About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
Katrina Swett
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Libs in the GOP a Square Peg in Round Hole?

by: Dean Barker

Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 08:18:49 AM EDT


One of the least reported stories, imo, in recent New Hampshire politics is an increasing effort among libertarians to feel at home in the NHGOP, both those upper case Libs who are gaining greater access to power under cover of one of the two dominant parties, and lower case libs already in the GOP who feel bereft at where the party has gone.

I've been contemplating a series of posts about this, but let's start with one that jumped in front my Google Alerts this morning - one gay libertarian Republican's view of Jennifer Horn's visit to the Cheshire GOP, since it illustrates beautifully the crux of the dilemma:

At the gathering, numerous snide remarks were made about the 'liberal media,' lawyers, teachers, and liberals in general. "Immigration" - a complete non-issue to anybody in Cheshire County, New Hampshire - somehow emerged as an important 'issue' to address. At my table, one religious conservative insisted that gay marriage and abortion were leading us to Socialism (I can't even begin to explain the twisted logic here...) On a positive note, I would say the majority at my table was tired of being the reloigious rights bludgeon.

I stated openly that we need to stop blaming immigrants, young people, gays, and the 'liberal media' for our problems, and was cut off by Horn, who insisted that the party does not 'blame' those groups for anything. And yet, that appears to be more of a political 'talking position' (the media was present) than the reality, as understood by the millions of Independents - and Republicans - who abandonned the GOP in the last election.

It's worth a full read, as a glimpse into the crisis within the NHGOP, a crisis I'm not even sure they are aware of.

And as a related question - will the libertarians, official and unofficial, eventually change the nature of the NHGOP over the long term?

Dean Barker :: Libs in the GOP a Square Peg in Round Hole?
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Isn't it ironic? (4.00 / 2)
In the early 1990s the Libertarian movement was growing and actually attained equal party status for two elections.Back then the law called for the recognition of any organzation as a political party if their gubernatorial candidate obtained a 3%. Twice the Libertarian Party surpassed that number Miriam Luce of Windham as their nominee. In 1993 Republican Governor Steve Merrill brilliantly used Miriam to destroy the Libertarian Party by naming her to the Liquor Commission (replacing the sole Democrat on the three member commission). It was no secret at the time that NH Republicans feared a strong Libertarian Party and strategized on how to end it.

Merrill gave a six year job to the Libertarian's only successful articulate/mainstream leader.

http://www.boogieonline.com/re...

Which resulted in the revocation of their party status after the 1994 election.

They have never recovered.

Interesting to note that no where on the website above does it include my very public criticism of Merrill's appointment or Luce's niavete in thinking her appointment was out of good will.

They two groups make a great team - the Republicans only care about power and the Libertarians are blind to it. A perfect relationship for them both.


Have you written a letter to the editor today? Have you donated today? Have you put up signs? Have you made calls? Have you talked to your neighbors?


Wow. (0.00 / 0)
In 1993 Republican Governor Steve Merrill brilliantly used Miriam to destroy the Libertarian Party by naming her to the Liquor Commission (replacing the sole Democrat on the three member commission).

I hope this anecdote becomes much more broadly known if Merrill becomes the GOP Senate nominee, which if Sununu doesn't run seems likeliest.

birch, finch, beech


[ Parent ]
Libertarians are nothing if not intellectually grounded. (0.00 / 0)
I happen to see the principles of modern libertarianism are wishful thinking for a world that was simpler before the industrial revolution, but I respect it.  I don't understand how a true libertarian can be comfortable among the authoritarian book-burning party, particularly since the latter hasn't truly been for small government since the pre-FDR era.  They just have different spending priorities, and anyone who analyzes the fiscal policies of the past four Presidents can't possibly say Reagan and GWB were more fiscally responsible than Bill Clinton.  Credit where credit is due, George H. W. Bush did the right thing when it was unpopular and raised taxes, but his party has disowned that legacy.

I'm wondering when libertarians will start becoming Democrats in large numbers.  Neither party will shrink government economically, but when it comes to social policy, the difference is night and day.


I vote, "Nothing." (4.00 / 5)
Nothing if not intellectually grounded

An intellectually-grounded libertarian would find no home in the party of the Schiavo intervention, the party of warrantless wiretaps, the party that opposes to its core gay marriage and legal abortions.

The people who call themselves libertarian have generally abandoned any concerns over privacy and civil liberties that are not directly tied to one "principle:" DON'T TAX ME!


[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
I've met far too many people who call themselves Libertarians who are basically just overly selfish conservatives rather than actual Libertarians.  

[ Parent ]
I once thought of myself as a small "l" libertarian, and it was never about taxes. (4.00 / 2)
It was about social and constitutional issues.  And I wondered, "how could anybody who votes based on liberty support the party of George W. Bush?"

[ Parent ]
Shudder (4.00 / 4)
Libetarians don't believe in free public education.  Under their view of the extremely narrow role of government, we wouldn't have anti-discrimination laws, and you would probably say adieu to social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, the childrens health insurance program, use of government funds for land and historic conservation, etc.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    


[ Parent ]
That's the Libertarian Party. I'm not defending Bob Barr. (0.00 / 0)
I'm talking about small-l libertarians who care more about the Patriot Act than the tax code.

[ Parent ]
Dreaming (4.00 / 2)
I still like imagining a future where one day, at least in New England, Republicans will have been so ideologically pure and intolerant that they'll be battling the Libertarians for a distant second place. Not that I think it too likely, but who wouldn't enjoy dreams of, say, the surviving moderates in the GOP making a big public split, going to join the Libertarians, and the whole right wing gets into a vicious screaming match for the next two decades or so?

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!

Lowering The Threshold For Third Parties Is Good All Around (4.00 / 3)
Making it easier for Libertarians to completely leave the Republican Party is good on many counts.

Politically it's the right thing to do for Democrats: most of the Libertarians' votes are going to come from former Republicans, so if the Libertarians are a "major party" again, it'll split the right. I don't mind if the Greens become a "major party" either because for every one Green in New Hampshire, there are going to be 10 Libertarians.

It's the right thing to do because voters deserve as many choices as they can get.

And in the long run, it's the right thing to do for the Democratic Party itself, because having more parties would prevent Democrats from becoming intellectually and organizationally complacent.

After all, just look at the last eight years and party fundraising....


Andrew, do you know the history? (4.00 / 1)
Are there higher hurdles for third parties today than 20 years ago?

[ Parent ]
With New Hampshire or Nationwide? (4.00 / 1)
Not sure about when or if the RSA came into place, but I could always call some librarian or something at the state house.

As for other states, i'd also have to look a the laws. I could find election results more easily for high level races.

Let me poke around, keep on bugging me about it.


[ Parent ]
I think the threshold (4.00 / 1)
changed in recent years. Whoever learns more soonest, post...

[ Parent ]
well... (4.00 / 3)
Sometime between 1997 and 1999 (don't have my files) the Libertarians attempted to simply have themselves declared a party. The Secretary of State strongly opposed the legislation giving the committee significant reasons.

1. During the four years they were a registered party and given all the rights and obligations of a party in NH - they registered, if my memory is correct, less than 2,000 statewide.

2. The cost to the State of NH to provide for the primary (printing ballots etc...) was over $30,000.

The point that if they couldn't obtain 3% in a gubernatorial race or register a reasonable number of members with a four year time made sense to the committee and the bill was heading for a quick death.

I tried my best to reach out to them. I offered the suggestion that if they gave up the primary and instead held local caucuses to select delegates I would try to pass the law. They refused. So I tried again. I noticed that in 1996 their senatorial candidate received more than 4% so I amended their bill (with a committee consensus) to allow for the Libertarians to be recognized if they recieved 4% in either the gubernatorial OR US senate race - which would have allowed them to recover their party status in 1996.  In the past 10 years they have not attained 4% in either. I was highly criticized by the Libertarians for trying to help them.

It may have changed  

Have you written a letter to the editor today? Have you donated today? Have you put up signs? Have you made calls? Have you talked to your neighbors?


[ Parent ]
Extremes In Parties (0.00 / 0)
This is kind of on topic, but a slight shift, so I hope you don't mind.

Last year Italy had a general election, and right now if you count the coalitions as parties(some of the coalitions have 2 to 3 parties inside of them), there are 8 parties that have seats in the lower house.

Since 1946, there have been 37 Prime Ministers in Italy, almost a new one every year.

At the other extreme, North Korea had its "election" today. Every district only has one candidate, and there is only one official party. The last election in 2004 had 99.9% voter turnout and more than likely a mysterious .1% population decrease a day later.

On that scale, if you had to choose between too many parties or too few, which extreme is better?  


The answer is, as always, it depends... (0.00 / 0)
The GOP's death spiral into a completely dysfunctional, unfocused, mass of disparate talking points has been almost inevitable for the past few years now. But will they save themselves and recover as something different in a few years or so? The answer, as always, is that it depends...

It depends on whether the GOP refuses to be the party of Limbaugh.
It depends on whether the GOP refuses to pander to the Religious Right.
It depends on whether the GOP refuses to be the party of "NO!".
It depends on whether the GOP discovers what sensible, fiscal responsibility really is and how to make it work for them.
It depends on whether Fox News or Reality drive the GOP leadership's agenda in Congress.

I wish them luck because they need it! Because each of those statements have a very low probability of happening.

Nuff Said.



Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox