Develop a base? (i.e.: local, state, Congress, etc.)
Elect a President without a base?
Be included in Presidential debates?
Carry 10%+ of the Presidental popular vote?
Last edited by Henrin; 05-08-12 at 09:34 PM.
"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
-C G Jung
From what I'm learning from the other libertarian-natured thread currently in play, there simply aren't enough people in America that can identify with the libertarian ideology for there to ever be enough Libertarian Party members to have a sufficiently powerful effect.
This is especially true gender-wise, as libertarianism does appear to show a significant gender preference by males and rejection by females. Libertarianism's social freedom emphasis is opposed by conservative women, and libertarianism's economic freedom is opposed by liberal women. Considering that there are still a significant number of men who are either socially and economically liberal or socially and economically conservative, they're not likely to switch over to libertarianism.
And if the Libertarian party made all the platform changes suggested by a number of posters in this thread, it would simply cease to be the "Libertarian" Party.
As a power player, I really think the Libertarian Party won't get any stronger.
That probably accounts for why so many libertarians glommbed on to the right of the Republican conservative wing in 2010, their success accounted for partly because of the Republican name that drew those Republicans who were not philosophical libertarians into voting for them and partly because of the Dems' inability to solve the economic crisis.
Though most Americans don't calibrate politically at either wing, the great majority residing at or near the center of the political spectrum, most of them are still registered Dem or Repub where at least they don't experiencing being politically insignificant, and they aren't likely to switch over to a party that's not likely to ever be a player unless they have a sudden attack of either uncontrolled idealism or party self-hatred (the Perot's in 1992 and the Greens in 2000).
In addition, libertarianism's nature, of being left-wing on social issues and right-wing on economic issues, still makes it wingish, and the great majority who are at or near the center of the political spectrum are there because they simply are't drawn to wing philosophy.
I think the Libertarian Party is done.
Only a new centrist party has any chance of taking the great majority at the center and "splitting the uprights", so to speak, in a divide and conquering of the liberal Dems and conservative Repubs. If you are more interested in power than ideology, that's the route to take.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
Costs across the board have skyrocketed while real wages have remained stagnant for the past 40 years. The increasing utilization of social welfare programs is an effect of this, not a cause. To call for anything less than a complete restructuring of these programs to respond to this problem and deal with the growing number of people that require these programs is absurd.Unfortunately, it probably is the most realistic, because most people can't imagine living without the heavy hand of government shoving them along, and promising to take care of them in their infirmity. We've essentially replaced the family with Uncle Sam.
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
The only way the libertarian party will become any kind of force in US policy is if they change their platform and how they present themselves.
The Libertarian platform is not something that people are going to adopt in numbers nearly as highly as democratic or republican platforms. It goes too far in too many places to be popular. Without popular support, the Libertarian party is dead in the water. The other thing it does is cross common ideological lines. Pro-abortion rights and pro-laissez-faire economics means there is something for every one to hate.
Presentation is probably the biggest thing however. Lets look at Ron Paul, the most recognizable person associated with the Libertarians. What are the two biggest issues associated with him? Auditing the fed and a gold type standard for currency. Almost no one cares about those issues. Paul starts droning on about the usual crap he talks about and people tune out in droves. If people do not think the LP cares about the same things they do, they are not going to support it.
Without those fundamental changes, which would admittedly make it not the LP, then they are never going to be anything more than a fringe group. And that is not the fault of the two big parties, it is not the fault of the media, it is not because people are stupid, it is because the LP simply does not represent the values and issues of many people. It is their own fault.