From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:15:31 GMT

In article <1aqdm3INNi2@armory.centerline.com> 
   mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) wrote:
>In article <9421@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>,    
   mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>
>>Even if minor party candidates do not win, they do affect the debate.
>>The 1930's socialist party never came close to winning the presidency
>>either, but the entirety of their platform has since been adopted by 
>>one or both major parties.
>
>This clearly indicates to me that we should vote for one or both of the
>major parties.  Especially in their primaries.

I'll not touch this bit.

>The only way change is likely to occur is when it is endorsed by one or more
>major parties.  

Even if this were true, the so-called major parties are more 
likely to change only when they see their voter base eroding to 
competing parties.  Though I won't try to prove it, I can think of 
no better rationale for the DNC's early endorsement of Clinton 
than his centrist-looking facade.  After the loss of many 'Reagan 
Democrats' to the republicans in the last three elections, the 
Dems were clueful enough to put on a prettier face.  Note also the 
Republican endorsement of a health-care scheme after that became a 
Democratic selling point in the PA (I think?) gubernatorial 
election.

>History shows that it doesn't pay to hold your breath while
>waiting for a small party to supplant one of the large ones: I don't think
>that's happened in the US since the demise of the Whigs.

If I understand LP strategy at all, Libertarians are not holding 
their collective breath (tho maybe they should with all of the 
DemoPublican hot air blowing around these days ;->).  They are 
working hard at getting national exposure and making steady 
progress at the state and local levels where being a "major party" 
candidate isn't as important in getting media coverage and winning 
elections.

>[...]
>I'm not worried.  Petulent "I don't wanna pay my taxes, and any way it's all
>waste" libertarians [...]

Yeah right.  As though the poster's "major parties" have been good 
about paying their taxes.  Perhaps the term "national debt" needs 
mentioning here?  Sheesh.  At least Libertarians are willing to 
give up the programs they don't want to pay for.  Ask that of the 
"major parties".

>[...] haven't the capacity for deferred gratification that is
>required to accomplish long-term objectives.  They're a group that's united
>only by their dislikes and dissent: that's never going to accumulate much
>following.

The Dems and Repubs seem to have done pretty well that way.  :-)  
Seriously, looking at the 1992 platforms, I'd have to say that 
Libertarians are more united by discernible principles than either 
of the "major parties".  Reading Democrat and Republican 
platforms, it is clear that they are pandering to internal 
factions to maintain special interest support.  I don't like 
accusing people of being disingenuous, but it is hard to imagine 
that Huben really has no idea what unites Libertarians.

And anyway, if accomplishing long-term objectives is any measure, 
the Democrats and Republicans certainly don't have much to brag 
about.  And they've been in charge

>Mike Huben

	- Mike Brokowski

	Note for those who assume too much: These opinions aren't 
	necessarily NU's.