The Libertarian Party of Colorado has sent a letter to the Colorado Democratic Party, calling on the organization and its members to return to the “moderate days of the 90’s” and a “Clintonian style” of governance. This is the second ketter sent by Libertarians to other parties in the state released this week.
The letter outlines several issues where the party feels state Democrats are “ignoring the greatest minority, the individual.” In it, the party cites COVID regulations, medical freedom, and a failure to respect the “rights and property of all Coloradans.” It also calls out Democrats for supporting policies that Libertarians claim are hindering the ability of “BIPOC Americans,” a term in social justice circles to mean “Black, Indigenous, and people of color,” to defend themselves and start businesses.
However, unlike an earlier letter sent to Republicans, this document does not propose any such agreement or political strategy. While it reads that the Libertarian Party of Colorado is “willing to work with members of your party that are willing to hear us out,” it doesn’t propose any further plans.
Earlier this week, the Colorado Republican Party’s Twitter account shared the letter sent to its organization by the Libertarian Party of Colorado. In that letter, Colorado Libertarians proposed fielding fewer candidates and avoiding districts where Republicans will choose to run “anti-establishment” and “Liberty-minded” candidates.
“We negotiated an unprecedented deal with [Libertarian Party of Colorado] that if we run more limited-government & pro-liberty nominees they won’t run spoiler candidates,” the Colorado Republican Party publicly stated about the letter, “Together we can break the stranglehold of Democrats’ one-party rule over Colorado.”
An important caveat, however, is that the Libertarian Party of Colorado retained the right to run candidates if they feel the Republicans don’t oblige their part of the agreement. Readers can view the text of the letter sent to the Colorado Democratic Party below:
“Dear Colorado Democrats,
Over the past few decades of your party ruling over Colorado we have seen a decline in every measurable way. The legislature has continued to grab more and more power for the state while leaving Coloradans worse off. The Libertarian Party of Colorado cannot stand by anymore while this happens to the state. Members of the party speak regularly about the minorities of this state being under threat by their fellow Americans. Yet this year you passed and tried to pass numerous laws that hinder the ability of BIPOC Americans to defend themselves. These laws effect the minorities you claim to want to protect usually at a greater rate than their white counterparts. Local members of your party left our schools defenseless and then used those tragedies to push for greater gun control as well as stripping parents of their rights.
The Democratic party claims it stands up for the minority while ignoring the greatest minority, the individual. Your policies lump people together without any regard for their personal needs and goals. During Covid many businesses were shut down that never reopened. You claim to support minority businesses yet you support overregulation that cripples BIPOC from even starting businesses. Under your leadership schools and places of worship were closed. You refused to give people the choice of medical free which you claim to support.
The Libertarian Party of Colorado is asking Colorado Democrats to look back toward their moderate days of the 90’s and seek a return to a Clintonian style. While we acknowledge that there are differences in our party platforms the Libertarian party has always and will always stand up for civil rights of the populace. We ask the Democratic party to truly respect the rights and property of all Coloradans. To use your abilities to free small businesses instead of shackling them. To allow Colorado to protect themselves and live the lives they want and pursue the prosperity they want.
We are willing to work with members of your party that are willing to hear us out like representatives Weiseman and Bacon. They were willing to hear us out on the “Assault Weapons Ban” bill. But we cannot stand by if members of your party continue to degrade our standard of living and put us at risk of greater harm.”
H/T to Darryl W. Perry for the letter.
“Bill Clinton’s statement that “the era of big government is over” was his reaction to the Republican victory, I guess, and an attempt to distance himself – via triangulation – from the Democrats in Congress, who were seen as the party of big government. Apparently it workeed – President Clinton was re-elected in 1996 with 49% of the vote, and Republicans kept control of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Polls indicate that 14% of voters voted for Clinton and for a Republican for Congress – 1 voter out of 7. And despite the pathetic attempt by Republicans to impeach Clinton after his re-election, the Republican leadership in Congress worked closely with Clinton for both good and bad policies.”
Republicans in ’96 gave up on the presidential race pretty early and put all their effort into retaining Congress. Dole saw his role as being the good soldier so didn’t publicly complain.
I do give the Contract With America some credit in light of how politics works now. They had concrete proposals they would do if elected and then they passed them…in the House. Doesn’t necessarily mean the Senate went along or that President Clinton did not veto them, but they held up their side of what they campaigned on. Compare to now where both parties in election season have no concrete proposals that are serious attempts at legislation. It’s what I think minor parties should do, get past the abstract nonsense, give me a bill with some legislative teeth in it and then get every candidate of that party in the election to sign on to it.
The ’94 election to me was a realignment election. It’s very clear that the country’s politics realigned in the ’90s. You can’t see it in the 2 presidential elections because Perot’s presence muddles it. Removing Perot we went from 1988 Bush/Dukakis to 2000 younger Bush/Gore. The country had shifted a lot in the interim. Think of the fact that one of the only eight states that backed Dukakis in 1988 was West Virginia!
It’s possible to give credit for a more moderate conservative lean on some items Clinton to a multitude of things. Think it’s fair to give credit to all these:
-the Democrats prior to 1992 had lost 3 straight presidential elections and so a la Republicans in 1952 were more willing to “go off the reservation” to win
-major Democrats in 1992 had given the race a pass thinking the elder Bush was a shoe-in for reelection and would wait for 1996, allowing a moderate to win that would mean a liberal could come back in 1996; cast aside Bill Clinton, one of the other major candidates in the primary was Massachusetts Congressman Paul Tsongas who wanted balanced budgets
-Clinton in the ’92 election was pro-NAFTA, a historically Republican conservative position
-Ross Perot’s performance in 1992 cast the 1996 race into the mold of whoever can win over Perot’s voters will win in ’96, so Clinton geared a lot of time toward them, midterm he had Gore go on Larry King in a debate with Perot to win an argument against him; his speech at the DNC in 1996 was geared toward winning Perot voters
-Republicans ran roughshod in 1994 changing the country’s political makeup overnight, Republicans had been the minority party in the House of Representatives beforehand for 40 consecutive years
There were several reasons Republicans won a majority in Congress in 1994. At the time the most common cause mentioned was the reaction the Clintons’ attempt to pass their national health care program. Even people who wanted more government subsidies for medical care saw the Clinton proposal as weirdly bureaucratic, and likely to cost more than it was worth.
I can’t see how the Assault Weapons ban can be credited as the cause of the Republican victory. Gun owners and others concerned with weapons bans already voted Republican overwhelmingly.
Ross Perot never explicitly urged people to vote Republican in 1994, although many Republican candidates made appeal to Perot voters.
Bill Clinton’s statement that “the era of big government is over” was his reaction to the Republican victory, I guess, and an attempt to distance himself – via triangulation – from the Democrats in Congress, who were seen as the party of big government. Apparently it workeed – President Clinton was re-elected in 1996 with 49% of the vote, and Republicans kept control of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Polls indicate that 14% of voters voted for Clinton and for a Republican for Congress – 1 voter out of 7. And despite the pathetic attempt by Republicans to impeach Clinton after his re-election, the Republican leadership in Congress worked closely with Clinton for both good and bad policies.
Jim, I googled and you are correct. It was in 1996.
And yet, I very distinctly remember it as being in 1995, shortly after the Republicans took back Congress.
It’s strange, when one has a vivid memory of an event, yet the historical record differs. I mean, it’s not a recent memory. I’ve had this specific memory for decades.
There certainly was something driving voter turnout for Republicans, but it wasn’t Gingrich’s Contract With America. Republicans won in 1994 because Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban six weeks before the election. That is the reason Clinton himself has given for Democratic losses that year.
Some of the provisions in Gingrich’s Contract With America were popular individually, but no one actually read it. A quick google search shows a New York Times/CBS poll from April 95 – six months after the election – which said still only 38% of Americans had even heard of it. That number was even lower prior to the election. The reason: the Contract With America was only rolled out 6 weeks prior to the election, at about the same time as the Assault Weapons Ban was signed. And a federal ban on assault weapons is a bigger motivator for turnout than limiting the terms of committee chairs and banning proxy votes in committees. I’m sure voters cared deeply about requiring committee meetings to be open to the public, but there simply isn’t the same GOTV operation that pro-gun groups have.
Clinton’s “The era of big government is over” line came in the January 1996 state of the union address. That was 14 months after the 1994 election and aimed squarely at the 1996 Ross Perot campaign.
Jim: Clinton and the 90s Democrats were pushed into a modestly more limited government, fiscal conservative position by Ross Perot.
I think Newt Gingrich had more to do with that. His 1994 Contract with America helped the GOP win both houses of Congress.
That’s what compelled Clinton to famously state, two months later in his 1995 State of the Union address, that “The era of Big Government is over.”
Implicit in these letters is the notion that political party organization officers have the authority and ability to dictate policy positions and individual courses of action to their members and voting base. This is backwards, political party organizations are subordinate to and exist to serve members specifically and the voting base more generally. Colorado’s nominating process for partisan candidates is such that party members do have considerable ability to control nominees but the membership is in no way required to follow the commands of party officers, candidates may seek to be nominated by petition instead of through the assembly process, and individuals retain full autonomy to hold to the positions they choose.
In short, the LPCO cannot tell all Colorado Libertarians what to do, the Colorado GOP cannot tell all Colorado Republicans what to do, and the Colorado Democrat Party cannot tell all Colorado Democrats what to do. Actions taken predicated on such a presumption of top-down control are usurpation and, in all but the limited influence in candidate nomination, unenforceable.
Like Polis, Bill Clinton was somewhat of an outlier in the Democratic party over the last century. Clinton and the 90s Democrats were pushed into a modestly more limited government, fiscal conservative position by Ross Perot.
However, they did still pass the assault weapons ban and pushed HillaryCare.
A reasonably well written letter, but the ending threat has no teeth. What is the threat? Are they planning to violate their sacred NAP?