As the LP seemed rather doomed to be nothing but a non-issue on a national level (due in no small part to the fact that most people perceive Libertarians as nutjobs), it's good to see someone trying something new. Anything, anything other than presidential candidates who want to blow up the UN Building, please!

That aside, it's true that if the LP focuses more on opposing SSI and less on, say, privatizing all roads, then they're giving up some principle to become more mainstream. But since it's realistic to assert that all roads will never be privatized, this doesn't strike as anything that's bad or particularly opposed to the LP's interests.

The downside, of course, is the old adage that when you lie down with pigs, you get dirty. As much as I identify with the GOP and support its objectives (for the most part), I'm getting too disillusioned with partisan politics regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.

God love President Bush, but I have questions about his globalist tendencies......

I guess I'll just have to wait.

The Libertarians might also be more effective (and even more likely to rival the major parties, in the long term) if they were not focused on trying to be a major party in the short term. I think they should try to start Libertarian Party or philosophically libertarian clubs on college campuses and focus on getting members of their party elected to minor, local offices. That way, the party could get credibility, and the candidates could get experience, and begin their political careers from there. Even if they would never win higher offices as Libertarians (which they would be more likely to do, after winning minor offices as Libertarians), they would still be in a better position than before to win elections as members of another party. They could either come to dominate their new party or just do something positive as libertarian-thinking officeholders.

Karl, all of what you said may well be true (and personally, I think it is) - but it's not exactly on point. The point is, I think, to try and figure out what message we should be spreading around on college campuses, etc.

Should we be trying to convince people that all taxation is bad? That paper money is bad? That senators should be elected by state legislatures? What about the really nutty stuff, e.g. tax protestors?

Or should we stick to "easy" stuff, like school vouchers and legalized gambling?

Or should we just try and convince people to do for themselves and accept personal responsibility?

Or is there a middle ground between the philosophy and the policy?

The issue here, to me, is that some sensible people managed to grab hold of the party and swing it in a much better direction - one where there's a smaller chance of nutjobs running for office and a larger chance of actually getting people elected to office - nationally, state, local, or anything else.

Idunno, this looks pretty darn dangerous. After all, do Libertarians really want to risk the magnificent electoral gains they had made under their old platform and practices? I mean, the hardcore party fundamentalists ensured such a large proportin of election victory, did it not? Let's face it, those 40-odd years of existence under the dogmatic original principles produced a complete Libertarian revolution in America, with reduction in government, major political parties enacting restrictions on government power, and general growth in individual freedom and personal responsibility in society at large. Oh, wait, that was in the alternate universe, wasn't it?

Nice post!

The platform issue is more important than many give it credit for. Some thoughts:

1. The purists scream bloody murder over any moderation of the platform. Obviously, they care a lot. Is it such a great stretch of the imagination to suppose that there are non "pure" libertarians who care as much?

2. While most people in general do not read platforms, political mavens do. Those who tend to be active -- give money, walk precincts, show up for meetings, etc. -- do read platforms, or at least hear from those who do. They people are incredibly important! The biggest weakness LP candidates face is that they don't go into a race with a large base already sewn up.

3. Money is nice, of course. But why should a donor give to a campaign that is going to be sabotaged by a bad platform? Also, there is a correlation between realistic thinking and making money. Many a big donor gets driven out by the purists. Big bucks and realistic business plans (in this case, a marketable platform) go hand in hand. Fix the platform and the money will follow.