In the wake of my second RealClearPolitics column, here’s my second batch of letters to the editor. Once again, it’s an engaged bunch of readers over at RCP. Some interesting stuff.

Generally, as I said in the column, libertarians are disaffected with both parties (no surprise) and not optimistic about exerting any political influence whatsoever. Most also seem pretty disgusted with third-party politics — as well they should be.

[All letters reprinted on this blog will be with the permission of the author, and email addresses will always be omitted. There will be no editing of the letters, save any obvious misspellings flagged by my spell-checker.]

To the editor:

It seems that with the internet, it wouldn’t be a problem to form a party online.

Select a slate of existing candidates that 1) mostly agree with your position, and 2) are in close races.

Thus, you can help elect both Democrats and Republicans with your votes or money.

It’d be a bit like parliamentary politics, you’re a "party" but only function as part of the 2 party system.

Matthew Cowie

* * *

I’ve been trying for some time to get libertarians to notice our dwindling prospects. I’ve been dropping comments on blog entries for several months along these lines and the consensus seems to be that there is nothing we can do. They argue the details of various subjects and outline wonderful libertarian solutions with no chance of being enacted and then lament that no one seems to notice. It’s more than a little frustrating.

It seems to me that libertarians need to dial back the fringe element and try to get some things done. I’d support libertarianism bordering on anarchy, but since most people won’t we are wasting our time advocating all or nothing. The funny thing is that when I talk about general libertarian ideas to most people they find them agreeable. But mention open borders or drug legalization and the discussion is over. Sigh….

You’re right that we need to organize, but I think that most libertarians are just too defeated to try anymore. We put the  Republicans over the top and  back in charge and look where that got us. The liberals certainly aren’t the answer; that’ll take us further into the wilderness. I’m all for anything that’ll move us in the right direction, but damn if I can figure out what it is. I think what we need is a high profile libertarian to run for a major office. Reagan was the first President I ever voted for and the  last one that even came close to my beliefs — and he wasn’t all that close — but there is no one on the national stage that even comes close to him.

Joe Calhoun

* * *

I read with interest your editorial. I think one problem is that the libertarian party is such a diverse group, with unprincipled candidates, that voting libertarian is quite a challenge.

I voted Bush in 2004. When the libertarian candidate for president went off on a rant about who he thought had assassinated President Kennedy, Bush got my vote. Here locally, having attended one local libertarian meeting, I can attest that local libertarian interests are more intellectual and anti-establishment, than electoral–when I suggested holding informational public meetings about libertarian public policies, the first thought was how to run a seminar proving that Lincoln was a despot for suspending habeas corpus.

Our problems are serious–until we begin engaging in issues that people care about, and stop favoring fairly crazy candidates, we’ll never get anywhere.

Sean McKitrick
Indiana State University

* * *

But those of us who continue to stick by the Republican Party, as the less disgusting of the two alternatives, find that the Libertarian Party both statewide and nationally, behaves as if it is an end-of-semester fraternity party. Where to go? Please note my address. There are 11 registered Libertarians in the county. I’m reasonably sure some of my cohort, like myself, stay buried in the Republican Party. It’s the half a loaf syndrome unless someone else has a better idea.

Stan Morris, Atty
Cortez, CO 81321

* * *

Good column on the libertarian voting bloc (or lack thereof).

Personally, I think the best way for libertarian-leaning folks to claim our place is to vote Democratic this fall en masse.  One, it might give us a return to divided government, which is a good end unto itself, given what undivided government is getting us these days.  And two, as you say, at some point the Republican leadership needs to know that libertarians are not a guaranteed Republican vote (or, at worst, simply a non-vote).  Given the numbers, the Republican party may not care, but that would be good to know as well.

Thanks for the column.

Jeff Allen
Arlington, Texas

* * *

It occurs to me that one way for libertarians to appeal to more American voters is to point out the intellectual hypocrisy of both so-called conservative and liberal orthodoxies.  The Republicans want the sheriff in my bedroom.  The Democrats want the sheriff in my pocketbook.  These are not the politics of principle, but rather the politics of preference (which is not a political philosophy at all).  Many Americans prefer the sheriff in neither place.

Respectfully,

David B. Frost
Centennial, CO

* * *

As the LP co-founder and gubernatorial candidate in North Carolina 30 years ago, I finally despaired of the LP during its leftist takeover in the Reagan years, and left it.

As a GOP/LP’er who spent 15 months in the White House OSTP (1992-1993) and who remains a Heinlein devotee (google for details), I am even despairing now of our President’s lame attention toward the 2nd worst threat to this country — the invasion of illegals.

So, how do you recommend we GOP/lp’s take over from the RINOs?

(And would the old LP’s (insane) immigration stance be required of those of us who have grown up since?)

Cheers,

Arlan Andrews, Sr.
South Texas

* * *

As with all ‘political’ groups, libertarians are not homogenous and, for the most part, do not identify themselves as being libertarians per se.  I would suggest that there are relatively few who are actually ‘card-carrying’ libertarians but that there are many who have such tendencies when it comes to voting.  Interestingly there are two extremes to the libertarian impulse, one of which is rooted in populism and tends to be on the right these days (Ronald Reagan and Ross Perot attracted these voters) and the other extreme is on the left with its libertarian leanings derived from social (that is to say, sexual issues: "no government in the bedroom") considerations.  As the populist is often small town or suburban, family and church oriented, he will never identify with the social issues of the left libertarian.  He wants the government to maintain traditional values, low taxes and a strong defense.  As the left libertarian is often urban and anti-religion, he will never identify with the populist.  He wants the government to eliminate values, only cares somewhat about taxation, and only cares occasionally about national defense.

So, the idea that all those who prefer small government and limited government roles in their lives could get together to form a single influential minority is not a realistic or a politically long-lived idea.

Ralph Wright