Libertarian Candidates: Don't Be Foolish

Before I get to the main point of this blog entry, I will ask that you forward it to Libertarians you know. Not every Libertarian, just those running for office...

I have a new rule. My old rule? It was easy: If there were Libertarians on the ballot, vote for them. The concept was that they probably wouldn't win, so their particular positions didn't matter, and what mattered was showing support for the Libertarian party and its role in local, state, and national politics.

My new rule is essentially my old rule with the addition of one vital ingredient: Responsibility. I need to be more responsible about the positions I support with my vote. And, more importantly, candidates need to be more responsible about the positions they adopt. This new rule will keep me from hurting a good candidate by supporting the party of a bad candidate. If candidates are aware of this rule, and realize that I'm not alone in seeing things this way, perhaps it will keep them from hurting the party by adopting ridiculous, scorn-deserving positions.

What makes a position worth supporting? It must have two key elements: It must fit into Libertarian ideals, and it must be prioritized in the same way that most voters would prioritize the issue in question. Note that I say "most voters" and not "most Libertarian voters." I find it infuriating when a Libertarian candidate makes a statement about some obscure issue as if it is highly important to the voting public. There is no quicker way to draw scorn on the Libertarian Party than to stridently defend obscure positions.

I will use, by way of example, the position that marijuana should be legalized, with regulation and taxes akin to what we currently see with tobacco and alcohol. This is a position I can support -- but I absolutely will not support a candidate who claims this is a "key" issue in voter's minds. Do voters think about it? Sure. Do some non-Libertarian voters agree with this position? Sure. Do most voters think it is a key issue? Of course not! Even if it has ties to things like terrorism, the economy, and other key issues, marijuana legalization by itself is a "fringe" issue. Any candidate who claims otherwise will not receive my vote, because I will not vote for a candidate who is so demonstrably out of touch with the public they wish to supposedly represent.

So, candidates, this is my plea to you: I want to vote for you, so please don't be foolish and throw away my opportunity to support you. Get your head out of Libertarian literature, and stop preaching to a tiny choir. You need to be fully in touch with what most voters -- regardless of party -- are interested in, what matters to them. This doesn't mean changing your ideals, just changing where you focus your ideals. Quit making a laughing stock of the LP by showing some political maturity, by showing that you're in touch with political realities.

Libertarian ideals can be applied to a vast swath of issues. Set aside your personal interests and focus on the issues that are in the hearts and minds of the entire public you seek to serve. Marijuana legalization, gay rights/marriage, gun ownership, and other non-core topics need to be footnotes to your campaign, not headlines.