Politics in Two Dimensions

We have three rules for third party politics in the U.S. A party that follows all three has a chance. A party that breaks one of them is doomed to irrelevance.

• Rule 1: A successful third party must be moderate enough to win somewhere.
• Rule 2: A third party needs some principles.
• Rule 3: A third party must have a base of voters/activists that is indifferent to the difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

As long as we look at politics in terms of a left-right political spectrum, these rules are contradictory! A centrist party can obey Rules 1 and 3 but breaks Rule 2. A semi-radical conservative or liberal party violates Rule 3. An extremely radical liberal or conservative party can fulfill Rules 2 and 3 while violating Rule 1.

A party can survive with meager success by obeying Rules 2 and 3 while breaking Rule 1. Consider the membership dynamics of a new conservative party. Such a party could be appealing to many activists. However, many of those activists will continue to support the Republicans due to the lesser of two evils dilemma. The activists most likely to join/stay in are those who see little difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Yes, the Democrats are worse (from this perspective), but the difference is tiny to one far out on the right fringe. Thus, over time we can expect a party like the Constitution Party to radicalize. The same holds for the Greens, only in the other direction.

The Libertarian Party has also radicalized because of this mechanism, but its radicalism also stems from other factors: its ideological origins in axiomatic philosophy and its membership pledge. In theory a libertarian party could survive closer to the center, because libertarianism is not on the left-right axis. Libertarianism is about politics in more than one dimension.

From the beginning libertarianism has been about breaking away from left-right politics. Eventually, this became formalized by David Nolan with his famous Nolan Chart. According to this chart, liberalism is about increasing government control of the economy while reducing government control over personal behavior. Conversely, conservatism is about decreasing government control of the economy while increasing government control over personal behavior. Libertarianism is about decreasing government control of the economy and over personal behavior.

From a purely left-right perspective, the Libertarian Party is in the center; it is a moderate party of sorts. Thus, in theory it could fulfill Rule 1. Moreover, it is a coherent subset of moderates, thus fulfilling Rule 2. (An authoritarian party could also meet both of these criteria, for the same reasons.) Finally, the Libertarian Party supports a mix of liberal and conservative positions. There should be those that ascribe to such a mix who are equally dissatisfied with both the Republican and Democratic parties. Thus, the Libertarian Party should be able to fulfill Rule 3.

So, according to the previous paragraph, the LP fulfills all three rules. Thus, according to my theory, the LP should be much bigger than it is. So, is the theory wrong? Incomplete?

No. The analysis above is incomplete. If we use the Nolan Chart definition of “libertarian,” there are indeed many Americans who qualify as such. The Advocates for Self-Government have demonstrated such through the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. However, the Libertarian Party has historically defined the word “libertarian” otherwise. Membership in the LP requires that one “have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” This can and has been read to mean that one opposes all use of force other than for self defense. This can mean:

• No gun restrictions whatsoever – including personal nukes.
• Unlimited immigration rights.
• No taxes other than user fees.
• Legalization of all drugs.
• Legalization of prostitution.
• Elimination of all pre-emptive regulation. Punishment for harm cannot proceed until after harm has occurred. Thus no meat inspections, consumer safety regulations, etc. Torts only.
• No foreign aid or foreign intervention unless the U.S. has already been attacked.

Whatever the merits of these positions, they are not moderate. The LP has historically adopted a mix of extreme liberal and conservative positions. While such a mix may average out to be moderate using one-dimensional politics, few moderates accept such a mix. If we use the Nolan Chart and look at the positions of the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties from around the mid 1980s, we get:

The Libertarian Party is not a moderate party. It is near the extreme top of the Nolan Chart.

That said, the LP has run some moderate candidates at various levels. Some of them have won. (So have some extreme candidates.) One reason why the LP has been able to field moderate, mainstream candidates is that the party does attract a fair number of moderates. The Libertarian octant has room for people close enough to the mainstream to be able win elections. When the LP recruits using the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, it declares many moderately libertarian takers to be “libertarians.” Some of them join the party and become active, because they are otherwise politically homeless. That is, they are dissatisfied by both the Democratic and Republican party messages (Rule 3).

Alas, there are purists among the radicals in the party who work diligently to drive out the moderates. The membership oath gives them a weapon to do so and they use it. For this reason, the Libertarian Party has floundered despite having the potential to become big.

Recently, the Libertarian Reform Caucus has partially succeeded in getting the LP to adopt more moderate stands in its platform. This was accomplished through a combination of hard work, superior organization and a set of fortuitous circumstances: a parliamentary rule that allows a simple majority to get rid of an old plank, a recently rearranged platform that was in desperate need of rewording, a Portland Oregon convention location which made it very expensive for east coast Libertarians to attend, and a cruise ship California LP convention that made it very expensive for California Libertarians to attend their state convention. (Money correlates with moderation.)

However, the membership oath remains in the bylaws. So it is not clear if this victory by the moderates will be permanent. The radicals have historically been better organized and they may come out in force in 2008. Or, the moderates may be able to recruit more of their own into the LP to be able to finish the job in 2008. If the moderates succeed, then the LP does have the potential to start winning some serious races.

But they may not have the maximum potential available to a third party. The Libertarian Party still suffers from the lesser of two evils dilemma (Rule 3). There are at least two reasons for this problem, despite the fact the Libertarians practice politics in two dimensions. First, the political landscape shifted between the time the Nolan Chart was created and the 1990s when the LP got its act together. During this time the Republicans became more tolerant on social issues while the Democrats became less so.

When I was a teenager in the late 70s early 80s, the main source of broadcast news from a conservative perspective was Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. (The only other source I can recall was Wall St. Week.) This was the era of the Moral Majority and “Just Say No.” Towards the end of the decade we got the talk radio phenomenon, dominated by Rush Limbaugh, who featured rock and roll and naughty jokes. By the 90s the voice of the Republican Party was Newt Gingrich, a baby boomer with a less than stellar sexual record. Somewhere in this interval, William F. Buckley, Jr. and The National Review came out in favor of ending the War on Drugs.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton continued and extended the police state tactics instituted under Reagan. Tipper Gore was known for wanting to censor rock lyrics. On campus, the Left went from being free-spirited to being politically correct.

The mainstream party market positionings rotated counterclockwise.

The Republicans had moved to the upper right while the Democrats had moved toward the lower left. (At least in terms of appearances In actual practice Bill Clinton became quite fiscally conservative after losing Congress. He did sign onto welfare reform and presided over some very large cuts in the civilian non-defense federal workforce.) To run as a moderate Libertarian in a three way race was to rob votes from the Republican and help the Democrat to win. This was not helpful to the libertarian cause; so many moderate libertarians opted to support Republican candidates.

One possible solution would have been for the LP to not only moderate, but also position itself more to the left, emphasizing peace and personal freedom over low taxes and legal machine guns. This would achieve triangulation. I counseled some LP candidates to do just this. And I focused my own recruitment efforts in this area of the Nolan Chart.

Alas, the results were disappointing. No flood of votes or activists ensued. The results were non-zero, however. This approach did result in getting volunteer hours from some very committed activists on the campaigns I worked. And during much of this era the LP was ably led by an activist who was recruited from the left. But this was not enough.

And I now know why. And that why is the reason I believe that a properly positioned third party could become a major party, possibly eclipsing one of the two legacy parties. I will get to this opportunity in the next section, but first a conclusion to this section.

Before leaving the subject of triangulating using the Nolan Chart, let me note that the prospects for the LP are now greatly improved over the 1990s. With the Bush Administration the Republican Party has launched an all-out attack on the Bill of Rights, played international bully looking for wars to fight, and has dropped the pretense of economic conservatism. Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party has moderated its platform, due in large part to the efforts of the Libertarian Reform Caucus. Should this moderation stick, and rebranding occur political landscape becomes:

If the LP can contain its penchant for infighting, and spend its resources wisely, it could grow much larger under the current political conditions. At the moment the party has a more moderate platform than in the past, and it has a triangulated position on the Nolan Chart (at least as long as the neocons control the Republican Party).

But there is a better opportunity for a third party, one which is more stable vs. a shift in Republican leadership, one which achieves better triangulation, one which does a better job of solving this nation’s current problems.

Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next

Copyright 2007, Carl S. Milsted, Jr. All rights reserved.