From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:00:53 GMT

In article <Bu9Kop.KBD@apollo.hp.com>
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>
>In article <16859CF5E.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Val) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.170625.18104@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
>>n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>>
>>>	Give up on the Libertarian vote.  In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>>>got less than 1% of the vote.  The New Freedom Party got almost as many
>>>votes.  You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
>>>statistically insignificant
>
>>     That's OK.  Nobody ever said starting political parties was easy or
>>quick.  But then, it's not surprising so few support him, considering so
>>few have *heard* of him.  (Ditto for the rest of the minor parties.)
>>We *are* living in a country where a significant portion of the population
>>think that the major parties are the *only* parties.
>>     Hell, Ross Perot was said to be starting "a third party."
>
>  Nonetheless, Perot achieved very high popularity, at one point leading
>  the two major candidates in some polls.

     With intense media exposure and 2 or 3 billion dollars *I* could
show up on the polls.

>Moreover John Anderson and
>  George Wallace also had very credible third-party campaigns in the
>  last couple of decades.   And Vermont recently elected a socialist to
>  national office.  So it IS possible to run as a third party and get
>  heard.   The libertarians are short on voters but they always have
>  ready supply of excuses.   I mean, yes, getting heard as a third
>  party is an uphill battle but it's not impossible if you have a
>  a compelling message which resonates with the market.

     I suppose I'll just have to try harder.  :-)
>
>  The fact is that libertarianism has no natural cultural base in the US
>  (or anyplace else).   Those who agree with them, say on welfare or free
>  markets, are most likely to be Republicans (hence the number of R.<->
>  L.P. party switches we've seen over the years) who are still all in
>  favor of intrusive Big Government in other areas.   The cultural con-
>  ditions for minarchy have not existed in this country since the In-
>  dustrial Revolution took hold, and only those ignorant of history
>  fail to grasp that prior to this there were other cultural, traditional
>  and even institutional forces constraining individuals' behavior.
>  There never was a Golden Age of individual liberty, unless it is
>  today.   Libertarianism is the political equivalant of "new age"
>  music or religion.

     As a pure political concept you are probably correct.  I've never
advocated pure libertarianism because I don't believe people are currently
capable of acting either in their own long-term best interests or in the
country's long-term best interests solely on their own.  Since people
don't seem to have substantially changed in that regard since the
beginning of recorded time, it may never happen.
     I do however believe that we need to move in that direction, and
at least back to a more strict constitutional view.
     The Libertarians about the only party I'm aware of that are pointed
in that direction, which is primarily why I support them.
     Minarchy is a tough thing to make work.  It requires work at all levels
of government down to the general populace.
     Maybe the Libertarians will be the next major party in the United States,
or maybe they'll disappear without a trace after this November.  Either way
it doesn't change things.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================