Calhoun County Libertarians

For Peace, Prosperity, and Privacy

____________

We welcome anyone who has an interest in the issues discussed on this page. Use the email system at the bottom of this page to contact us if you want to express your own opinion.

Click Here for Full Calendar

LINKS

	THE CATO INSTITUTE
	ROOT FOR AMERICA
	MICHIGAN VOTES
	MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY
	MIDDLE AMERICAN NEWS
	NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN PARTY
	LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MICHIGAN
	CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY
	LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN
	FED UP MICHIGAN (INCLUDES TEA PARTY INFO)
	MICHIGAN FAIR TAX

Calhoun County Libertarians

February 2012

Thoughts on Third Parties

A number of TV newsmen and executives have said in recent weeks that since this or that candidate isn't considered (by whom?) to be a "serious candidate," it's not a good idea to give coverage to them or their ideas.

They did not, of course, have in mind the great liberal hope, Jon Huntsman, who is their idea of a serious Republican candidate. He was running at about 3% in most polls before quitting.

At almost the same time, Governor Gary Johnson has begun to attract attention as a Libertarian candidate after having been barred from almost all the Republican debates. And many media types keep trying to pin Ron Paul down about his possible plans to run as a third-pary candidate.

A political party is a special entity. Political parties are not philosophy clubs or educational think tanks or religions. They may partake of some of the characteristics of all of those, especially the first two, but they are something else and have to be understood as such.

In democratic societies with popular elections, political parties can achieve success in a variety of ways.

First, the party can elect its candidates and control the government (presidency, legislature, etc.). This enables it to advance its views through legislation, appointments, other executive decisions, and so on.

Second, the party can elect its candidates but not to the majority. In other words, it wins elections but not enough of them to organize, let's say, the US Senate or House of Representatives. Its elected officials can influence legislation but not control the direction of events. Its people can't set the agenda, schedule the votes, or, by themselves, determine the results. Obviously, it matters whether the party is in a slight minority or is vastly outnumbered.

The Republicans and Democrats operate at the top two levels.

Third, the party can LOSE all the elections in which it fields a candidate. Is there any level of success present when this happens? Yes, there is. Merely contesting the election(s) allows the party, through its candidates, to debate the issues. But more importantly, it may do well enough that it becomes responsible for the outcome. Its candidate attracts enough votes in a losing effort that those votes determine which of the others wins the election. (Everyone think of Ross Perot at this point). Once any minor party is seen by the public as capable of doing this, it becomes credible. There will be naysayers speaking gravely about "throwing away" one's vote or saying that the party is harmful, dangerous, or something worse, BUT it can no longer be thought of as incidental to the process or a token opposition.

Fourth, the party loses and does NOT do well enough to determine the winner. In such a case, the "success" that can be claimed is confined to promoting the party's values. This is to operate at a minimal level of success. Still, there arguably is a sliver of success so long as the candidate does campaign and is not simply one of those who lends his name so that the party will be represented on the ballot.

What any "third party" wants is to operate at the first or second level, but at least at the third. The objective is to move up the scale with the passing of years. That is why a celebrity helps the party. Yes, Rosanne Barr as the nominee of the Green Party would benefit the party, even though she'd be a terrible president. The media would pay attention, and like them or not, no minor party can do well without free publicity. So what about Gary Johnson as the possible nominee of the Libertarian Party? A little-known governor of New Mexico (!) may not even count as a political celebrity, although Ron Paul would.

The nominee does not have to be a purist on policy, but it helps it he isn't in favor of policies that are completely out of step with the American people--as Johnson is.

Still, it's the party and its fortunes that we are discussing, not the individual. All things considered, it is a great advantage to the party to have a candidate who, in the eyes of the public, is at least qualified, i.e. capable of carrying out the duties of the office he's seeking, whether or not he wins it. Johnson is. Barr is not. This is important to the party's image and, therefore, to its chances in the future.

Amnesty, "Anti-Immigrant," and Deporting Grandma

First, it was Governor Rick Perry who--as he later was to say--'stepped in it.' Then it was the turn of Newt Gingrich, who's normally considered the sharpest knife in the Republican drawer.

What Gingrich said during the November 22 Presidential Debate telecast on CNN was this--

"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families."

Even before the debate was finished, he was being misrepresented. To be fair and accurate, he did not advocate amnesty for all illegals or open the door to citizenship (although it sounded almost as if he was endorsing the Dream Act). But, as we can see, he did call for some governmental action to legalize certain illegal immigrants.

That's amnesty. It will not fly with the generally conservative Republicans who vote in the primaries. Perhaps Newt was aiming to find favor with the Media who might start speaking of him as a visionary in the midst of a field of Neanderthals. If so, the strategy has had some success. It worked on radio host Neil Boortz, Bill Clinton, and the New York Times, among others. Maybe he thought he could "thread the needle" with the details and seem acceptable to both sides. Maybe he thought he could disguise his real beliefs about illegal immigration--which are much more extreme--by making this moderate-sounding proposal. We still wonder, though, if this is the route to the nomination.

What's more, Gingrich's proposal solves a problem that doesn't exist. If he thinks that living here illegally for twenty-five years should cause the government to wink or look the other way, say that. Don't act as though there's any particular need to wipe out the illegality itself just because the perpetrator dodged the authorities for X number of years.

In addition, his proposal pitches a very dubious proposition as part of its raison d'etre. If the head of a family is required, for any reason, to relocate (loss of job, for instance), the family ordinarily goes with him. Millions of Americans have experienced it. There's nothing new or unthinkable about this, sad as it is. Yet, Gingrich thinks his proposal is so shaky that he needs to dress it up with "rip their family apart" deportation language and constant references to "grandmothers." Do we normally let convicts who have escaped from prison, married, and lived quietly among us for years, walk away, with our blessings, when they are finally found? Why not? What about their families? Heck, we don't even give the "families torn apart" argument a moment's thought when we sentence single-parent women to jail and force them to hand over their children to someone else.

As the columnist Thomas Sowell wrote, "Let's go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.

"There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively."

And then there's this matter--Gingrich's vehement denial that his proposal IS amnesty. The only way that denial could make sense is if we introduce a new definition for the word amnesty, saying that so long as there is some token process by which those receiving amnesty swear allegiance to the US government, or something else like that, it's not actually amnesty. But that little formality has been required whenever other amnesties have been extended by our government. Confederate soldiers, Vietnam draft-dodgers, etc. etc. have all had to play along with SOME technical slap on the wrist, and yet there's no one who doubts that those were grants of amnesty.

Finally, Gingrich supposes that some community panel like a draft board would pass on the merits of the individual immigrants. In "Sanctuary" cities like San Francisco, Newt, where no laws are enforced against illegals? Why would anyone think that a an illegal immigrant would be turned down for any reason?

Boycott News

The National Gun Victims Action Council (NGAC) has called for a a nationwide boycott of Starbucks Coffee products beginning on Valentine’s Day, Feb. 14, because Starbucks permits customers to carry guns in stores where doing so is legal.

The boycott organizers also maintain that Starbucks supports the National Rifle Association's "agenda."

From a reading of the NGAC website, the "support" that Starbucks is accused of giving is nothing more than its refusal to meet NGAC's demand that it prohibit guns to be carried by customers. This, according to NGAC, makes it harder to pass legislation to confiscate private citizens' guns. The NRA is in favor of the Second Amendment, so that's where the "agenda" apparently comes in.

The boycott will continue, says NGAC, until Starbucks bans guns on its premises AND the company also becomes an active "advocate" for "sane gun laws." Several other companies, including Disney and IKEA, have already knuckled under.

Maybe on Valentine's Day, you might find that you need a pound of Starbucks coffee from the grocery store or, better yet, a cup and pastry from a Starbucks outlet? Mmm Yummy.
.....................................

'Ethical Oil' and the 'Alberta Enterprise Group' have called for a boycott of Chiquita bananas after Chiquita Brands International agreed to the demands of environmental extremists and announced that it would begin avoiding the use of Canadian oil in its delivery system.Chiquita Brands is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Chiquita Brands International was also in the news recently when it was fined $25,000,000 following its admission that it had hired several Columbian terrorist gangs to protect its property. One of them, although listed since 2001 as a terrorist organization by the US government, was paid a total of $1.7 million.

Figuring Out The Candidates

These days, a popular parlor game is "Which Republican candidate is best?" For some time during the early primary season, the answer was based one of two considerations. It was either, "Who had escaped the most serious gaffes" and, therefore, might be thought "electable" OR "Whose platform was the most conservative." By now, however, there is a newer and better rule.

It is remarkably simple, but effective. Here it is: You know a man by the company he keeps.

We know. We know. Endorsements aren't supposed to influence the voters. But when there are, at last, a larger number who have taken a stand for each of the candidates, you can follow the above rule and NEVER go wrong.

So who is who? For Governor Romney, you have the establishment endorsers. Losers like John McCain and Robert Dole, for example. Do you want to see a halfhearted campaign this fall that will result in a GOP loss but, perhaps, not a disastrous landslide loss? These guys ought to know all about it. Add Charlie Crist in Florida, National Review magazine, Tim Pawlenty, and Jon Huntsman.

For Gingrich, the endorsers include Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michael Reagan, and Sarah Palin (an unofficial endorsement). See the pattern?

To be sure, there are a few exceptions. Ann Coulter, the acidic Conservative writer, has endorsed Romney BUT ONLY because she wants the nominee to be whoever is most likely to defeat Obama. The polls suggest, at this time, that Romney would run more strongly than Gingrich.

Anyone who doesn't know it by now should wise up to the fact that, for a half-century, there's been a fundamental divide in the GOP. On the one side are the Country Club Republicans (who used to be known as "Me too" Republicans) and, on the other side, the Conservatives and Patriots. The former group wants to keep power in the hands of respected civic leaders because it fears ordinary Americans (like most Tea Party people, for instance). To these establishment Republicans, the Conservative Republicans are mainly Middle Class and not sufficiently pragmatic to understand that it's necessary to throw the masses a "half a loaf" of welfare statism in order to keep them from voting for the Democrats who promise the whole loaf.

You will know who's who by the company each candidate keeps.

Decision Time for Libertarians

Now that libertarianism has become fashionable, it has been asked if the Libertarian Party should give up and instead start working within a newly receptive GOP.

Some who have run for office on the Libertarian ticket are thinking of running this year as Republicans. This, however, can also be an argument for the Libertarian Party, not evidence that it's outlived its usefulness.

And soon we'll face the challenge that will be posed by the Republican Party of Michigan's new "Closed" presidential primary election. In it, the voter has to declare a party preference, presumably Republican. What's a third party guy to do? Not vote? Lie?

In a sense, we are all part of a two-party system, thanks to the way the Republicans and Democrats have stacked the election laws to their favor, allowing third parties to exist and be placed on the ballot, but not to function in any of the other ways that the big two have kept for themselves.

For example, County Boards of (Election) Canvassers (and the State Board) allow only Republicans and Democrats. Precinct inspectors must be divided between Democrats and Republicans. The Secretary of State can refuse to count votes cast for minor parties, if he or she so chooses, and so on.

Besides, there isn't any minor party that runs candidates for every office on the ballot. Supporters of third parties, therefore, are only that on a part-time basis. Then too, the major parties in Michigan, both of them, actually WANT Independents to vote in their primaries, and have not made any secret of it. They just don't like it when a large number of hardline supporters of the other major party cross over.

This fact alone would seem to put to rest the notion that it's improper for third party people to declare a preference in a primary which in truth is not "closed" at all.

Some states have primaries that are genuinely closed--because those states require voters to have registered to vote as either a Republican or a Democrat--but Michigan is not one of them.

CALHOUN COUNTY LIBERTARIANS
Battle Creek, MI

4575 Visitors

TOP