Congressional District: Richard G. Newhouse (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Bob Dornan, and then wins the general election.
Missouri's 9th Congressional District: Mitchell J. Moore (L) wins the Republican Primary, but loses the general election.
Nevada's 1st Congressional District: Gary Wood (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election.
Oregon's 5th Congressional District: Jon E. Zimmer (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election.
Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District: Jay Timothy Russell (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative James C. Greenwood, and then wins the general election.
Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District: Lee D. Hustead (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election.
Texas's 3rd Congressional District: Tom Donahue (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Sam Johnson, and then wins the general election.
Senate
Arizona: Scott Grainger (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then the general election.
Gubernatorial
Colorado: Gary Johnson (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election for Governor.
In all, the Libertarian Party gained 14 seats in the 1994 U.S. House of Representative elections and 1 seat in the Senate, bringing their total to 22 U.S. Representatives and 1 Senator. They also gained their first Governor, in Gary Johnson of Colorado. However, their most important successes were in achieving electoral reform in nine states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Dakota. These are subject to court challenges (which they survive), and the Libertarian Party picks up at least ~20-30% of the state legislative and House seats in these states in the 1996.
That's all I have for right now. It's not entirely plausible, but this is a wank after all.
The Libertarian Party develops a strategy to contest primaries in safe Republican state legislature and House of Representatives seats in states they received their highest totals during the Presidential elections. This is justified on the basis that the legislative branch - and the House on a federal level - has more control over the budgetary process than any other, and that they don't want to be tarred as spoilers. Their goal is to eventually hold the House hostage by refusing to pass a budget without some of their key fiscal demands being met, after which they hope to point to the success of these measures to win the entire House and Presidency later on.
The Libertarian candidates are aided by free publicity on the Liberty Channel and on libertarian talk radio and a strong infusion of funds from the Koch brothers. Due to extremely low turnout and very effective advertising, they are able to mobilize enough voters in the Republican Congressional and state legislative primaries of 1992 to accomplish this:
Alaska at-Large Congressional district: Betty Breck (L) failed to defeat inc. Representative Don Young in the Republican Primary. Young loses the general election.
Arizona's 4th Congressional district: Tim McDermott (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representatives Jon Kyl in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Arizona's 5th Congressional district: Perry Willis (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Jim Kolbe, and wins the general election.
Colorado's 5th Congressional district: Keith Hamburger (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Joel Hefley, and wins the general election.
Kansas's 1st Congressional district: Steven A. Rosile (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Pat Roberts in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Kansas's 3rd Congressional district: Frank Kaul (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Jan Meyers in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Kansas's 4th Congressional district: Seth L. Warren (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Dick Nichols in the Republican Primary, but loses the general election.
Montana at-Large Congressional district: Jerome Wilverding (L) failed to defeat inc. U.S. Representative Ron Marlenee in the Republican Primary. Marlenee loses the general election.
Nevada's 2nd Congressional district: Dan Becan (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Barbara Vucanovich in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Oregon's 2nd Congressional district: Frank Wise (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Robert Freeman Smith in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
Wyoming at-Large Congressional district: Craig Alan McCune (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Craig L. Thomas in the Republican Primary, and wins the general election.
By the end, the Libertarian Party has picked up eight seats in the House of Representatives by candidates who identify as Republicans for seniority and future primary purposes. Even their defeats are victories, as in Alaska and Montana, the Republicans they failed to displace were defeated by Democrats, and the Libertarians were able to successfully spin this as a result of low enthusiasm for the Republican incumbent that would've been their for a Libertarian candidate. Representatives McDermott (L-AZ), Willis (L-AZ), Hamburger (L-CO), Rosile (L-KS), Kaul (L-KS), Becan (L-NV), Wise (L-OR), and McCune (L-WY) form the Libertarian Caucus on July 4, 1993.
They took the most dramatic stand against the proposed Brady Bill, colluding with the NRA in threatening to primary any Republicans that favored it, which failed to dissuade many. They also opposed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act from almost every angle, from gun control to harsher sentencing.
In 1994, the Libertarian Party unveiled a series of proposals to reform government, including term limits and a change to a Proportional Representation system for the United States, with statewide multi-member districts on a federal and state level, and Instant Runoff Vote for at-large districts as a solution to gerrymandering. They began collecting signatures for ballot initiatives to reform the electoral system in every state they had a party, with favorable coverage from the increasingly popular Liberty Network in conjunction with anti-Clinton backlash that was brewing.
The results were as follows:
Alaska- Passed
Arizona- Passed
California- Passed
Colorado- Passed
Florida- Failed
Idaho- Passed
Illinois- Failed
Michigan- Failed
Montana- Passed
Nebraska- Passed
Nevada- Failed
North Dakota- Passed
Oklahoma- Failed
Oregon- Passed
South Dakota- Passed
In Congress, all eight of the Libertarians were re-elected, as an insurgent campaign was mounted against Republicans across the board for allegedly betraying conservatives in compromising with President Clinton at several points. They receive a major infusion of funds from the National Rifle Association, an increase of money from the Koch brothers due to their success in 1992, as well as grassroots support. Finally, all of the candidates were aided by even lower turnout due to the midterms. Their picks up include:
House of Representatives
Alaska at-Large Congressional district: Betty Breck (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then the general election.
Arizona's 1st Congressional district: Bob Howarth (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then the general election.
Arizona's 3rd Congressional district: James Bertrand (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Bob Stump in the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election.
Arizona's 6th Congressional district: Sequoia R. Fuller (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then the general election.
California's 39th Congressional district: Jack Dean (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Ed Royce, and then wins the general election.
California's 43rd Congressional District: Gene L. Berkman (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Ken Calvert, and then wins the general election.
California's 46th Congressional District: Richard G. Newhouse (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Bob Dornan, and then wins the general election.
Missouri's 9th Congressional District: Mitchell J. Moore (L) wins the Republican Primary, but loses the general election.
Nevada's 1st Congressional District: Gary Wood (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election.
Oregon's 5th Congressional District: Jon E. Zimmer (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election.
Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District: Jay Timothy Russell (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative James C. Greenwood, and then wins the general election.
Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District: Lee D. Hustead (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election.
Texas's 3rd Congressional District: Tom Donahue (L) defeats inc. U.S. Representative Sam Johnson, and then wins the general election.
Senate
Arizona: Scott Grainger (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then the general election.
Gubernatorial
Colorado: Gary Johnson (L) wins the Republican Primary, and then wins the general election for Governor.
In all, the Libertarian Party gained 14 seats in the 1994 U.S. House of Representative elections and 1 seat in the Senate, bringing their total to 22 U.S. Representatives and 1 Senator. They also gained their first Governor, in Gary Johnson of Colorado. However, their most important successes were in achieving electoral reform in nine states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Dakota. These are subject to court challenges (which they survive), and the Libertarian Party picks up at least ~20-30% of the state legislative and House seats in these states in the 1996.
That's all I have for right now. It's not entirely plausible, but this is a wank after all.
Last edited:
The originators of the Libertarian Party actually had quite a good shot at becoming more mainstream by joining forces with the New Left and the hippies. If they followed that route, they could have tried to make an attempt at the "long march through the institutions": not desperately trying to get it all at once right at the start, but building up a coming force among the younger generation. With that approach, they could have appealed both to free-marketeers (who otherwise joined the "Reagan Revolution" in 1980), and hippies-cum-entrepreneurs. The problem was that the libertarian movement became too fractured later, with some leading figures eventually moving more and more to the radical fringe ends. Maybe this is only logical: there may be a natural aversion to any form of organisation for libertarians, which prevents playing the power politics game.
In the Noughties, there used to be a cultural sub-group called "South Park Republicans" - they would be the natural constituency if the Libertarian Party would have had a go at the free market+free society formula earlier. Instead, the OTL South Park Republians probably switched from Republicans to Democrats in 2008. It is said that the younger generation of today is generally more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative than any generation before, so for a Libertarian Party to become successful, the other parties would just have to fuck up big time.
In the Noughties, there used to be a cultural sub-group called "South Park Republicans" - they would be the natural constituency if the Libertarian Party would have had a go at the free market+free society formula earlier. Instead, the OTL South Park Republians probably switched from Republicans to Democrats in 2008. It is said that the younger generation of today is generally more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative than any generation before, so for a Libertarian Party to become successful, the other parties would just have to fuck up big time.
In addition to the ideas being suggested here, could well-known libertarian celebrities like Clint Eastwood or Howard Stern improve their status and likability?
Sabot Cat
Banned
Are these people 'libertarian'...? And Howard Stern isn't going to improve anybody's status or likability.
B-29_Bomber
Banned
Get rid of Neo-Conservatives/Reaganites. The Libertarian Party may not necessarily be wanked, but the movement itself would do a lot better. I'd say the Libertarians would latch onto the Republicans and you'd have a much more libertarian party, though not entirely. It'd probably be a mirror of today, with Neo-Conservatives latching on to the more libertarian Republican Party because at least they're fiscally conservative and support the Free Market.
Even now I'd hazard a guess that as the old guard Neo-Conservatives of the Republican party die off the party will become more libertarian in nature.
Even now I'd hazard a guess that as the old guard Neo-Conservatives of the Republican party die off the party will become more libertarian in nature.
They claim to be, at least. Is the Libertarian Party really going to turn down free-publicity?
Sabot Cat
Banned
Under my scenario, they'd have plenty of free publicity.
(Besides, in OTL Howard Stern used the Libertarian Party as a vehicle for a Gubernatorial run in New York if I recall correctly, and it harmed their credibility as a party.)
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I made a mistake before.
from this 2012 article:
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/05/gov_john_kasichs_proposed_frac.html
The Ohio state law about fracking chemicals does allow a doctor to tell patients as well as their immediate family. But the doctor is not allowed to inform the general public.
Companies can claim any fracking chemical is a "trade secret" and the government of Ohio is duty-bound to honor this. The only exception is to medical professionals in the case of an emergency.
In addition, companies are not required to report drilling lubricants used deeper than the water aquifer. And companies are allowed to wait till after they drill and fracture to report what chemicals they used.
=====
See also the following blog, with references, on the Huffington Post, which talks about Florida and Texas:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/alecs-fracking-chemical-d_b_4818340.html
Last edited: