Election 2004  

The political do-si-do — For libertarians, the most interesting thing about the election is that it may persuade the Democrats that they need to broaden their coalition. The Republicans have largely abandoned both libertarian and traditional conservative positions, offering a number of opportunities for the Democrats. Their problem is how to get new voters without losing too many of those ones they already have.

One intriguing possibility is for the Democrats to come out in favor of the federal government going along with state laws permitting medical marijuana. Not only is that a relatively mild and politically popular step in the direction of scaling down the War on Drugs, it also lets them pick up the banner of federalism and decentralism — what used to be called "states' rights," although that isn't a likely label for the Democrats to use — which the Republicans have dropped. I was struck, watching the election returns, by the results in Montana. Bush carried the state with over 60% of the vote. So did a medical marijuana initiative.

Another possibility is for the Democrats to shift to supporting homeschooling and vouchers. That's much more risky in terms of internal party politics, since it would offend the teachers' unions, probably the most powerful faction within the party. But it is also likely to appeal to a lot of voters. One can imagine a candidate for the nomination in the next presidential election using that position to differentiate himself from the other Democrats. — David Friedman

Fun with numbers — The days after the 2004 election provided a wonderful opportunity for those of us who spend time online to watch the process by which rumor arises from the combination of wishful thinking and mathematical incompetence. My favorite example was a graphic widely offered around the net as proof that Bush stole the election by the use of rigged voting machines. It consisted of nine sets of bar graphs comparing exit polls to final vote counts — one each for nine states. Three were labeled paper ballot states, and in those three Bush did at best a little better in the vote count than in the poll. Six were labeled machine ballot states, and in each Bush did much better in the final vote than in the exit poll. So far as I could see, not a single one of the people citing that as clear evidence of vote fraud bothered to wonder just how the nine states being shown had been selected by whoever put together the graphic — clear evidence that not enough people have read "How to Lie With Statistics." — David Friedman

Looking Backward — The three biggest mistakes of the LP's national campaign:

1. Michael Badnarik's campaign staff estimated that it could raise $5 million dollars for the campaign during the five months between nomination and election. That's substantially more than Harry Browne, who was a master fundraiser, managed to raise in more than six years of hard fundraising for his two presidential campaigns. This was just plain idiotic. In fact, as of election eve, the campaign raised just under $1 million.
2. Acting on its idiotic assumption, the campaign signed a contract agreeing to pay film director and Libertarian activist Aaron Russo $250,000 to produce television commercials. This amounted to a quarter of the total funds raised by the campaign, and didn't include the purchase of any air time. Because of a contract dispute, the campaign paid Russo only $115,000 — still, that's 11.5% of all the money it raised.
3. The party nominated Richard Campagna for vice president mostly because of his promise that he could raise $500,000 for the campaign. There was nothing in Campagna's background to indicate that he possessed this ability, and there was a lot suggesting that he was more or less a flimflam man. In fact, he raised about $2,000. — R.W. Bradford

Another disappointment — The campaign of Judge Jim Gray, the LP standard-bearer, against entrenched incumbent Barbara Boxer in heavily Democratic California was also very discouraging. Gray is a proven vote-getter, an elected judge and an articulate and attractive candidate with a relatively well-financed campaign who faced an incumbent who was obviously going to be reelected with a huge majority. He was probably the best candidate the LP fielded in any race, and certainly would have been a better presidential candidate than any of the three men who sought the LP nomination. He finished fourth in the race, with only 2% of the vote. — R.W. Bradford

Not all the news was bad — Washington state Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders won reelection with more than 60% of the vote. He is an explicit libertarian and has been an extremely articulate and effective jurist. Republican Congressman and former LP presidential candidate Ron Paul was reelected without opposition.

Non-party libertarians generally fared much better than Libertarian Party candidates. So did Libertarian Party members running for nonpartisan office. Perhaps it is time to consider the possibility that the LP is an albatross around a candidate's neck, and that libertarians who seek public office should abandon the LP. — R.W. Bradford

© Copyright 2008, Liberty Foundation

Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.