Where’s the Fun in That?
the case that if the Libertarian Party produces better Presidential candidates it will get more votes. I think it’s the other way around: if the Libertarian candidate starts getting more votes it will attract better candidates. Right now the prize is not worth the effort to claim it. That would change with the increase in prestige of a higher vote share. Yes, the LP sucks ass in a thousand ways. But during our quadrennial magic show it’s a handy way to signify general preferences.
So what intrigues me about Radley’s argument is that it skips past the “Badnarik is too crazy to be President” non sequiter, asking “Is Badnarik too crazy to be a libertarian [spokesperson].”
Given how close this election is, even if Badnarik does worse than Harry Browne did in 2000, there’s a small chance that the LP could draw enough votes in a few states to tilt the outcome one way or the other. Should that happen, both Badnarik and the LP could get more media exposure than the LP’s gotten in years. I’m sorry, but I’m just not convinced that either Badnarik or the LP speaking on behalf of libertarianism to a national audience with limited exposure to the ideology would ultimately be good for libertarianism, the philosophy.
This is the best anti-Badnarik argument I’ve seen. It may even be germane, since Badnarik is apparently setting himself up as a Bush-killer. I’m not ultimately persuaded Radley’s way, though it’s a close call. To paraphrase Churchill, Badnarik is the worst voting option except for all the others. Worst-case scenario is Bush wins. (I’ll go into why with tomorrow’s endorsement post.) The second-worst case scenario is that Kerry wins in such a way as to convince Big Government Conservatism that it needs to offer even more free stuff next time round - more medical entitlements; more trade barriers; more domestic spending of all sorts. It’s certainly to the Libertarian Party’s shame, though, that the choice is as narrow as it is.
