I believe that the best use of Libertarian Party
resources, for the next 18 months, is to do whatever
it takes to run a strong presidential campaign.
I disagree with the idea that the best way to advance
party goals is to concentrate on electing people to
non-partisan city and town office.
In U.S. history, minor parties that have consistently
carried out well-run presidential campaigns, without a
break, have had the strongest influence on policy.
The Socialist Party and the Prohibition Party are the
only two minor parties that consistently polled at
least 1% of the vote for president, over a period of
at least 20 years.
The Socialist Party's role in influencing U.S. policy
is fairly well known. The Prohibition Party's role is
not as well known. The Socialist Party usually polled
3% during the period 1904-1932, although it hit 6% in
1912 and less than 1% in 1928. The Prohibition Party
was weaker, polling between 1% and 2% in the entire
period 1884-1920, except that it hit 2.2% in 1892 and
fell below 1% in 1896.
The Socialist Party's presidential campaigns never
caused the outcome of the winner to change. But the
Prohibition Party's presidential campaigns cost the
Republicans the election in both 1884 and 1916 (both
years, the Prohibition Party presidential candidate
was an ex-Republican Governor). The 1884 Prohibition
campaign tilted New York to the Democrats; the 1916
Prohibition campaign tilted California to the
Democrats.
After the Prohibitionists cost the Republicans the
presidency for the 2nd time, in 1916, congress passed
the constitutional amendment imposing prohibition,
early in 1917. This amendment had first been
introduced in Congress in 1875. It languished for 42
years before it passed. I believe the Republicans
decided to pass it because they were tired of losing
votes to the Prohibition Party. The Republican
national platform had never even hinted at any
Republican Party support for prohibition (nor had the
Democratic platform), but they passed it anyway.
Of course, the Prohibition Party didn't set out to
alter the outcome of a presidential election. The
Prohibition Party simply put on a vigorous
presidential campaign, with clockwork regularity. No
one can predict how these things turn out.
I conclude from this history that it pays a minor
party in the U.S. to consistently carry out a vigorous
presidential campaign. I am posting this idea
because, over the years, many Libertarians seem to
have concluded that putting resources into a
presidential campaign doesn't pay off.
There are additional reasons why it's especially
desirable for the LP to run a strong presidential
campaign in 2004. We may have the field mostly to
ourselves. If the Democrats nominate Governor Dean,
the Greens will not make a vigorous run. No other
minor party seems likely to do anything vigorous
either. Yet the electorate is very unhappy now, and
is likely to be unhappy next year also.
It's always possible that there will be a breakthru
with presidential debates. The National Voting Rights
Institute, headquartered in Boston, is already
planning a new lawsuit against the Commission on
Presidential Debates. We may get a breakthrough.