DBWI AHC: Make the Libertarians a minor fringe party

The Libertarian Party was founded 40 years ago to provide a conservative alternative to the existing two party system.

In 1972, the party first presidential ticket won 2 electoral votes thanks to faithless Electors in Virginia and Arizona. From then on, the Libertarians took off.

In 1980, the voters had enough with the malaise and corruption of the two party system especially the Rockefeller Presidency. Americans elected the first Libertarian President and the Libertarians won control of the House of Representatives and became the official opposition in the Senate.

Is there any way that the Libertarians could have remained a fringe unelectable party? My guess is that Ronald Reagan is not assassinated in 1975. A lot of his hardcore supporters migrated to the Libertarians especially after Barry Goldwater switched his support in 1979.
 
The easiest way would be to reverse the causes of the faithless electors Roger MacBride and David Nolan switching their support: namely, have Nixon not enact Wage and Price controls and end the Gold Standard (before anyone jumps on me for this, yes, I know it was far more complicated than that, but that's what the general reaction was at the time).

Not letting the Democrats win in 1972 is also a good start, at least not with Wallace. That doesn't cause the GOP to feel they must attack the Dems from the left in 1976, namely with Rockefeller.

Personally, I wonder what would have happened if the GOP had collapsed as per OTL, and there was no growing Libertarian Party to pick up the pieces.
 
One can't help but point out that the Libertarians, in ethos and in practice, are very similar to the Republican Party they replaced. The core of the original libertarian party, a broad coalition of old Rightists and pro-market New Lefties, were totally displaced by former Republican entryists, and many ended up leaving the party all together.
 
One can't help but point out that the Libertarians, in ethos and in practice, are very similar to the Republican Party they replaced. The core of the original libertarian party, a broad coalition of old Rightists and pro-market New Lefties, were totally displaced by former Republican entryists, and many ended up leaving the party all together.

Well not totally (you have to dig into old party platforms, especially on defense and social issues) but yeah, that's the American tradition: you want in on the party system? You have to kick out someone already in it. Whigs went bust and were replaced by the Republicans, Populists made a bid and got swallowed up by the Democrats, Republicans went bust and the Libertarians rolled into town. Not a clean break, sure (there's still a couple Republicans in Congress from New Hampshire, I think), but that's who it goes.
 
Well not totally (you have to dig into old party platforms, especially on defense and social issues) but yeah, that's the American tradition: you want in on the party system? You have to kick out someone already in it. Whigs went bust and were replaced by the Republicans, Populists made a bid and got swallowed up by the Democrats, Republicans went bust and the Libertarians rolled into town. Not a clean break, sure (there's still a couple Republicans in Congress from New Hampshire, I think), but that's who it goes.

Right, specifically Senators Bob Smith and Judd Gregg, along with Representative Charlie Bass. You also have Senator Susan Collins in Maine. That's the extent of the Party of Lincoln nowadays!:eek:

But back to the OP, if we're talking a PoD after the founding of the Libertarian Party, prevent the falling out between Rockefeller and S.I. Hayakawa. It was his denouncement of Rockefeller that made a lot of even the more moderate Republicans suspicious of the President, and his endorsement that narrowly put Ed Clark over the top in the 1978 California gubernatorial race.
 
Right, specifically Senators Bob Smith and Judd Gregg, along with Representative Charlie Bass. You also have Senator Susan Collins in Maine. That's the extent of the Party of Lincoln nowadays!:eek:

But back to the OP, if we're talking a PoD after the founding of the Libertarian Party, prevent the falling out between Rockefeller and S.I. Hayakawa. It was his denouncement of Rockefeller that made a lot of even the more moderate Republicans suspicious of the President, and his endorsement that narrowly put Ed Clark over the top in the 1978 California gubernatorial race.

Can we keep Hayakawa out of politics? He could always stay President of San Francisco State College, couldn't he? Or we could go with the old stand-by and have him die early. Did he have any particular medical conditions that could crop up?
 

JoeMulk

Banned
I think that if McGoven had gotten the Dem nomination in 72 a lot of the New Left types would eventually take over the Democrats and moderate the party overtime instead of migrating to the Libertarians. In which case you'd see a somewhat socially liberal/"third way" capitalist Democratic Party and a more pure but more fringe Libertarian Party with all of the religious right/dixiecrat types moving over to the GOP.
 
Avoiding contact with the Alien Space Bats would probably bring sanity back into politics.

Yeah, things were better when we had that conservative Republican party providing the opposition to the Democrats. What we need is a party that is just as tough on spending in their rhetoric as the Libertarians, yet more than willing to spend it on wars and bailouts and those theoretical faith-based initiatives that figures in the works of Pat Robertson. And one that is also willing to fight for a strong, capable state when it comes to social policies, the Liberal Consensus of the Libertarian/Democrat years are really beginning to ruin the country... From the legalization of cannabis under President Paul in 1990 to the institution of gay marriage under President Weld in 1999. Was I the only one to lament that in 2008 neither the Democrat Bill Richardson nor the Libertarian Gary Johnson were willing to even discuss social policy, it was all the economy, the economy, the economy. Don't they realize that there are more pressing concerns than that?! And don't get me started on the military matters, just one long contest in who's got the best plan for amputating the army! "I intend to cut military funding by another 30%", "My plan will cut it by 35%", "The Post-Cold War Order", "Security by intelligence!", "Terrorists cannot be defeated through another arms race!" Thank the Gods we still have people like Joe Lieberman in the Senate, expressing the view that foreign intervention is a good thing! Had we just invaded Iraq back in 2002 or 2003, we wouldn't have had to wait until the Arab Spring for the Iraqi to achieve democracy! That that man has continuously stayed in the party of President Feingold is beyond me...
 
Top