Posted by
ESun67 on Friday, December 22, 2006 11:44:43 PM
Mr. Bartlett's recent slam might have had a better title/purpose: 'Why is the LP is so Vexing ?'
Obviously this is a sour grapes analysis designed to stem any perceived hemorrhage
Mr. Barr's recent appointment to the LNC may have induced. If the party ceased to exist merely because
it was inconvenient to electoral success of others, what incentive would activists have to act in those arenas ?
Third parties have always driven issues the either/or system neglects. While it is true that Presidential Electoral mechanisms push other aspects of the polity (Princeton Prof. Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy illustrates this rather well) lacking electoral success does not negate this function or relegate it to a debate appurtenance.
A recent Tim Russert huddle of political experts acknowledged the capacity of the American people for a third party based on the overriding need for reform. Unfortunately only the initiated understand that ballot restrictions and other systematic restraints kill opportunity before even addressing aspects of media, money or momentum. Any populist uprising centered around a dynamic figure usually enjoys limited success before likewise being pummeled back into the dustbin of history (Witness TR, LaFollette, both Wallaces, Anderson and Perot).
How is it that such a small fraction of that vote (less then 1/2 million) represents such a catastrophic threat to Liberty according to Mr. Bartlett ? How is it the Red and Blue function in the virtual vacuum of powerful interests and players and now must look over their shoulders to this little David from such an insignificant tribe ?
While maintaining principle has been the clarion call of the LP, struggling with new tools and methods is as important as any shift in canon. Perhaps Ballot Base and Target America are excellent starts, but capturing the imagination of the disillusioned should be occasionally attempted even if seemingly more practicable efforts are forfeited.
Liberty is certainly more then an intellectual pursuit. It is something that fuels passion and resistance to the status quo of statist assumptions. Without a common national voice and attempt, activists and sympathizers alike will find little to rally around in some remote corner of the country, hoping that a crack in the glass ceiling of electoral domination will introduce a cavalcade of interest and support elsewhere.
Perhaps the LP has relied on the insistence of Liberty within it's own intellectual classes and pursuits too much. It seeks to protect a nugget of certitude and truth in a world all too often compromised by half worn promises and ambitions. Yet if we back down from our persistent and noble struggle for some temporary suave which promises to heal some real or imagined rift, what have we accomplished other then the reduction spirit which binds activist and reformer alike. This 'purist' has no problem accepting any desire for Liberty despite its size or intent. The winnable candidacy need not be separated from the good fight. They must be honed and spirited as the advantage leads and guides us where it will.