The California Libertarian Party has been on the ballot in all elections starting with 1980. In the November 2008 election, it polled a higher share of the vote for its Assembly candidates (in the districts in which it had Assembly candidates) than ever before in its history. Even though all of the party’s 2008 Assembly candidates had both a Democratic and a Republican opponent, the party’s share of the vote in the districts in which it ran Assembly candidates was 6.87%.
California Libertarians running for U.S. House also did relatively well, receiving 4.33% of the vote in the districts which had Libertarians running. Excluding districts with only one major party candidate, that was the best showing for U.S. House for California Libertarians since 1992.
Pamela J. Brown, Assembly candidate in 2008 in the 40th district (San Fernando Valley), polled 14.76% against both a Democrat and a Republican. That was only the second time in the history of the California Libertarian Party that one of its nominees in a partisan race (with both major parties in that race) had exceeded 10%. The other instance was in 1980, when Roberta Rinehart polled 16.78% for Assembly in the 70th district (Anaheim).
If the Libertarian Party had nominated former Senator Eugene J. McCarthy for president in 1980, Ms. Roberta Rinehart would have had an even higher amount of votes, in my humble opinion. Although the Senator did not campaign for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, it is my belief that he would have accepted the nod had it been offered to him.
What an exciting race that would have been: John Anderson, Jimmy Carter, Barry Commoner, Gus Hall, Eugene McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, and so on!
Senator McCarthy was only half acceptable as a potential candidate – strong on foreign policy and civil liberties, but poor on economic regulation and monetary issues. In addition, the Charles Koch people wanted another candidate and had at least a veto on McCarthy.
The only candidates who are strong in all four areas are those with an extended demonstrated consistency are likely to be internal rather than imported celebrities.
It is likely that Sen. McCarthy would have polled more votes as a candidate and had some coattail effect, but that does not mean it would have been a long term advantage for the LP.
The LP was conceived as a party of principle above personality and popular delusion.
Congratulations to the California Libertarians for their record breaking results.
D. Frank Robinson Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Senator McCarthy was only half acceptable as a potential candidate – strong on foreign policy and civil liberties, but poor on economic regulation and monetary issues. In addition, the Charles Koch people wanted another candidate and had at least a veto on McCarthy. … [snip] …
Phil Sawyer responds:
That points out one of the most significant flaws of the Libertarian Party, Frank: The economic and monetary positions of that Party are regressive rather than progressive (or to put it another way, they are pro-bourgeoisie and anti-proletarian). If the Libertarian Party does not change that about itself, it will end up on the trash heap of history along with the Constitution Party and the Republican Party (the latter will be a minor-sized party by 2012, also). The Libertarian Party could be part of the solution rather than part of the problem (bourgeois monopoly capitalism – which has reached and passed its peak), if it so chooses to do so.
By the way, if I ever heard of Charles Koch, I do not remember who he is. The late Eugene J. McCarthy was more than a celebrity; he was one of the most famous political people in the history of the United States of America.
Congrats to the LP of California for making their new records.
Phil- The entire platform of the LP is based on nonviolence. If that is “pro-bourgeoisie and anti-proletarian”, then so be it. But you certainly can’t expect an ideological party to sell out it’s principles for political expediency!
Koch was active in the LP in the early 80’s. He later went on to found CATO Institute, because it was more expedient.
PEACE
If you are referring to economics, Steven, the only reason that the Libertarian Party appears to be nonviolent in that regard (to a few people) is because it is taking the side of the class that is in power in our country – the bourgeoisie. That will not continue for much longer (the bourgeoisie being in charge, that is). So you might want to ask yourself, is the Libertarian Party going to defend the proletarian class when we take state power? Or is it going to be on the side of counter-revolution? If that is the case, then the Party would have to ask itself (as Dirty Harry would put it), “do you feel lucky?”
So you might want to ask yourself, is the Libertarian Party going to defend the proletarian class when we take state power?
If your “revolution” rules with an iron fist, yeah, at least I will. And probably most of the rest of the LP. I can’t speak for others. Even if they don’t, I’ll still be a Libertarian.
And I don’t care what color your velvet glove is.
FWIW, I agree that things are going to change.
PEACE
As both Beltway parties continue to champion infringements on Human Rights, the Libertarian Party will continue to improve its showings at the polls.
Jeff Daiell
http://www.JeffDaiell.com
Steven – As if the bourgeoisie does not rule with an “iron fist”: When cornered, the bourgeoisie will stop at nothing to protect its power. Do you remember the fascist coup in Chile, on September 11, 1973, supported by the United States government? That was predicted in a novel (for the United States, though, not Chile) by Jack London; it was called “The Iron Heel.” You should read it as soon as possible.
By the way, a legitimate government has a right to defend itself – and any proletarian government that comes about in our country by democratic means will defend itself.
Remember the evil bolshevik revolution? Yeah, 100 million starved to death. Great track record, Phil.
The Communist Party USA has condemned and rejected the evils of Stalinism in all of its various forms.
The track record of the bourgeoisie is not good either, Joseph (Libertarian, not Stalin, Joseph). What about the French Revolution? Also, look at the slave trade and slavery in the histories of the United States, and Confederate States, of America. Look also at Nazi Germany which had “socialism” in reverse (i.e., “socialism” for the benefit of the bourgeois ruling class but not the proletariat). Look also at fascism in Italy, Japan, Spain, etc. when it existed in such countries. As a matter of fact, what about the 1973 fascist coup in Chile (supported by the United States) which lasted for decades? In addition, what about all of the other countries in which Henry Kissinger had the opportunity to meddle and spread his evil?
Phil-
I think we are getting a tad off-topic for this forum. This forum is for ballot access, not for general debate. We can pick the same thread up over at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/ .
PEACE
So much for freedom of speech, Steven?
“So much for freedom of speech, Steven?”
Just like a socialist to think he has freedom of speech on someone else’s property.
Trent Hill Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
“So much for freedom of speech, Steven?â€
Just like a socialist to think he has freedom of speech on someone else’s property.
Phil Sawyer responds:
It seems to me, Trent, that you sound just like a bourgeois conservative to think that you all are the only ones that have a right to freedom of speech.