The Darryl W. Perry for President campaign is pleased to announce its 2016 Presidential Campaign Platform. This is the first time since the two campaigns of Harry Browne (1996 & 2000) that a Libertarian candidate has had a Presidential Campaign Platform separate from the platform of the Libertarian Party.
The goal of the Darryl W. Perry for President campaign is to run the most libertarian presidential campaign in history, to promote the ideas of liberty as boldly and as often as possible, and to give as many people the chance to vote for an actual libertarian in November 2016!
That’s http://darrylwperry.com/platform/ for people who don’t scroll up…
The planned revisions have been made.
On a thread on FB, DWP said he is revising this document (the original post here).
There are different reasons for Libertarians to run for different offices.
Given the high cost of running a campaign, any Libertarian Party candidate who runs for President, Governor, or US Senate is not likely to win, or to even come close to winning. Why run for these offices given that a Libertarian Party candidate stands close to zero chance of winning?
1) Outreach, and movement/party building. President, Governor, and US Senate are the 3 offices of which the highest percent of the population pays attention, especially President. If your goal is to reach people with the Libertarian message, and to help grow the party and movement, these are the best offices for which to run.
I got involved in the Libertarian Party after seeing Harry Browne on C-SPAN back in 1996. I have met many, many Libertarians and small “l” libertarians how they got involved in the party/movement, and the number one answer that I hear is that it was because of a campaign, and that campaign was usually a campaign for President. The two candidate names that I hear the most frequently are Ron Paul and Harry Browne. Occasionally somebody will mention a candidate for Governor or US Senate. I can’t think of anyone I’ve met who said they got into the party or movement because of a candidate mentioning anyone who was not a candidate for President, Governor, or US Senate.
I have certainly talked to people who got involved in the Libertarian Party or movement because of a book, or because of a friend or family member or a random person whom they met, or because of a website, or because of an article they read in a magazine or newspaper, or because of somebody they heard on TV or the radio (in this case, a person who was not a candidate for office), but even so, the most common response I get is because of a candidate for President, Governor, or US Senate.
Less people care about lower level offices, and the lower level the office, the less most people care about it or pay attention to it.
2) Ballot access. Some states have a vote retention test to maintain ballot access that only applies to the percentage of the vote received for President or Governor.
Libertarians running to win just is not realistic unless they can raise in the same ballpark of money as the Democrats and Republicans raise. Offices like Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, etc.., are offices to which most people pay little attention, but given that they are state wide, they are still long shots for Libertarians to win, because most voters will just vote for their party slate, meaning that they will vote for whoever is running for the other offices on their ballot that is in the same party as their candidate for President, Governor, and US Senate (the office to which most people are likely to pay attention).
It is closer to being possible for a Libertarian to get elected to US House, but they’d have to raise a good $1 million – $2 million to stand a chance, and they’d also have to run an intelligent campaign.
Getting even closer to reality for Libertarians are races for state senate and state house/assembly, as in seats in state legislatures. This is the highest office that a Libertarian has ever been elected to and it has only happened in New Hampshire and Alaska, and the last time it happened was like 13 or 15 years ago. The Libertarian Party has come close to electing people to seats in state legislatures since then, but due to poor planning and strategy, and a lack of support from Libertarians nationally, coming close to getting elected to seats in state legislatures is the best Libertarians have done in a long time.
There really needs to be a more concerted effort to elect one or more Libertarians to seats in one more more state legislature in 2016. Not that this will necessarily lead to any big changes, because the Libertarian or Libertarians elected to seats in a state legislature(s) will just be outvoted, just like libertarian Republican Ron Paul was in Congress, but electing one or more Libertarians to seats in one or more state legislatures in 2016 would create more publicity for the party, and it would also be a much needed morale booster for Libertarian Party members.
Getting elected to a seat in a state legislature is going to take money (but not nearly as much as it would take to get elected to US House, or to an office higher than that), and a lot of hard work, and it is going to include lots of door-to-door canvassing and GOTV (Get Out The Vote) activity (including a voter registration drive, unless it is done in one of the few states that has election day voter registration).
The other office that Libertarians should target that can be a winnable race is the office of Sheriff, particularly in low population counties. Many people are sick and tired of being harassed by the police, and would love to have a Sheriff that respects the Bill Of Rights. A Libertarian Sheriff can appoint an unlimited amount of Libertarian Deputies. Federal agents are supposed to get permission from a county Sheriff before the come into a county. The Libertarian Sheriff can deny them permission. The federal agents may just ignore this, and it may not be realistic to ward the feds off, but at least they will not get any help from the local Sheriffs department. A Libertarian Sheriff can refuse to enforce any “laws” that violate individual rights, and a Libertarian Sheriff can fire anyone who works for the Sheriffs department that has violated individual rights.
Libertarians running for other offices like city/town council, county commission/board of supervisors, planning commission, library board of trustees, school board, water board, parks & recreation commission, etc…, is nice, but hardly anyone pays attention to these offices, and even if a Libertarian gets elected to one of these positions, they’ll just be outvoted on everything or almost everything, so unless a Libertarian majority is achieved on any of these boards/councils/commissions, the Libertarians elected to these positions is not likely to accomplish much.
I’ve been hearing people repeat the mantra of, “Libertarians should run for local offices.” ever since I joined the party in 1996, and it has not accomplished much of anything. The only way I could see it having a big impact would be if enough Libertarians migrated to the same area to where they could actually stand a realistic chance of gaining a Libertarian majority on these local city/town and/or county councils/boards/commissions.
Having a Libertarian elected to the Lee County Mosquito Control District, Area 4, in Florida is doing little to lead us to a libertarian society. Yes, this is one of the few offices in which a Libertarian is elected to right now.
Here is the list of current elected Libertarians from http://www.LP.org : https://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials
Sure, this list is better than nothing (and note that the list of elected Libertarians was much longer in the late 1990’s and early to mid 2000’s), and these are probably all well meaning people who are doing good work, but reality is that having a small handful of Libertarians elected to local councils/boards/commissions, where they are all outvoted on these councils/boards/commissions by Democrats and Republicans, is accomplishing little to advance the cause of liberty.
Robert – I’d want to see the numbers.
S: not considering that maybe voters are hungry for more authenticity, for something different than the status quo.
me: No doubt SOME voters hunger for non-suit wearing pols. But have there not been enough of those at this point to suggest that that approach also leads to single-digit outcomes?
Thank you, langa!
I do hope the Libertarian Party has a vibrant race for its presidential nomination, and that candidates like Darryl Perry are given a fair and equal opportunity to advance their nominations along with candidates like Gary Johnson (if he runs again).
This means, among other things, equal time at LP conventions.
I like Darryl, He has been consistent in his views for liberty since I’ve known him for the past few years.
Well said, Starchild.
Lots of Libertarian candidates who’ve obsessed over “being taken seriously” have gone down the road that “Seymour Results” insists is the only way to avoid “failure”, without themselves or the movement being any better off for it.
The Seymours of the LP tend to have a very narrow view of winning, which focuses only on what it means to “win” in conventional terms, not what it means to win in libertarian terms. They (understandably) crave short-term success, but in succumbing to this craving, they forget the long haul goal of building a strong freedom movement that changes the world. They act as if just getting more people in office with an ‘L’ next to their names will solve everything — that we don’t need to worry about what those individuals actually believe, or holding them accountable to a larger movement. Just focus on “winning” and the ideology and maintaining a culture of freedom in our party will take care of itself!
This is a fool’s game, a recipe for replicating the “success” of the Republicans and Democrats. And yes, if you think power is the goal, sure, the two-party cartel has been wildly successful! But if you think freedom is the goal, it has been an utter failure.
“No, no,” protest the gravitas-addicted L’s — “We’re not like that. We’ll be like the establishment in every way except our policies.” But if it makes a habit of walking like a duck and looking like a duck, puts every effort into projecting a duck-like image, and then finds itself surrounded by actual ducks, how successful is it likely to be at remembering and staying true to its porcupine heritage?
If Libertarians who engage in these tactical sell-outs actually got more votes, more publicity for the movement, had stronger coat-tails, etc., on a consistent basis, then there might be an argument that the cost of their various sell-outs, inauthenticities, and concessions to conformity is a small price for the movement to pay for the task of helping to clear a path for more principled libertarians, since most of the waddlers won’t get elected anyway and thus won’t have the chance to fully morph into ducks.
But compared with other candidates who focus on presenting a strong, principled message and work equally hard on their campaigns without allowing themselves to be ruled by fear of a lack of gravitas, I see no evidence that those who succumb to the fears and pressures have on the whole gotten measurably better results!
Among other bits of misguided conventional wisdom, the sartorial conformity of wearing a suit and tie (the uniform of the Washington and business establishments) is seriously overrated at this point — an old, tired trope. Celebrities regularly achieve massive popularity despite not being perpetually clad in “business attire”. Why do people think politics has to be different? It’s nothing but old-fashioned thinking along the lines of, “This is what everybody else in politics does, so I better do it too” — not considering that maybe voters are hungry for more authenticity, for something different than the status quo.
Harry Browne famously shaved his beard when he ran for president. Did this really help him? Or for every voter who thought, “Yeah, this guy looks presidential now, I can vote for him”, was there perhaps another member of the public who thought, “This guy looks like all the rest of the politicians who are part of the problem, why should I trust him”?
In the long view of history, and the interests of the freedom movement going forward, are we better off for having had a Harry Browne who shaved his beard because the people around him thought conformity made him more sellable, or would we be better served today by having had a leader who didn’t worry about such things?
People like “Seymour Results” want to beat you over the head with the advice of “campaign professionals” (i.e. mainly people who make a living helping Democrats and Republicans get and hold power) and make you think they have all the answers to such questions, or better yet don’t even ask them in the first place.
But when I see a Libertarian candidate who appears to be slickly packaging him or herself and engaging in conformist appearance and behavior in order to appeal to voters, this is a red flag that immediately raises the question, “What other compromises or concessions is this person going to make?
It makes me ask myself, “Will s/he have the guts, and the independent-mindedness, to stand strong for freedom in the face of the pressures s/he is going to be feeling from colleagues and special interests if s/he is actually elected?”
Sure, it doesn’t hurt to know how many votes it took an incumbent to get elected. But never confuse merely getting elected with actually winning! Many times a politician “winning” means the voters, and freedom, losing. Candidates almost invariably prove to be more statist once they get in office than they were on the campaign trail, and the longer they stay in power, the more statist they tend to become.
You’ve probably heard the old joke about how politicians, like diapers, need to be changed frequently, and for the same reason. Well, if your “diaper” is already soiled before it even gets put in place, you’ve got a problem!
My sense is that Darryl Perry doesn’t have that stink about him, and I hope he resists the misguided advice of those whose own frantic desire to “win” in conventional terms (never mind libertarian terms) leads them to sternly admonish him that he is in Rome and he better learn to smell like the Romans.
Wow! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. So much truth in what he says but so much heaviness and pessimism as well. I remember being told if Lyndon Johnson won the ’64 election there would never be another one. Sometimes getting old just gives one perspective.
I like Daryl. He’s a nice guy, and a real libertarian.
However, this also shows that he is delusional and strategically ineffectual. Not good. If he ran for State Legislature, promising to walk door-to-door in a suit and tie, spreading the libertarian message where it has a chance of having an impact, I’d gladly contribute to his campaign. In fact, he could also insure he does some good by handing out jury rights info while he talks to people about libertarianism. This would show (by social “signaling”) that he actually cares about what happens to the people in his district.
The trouble with big-L “libertarians” is that they think failure is acceptable, because their entire party is inured to failure, thanks to the people in the LP who decide how the money is spent.
If the LP wants to be taken seriously, it will have to financially incentivize people (especially those who pass the “sniff test” as non-delusional) to run for State Legislature. Most candidates are ego-maniacs who say they’re “in it to win it.” The very first thing they should be asked is: “How many votes did the incumbent get, in order to win?”
The very next question should be, “How many houses do you intend to walk to, door-to-door, in business attire?”
If the answer to either question indicates they don’t know, are uninformed, or won’t win, don’t give them a dime, any press, or any support.
Of course, the LP doesn’t support its candidates anyway, especially since their leadership works for the Ds and Rs (wittingly or not).
Luckily for Rand Paul, the LP won’t begin doing anything right until at least 2020, and probably not even then. Of course, if Rand Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination, there probably won’t be a presidential election in 2020. That will be enough time for the Ds and Rs to make a Libertarian Party “de facto” illegal. If / when that happens, we can all look back fondly on these times and wonder whether taking politics seriously could have saved us all from “dissenter’s prison.” Look on the bright side: if you wind up going to prison in NM, at least someone will profit.
Does anyone at least have a pic of Daryl where he’s smiling?