LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY ARE CAPABLE ONLY OF THREATENING THE DOMINANT OR OPPOSITION PARTY, NOT WINNING.
[L]ibertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better.
At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family.
—REPLY WAS A GIF OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE SAYING “WHATEVER”—
I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls.
If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party.
The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it.
Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.
—“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could.
The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close.
A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman
The Propertarian Institute