Any regular reader of Samizdata.net has probably noticed that I am no enthusiast for the democratic process, which I just regard as little more than a system of legitimising proxy mugging. I can see a role for democracy as a countervailing force even in a limited-government minarchist state, but as currently practiced it is rarely more than just a way to try and appropriate the money of others, impose restriction on competitors and generally add the force of law to personal prejudices in ways that conflate state and society to the profound determent of the later.
However I could not help but laugh when I read how the Democratic Party, who by their name one might assume were very keen on democracy, have been pulling all manner of legal tricks to keep socialist Ralph Nader off the US Presidential ballots. I expect the Republicans might try the same sort of thing against the turgid US Libertarian Party if they ever become a significent threat (not something I can see anytime soon).
But then that approach to choice is American as apple pie in some circles… “You can have any colour, as long as it is black”. This is why so much effort goes into the making the small differences between the two parties in the US seem VASTLY IMPORTANT TO THE FATE OF THE WORLD… otherwise people might start to think it actually does not matter a damn which particular lying parasite gets sent to Washington DC and that election day would be a pretty good time to go to do something really important, like maybe go to the beach or look at the cost of relocating to New Hampshire where voting really might cause something interesting to happen.
Ahhh, but Republicans do the same sort of thing against the Libertarians all the time. Actually more than the Democrats have done to Nader or the Greens. It just doesn’t get as much press as golden boy Nader.
Republicans in Illinois kicked the Libertarians off the ballot in 1998 for statewide races and tried to in 2002 but failed. It’s not enough for them that we need 40,000 signatures in 90 days to get on the ballot to begin with. Republicans in Ohio are trying the keep our Presidential candidate off the ballot this year. Alaska Republicans are trying to make it harder for Libertarians to get on the ballot, and we’ll probably face challenged from Republicans in many of the “swing” states.
In most states though, the Libertarians are large enough to automatically be on the ballot, unlike the other parties. What Nader is going through now, Libertarian went through in the 80s and 90s. Nader as an independent had to start from stratch and doesn’t have the ground organization that Libertarians do.
That said, since the Republicans left us alone in Illinois this year, we’ve actually been helping Nader fight the Democrats efforts to kick him off the ballot. Unlike the Democrats, we actually believe in free and equal elections even though we’d get more “protest” votes without Nader on the ballot. And we may have caught the Democrat State Chair and Speaker of the state House using his employees on the clock on the Nader challenge, which is highly illegal.
Libertarians are plenty threatening to the Republicans and you’ll see us pull the margin of vote in several states I bet. New Mexico, Florida, Ohio (if we’re on the ballot) and Michigan come to mind. And with a pretty weak candidate to boot.
Actually its quite funny really as the Republicans have spent much money to assist Ralph Nader get on the ballot in many states and its the dems who also stack the voter registrations in many states as well. Just look at what has happened with dual registrations in New York and Florida. And it was one Mayor Daley who is famously remembered for ” Vote early and often”.
The Republicans have a long way to go to catch-up to the dems.
Shaun, I’ll certainly agree with you about voter registration and voter fraud, but on ballot access challenges and requirements, it’s the Republicans that are worse. I’m from Illinois, and it’s not just vote early and often, but you don’t even have to be alive to vote in Chicago. Sadly, Republicans do the same thing in downstate Illinois to try to make up for it, but not nearly on the scale as Democrats. Between voter fraud and ballot access, I still think they are neck and neck trying to emulate Fidel Castro’s version of “democracy”.
-Nader isn’t more socialist than the Democrats. He is merely more candid about his socialism.
-With all respect to Jeff Trigg, who is certainly right about major-party hostility to Libertarian candidates, most of the Libertarian Party’s electoral wounds are self-inflicted. The Party is chronically inept. Until it gets its act together most libertarians who want to have a chance of being politically effective are going to run as Republicans.
-The idea that libertarians can achieve significant political power by relocating en masse to New Hampshire or Costa Rica or wherever is fantasy. Life in the modern United States is generally too good, and too many people have strong local ties of family or employment, or prefer to live in major metropolitan areas, to expect very many of them to migrate to some backwater in the service of political abstractions. More power to those who do, but this isn’t likely to become a mass movement.
-There are important differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties are corrupt but the Republicans are generally less so. On issues from judical selection (and the role of the judiciary) to taxes to regulation to national defense to the RKBA, the Republicans are systematically better from a libertarian perspective. (This isn’t true on all issues, but on most issues where the Republicans are not better than the Democrats, such as drug legalization, they also aren’t worse.) Any American with experience in both red- and blue-state cultures will appreciate the profound systematic differences between the modal values of Democrats and Republicans.
-Democratic government isn’t ideal, but it’s the best realistic alternative at the moment. Libertarians who wish to advance their agenda are not going to be able to escape the necessity to engage in electoral politics, where, to be effective, they must win elections. The only way to do this now, in the U.S., is as Republicans. Rather than throw up their hands and condemn both major parties, libertarians might consider that the Republicans, despite their flaws, encompass a broader range of views including many that are libertarian. Politics is the art of the possible. Libertarians who are disappointed with the ineffectual all-or-none approach of the LP should not reject the Republican Party out of hand.
When are you moving, Perry?
Not that various shenanigans don’t occur, but c’mon, that “Free State” project is so silly, that I can’t believe anybody is falling for it.
Another reason why Libertarians are never going to amount to anything.
In Maine both the Democrats & Republicans ganged up to prevent all third parties from getting on the ballot. As a result we have a currupt Democratic Party and a R.I.N.O. party. Thus, basically, Maine is a one party state.
Not only is this skull-duggery disgusting, but senior members of both parties think its a good idea. The excuse, naturall,y is to prevent “extremist” parties from getting on the ballot. When I pointed out that in all my studies of Maine politics, the word extreme never came to mind; I was greeted with silence.
I don’t see why everybody is pooh-poohing the Free State Project; look what happened to neighboring Vermont over the past 50 years. True, it wasn’t deliberate, but one can see what can happen to a small state if a moderate number of determined people move in and change the population.
FYI, in the US, ballot access for third parties is generally something both Republicans and Democrats have united in trying to prevent. In New York State, where I live, the system is very badly rigged indeed, with insane and extremely onerous rules designed to keep anyone the people in power don’t like off the ballot.
What the Dems are doing to Nader is just par for the course in this country. I’ve seen Republicans use the same tactics. Indeed, I’ve seen the Republicans in New York State use them against their own, to try to keep people the local party machine doesn’t like from getting onto the ballot for the New York Presidential primary.
-Democratic government isn’t ideal, but it’s the best realistic alternative at the moment. Libertarians who wish to advance their agenda are not going to be able to escape the necessity to engage in electoral politics, where, to be effective, they must win elections. The only way to do this now, in the U.S., is as Republicans. Rather than throw up their hands and condemn both major parties, libertarians might consider that the Republicans, despite their flaws, encompass a broader range of views including many that are libertarian. Politics is the art of the possible. Libertarians who are disappointed with the ineffectual all-or-none approach of the LP should not reject the Republican Party out of hand.
I certainly used to think this way, back in my libertarian-republican days. But since the republicans, by and large, have given up on fighting Statism, and have actively joined it, compromising liberty for expediency leaves me jaundiced. I used to believe that it was necessary to fight at the federal level, and use Statist tactics to sow the seeds for its deconstruction. But they either found the digs wonderful to be in or they felt they couldn’t beat’em so they joined’em.
Cutting taxes, income and capital gains, only to borrow with an eye toward depleting the value of money through inflation isn’t a policy to be proud of, nor does it resemble anything like an anti-Statist policy. The republicans are just as eager to use the State to condition the masses. It’s no longer about reducing the State, it is about compromising and being a part of a dialectic that has only ramped up the role of the State (especially at the federal level) in our lives.
All this has left me a ‘man without a country’ in the sense that neither major party machine represents substantively my beliefs and philosophy. The days of compromising with the religious right faction, the super-militant faction, and all the rest that I was not squarely supporting of are gone. If I’m not going to see a reduction in federal control, a reduction in spending, a reduction in centralizing the economy, then what am I left with? Not much.
Pulling a lever and sending one rep or a couple of senators into the vast pit, no matter what the affiliation, seem ludicrous at this point. The federal government is too vast to destroy internally. I’m merely holding tight for the day when the whole rotten structure comes tumbling down under it’s own weight and hope like hell that it doesn’t crush me underneath, and that I’m able to produce and retain enough afterward. If it’s inevitable, which I believe it is, then let’s get on with it. Let the masses see what Statism has bought them, poverty and liberty only to starve, and we can move beyond shilling pols. The smoke and mirrors aren’t going to play the crowd anymore.
Waiting for the revolution, tolkien?! Violent or velvet? Anyway – just wanted to note a recent (2004) book on this subject in the British context (“the party’s over” – Keith Sutherland) .
Thesis: the political party is an anachronism that leaves the public without any genuine political *representation* of their views. MPs are elected to ‘represent’ a geographical area (rather than constituencies of like-minded people) and once elected, their ability to effectively criticise government is constrained by party leadership in the person of the whip.
Solution (after bloody revolution has swept political parties from institutional power): members of public elected as MPs to a parliamentary jury (of say, fifteen or twenty members) which votes on proposed legislation following process of criticism and amendment by a House of Lords consisting of ‘experts’ in different fields. Rules to state that MPs cannot go on to become members of government, and voting ballots are secret.
The jury MPs may be elected by some other more genuinely ‘representative’ process than geographical constituency (should I dare mention the internet?), and they may even still gather themselves together into political parties, but the point is to deprive the political party of the control it has over MPs voting behaviour.
Interesting, though maybe it would make politics a boring, technical matter and not the great moralistic theatre it is today.
It seems Killington is not the only entire town that wants to join NH. It will be interesting to see if these town manage to secede from Vermont. The Free State project is doing rather well for itself it seems.
Another example of disenfranchisement-by-Democrat is NJ Governor McGreevey.
Waiting for the revolution, tolkien?! Violent or velvet?
Pretty much. I stare at the mounting national debts the Western countries have, coupled with history’s lesson that artificial domestic tranquility and prosperity has been bought through anti-market means (e.g. war, international or civil), and see that the cart has merely been put before the horse over the last 5 or 6 decades. Force is going to have to be used, either externaly or internally, to make the accounts balance out. And when it comes, disenfranchisement will sky-rocket and the relative stabilities we’ve enjoyed relative to our property will be gone in an instant (any property that has been consigned to another (paper assets) and cash accounts)).
I used to believe that there was still time to defuse the situation. Get some fiscal sanity at the federal level and re-install basic concepts of individualism (and its responsibilities) and property rights. But, alas, $7,000,000,000,000 debts wasn’t good enough, $10,000,000,000,000 very soon (2009) and beyond? Depending on how you want to look at it, this value represents on year’s total GDP of the US, including the incremental labor of each individual. We’re talking the reallocation of one’s labor for an entire year. Would you be a bit peeved if someone stole such amounts of property from you, and is likely to return for more?
As it stands, there are only a few alternatives for the State, renege on promises, grind labor from the working masses, or attack another country. The bill is coming due, it’s just a matter if its 10, 20, or 30+ years away. But it will come. When it does, I’d rather be 45 than 65 or 70.
On the original topic, it should be noted that, just as the Democrats are working like fiends to keep Nader off the ballot, the Republicans are working like fiends to get him on the ballot – for the same reasons. In my own state, Republicans have been actively seeking petition signatures.
llater,
llamas
On the original topic, it should be noted that, just as the Democrats are working like fiends to keep Nader off the ballot, the Republicans are working like fiends to get him on the ballot – for the same reasons. In my own state, Republicans have been actively seeking petition signatures.
The republican daughter of an acquaintance of mine volunteered to work one of the local county fairs. Where was she told to go? The Nader booth (covertly of course). Can’t wait to punch a chad this November.
You are absolutely right and we have all seen the machinations of the political parties in the UK used to avoid having their image tarnished by the less attractive wings of their political leanings.
It is certainly clear that the modern hyper-state has been running on empty for quite some time. During the 60’s and 70’s, when the statist “conventional wisdom” was at its most powerful, it was very easy to become disenchanted with democratic processes, as, indeed, many did.
The search then turned to alternative theories. Various forms of Marxist thought were available, from supposedly mild Fabian socialism, to virulent Maoism. There was an influx of eastern mysticism, spiritualism, and various populisms. The “tune in, turn on, drop out” group grabbed most of the headlines, because they were outrageous and sexy in a media way, and they had —communes (gasp) in which who knows what kind of naughty things went on.
After living through the so-called counter-culture revolution, the current state of disillusionenment by those who want little or no government is understandable, and actually, fairly mild mannered. Maybe if Perry and some of his friends occupied a building or two and issued non-negotiable demands…
The development of this cancerous state took almost a century, when counting from the income tax of 1913, and it will not be dismantled overnight. Now that the huge boomer generation is reaching retirement and late middle age, there will probably be a further period of growth, as the AARP crowd is very powerful, and there are many new medical treatments and lifestyle choices to be paid for. Heaven forbid that anyone be required to provide for their own health and well being in their dotage.
But, after this lump passes, (and you can interpret that any way you want) there will be a very nice window of opportumity for the next generations to act to resolve some of these overreaching debt obligations, and they will have plenty of incentive to do so. Having just had to support a huge, doddering group of demanding old fools, the push to get out of the trap will be highly motivated.
The task of truly radical libertarian thought is to set the stage for this de-evolution of the state by presenting solid policy proposals, and clear cut electoral options. If the future has nothing to pick from but “some more of the same” and “more more of the same”, it won’t be too surprizing when we get more of the same.
Standing aloof and holding our noses because the smelly crowds are so stupid and disagreeable may be velly, velly “in” when we’re sitting around bs’ing with our litle group of true-believers, but it won’t get anything done, except, by default, guarantee the victory of collectivist ideas. It is necessary to get some real policy positions, i.e., more realistic than “hey, let’s abolish the government today, whaddya say folks”.
And, even more, find some candidates better than the unbelievable stiffs the current Libertarian party routinely trots out to get their .7 % of the vote. Reagan, for all his faults, showed that the public will respond to a clear call to cut back on too much government. Continuing that movement will be a long, dirty, arduous task, both intellectually and politically.
If that prospect is just too ishy for your delicate sensibilities, then get out of the way of those of us who try to actually, you know, do something when we can. Go read a book, then you’ll have something apprpriately esoteric to debate the next time your down at the bar with the other members of the choir. It’s so much easier preaching to the faithful.
Do you have a preferred alternative? If not, then you’re de facto an enthusiast for the democratic process.
Question for libertarians. How are you going to move from a system (Republican Democracy) in which most of the citizens are (at least mentally) moving more and more from having basic knowledge of the system, and, toward believing just about anything to libertarianism in which it seems to be almost a necessity of the citizenry to have at least an extensive knowledge of the Constitution? This is not a loaded question: in speaking with people I commute and work with everyday i am struck how little they know or care about the Constitution, their reps or politics in general. In my mind I find it hard to square with moving to a system that requires at least basic knowledge. Fair disclosure: to tell you the truth I can’t seem to follow the party line on any one party. They all have parts that I agree with and disagree with and therefore have not joined a party but lean conservative/lib.
To say that democrats and Republicans ( or Tories and Labour) are just the same is not exact. The Republicans produced once a Ronald Reagan, and before that a Barry Goldwater. The Tories – Margaret Thatcher.
The Democrats produced a Lindon Johnson, or a Jimmy Carter.
So, sometimes there is no big difference between them, and at other times there is. And the difference is not random – it’s alwways one way.
MDP: I do not really understand what you are talking about. By suggesting to people that it might be better to not participate in the klepto-democratic political process, how does that make me a de facto supporter of it?
My alternative should be obvious from my article… a minarchist state by definition would have a very limited role for government, and as I wrote, I have no objection to a democratic check on that state power (and a variety of checks on democratic power too). In a minarchist system that would mean limited democracy within a limited state. The idea of a constitutional republic is a fine one just so long as the powers are assigned to it are very limited in order to prevent the state becoming a vehicle for proxy theft like those within which we live today. Getting to that point is no small task of course.
Jacob: that is true but I am referring to the situation as I see it right now. I believe there has been a significent degree of ‘toxic convergence’ and that is why I am now taking a ‘none of the above’ approach to both ‘left’ and ‘right’.
Richard Cook:
The beauty of the US constitution is that it can fit in your shirt pocket, and you can read it easily on your average commute. The simplicity if key.
BUT, the tens of thousands of pages in the federal registry can’t, I’m affraid, fit in your pocket (unless it’s on your pda).
The point: complicated systems are the problem. A limited government and limited democracy could be enabled with a constituion that, like the US, is short, but unlike the US, isn’t federalist. I’m thinking of a city-state model where the fudgable phrase “left to the states” is replaced with the relavent laws. Also, a bill of commercial rights should be added, a la, “Free to Choose”, which should also be required reading in this new government.
I asked a few months ago about starting a new country. My friends are calling it ‘Ivanistan’ because they think I’m crazy. The NH talk is exciting along the same limes.
But the point still hasn’t been proven: would optimal government arrangements and nice tax law be enough to devlop a country, or is some seed funding to make the place livable required?
A valid point about the leaders that the Republicans and Tories produced…however I believe these leaders rose to the forefront despite their parties not because of them. One could argue that things were so ardous that they emerged better leaders because of it. However the obstacles that were overcome mean that their like to do emerge very often. And we all suffer for it.
My current short-hand for the US parties are:
Republicans will take away your rights because you can not be responsible enough to act morally.
Democrats will take away your rights because you can not be responsible enough to act sensibly.
Perry, I don’t think any of us disagrees that the minimal State is a desirable goal. However, it’s not enough to have a goal; one also has to figure out how to get there from here. Speaking of the U.S., as there is no effective libertarian political party, the mainstream parties, whatever their flaws, are by default the main vehicles available to us for the forseeable future. I don’t like this situation either, but practical political plans are incomplete without detailed consideration of alternatives to use in case some of our tools (e.g., the LP) turn out to be unreliable.
I’m constantly amazed that people are constantly amazed that libertarianism is so difficult to put into action. Libertarianism promises a liberty much like the Christian state of grace: You might attain it occasionally, but that will be temporary. Soon enough, you’ll be right there with the rest of us in class mammalia, lusting for power, or lusting for elbow room at the trough of the powerful. The best any of us can hope is that most of the time we will have the moral fortitude to keep our own individual noses clean, and that we will have the ethical and practical resources to keep our hands out of others’ pockets.
I identify myself as a libertarian because I don’t trust anyone consistently to wield power with decency and restraint–not even libertarians. (Especially not some of the libertarianswho post here–but that is another topic.) Choosing whom will govern strikes me as very much a matter of choosing the least of many evils. Alas, libertarianism is an ideal against which to measure specific proposals. In this world, it can be nothing more.
This discussion has gotten interesting.
I’m glad to see Perry fleshing out what he means by a minarchist state. Sounds good, but how would they run their war machine, Taxes? Piracy a la Elizabeth I? (I’ve always kinda liked the idea of sending out our submarines to hijack a few shiploads of Toyotas and other goodies.)
I’ve lived under several barely functioning democracies : France, Italy and Israel, under one moderately effective one (UK Circa 1970-1971) and two limited and effective ones : US and Switzerland. The US and the Swiss have both Federalism and an armed citizenry in common. They also both make it pretty difficult for a new party to get into political power. The Israelis Frenchg and Italians seem to have new parties sprouting up all the time , but the powers of the central state are unaffected or even grow greater.
spacer,
Are any of those parties in Frace, Italy and Israel remotely dedicated to a smaller, less powerful central state? Or are they all various flavors of socialism?
At least part of the problem for libertarians in general is that , as this site demonstrates regularly, if you get ten libs in a room and ask them questions on major policy issues you can easily get ten different answers.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the word ‘Libertarianism’ itself is meaningless. Anarcho-capitalists seem to have major disagreements with minarchists. Pro military/defense libs have little in common with the antiwar.com crowd. Conservative libs have serious disagreements with liberal libs on issues like family, abortion and immigration.
The term “minarchist” is a little awkward.
Reminds me of a biography of the great Salvador Dali I once saw on TV. They asked him: “are you a communist ?”. His answer: “God forbid. Why do you ask? Dali and Picasso, both great painters, both Spanish, but they aren’t both communists. (Picasso was a life long communist party member). I (Dali) am a monarchist-anarchist”.
Would that be something akin to “minarchist” ?
Democracy is what we do to keep the alpha male struggle from descending into open warfare.
Sure it has its costs.
So does continuous warfare.
Take your choice. Or else we can have utopia. Christian. Libertarian. Socialist. Islamic. I suppose we can fight it out.
What the Libertarians fail to understand is why Pepsi tatses so much like coke and why the American system drives politicians to the middle. And why that is a good thing. What Libertarians want is to destabilize a system that is working (however imperfectly) with something else. Forgetting that the system is a feed back system and any wild changes introduced will call forth wild responses.
i.e. Libertarians are terminally stupid.
We have some Libertarians on my town’s school board. Another on the board of the local college (at one time we had two).
I have yet to see any libertarian pronouncement of major import from these Major Libertarians.
Abbie Hoffman did more to sell socialism in America than Karl Marx ever did. Get a clue. First make the sale then make the change. So far what the Libs get is no sale. Hell. The Greens are more popular.
Up until 9/11 the Libs didn’t have much of a foreign policy. It was kinda assumed: stay out of every where. Leave the pirates to the locals. So 9/11 split the party. About 60/40.
Oh. Well.
I’m thinking of joining the Republican wing of the libertarian movement. At least if not popular I will have a voice.
Well the in-fighting and back-stabbing in the libertarian movement doesn’t help the cause much either. Some people spend more time driving people away from the movement than they do trying to get people interested/converted to the cause.
A good start for the US libertarians would be for them to have a party registered in every state in the Union.
BB
Wel, in Israel there is Shinui which is dedicated to cutting the religious parties off from their place at the trough. They lean towards smaller government. There is a small faction of the Likud (lead these days by Bibi Netanyahu) that is trying to shrink the state around the edges. Their progress is millimetric.
Historically, Begin’s Herut (Freedom) was a small Government, pro capitalist party. The were subsumed into the Likud when it was formed by Sharon in 1973.
In France there is that poor guy De Villiers who trying hard to keep small government alive and compatible with preserving French national, as opposed to European interests as priorities. He has a minor party or faction (In France they call them ‘Political Clans”)
There is another French politico, whose name I forget that has tried, and failed, to interest them limited government.
When he started out, Le Pen was interested in a smaller state, but he found that racial hate combined with socialism made him the second most powerful leader in France. Sounds familiar
Italian politics, as far as I can tell, are mostly about La bella figura” and how to game the system.
M. Simon:
I don’t know what state you live in, but here in New York, there is no voice in the Republican party for those of a libertarian bent. And since it’s obvious that the state is going to vote for Kerry in the Presidential election, I have no qualms about voting third-party.
Libertarians want most of all to be left alone, and for others to respect our rights. In return we will: respect the rights of others; leave others alone (if they wish); and honor agreements between individuals.
Anyone who wishes to impose their will upon us, be it Democrat, Republican, M. Simon, are wrong.
It’s just that simple.
“Abbie Hoffman did more to sell socialism in America than Karl Marx ever did. Get a clue. First make the sale then make the change.”
Exactly. Cobden and Bright SOLD free trade. They didn’t sit in a coffee shop and talk about how Natural Justice or something mandated the repeal of the Corn Laws.
“Anyone who wishes to impose their will upon us, be it Democrat, Republican, M. Simon, are wrong.”
Yeah, and anyone who wishes to do so and who wins an election will successfully impose its will on you, or you will be taken away in handcuffs, because you don’t want to play the game, you don’t want to participate in the democracy you’ve got. You want to be left alone. You won’t be. Count on it. They’ll be wrong, you’ll be in prison, or paying higher taxes, or being evicted, or having your guns taken away. But, you’ll be right. That is something you can tell yourself after the fact, “I was right”. Cling to it. I hope you find it satisfying. Meanwhile, I’m voting for the GOP, supporting the people who come closest to my beliefs and denying power to those who are farthest from them. That’s the game I’m, so I’m playing it.
The largest problem with the libertarian movement is that it mostly attempts to grow by selling a political philosphy, trying to win over people to the logic and reason of small government and free trade.
The problem with this is that the vast majority of citizens in a democracy are not in the slightest bit interested in political philosphy, of any sort. Very few people vote from ideological conviction. They vote based on whether or not they like the personality of a candidate, and on things like his/her appearance. They vote on things related to their immediate self-interest. They will often hold totally contradictory views as a result, such as wanting to pay less tax but get more government support.
The only people I have ever known to convert to libertarianism were people who were political animals to begin with.
Of all the political movements libertarianism is by far and away the worst at marketing its product. This ironic given the pro-capitalist views of libertarians themselves. There are a number of reasons for this, including a general antagonism towards populism on the part of libertarians. This is bad. As both Ronald Reagan and Mrs Thatcher proved, populism not only works, it is essential. In this conservatism has an advantage, as it tends to be more populist, and appeals less to rarefied theories, and more to instinctive issues like family and tribe/nation.
In the States the Libertarian Party is small, but makes a few waves at local level. In Britain, there’s no party, only parties– vide the pics on this site.
The “you have got to play the game because the game goes on regardless” argument only makes sense if it is realistic to think you can actually make a difference, otherwise all you are doing is making yourself feel better at participating and voting for admittedly better things, without any real serious prospects of actually getting them.
As my view is that all that is on offer at the moment is the rate at which liberties and assets are progressively surrendered, to be honest I would rather it happened faster than slower as that makes the consequences come faster too. ‘Gradualist’ statism is far more dangerous than ‘Big Government Now’ statism.
In a society in which the majority of people are gainfully employed and affluent enough, change will not come until people feel some sort of personal cost. I guess what I am saying is that there is something in the idea of voting for the greater evil (or at least not voting at all) unless you really do beleive that you can charge things meaningfully from within the system as it is. Actually having the stomach to do that is another thing again of course.
To vote or not to vote does rather depend on the specific situation and issues, but the current trend towards regulatory statism will not change until it starts to clearly hurt enough of people in the middle classes, at which point it might just be possible to actually do something rationally radical rather than just legitimising a process which is stacked against anti-statism at almost every level.
Perry
You may be absolutely right about the UK, but over here the expansion of statism can be successfully resisted. Tax Cuts, which seem unthinkable in the UK, have over time reduced the power of the government to tax and spend.
The huge effort the Democrats made to take away the right to bear arms backfired. Kerry or any other democrat has now got to pose with guns to show he is not a threat, Bush is even allowing the ban on semi auto assault rifles to expire.
The GOP is a far better (though less than perfect )defender of free speech, than the Dems with their speech codes and so on.
Americans have a history of letting the government erode our freedoms in wartime and then clawing them back in peace. What amazes me is the way so few of our freedoms have been lost during this war (So far).
In the UK the same logic seems to only apply to things like closing hours for pubs. What? It took 80 years for the British Government to notice that there was no longer much danger of munitions workers getting sloshed and blowing up their works.