Radicals and the Two-Party System
by James Leroy Wilson <mailto:jim102670@yahoo.com>
by James Leroy Wilson
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-jl/wilson-james20.html##>
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-jl/wilson-james20.html##>
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-jl/wilson-james20.html##>
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-jl/wilson-james20.html##>
Ever since the Iraq War started, if not before, many radical
libertarians who long believed that the Right was less bad than the Left
have reconsidered their position. Whether there should now be a
"libertarian wing" of the Democratic Party remains to be seen. What does
seem evident today is that there is greater common cause among radicals
of all stripes. Neo-confederates despise the Bush Administration just as
strongly as Greens.
The common cause is libertarian in nature: opposition to the Warfare
State and Police State. Radicals are anti-imperialist, and pro-Bill of
Rights. The problem is expressing these values politically. Should the
Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Parties disband and jump completely
to the Democratic Party? That's probably a suicide option.
For one thing, the Democratic Party's controlling interest groups:
teacher's unions and other government-employee unions, trial lawyers,
and feminists, are far too committed to looting the taxpayer. And they
appear to be too entrenched for there to be any meaningful change
anytime soon. The Republican Party's controlling interests appear to be
far less visible. The "Religious Right," pro-lifers, and NRA members
aren't committed to economic plunder. The most consistent aspects of the
GOP's platform are gun rights and opposition to Roe v. Wade. This may
appeal to many radicals, but the Bush Administration, aided perhaps by
the death of Ronald Reagan this past year, has transformed the Party
into a cult of Leader-worship and militarism.
But returning to the third-party option also appears to be a waste of
resources. I am indebted to the Libertarian Party, as I would probably
not be a libertarian today without it. The party can be an effective
tool for spreading the message of liberty. But we must consider what are
the best uses of limited resources in a gerrymandered system.
David Brin has a thoughtful idea here
<http://www.davidbrin.com/realculturewar2.html> . Although he's a
libertarian-leaning moderate rather than a radical, the principle is the
same. Political activists are not intellectuals; they must focus on the
possible, not the perfect. If your sympathies are Green but you live in
a Republican-dominated district, register as a Republican. If you like
what the Constitution Party stands for but live in a Democratic
district, register as a Democrat. If you were going to run in the
general election as a Libertarian, run instead in the primary election
of your area's dominant party. Do you think Ron Paul would ever have
been elected if he ran as a Libertarian?
In a rigged, two-party system, Brin writes, the primary election is
where it's at. Since both parties are non-ideological, both are open to
diverse ideas and ideologies. Libertarians are no more out of place in
the Democratic Party than are gun owners and pro-lifers, of which there
are plenty. Why fight for ballot access and media access, when we could
actually be campaigning instead? There are plenty of people, radical and
moderate, who have profound concerns about many of the policies of the
American government. If radicals of either the Left or the Right want
serious change, they must first prioritize their issues to those most
palatable to mainstream voters. Centering the issues around war and
civil liberties, while advocating moderate reforms in the War on Drugs
and taxation, could go a long way toward advancing liberty. Particularly
if the struggle is bi-partisan and there are serious reformers on both
sides of the aisle.
Building up the Republican Liberty Caucus <http://www.rlc.org> and the
Democratic Freedom Caucus <http://www.progress.org/dfc> will probably
do more good than focusing on getting 1% of the popular vote for
President or 5% in a local or statewide race. And if the Presidential
primaries produce nominees like John Kerry and George Bush again, there
would still be time to support a third-party or Independent candidate
for President. But I do believe the Presidency, and the Presidency
alone, should be the focus of third parties. Scarce resources should be
concentrated there. Locally, activists should fight for their causes
within the two parties.
Stephen Cox argues
<http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_02/cox-elections.html> that
voting isn't a purely intellectual or ideological venture. If so, the
Libertarian Party, which espouses several attractive ideas, would be
more successful. Individuals belong to numerous identity groups and have
varying interests, and the two major parties are able to connect to
individuals as whole persons, appealing not just to their minds but
connecting to their traditional loyalties and values. Even so, as Cox
writes, "The libertarian idea really does offer something for rich and
poor, black and white, male and female, gay and straight, Christian and
atheist, doesn't it?"
Yes! And, I would add, the libertarian idea also offers something for
both traditional Democrats and Republicans - to all Americans. That's
why right-wing libertarians should neither wholly defect to the
Democratic Party, nor remain loyal to the Republican. Rather, the
libertarian message should be molded to fit the values of one's own
community and its dominant Party. I can't think of a better way, today,
of resisting Leviathan and advancing real reform in the direction of
freedom.
January 8, 2005
James Leroy Wilson [send him mail <mailto:jim102670@yahoo.com> ] lives
and works in Chicago and is a columnist for the Partial Observer
<http://www.partialobserver.com/all_by_author.cfm?AuthorID=2> . He also
has a new blog, "Independent Country
<http://www.independentcountry.blogspot.com/> ."
Copyright (c) 2005 LewRockwell.com
James Leroy Wilson Archives
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-jl/wilson-james-arch.html>
