On Saturday, one of the most overlooked segments of the voting population, the state’s Libertarian party, held their first, and probably only, debate between their candidates for US Senate. The debate highlighted the interesting development in the Libertarian party in recent years, the split between traditional Libertarians and the former fringe Republican and Tea Party voters, activists and candidates that have joined their ranks since the so-called ‘Ron Paul Revolution’. On the side of more traditional Libertarian values is Sean Haugh, a longtime Libertarian Party activist in the state. On the other stands Tim D’Annunzio, who has run for Congress twice as a Republican with strong Tea Party leanings.
The segment of the debate that caught headlines was when D’Annunzio stated that if Greg Brannon won the Republican nomination, and the race between Brannon and Hagan was close he would endorse Brannon. He stated he wouldn’t drop out of the race but that he didn’t want to be a ‘spoiler’ and cause Hagan to be re-elected. This statement shows two things; 1. He doesn’t understand how an endorsement works, and 2. He doesn’t understand Libertarians. D’Annunzio, like many former Republican Libertarians, still views the world from a two-party perspective. He would rather see a Tea Party Republican win the race than a Democrat.
D’Annunzio doesn’t understand that Libertarians view both major parties with equal disdain, and would rather remain true to their principles than compromise for a seat at the table. Libertarians believe in freedom (with a capitol ‘F’) for all, on all issues, without compromise. Just because they agree with the Tea Party on issues like the Federal Reserve, intervention in foreign conflicts and 2nd Amendment rights doesn’t make them the same. There are a host of issues such as drug legalization, immigration, and abortion where Libertarians and Republicans will never see eye to eye. Just because D’Annunzio tries to convince the Libertarians that Brannon is one of them doesn’t mean they’ll vote for him. If you don’t believe me just check prior election returns. Libertarian candidates consistently get between .5% and 2% of the vote in any race they’re represented in. This is a pool of hard-core voters who either vote for Libertarian candidates or stay home, and they’re not likely to change that because a Johnny-come-lately to the party tries to convince them otherwise.
As the Republicans continue to push the Tea Party further to the fringes the Libertarians are likely to see more candidates like D’Annunzio swell their ranks. These candidates will view the Libertarians as an adjunct to the Tea Party rather than the uncompromising, if sometimes irritating, third party that they are. Candidates like D’Annunzio are in for a rude awakening if they think they’re ever going to convince Libertarians to vote for another party.
Tom, that’s my point precisely. I respect the Libertarians’ uncompromising adherence to their principles, and have the benefit of having had a roommate who was a Libertarian party activist while I was working on the Dem side of things. Suffice it to say it made for some interesting conversations at the bar. I wrote the piece because it was an interesting story and most Democrats and Republicans don’t really know many Libertarians and don’t understand their point of view. Democratic candidates who have tried to run as Libertarians have faced the same issues as Mr D’Annunzio only from the other side of the spectrum. I hope you liked the piece.
That should have been “helpless unconvicted prisoners” not unconvinced. Sorry.
DeAnnunzio simply made plain the lesser of two evils argument. What he failed to do was clearly articulate the evils being decided.
The height of publican evil was the legalization of torture for helpless and unconvinced prisoners. The height of dem evil was the legalization of summary execution without charges or due process.
Presumably as a publican DeAnnunzio believes torture is less evil than summary execution. He thinks it is so important that we stop summary execution that it is worth embracing torture without even a due process conviction.
What he seems to miss is that libertarians would reject such an evil choice out of hand. It is a choice we refuse to make. The lesser evil is simply not less evil enough to bear consideration.
Thanks for the coverage. I love your description of the LP as “uncompromising if sometimes irritating …” The forum was one of the best things I’ve taken part in as a member of the Libertarian Party. Both candidates were totally honest and respectfully, something you never see in a Republican Democrat debate. I give Mr.D’Annunzio credit for being candid.
And thanks for reading.
There is no more conservative group in America than Libertarians. Libertarians believe in Austrian Economics and deny AGW. If a conservative is speaking, a conservative is lying.
Coming soon from the Chicken Littles: the Just Because You Still Have Some Money Left Tax.
Tax is not theft. It is civilization. If a conservative is speaking a conservative is lying.
Thanks for reading, Brian, glad you liked the piece.