Peter Schiff, renowned economist and rumored 2010 Senatorial candidate, spoke to the Connecticut Libertarian Party on Saturday. Here is a blog post about it featuring the video of his short speech to the convention.
This speech has quickly become controversial because in it Schiff advises that the Libertarian Party members work within the Republican Party. However, he did receive a standing ovation at the end of his speech.
Trent,
I excluded them because I thought they were already listed.
The differences between running as a Libertarian and running as a Republican are more than the odds of winning. A “Libertarian” winning one race, would have so much more meaning than a “small-government Republican” winning a race, or even three or five races.
Besides, I would hate waving the flag of the discredited party of G.W. Bush. Right-wing conservatives won’t even touch the thing anymore.
Even with the Libertarian Party’s weakening of principles in the last 4 years, we are still FAR better than the Repubs or Demos.
Darryl,
You are, of course, forgetting Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman–the two sitting Independent Senators.
George Wallace in 1968 & Ross Perot in 1992 arguably affected the Presidential election.
Recent third party governors
Jesse Ventura – Minnesota from 1999 to 2003.
Angus King – Maine from 1995 to 2003.
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.- Connecticut from 1991 to 1995, as a member of A Connecticut Party.
Walter Joseph Hickel – Alaskan Independence Party, serving from 1990 to 1994.
Recent “minor party”/Independent Congressmen
Harry Bird, Jr – West Virginia was elected as an Independent from 1970-1983
Dean Barkley – Minnesota
James Jeffords – Vermont
Virgil Goode – Virginia
Various Sources:
Upon Lincoln’s death in 1865, Andrew Johnson became the only other National Union President. After the final break with the Congress over Reconstruction policies, Johnson used federal patronage to build up a party of loyalists, but it proved to be unsuccessful.Foner (2002).]
The 1866 National Union Convention was held in August in Philadelphia as part of his attempt at maintaining a coalition of supporters and Johnson embarked upon a speaking tour (known as the “Swing Around the Circle”) before the 1866 Congressional elections to attempt to garner support for his policies, but both proved ineffective as more of his opponents were elected. Republican National Committee chairman Henry Jarvis Raymond (1864-1866) lost the regard of the Republicans for his participation in the convention. The National Union movement became little more than the Democratic Party in a new form as Republicans left the movement and returned to the old party fold by the fall.
The last congressman to represent the National Union Party ended his affiliation with the party in March 1867. Andrew Johnson was impeached by the Republican-led House of Representatives in 1868, and he was acquitted in the United States Senate by one vote. Upon the 1869 expiration of Johnson’s only term as U.S. President, the National Union Party came to an end.
The platform adopted at the 1868 Republican National Convention strongly repudiated President Johnson, [ [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29622 Republican Party Platform of 1868] ] while the platform adopted by the 1868 Democratic National Convention thanked Johnson,
[ [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29579 Democratic Party Platform of 1868] ] but did not nominate him.
The Republicans used the “National Union Republican” label for their Republican National Conventions of 1868 and 1872 and regard the initial National Union coalition assembled in 1864 as part of their party lineage and heritage.
It appears that he has become a candidate for the Senate: http://schiffforsenate.com/
Yep, same guy.
P Daddy you been on more than 1 hr .
yeah!!!!!!!
you with the friend you texted me about ?
i think he called me awhile back from Vegas ,, i didnt get the message till 3 or4 days later.
Paulie, are you back in some place with internet?
A friend of mine with a computer is in town. Not sure for how long. I also subleased an apartment here.
I do have to hit the streets to get more signatures, and he uses his own computer too, so it’s not like when I was sitting in Alabama on here all day, but my access is better than it’s been up here before now.
Paulie, are you back in some place with internet?
If it is to influence public policy, then a third party should should reorganize itself into an interest group working inside one of the two major parties.
No, not necessarily.
A “third” party has several advantages which major party caucuses don’t have:
1. Running candidates in the general election, when more people pay attention to politics
2. The ability to swing close races as well as challenge otherwise unchallenged incumbents, thus gaining leverage
3. Not having to pay filing fees or swear loyalty oaths to major party bosses
4. No veto power by major party bosses over who can vie for their nomination, as is the case in some places
5. No need to support the major party presidential or other candidates, even in theory, or otherwise carry the dirty water of the major parties to gather status within them
6. Whereas some smaller parties (GP, CP) can be easily said to line up more closely with one major party over the other, a properly organized LP would not be so easy to categorize as being closer to either the Democrats or the Republicans.
However, caucuses within major parties have some other advantages which independents and smaller parties lack.
Educational and lobbying groups, single issue organizations, etc., have yet other advantages; militias, other still, and so on.
No strategy is “the one” by itself. Any successful movement needs a diversity of tactics.
The Boston Tea Party is so effective, Jim. Maybe if you didn’t insult everyone you talked to it would have more than 1,200 members, or whatever insignificant amount it has. I can begin to understand why such a tiny party is also fraught with infighting after talking to you for about 30 seconds.
Anyway, if a party is the largest party in the country (comprised of part of the Democratic Party, most of the Republican Party, and some other people, at a time when a good amount of Democrats had seceded from the Union), I would hesitate to call it a third party. Just because a party is new doesn’t make it a third party – that’s just fatuous and idiotic.
@83 “And you don’t have to be a jerk about it.”
I just presented the information, Ross. You decided I was making you look stupid.
But, it wasn’t my intention to do anything to make you look ignorant and foolish. You did that all by yourself.
Your fatuous and idiotic statement, “It was the largest party in the country, and hardly a third party” simply illustrates what a complete fool you are. The National Union party was the third party in the 1864 election. The first two parties were the Republican party and the Democrat party.
It is certainly rare for the incumbent not to be nominated by his own party, and even more rare for him to form a third party and get its nomination, and even more rare for him to fire his postmaster general as the only condition for the Republican candidate to drop out of the race. But that is what happened. The two parties that survived to the election in November 1864 were not the two that started out.
Your idea that a third party must be tiny and ineffectual is certainly consistent with what ever Libertarian Party national headquarters person seems to think.
@85 So, your idea of research is to ask me for a list, and if I cannot give you a list off the top of my head, I must have made a false statement. Curious.
There are many extra-solar planets. There are many elements in the periodic table beyond uranium. Now, your research methodology will reveal that I don’t have their names at the tip of my tongue. But they exist all the same.
Again, I pointed you at a page where two Senators who are currently serving and not from either major party are listed. Evidently you don’t read, or can’t think. So, have a nice life with the boot on your neck crushing your spine. (Not my boot, the boot of the Boot on Your Neck party.)
Jim Davidson,
I was not asking you to do research.
You said that many third party folks had been elected to the Senate and House, so you should have a list off the top of your head.
Unless of course there have not been, “many such candidates … elected to these bodies”.
According to my research your statement is false.
Ross,
I have spoken to the chairman of the LPCT in the past and he supports changing the bylaws but has not been able to get it done. The LP will probably petition for the US Senate no matter what Schiff does. They would be able to substitute his name if they choose by the beginning of Sept 2010.
Oh, I guess my history textbook had that part of the election of 1864 wrong…
And you don’t have to be a jerk about it.
Anyway, I would still argue that Lincoln was never part of a third party and that the National Union Party was the major party in opposition to the Democrats that year. It was the largest party in the country, and hardly a third party.
And I don’t think a third party’s candidate has ever won the presidency. The Whigs weren’t a third party, the Federalists weren’t, the Democrats never were, neither were the Democratic-Republicans, neither are the Republicans, and neither was the Union Party. Washington was technically independent, but no formal parties had emerged at that point.
Ross, that’s silly. Of course there was a Republican party, they held a convention, and John C. Fremont was nominated. Therefore some Republicans loyal to Lincoln split from the party and formed the nationalist socialist union party (aka National Union party) and evil pro-baby-killing war Democrats to nominate Lincoln.
It wasn’t until September that Fremont abandoned his campaign. But, evidently, he didn’t collapse the Republican Party, as it rather evidently still existed (and persists, somewhat, even today). There was a Republican party in 1864. Their candidate agreed not to run against Lincoln, who was already the candidate of a third party.
So, either get your facts straight, or if you know these things, stop lying.
The 1864 election may have been the last time a third party’s candidate won the presidency. It was not the last time a third party’s presidential candidate had a material effect on the success of the election for one of the other candidates.
Citizen1 – do you know if they would be able to cross endorse Schiff (if they changed their bylaws) after the primary? I mean, would there be enough time to collect signatures?
Jim, Abe Lincoln was never a third party member. In 1864 the Union Party was the second party – there was no Republican Party that year.
@53: “Jim Davidson, Please tell me who besides Ron Paul and Mary Kay Laterneau’s dad have been ELECTED to the United States Congress while being a member of a third party?”
I think Ron Paul has run as a Republican for every Congressional race when he’s been elected. Someone might check on that by looking it up on wikipedia.
Really, I don’t understand why you think I’m obligated to do your research for you. Were you planning to pay me to look up these facts for you? Or did you want to read the other posts on this thread?
I do appreciate you taking the time to say “please.” So I’ll offer this link to help you find a number of political parties and identify some of their successful candidates for Congress. On the page you’ll find the names of two senators currently in office from third parties. I do criticise the page for not noting that Abraham Lincoln won re-election in 1864 as a third party candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)
If I understand the law correctly the Libertarian Party can cross endorse any candidate in CT in the 2010 elections. If they do not have status for that office they will have to petition which would be the case for US senate. They would need 7,500 signatures. However their by laws currently prohibit this.
One thing about Peter that I have come to truly believe is that he is always brutally honest.
Excellent posts by Richard Winger (#56) and Gene Berkman (#73). William Carney indeed retained his Conservative Party membership throughout most of his congressional career. Ironically, his political problems started when he switched to the Republican Party halfway through his fourth term.
Initially elected on a Conservative/Republican fusion ticket in 1978, Carney — the only Conservative Party member of the Suffolk County legislature at the time of his election to Congress — vowed to remain a member of the party. “I will absolutely not change my enrollment,” he said upon his election. “I believe the distinction of being an enrolled Conservative will prove to be an advantage in the long run.”
Cruising to re-election on fusion tickets that included the ballot-qualified Right-to-Life Party over the next three election cycles, the 43-year-old Long Island congressman later angered Conservative Party leaders in New York when he switched his party affiliation to the GOP in 1985, a year before he was expected to seek a fifth term in the U.S. House.
One Suffolk Conservative leader had warned him earlier that such a switch would most likely be “detrimental to him.” He probably should have listened.
Facing strong opposition in the 1986 Republican primary due, in part, to his support of the controversial Shoreham nuclear power plant and denied the Conservative Party’s endorsement, Carney decided not to seek re-election that year.
But would it be more effective to actually be the major party candidate, or challenge them in a primary?
And doesn’t that mean that being a “spoiler” is the second-best thing for a third party to be (the first being the winner)? Because then you really show that your voters have influence.
Ross,
You write:
“Even if you got twice what the last Libertarian did, what does that accomplish?”
It’s difficult to quantify, but there’s a reasonable case that the better third party candidates do even without winning, the more likely the major party candidates are to shift their positions and actions to appeal to the third party voters they’re “losing.”
Take a House or Senate race that comes out:
Republican: 48%
Democrat: 49%
Libertarian: 3%
There’s a chance that the GOP will field a “more libertarian” candidate the next time out, and a chance that the Democratic incumbent will, given his narrow victory, look for ways to court libertarian-leaning voters that next time out as well.
Wes “Jonah” Benedict? Jonah?
Trent is correct. John Schmitz was elected to the California State Senate & to Congress as a Republican.
In Congress he represented a district in Orange County which included the Western White House – so he was Nixon’s Congressman. Nixon’s guys recruited the Orange County Tax Assessor to run against Schmitz in the primary.
After Schmitz lost the GOP primary for Congress, he switched to the American Independent Party and ran for President against Nixon in 1972. He was still in Congress for 6 months after he joined the AIP, so he is the only person to serve as an AIP Congressman.
In the 1980’s a New York Conservative was elected to Congress from Long Island, but he also had the Republican nomination.
Dear Peter Schiff:
Part of your conclusion I suspect may be based on faulty assumptions. I’ll give you an additional hint: apply your cost accounting and valuation skills.
I have to go.
“Please tell me who besides Ron Paul and Mary Kay Laterneau’s dad have been ELECTED to the United States Congress while being a member of a third party? ”
Mary Kay Laterneau’s dad was John G. Schmitz–and I do not think he was elected to the US Congress as a member of the American Independent Party. I believe he just switched.
rl, in spring training baseball, no one cares who wins. in pre-season football, the team works out the kinks of the new plays.
that’s one school of thought.
another is cadre building…not mine.
But Steven, what does that victory amount to? Even if you got twice what the last Libertarian did, what does that accomplish?
RK Stock- I don’t feel I lost my Congressional campaign last year, even though I barely got 3% of the vote. That 3% was double the previous Libertarian in the same district in 2000, who in turn got double the first Libertarian in 1982.
Victory has many different faces.
PEACE
Richard- I have heard MANY people maintain that Perot cost Bush and Dole their elections!
I personally don’t buy it. I hold firm to the notion that Perot motivated non voters.
PEACE
I’m done now. It was good to get my frustrating experience as a third party member out of my system. I know there are many sincere people working in third parties, but I can’t do it any more. Good luck folks.
A fundamental question, what is the purpose of a political party?
If it is to win elections, then third parties are not the way to go. If it is to influence public policy, then a third party should should reorganize itself into an interest group working inside one of the two major parties.
However, my experience of being an active Libertarian party member from 1992 until about 2006 leads me to conclude that third parties exist to allow blowhards a place to rant while they hatch hair brained conspiracy theories.
So they couldn’t do fusion statewide?
A party doesn’t need to elect people to influence policy. Besides prohibition, there are all the big issues of the 19th century and early 20th century (slavery, women’s suffrage, workers comp, antitrust legislation, direct election of US Senators, legal framework for collective bargaining, social security, child labor, civil rights for blacks, farm price supports, etc., etc.), issues that various minor parties pounded away at for decades and decades.
James Buckley was a registered Republican when he was elected to the US Senate in 1970 solely on the Conservative Party line; that’s why I didn’t include him in my list.
As to which parties tilted the 2000 presidential election, I would still say only the Green Party did that. Exit polls show that most voters in Florida who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been running. We can’t presume that most Harry Browne voters would have voted that way. Remember, in 2000, no one knew how bad George W. Bush would be on civil liberties, and he clearly was perceived as more libertarian on taxes and big government.
As to the 3 parties with “socialist” in their name, if one of their candidates hadn’t been running, their voters probably would have voted for one of the other socialist parties, or for Nader. So that’s why I don’t think any of the socialist parties tilted the election either. Only the Greens tilted it.
rks, put another way, regardless of an R or D “win,” with very, very few exceptions, in my view the people lose. the extreme illustration is an election between Hitler and Stalin….heads you lose, tails you lose.
Not only are the differences small to none between Rs and Ds, but the few small differences tend to cancel each other out.
Thanks for your well wishes, but happiness doesn’t come from outcomes…it’s an inside out process.
Robert Capozzi,
OK , I can accept that view.
I hope that every Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Peace and Freedom, and other third parties members have a great time and enjoy their crushing defeats at the polls year after year.
If it makes you happy, go for it.
rks, another way to look at it is ALL political action is a waste of time and money, even WITH electoral success.
Perhaps politics is just a forum to express oneself, regardless of outcome.
At present we can only name five members of third parties elected to Congress in the last 50 years.
I think that is proof that third party candidacies are a waste of time and money.
tk 51, yes, we continue to “endure” it. Of course, at least 2 of the author/adopters left for the GOP.
James Buckley was a one term NY Senator as well, elected solely on the Conservative line.
No, the Libertarian Party is not a “new” party in Connecticut, and it can do fusion in some parts of the state but not other parts.
In answer to Jim Davidson’s very precise question, who has been elected to Congress since 1950 while a member of a minor party, William Carney was an enrolled member of the NY Conservative Party when he was elected to Congress in all years 1978-1984. And Bernie Sanders is a member of the Progressive Party even though he never runs under its banner, and he was elected to either US House or US Senate in all years 1990-2006. Vermont doesn’t have registration by party so membership is somewhat fuzzy, but he considers himself a member and the party does also.
Is the LP a “new party” in CT? Can they do fusion?
I have been to Republican town committee meetings. I registered as a Republican to vote for Ron Paul in primary so I figured I would try to get the Republican nomination for state assembly. By going to the meeting I realized that with just a handful of people the committee could be taken over. This may be different in other towns but in many it is probably the same. For that reason libertarians and constitutionalists may be able to take control of some of these committees if they are dedicated. Especially if members of the multiple ‘freedom parties’ work together to they may be able to take over these committees and use the vehicle. To assume that the party the way is stands will nominate candidates that lean libertarian or are constitutionalists is naive. I was that naive. The current town leadership strung me along and made think they were considering nominating me. It became obvious when the town chairman told me that a member of the state central committee had no say as to the nomination (except for his one vote). The next time I talked to the chairman he said that the member of the scc was handling it. A couple of days later I saw they were backing someone else.
This makes me realize that the Republican Party leadership will back Simmons. I will support Peter Schiff if he runs no matter what he runs as. If he does not run I will support Sam Caliguri. If Simmons is the nominee I will probably run myself. He is Doddlite.
Jim Davidson,
Please tell me who besides Ron Paul and Mary Kay Laterneau’s dad have been ELECTED to the United States Congress while being a member of a third party?
Richard Winger,
Isn’t it true that from the last half of the 20th century to the present only INDEPENDENT candidates have been elected to Congress and not candidates running under the banner of a third party?
“the only minor party that has altered a presidential election in the last 90 years is the Green Party in 2000.”
Bzzzt. The Libertarian Party also had a reasonable claim to have altered that same presidential election.
The LP’s nominee, Harry Browne, received 16,102 votes in Florida in 2000. The election was won/lost on the basis of 537 votes.
Just as with Nader, if even a slightly a disproportionate percentage of Browne’s voters would have voted Republican or Democrat had his name not been on the ballot, the outcome might very well have been different.
And, just as with Nader, it’s highly debatable whether any such disproportion would have benefited the candidate the conventional wisdom says it would have benefited.
“‘A’ statement of principles can be useful. One that can’t be changed AT ALL except with a 7/8ths vote seems like the author’s and initial adopters were mighty full of themselves, yes?”
No, it just seems like the authors and initial adopters wanted a statement of principles that was enduring rather than subject to the whimsy of constantly shifting temporary majorities.
I have always said that the Green Party’s presidential campaign in 2000 was one of the causes of the Republicans winning. Always. There are always many, many causes for big events, and the Green Party was just one of those causes, but it was definitely a cause. Greens and Nader make a mistake when they try to say otherwise.
“the only minor party that has altered a presidential election in the last 90 years is the Green Party in 2000.”
Rather surprised to see Richard make this point, since I’m pretty sure he was my source for several arguments that Nader did not, in fact, cost Gore the election, as Democrats commonly argue.
To clarify, one need not have a PhD to be called an “Economist,” just as one need not have a degree (in some states) to be a CPA. In modern times, the term “economist” is almost always a PhD, but someone like David Friedman, a PhD in a different field, could be an exception, as he’s written books on economic theory. He teaches law, too, but is not an attorney, and is not a member of the bar.
This is not to diminish the economic insights of non-economists. It’s just a label.
srl, I don’t disagree. “A” statement of principles can be useful. One that can’t be changed AT ALL except with a 7/8ths vote seems like the author’s and initial adopters were mighty full of themselves, yes?
I think that’s true, Deran. And, similarly when I see evil men like Redpath, Starr, Sullentrup, and Flood (e.g.) doing their best to corrupt the process of a third party, it makes me laugh. After all, if what we as individual liberty enthusiasts wanted was a party that was corrupt, tied to vested economic interests, prone to purges, and capable of dishing out positions and privileges due to having a significant power base in the government, there are two such parties already.
Unfortunately, the people running the LP national have been, going back as far as 1998 as I see it and by some people’s reckoning even further back, unable to see the value of having a principled libertarian party. Which is one of the reasons that Tom Knapp created one, called the Boston Tea Party in 2006.
Of course, lately, I’m thinking that the only party I want is a Garden Party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_exY9ptMbA
You LP activists bore me.
The main problem with working inside the major parties is that they are vast and powerful and both tied up tight to the corporate interests, and you may make some headway at first, but the bosses control things in the end, and they will end up either coopting or expelling any elements who are a threat to their power in the party.
“Somewhere in the national office of the libertarian party, the work of liberty is going on…”
Sure, but every time one of the Republicans working there sees it going on, he stomps it to death.
Capozzi, “It’s a stretch to call Schiff an “economist.” His degree’s in finance and accounting, with no PhD.”
Would you call David Friedman an economist?
Rocky, what is LPCN? Do you mean LP of CT?
“No Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Peace and Freedom, or any other third party candidate will ever be elected to the Senate or House of Representaives.”
Well, that’s odd. Because, of course, many such candidates have in fact been elected to those bodies. Since anything that has happened is possible, the statement that it cannot be done is clearly mistaken. It has even been done recently.
Schiff is definitely a libertarian (the real kind, not the Wayne Allyn Root kind), meaning he at least has some credibility in discussing libertarian strategy. As of now, there’s so little difference between the LP and GOP that I can’t blame someone for believing effort is better spent reforming the latter than the former. Personally, I think both are a waste of time.
I would *love* to see an army of Ron Pauls elected over the current crop, but let’s face it: it’s a pipe dream. It would take a miracle just to get a second Ron Paul elected.
I don’t think the GOP would ever allow a libertarian invasion, even in its current wretched state. Republicans have grown increasingly hostile toward libertarians (Lindsay Graham, anyone?). Go to Republican websites and see how tolerant they are of libertarians–real libertarians, that is.
Yes, Connecticut has fusion, but a brand new party can’t use it in Connecticut.
RC- Having a statement of principles is hardly baggage.
If only the republicans had principles.
PEACE
Steve – being a swing voter in this messed up electoral system is the best thing you can do to make yourself more powerful. You’ve got the right idea, IMHO.
Does Connecticut have fusion voting? I know they have a Working Families Party, which mostly does cross-endorsements.
How is Murray Sabrin a “Dixiecrat”? Specifics, please.
srl, talk to us more about not having “baggage.” I’d say Ls have lots of baggage, but it’s mostly intra-party baggage. We’ve got founding documents with 7/8ths requirements to change, after all, and THAT’S not been changed since the 70s. Our baggage is apparently self-imposed in perpetuity!
It IS true that CT has a history of electing Is…Lieberman and Weiker come to mind, neither being uplifting figures, yes?
Are you suggesting Schiff should run as an I? If so, I’d think that the LPCT would be better than that! Unless you think our self-imposed in perpetuity baggage is dysfunctional…do you?
Speaking as a Libertarian who crossed over to the GOP to help Dr. Paul, I’ve seen some results from that approach. During the 2008 caucus to convention process, we held the balance of power in the state party, got virtually everything (gold standard included) in the platform we wanted outside of the warmongering sections (we tried). So Schiff has a point.
But it should not be framed as an “either-or” proposition. True believers in freedom like Dr. Paul and Mr. Schiff are the exception, not the rule in the GOP. When they run, for the good of the movement they deserve our support. However, there is a certain social contract when one signs one with a party that I could never accept from the GOP. In the P2008 race, I jumped on the Barr bandwagon early on (started his facebook group) but I would have happily voted for any of the major LP candidates had they one the nomination. I wouldn’t give the Republicans a second look.
I guess what I’m saying is, play in the majors when you can, but remember where your home is. Let’s present ourselves as a swing vote and make them come our way. And don’t sell our souls for lip service like our friends in the Christian Wrong.
I personally could not carry the baggage of “Secret plan to end the war” Nixon, “Read my lips” Bush or “homo-erotic torture” Bush as anyone running as a republican would be forced to do.
I think there is a “Lieberman” Party in Connecticut, which would be easier to get the nomination from. Plus, they already have a sitting US Senator. But then there is the baggage issue.
I prefer the freedom of not having any baggage. Others may feel different, and I wish them well. But I won’t berate them for their choices, as much as I think they are wrong headed.
PEACE
Steve Lonegan and Murray Sabrin tried the same thing in New Jersey and it hasn’t worked, as tomorrow’s primary results will confirm.
The LP has become nothing more than the Dixiecrat wing of the Republican Party. A farm team for Strom Thurmond wannabees. If they can’t get elected as Libertarians they’ll run as Republicans. And if they get tossed by Republicans ala Bob Barr, they’ll run as Libertarians.
This debate about working within a major party versus a minor party raged in the prohibition movement between the 1880’s and 1920. But pro-prohibition Republicans were unable to move the 18th amendment in Congress at all, until after the Prohibition Party had cost the Republican the presidency twice (1884 and 1916). In 1917 the Amendment, which had never made any headway, passed Congress. It got its two-thirds in each house from southern Democrats (who had been for it all along) and from Republicans, who were sick of losing presidential elections because of the Prohibition Party.
If the Libertarian Party altered not one, but two presidential elections, you can believe the Republican Party would move strongly in a libertarian direction. But the only minor party that has altered a presidential election in the last 90 years is the Green Party in 2000.
You all need to get over yourselves. Are you married to your party or are you married to your cause. It seems to me like you place more importance on what party one belongs to rather than an individual’s beliefs. Schiff is being practical in a time when we cannot afford to be inpractical. Any hate on Schiff for being realistic and choosing a more probable route to spreading libertarian ideals should be welcomed by like minded people, unless their loyalties lie not in their ideals but in their party. For F’s sake you can call me a Democrat for all I care as long as I’m given a stage from which to speak out on my real beliefs as a classical liberal.
And to those of you who cliam that Schiff would just sell out as soon as he were to become elected as a republican and just follow party orders you obviously have never heard of Ron Paul, and you don’t know a damn thing about Peter Schiff either. Spend a couple of hours watching him on youtube talking to the Mises institute and look at how much $hit he’s already gotten for speaking his beliefs. You think he likes being hated on by everyone? And now Libertarians are questioning his intentions?? Give me a F’n break!
And for whoever posted on here that it’s not true that 3rd party people have gotten elected, they were most likely independent and lived in an area where like minded people also lived. Peter Schiff lives in Conneticut and as a practical person he knows what he must do to create change NOW! The sky is falling now and we don’t have time to waste debating what method is more pure and true. The best method at the moment is the one that will bring real change to the moment. You should be tired of being marginalized. I’d rather have a republican/democrat/socialist/conservative/whatever you want to call him speaking libertarian ideals and being reported on by CNN, MSNBC, Fox, whatever and quite being proud of not being listened to by the mainstreem. The more we get the mainstream to hear our message the more people we will influence to our cause. Unless you like taking pride in your position as the underdogg ad infinitum. F’ that I want to win!
Somewhere in the national office of the libertarian party, the work of liberty is going on…
Libertarians running on the Republican ticket is a strategy with the merit that it has sometimes worked – it is easier to elect someone on a major party ticket than as a third party candidate.
It only works if you can actually get the nomination, and there are at least two other candidates seeking the Republican nomination for Senate in Connecticut, both with better GOP connections.
That said, a Peter Schiff campaign could raise issues. Libertarians can support Schiff – or Ron Paul – without becoming Republicans. Walking precincts, putting out a lawn sign, sending money can all be done without changing affiliation.
Wow! That is more than I thought it would be. I guess most of them must have been elected early in the century with a few ALP from New York after WWII. Am I close?
about one-half of 1%. Or, about two victories every election year.
Richard- Please give us some perspective on the 107 non-Ds and Rs who were elected to the House in the 20th century. What percentage of House races does that equate to?
How is that strategy working in the New Hampshire legislature? It certainly isn’t working for election law. New Hampshire is the only state in the last 15 years to have made it more difficult for a party to get “party status”. New Hampshire is one of only 3 states that has said it won’t permit presidential substitution. New Hampshire is one of only 4 states that won’t let voters register as members of unqualified parties. New Hampshire is the only New England state that hasn’t had any ballot-qualified parties (other than Dem or Rep) in the last 12 years. And not a single bill to fix any of these problems was introduced in the NH legislature this year. By contrast, bills to improve things for minor parties were introduced this year in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
Well, guys and gals, the NH LP folks advocate running as an R or a D, and that’s exactly what they’re doing, and it’s working.
Plus, the LP doesn’t have statewide automatic ballot access. I’m working with several LP members in the GOP organizations here in NH. They really want to win, which is why they’re with the GOP and not the LP 😉
If someone gets elected as a Libertarian, he or she has a clear public mandate to work for libertarian policies. If someone gets elected as a Republican, there is no clear public voice that seems to tell that office-holder that he or she should do anything other than follow standard Republican Party behavior. So how someone gets elected influences what he or she is able to get done, even though the person is the same person.
I don’t think party loyalty should really mean anything. What does it matter if he’s a Libertarian or a Republican – he’s the same person either way.
The blog post reads: “We haven’t won anything in 40 years” and “we don’t have another 40 years to try.” Instead, he [Schiff] recommends joining the Republican party while it is in shambles in order to expand the influence of the libertarian wing.
This is nothing more than crass opportunism. The supposed libertarian wing of the RP has just as few “wins” under its belt as the LP itself. Small government? Constitutionalism? Safeguarding individual liberty? The representation of constituents as opposed to corporate pay masters?
In the 20th century, US House candidates who weren’t Democratic or Republican nominees were elected 107 times. In the 21st century (2002 thru 2008) there have been two such instances to the US House, plus two to the US Senate. It’s not true that it is impossible for non-major party nominees to get elected to Congress.
Working within the Republican Party (or the Democrat Party for that matter) or working to build the Libertarian Party does not have to be a one way or the other thing. I encourage people to do both! If one thinks that working within the Republican Party is the best thing to do that’s great, but just because you are doing this it doesn’t mean that you can’t support the Libertarian Party as a back up.
“it is rarely a good idea to insult your host, I think.”
No one there seemed insulted. They applauded him loudly.
I do not like the GOP in any way whatsoever and much prefer the third party route. However, considering the abject failure the LP has been, I think Schiff does have some points. Not that partisan politics is much of a great strategy to begin with…
It’s a stretch to call Schiff an “economist.” His degree’s in finance and accounting, with no PhD.
“Economic commentator,” sure.
If he prefers the RP libertarian/constitutionalist in the GOP approach, I wish him luck, but I’m personally unpersuaded. IF he runs, I’ve no problem with an L voting for him, perhaps the CTLP not opposing him.
I watch/read a lot of his stuff, and I often agree, but my assessment is he’s prone to a LOT of wild overstatement. I’d be very surprised to see him elected.
I think that Schiff, the LPCN, the national LP, and the liberty movement would have been better served if Schiff had come into the LPCN convention and said, “I’m running for US Senate as a Republican and in the interest of unity of the liberty movement I would like your endorsement.” I think his behavior was pretty rude; it is rarely a good idea to insult your host, I think.
Peter Schiff is just acting like a slave to the Republican Party, trying to obey master’s plans of going to third party meetings to just to make a statement of converting them to a party that will be dead in a couple of years. And that’s ironic since the Republican Party was originally supposed to oppose slavery.
@7 – There are good, competent strategic plans. Those which involve trying to herd cats often fail. Those which don’t can and will succeed in greater numbers over the next decade.
@3 – The GOP is, like the Democratic Party, closely held and owned/operated by the ruling class of this country. Taking it over simply isn’t possible. It’s more likely that the LP will become the majority in both houses of congress in 2012 than that you could take over the GOP in 200 years.
Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the ruling class that they’re up against.
There is no unitary RP or LP. They are assemblies of city, county, and state parties. Furthermore, while members of the LP like to think so, the LP is not the totality of the Libertarian movement, or even its most effective element.
What the LP and the LM lack is any kind of coordinated strategic plan, or for that matter, any individual strategic plan.
Infiltrating into the RP could be easily done on a selected individual city or county party basis. In many instances there is no RP at the city or county level, Do libertarians want to affect public policy, or just wave the libertarian banner?
Schiff is just dealing with reality. There are simply too many structural factors that make it very difficult for any third-party candidate to get elected (media, ballot access, voter frame-of-reference).
Of course it’d be great if we weren’t locked into a 2-party model. Taking over the Republican party and changing those structural forces is the only real practical way to make that happen.
Peter Schiff is absolutely correct. No Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Peace and Freedom, or any other third party candidate will ever be elected to the Senate or House of Representatives.
The socialist inclined third party folks should run as Democrats and capitalist inclined third party folks should run as Republicans.
By doggedly clinging to a third party, a candidate will never win election to offices higher than the city or county level.
Peter Schiff is absolutely correct. No Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Peace and Freedom, or any other third party candidate will ever be elected to the Senate or House of Representaives.
The socialist inclined third party folks should run as Democrats and capitalist inclined third party folks should run as Republicans.
By doggedly clinging to a third party, a candidate will never win election to offices higher than the city or county level.
The LP is intended to be a vehicle for liberty. If it fails at that then it would be reasonable to argue for a new way. Feel free to argue why keeping with the LP rather then taking over the RP will lead to more freedom.
I’d suspect infiltrating the RP is easier then growing the LP. I’m not really convinced one way or another is actually any better however.
LP members work within the republican party. = wrong.
hmm anyone ever invest with his “euro pacific capital”?