The only honest excitement in Presidential politics

The 2008 presidential election is shaping up strangely. The candidates of the two major parties are eating each other alive, and they all have much to be gnawed on. The threesome of McCain, Clinton, and Obama remaining at this point are a pathetic group, certainly adding to my hypothesis that major party candidates have steadily gotten worse over the past few decades.

Meanwhile, action within the Libertarian Party is building and looking more dynamic every day. With no shortage of candidates early on, the past couple of weeks have built that list of candidates dramatically.

As a long-time admirer of Dr. Mary Ruwart, I am delighted that she has thrown her hat into the LP ring as a candidate for the nomination. Although the public will know little about her to begin with, I will tell you that there is no single person I would trust more than Ruwart to lead our nation out of the deep, dark hole in which the two major parties have buried us.

Add in two other recent announcements for the LP nomination… Mike Gravel, congressman, resigning from the Democratic Party to seek our nomination, and announcement of an exploratory campaign by Bob Barr, formerly a GOP congressman. Both Gravel and Barr are well known within their old parties.

Our choice, within the Libertarian Party, is getting tough. Who will get the nomination at our convention in May? I honestly don’t know. Among Libertarians, Ruwart is extremely well known, respected and trusted. Barr and Gravel, while better known to the general public, will have to convince Libertarians that they can and will represent libertarian ideals effectively. I cannot ignore several other candidates who have been running hard for that nomination for many months… Christine Smith, George Phillies, Steve Kubby, Wayne Allyn Root, Michael Jingozian, Daniel Imperato, Alden Link, and certainly more. That makes a baker’s dozen… people who want to represent the LP as its candidate for president.

We might well ask why. Why are these people seeking to campaign as the nominee of a party that is, in this age of “lesser of two evils” voting, is usually given little chance of winning? Why do they want to sacrifice their personal lives to campaign in a grueling uphill battle not only to garner votes but even to gain modest media recognition? Libertarian candidates have to work harder than their opposition from the major parties. They have to first hope that they can successfully get on the ballot in each state, and that effort typically takes much of the campaign financing they will be able to raise. Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura recently said that he too would run for president - if he could get ballot access. The Libertarian nominee will have to face off with reporters who will waste much time simply questioning what effect their candidacy will have on the two major candidates. While media cow-tows and tosses softballs at major party candidates, they tend to ask distorting questions of other candidates, and often cut their answers short.

Given such obstacles, why would these people voluntarily seek to abuse themselves? They cannot be seeking power, for, even if they were to win the nomination and the election, they would be in a small minority in Washington, still facing two domineering political parties on a daily basis.

There is an answer that explains the willingness to subject oneself to such a strenuous effort, and it’s an answer that the American public should ponder at length. The answer is… a personal commitment to saving our nation from the disastrous policies and actions of the two major parties. For these people, running is, without any question, a personal sacrifice with a desperate hope that this nation can yet be turned around from the calamitous actions heaped upon us by greedy and power-hungry members of the two corrupted major parties.

Can the public be brought to understand and appreciate the colossal difference between the candidacies of McCain, Obama, and Clinton and the Libertarians seeking the same office? Can the public come to understand that Libertarian candidates are not allowed (nor do they desire) to talk in platitudes, circle around issues, or simply tell each audience what they think the audience wants to hear? Can the public understand that libertarian positions are long-standing, deeply considered, and cater to no hidden agenda?

Can the public appreciate that when Libertarians choose someone to represent their party that they do it based primarily on that person’s willingness and ability to present the libertarian ideology honestly and coherently? The 2004 LP convention made that clear when Michael Badnarik prevailed over two better-known, more public candidates.

Most Libertarians are uncompromising about principles, and there’s a good reason why that’s true. Most came into the party as frustrated Republicans or Democrats; frustrated because they watched their old parties discard principles time after time until they essentially stood for nothing in particular. In the LP, they discovered a party that takes pride in not compromising principles. Ask a Libertarian whether his views on issues have changed since joining the LP, and you’ll hear that they have. Most new converts come to the LP with a few positions that are inconsistent with the Libertarian ideology, and come to change those few ideas over time… myself included. At some point, the integrated Libertarian ideology becomes apparent… it makes sense. From that point on, realization of the importance of a consistent ideology becomes apparent, and positions fit together smoothly. For me, coming from 30 years as a Republican, the War on Drugs was my big sticking point with Libertarians. It took some time in the LP for me to accept that one can be opposed to drug use without trying to force others away from them, and that force simply doesn’t produce the desired results.

My point is that anyone seeking the Libertarian Party nomination had better be prepared for challenging inquiry about the consistency and integration of their positions. They had better be prepared to not only to promote sensible positions, but to truly understand and be able to defend those positions. Any sign of glossing over, waffling, or talking around the issue will be easily detected and shunned by Libertarians.

A quick historical example here: After Jesse Ventura was elected Minnesota governor, with a campaign that sounded very libertarian; he made a speech at a Cato Institute luncheon, to a libertarian audience. He was naturally feeling like he could do no wrong, having scored a huge upset victory over two entrenched major-party politicians. Ventura took that venue, in his blustery, self-assured manner, to try to promote light rail transit, a project he came to think of as his legacy to Minnesota. He was loudly rejected by Minnesota Libertarians (including me). Ventura recognized his opposition, and responded with personal attacks. He probably still hasn’t forgiven us for daring to oppose his pet idea, although, if he really understood the libertarian ideology, he wouldn’t have been silly enough to try to push it to a libertarian audience. “Mostly libertarian” is just not good enough when the issue is billions in tax dollars to force an outdated technology on the public.

If you’re looking for excitement in politics… if you long for candidates who say what they mean and mean what they say, c’mon over to the LP. If you’re sick of hearing throngs of people cheer automatically for words that sound good and mean nothing, c’mon over to the LP. And… if you’re sick of hearing grand plans that you know will simply dig the hole deeper, c’mon over to the LP and listen to real solutions.