Flada Blog

In a 2006 Zogby poll, it was determined that 59% of voters self-identified as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. According to The World’s Smallest Political Quiz at the Advocates for Small Government website, this is the definition of a libertarian. So why do libertarians consistently fare so poorly in elections? Is a political majority doomed to eternal minority status? I have given this much thought and have come up with a few answers.

Idealism

Ayn Rand wrote that “In any compromise between food and poison it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” Although Rand was not a libertarian per se, but rather an objectivist, the primary difference between the two is that objectivists pursue a philosophical and intellectual basis for their beliefs. Their similarities are far more abundant. While Democrats and Republicans alike are willing to sacrifice their ideals and compromise to achieve electoral victories, libertarians and objectivists are often unwilling to make any compromise. For this very reason, you’ll never hear a Democrat describe herself as a “small ‘d’ democrat” nor a Republican self-describe as a “small ‘r’ republican.” But most of the libertarians with whom I’ve talked are quick to make a distinction. The seemingly insignificant policy disagreements between each libertarian’s personal view and that of the Libertarian Party become insurmountable obstacles.

Having this stubbornness and refusal to compromise makes it distasteful for many libertarians to pull the lever for any candidate that doesn’t agree with all of his positions, 100%. And the only person who agrees 100% is that person. Fine, go write your own name in–that’s a sure fire way to win elections.

Another class of libertarians are the ones who are willing to make small concessions, little compromises. These libertarians, at best, are only about 4% of the voters. That’s why 4% is about the best a libertarian candidate has ever done on a national-level election. Usually this figure doesn’t even come close to 4%, though. These are the libertarian voters that are realist-idealists–the “I’d better compromise on some minor points to get anything accomplished” group. The idealist-lite.

Taken to extremes, the idealist-lite will vote for a Republican or Democrat candidate. But with the possible exception of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), this is a no-win situation. If the candidate wins, the voter will invariably find far more issues where the representative is “wrong” than those where her positions are “right.” Partly, this is because it’s human nature to focus on the things we don’t like rather than those we do. For this reason, I hold to the belief that these voters are more likely to vote against the incumbent or the incumbent’s party–or not vote at all.

Ignorance

Another voting block is made up of people who really don’t know that they have any alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. Thanks to the new media of blogs, discussion boards, and online news; this is the best hope for libertarians to break the glass ceiling of political office. In the meantime, there are still huge numbers of voters who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals who continue to vote for D’s and R’s.

This can be very frustrating. The first time I was old enough to vote in a Presidential election, I cast my vote for the elder George Bush. Enough of his policies were abhorrent to me (including the “no new taxes” lie) that I withheld my vote for the next two Presidential elections. During my voting hiatus, I became much more interested in politics in general and discovered the Libertarian Party. Although I have never joined the party, I actually voted for Harry Browne in 2000. I believe my political awakening could be representative of a sleeping giant of voters who just don’t know any better.

Fear

Let’s discuss the idealist-lite a little bit more. For the last ten years, I’ve spent a good deal of time on political forums. Every election there is a huge push by the party hacks on the sites to vote for their candidate because mine can’t possibly win. Every election, they say that it has never been more important than now to keep their opponent from winning. Apparently the future of the world depends on it. Every damn election. I think enough of my fellow libertarians finally had heard this argument once too often in the last election cycle so even more of them stayed away–giving majorities to Democrats in both houses.

Unfortunately, staying home isn’t the same as building a stronger party of libertarians–or attempting a takeover of one of the major parties. For this reason, there’s still only one real libertarian (Ron Paul) who has been elected to a national office.

Until these obstacles are overcome, the libertarian majority will remain in minority limbo.