• Home
  • Libertarian Party’s Future is at Fork in Road

Libertarian Party’s Future is at Fork in Road

William L. Kovacs

March 2021

Libertarian Party’s Future is at Fork in Road

After the 2020 election, there were several articles on the future of the Libertarian Party (“LP”) fighting to be heard in a duopoly, (“Democrats and Republicans”), a controlled political system. In “Guerrilla Politics” the author argues the LP should admit it cannot win significant elections, that ballot access is a “vanity project” and the party needs to focus on a few states and high-level races so it can be a “spoiler” to incumbents and at times, support the incumbent if it agrees with a few of LP principles. Another article in  LP.org discussed how the duopoly uses constant litigation to drain the resources of the LP.

While both articles provide interesting perspectives, both avoid the central question – does the LP want a future as a major political party?

http://ekoprevent.com/partnereink/bell-laboratories/ While the duopoly controls politics there are bright spots for LP

This question is asked against the stark reality that the duopoly controls 99.92% of all elected offices in the U.S., spent in the 2020 presidential race almost $3 billion dollars vs $2.9 million by the LP candidate; and obtained over 98% of the national vote. Even more humiliating to the LP is that out of 328 million citizens, the duopoly elected “sleepy” Joe Biden, a gaffe-prone, plagiarist who has difficulty with sentence structure and avoids answering questions on issues.

There are several very bright spots for the LP. It is the only minor party on the ballot of all 50 states, an impressive achievement. Moreover, a very recent Gallup poll finds 62 % of Americans stated a third party was needed, the highest level ever.

buy provigil egypt What is the goal of the LP?

The difficulty in commenting on the future of the LP is while its slogan is “The Party of Principle,” there is no discussion of how these principles translate into practical policies that improve life in the U.S. A statement of principles is merely a statement of surface-level belief. Fighting to transform principles into reality, is costly. It involves a tremendous amount of hard work, action, communications with people outside of the party circle, coalition building, education, recruitment, and an openness to others who might support many of the LP principles, but not all. In short, the LP must recognize political success is achieved by addition, not by principles.

Professor Devine, in his book on minor political parties, writes that for America’s third-largest political party, “there is growing disconnect between the party’s radical platform and the more mainstream, “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” policy preferences of its rank-and-file supporters.”

To be successful the LP must decide if it wants to be a political party that leads the nation or be a social club discussing political issues. With freedom under attack and censorship viewed as “truth-telling,” it is the perfect time for the LP to decide its fate. If the LP decides it wants to win elections it needs to continue its very effective ballot access litigation and its minimal efforts at candidate recruitment and education. But it must go well beyond the minimum.

heretically A few modest suggestions for the LP.

  • http://interform-uk.com/tv-film/ Explain how LP principles can be implemented to help the American people. This is essential since most Americans have little knowledge of the LP. 44% of Americans don’t even “know the correct definition of the party,” let alone its platform. Without knowing what it stands for, it is hard to vote for it. LP’s primary issues are individual freedom, free markets, freedom in personal relationships e.g., drug legalization, and a foreign policy used for defense rather than as the policeman of the world. LP has an opportunity to explain to a public locked in homes, under massive government surveillance, suffering assaults on privacy, paying for massive corporate bailouts and $5- 6 trillion spent on wars and nation-building, how its policies will make for a better U.S. Explaining its positions to the public will win significant additional support.
  • Develop coalitions with groups on specific issues of agreement. An excellent example is the decriminalization of drugs and prison reform. While there are many social organizations involved in this issue, there are also many minority organizations that have an interest in it. Reach out to the minority community, especially its business community, that has a strong history of entrepreneurship and is very understanding of the stigma of incarceration. Also, reach out to anti-war groups, they need allies as much as the LP does.
  • Consider the joint establishment of a litigation center with other minor parties to keep costs reasonable. Since all minor parties have similar concerns with the duopoly harassment on ballot access, having a cadre of experienced lawyers able to take on the cases nationwide is essential. Research how the many non -profit litigation centers have dramatically influenced the courts and national policy at a very reasonable cost.
  • Expand the legal theories beyond obtaining ballot access. Use the Civil Rights and Anti-trust laws to put an end to the constant harassment of litigation, and election law changes to deny ballot access to minor parties. Put the duopoly at financial risk by seeking damages for all the harm caused by a century-long conspiracy by the duopoly to deny civil rights and restrain trade.
  • Start this second to get on the debate stage for the presidential debates. Yes, the LP and Level the Playing Field, in June 2020, lost another case seeking to include minor parties in the debates. It is essential to grasp that judicial appointees are not dispensing justice; they were appointed to do the duopoly’s work. There are two options that have strong possibilities to put the LP message on stage.:
      1. Pass a law. Develop and have introduced legislation that has reasonable and achievable standards for participation by minor parties in the debates. Involve all minor parties in recruiting citizen lobbyists in every congressional district in the nation. Have them lobby their members of Congress and Senators in their home offices. Make the campaign local and public with visits and press releases. Make the campaign national by starting a social media campaign to raise awareness and support.
      2. Petition the IRS to deny non – profit status of the Commission on Presidential Debates (“CPD”). The CPD is merely a front organization for the two political parties. It uses tax-exempt status to raise money to host a debate that only provides exposure to the duopoly. In essence, corporations receive a tax deduction for making a political contribution. The IRS can investigate and change its status if it finds its goal is political, not educational. If big business loses the tax-deductibility of its “lobbying” contributions, the contributions evaporate. If the petition is denied sue the IRS.
  • Seriously think about this “wild and crazy option”. There is a large section of the electorate that would like to vote against Trump and Biden-type candidates, but it needs someone to vote for. If the LP wants a sizable part of those votes, it must nominate a candidate that has some name recognition, an ability to speak to the voters, a concise message that explains how libertarian policies would help Americans and can raise money. A few names come to mind: Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Massie, Jim Justice, or Justin Amash. Each of these candidates are proven vote-getters and can raise money. Each of them has the ability to secure over 15% of the vote. If that happens LP will be recognized as a major party and will have a massive impact on the 2024 election and future elections.

The LP is at a fork in the road. Its current path leads to irrelevancy under duopoly domination.  Taking the less traveled path has the chance to break the duopoly and start implementing libertarian principles. Shock the political system! It deserves it!

  • Home
  • Hostile Takeover of US by Major Political Parties

Hostile Takeover of US by Major Political Parties

William L. Kovacs

November 2019

Hostile Takeover of US by Major Political Parties

This article is the first in a series of articles addressing the question of how do Americans get control of their country from the Republican and Democratic parties (“R&D parties”) who have so manipulated election laws that the two parties have complete control of the government of the United States.

People think of monopolies/duopolies in a corporate sense; one or two businesses having exclusive control over a part of our economy either through legal privilege or concerted action. This control limits competition whenever it is exercised. When business acts anti-competitively, there are laws that can be applied to its unfair practices.

How does a society, however control large-scale concerted anti-competitive actions outside of business activity? Specifically, how can we control the concerted actions of the R&D parties that limit the ability of minor political parties or independent candidates to participate in the running of the government of the United States?

The R&D parties manipulate election laws to ensure one of their loyalists almost always wins the election. Controlling who wins directly translates into what laws are enacted, which citizens or corporations receive subsidies, who is taxed more or taxed less, how commerce is regulated and who will judge us should we violate any command.

According to David Nir, in an article in the Daily Kos that references Becoming a Candidate, a book by Jennifer Lawless, there are 519,682 elected officeholders in the United States. Of this total the Libertarian Party, in 2017, claims 168 of these officeholders; the Green Party in 2016 held 143 offices, and the Constitution Party holds 12 offices. Many of these positions are non-partisan offices. There are also, at least 26 Independent office holders, including 2 U.S. Senators who caucus with the Democrats, and 26 Democratic Vermont Progressives. A basic calculation places the third-party competitors’ share of the political market at 0.0006754%.

The R&D parties ruthlessly maintain control of the political marketplace. This occurs through the imposition of burdensome petition signature requirements on third-party candidates and the filing of costly lawsuits challenging the signatures on the petitions of third-party candidates to drain their scarce resources. There is also a complex aggregation of state laws that grant special ballot access to R&D party candidates, ranging from automatic ballot access to requiring fewer signatures on a qualifying petition.

What makes the power of the R&D parties so baffling is that political parties are not mentioned in our Constitution.  In fact, for the first several years of our Republic, there were no political parties. Moreover, the R&D parties maintain complete control of the political marketplace against the fact that 57% of Americans believe a third political party is needed, according to a Gallup poll.

How have we let this happen?

Political parties are nothing more than highly organized, demographically diverse, not-for-profit associations of individuals, arranged in a corporate structure, for the sole purpose of controlling all government in the United States and by extension, us. This monopoly, through its many affiliates, has officers in every nook and cranny in the nation to ensure that a member of an R&D party occupies every seat in government.

Beyond excluding citizens, with different political viewpoints, from participating in the governing of the nation, the R&D parties turn representative government on its head. Instead of allowing citizens to vote for a person who will serve as a fiduciary loyal to the Constitution and citizens; the R&D parties use their massive power to force us to vote for one of two individuals whose loyalty is primarily to the R&D parties.

This limiting of political ideas has led to decades of policy failures. On the most important issues the R&D parties are identical. Both parties have contributed to our massive national debt. Both have contributed to an extraordinarily costly and failed health care system. Both parties have supported continuous wars not approved by Congress. These are only a few of the failed policies of the R&D parties.

Action: Historically, third-parties have legally challenged such control alleging deprivations of constitutional rights, e.g. equal protection, due process and First Amendment. While there have been many successful legal challenges securing ballot access, this approach is a never-ending battle. The R&D parties merely change the law and force more challenges. The R&D parties always have ballot access and third – parties always struggle to get on the ballot.

A new approach is needed – one that combines constitutional challenges with federal statutes that allow for nationwide resolution and monetary damages. The R&D parties will never consent to an open political process. Therefore, third-parties must seek compensation for the deprivations inflicted on them by the R&D parties.

In the next several articles, I will explore ways in which third-parties may be able to use federal anti-trust and civil rights laws to permanently open the political process to all Americans.

This article was first published in The Libertarian Republic, August 21, 2019.

  • Home
  • Democrats Promise to Spend and Spend, But Republicans Spend More!

Democrats Promise to Spend and Spend, But Republicans Spend More!

William L. Kovacs

November 2019

Democrats Promise to Spend and Spend, But Republicans Spend More!

In every presidential election the Republican candidate runs as a conservative promising to reduce the debt and deficit. Democrats run with bold ideas to spend unlimited trillions to provide Medicare for all, eliminate student debt, raise teachers’ salaries, increase the minimum wage and in the 2020 election, to spend trillions upon trillions to eliminate fossil fuels and rebuild our entire economy into a “green utopia.” Republicans attack Democrats as crazy, uncontrolled spenders. Unfortunately, the statistics tell a different story.  Republicans like spending, even a little more than Democrats.

In the 2016 election candidate Trump ran as a conservative promising to wipe out the National Debt in eight years. The debt was $20 trillion when President Obama left office.

By February 2019 the National Debt hit a record of $22 trillion, a $2.065 trillion increase in two years. By May 2019 it became clear the tax cuts would not generate enough income to offset the lost revenue and under budget estimates, debt would rise to $29 trillion in eight years.

Then the kicker! In July 2019 Congress and the President arrived at a budget deal that suspends the debt limit thereby allowing the government to spend whatever it wants for two years. The estimated cost of the deal is $2.7 trillion for two years but it could be much more.

While one wild spending Republican president does not undercut decades of promises from conservatives to cut spending and reduce the deficit, some simple calculations undercut the myth that conservatives care about debt and deficit more than Democrats. In a well-researched May 12, 2019 article in The Balance, Kimberly Amadeo sets out increases to the National Debt by each President since Woodrow Wilson.

To non-academics like me her article provides all that is necessary to answer one simple question – Which of the two major political parties spends more of our money and puts us deeper in debt?

To answer this question, I start with Herbert Hoover since he followed Calvin Coolidge, the last president who added $0 to the National Debt. In fact, according to her statistics, Coolidge decreased the existing National Debt by 26%, a $5 billion decrease. Amadeo’s numbers are set out in fiscal years (“FY”) since FY’s reflect the amount each President signs into law. This approach avoids the fact that a new president assumes the prior president’s budget for the first year in office. The amounts are actual dollars, without any adjustment.  I simply added up the amounts spent by each Presidential administration per fiscal year and put them into two columns, Republican and Democrat, to determine which political party added the most to the National Debt?

President* Years Republican Democrat Total Deficit
Hoover 1930-1933 $ 6 billion $ 6 billion
F. Roosevelt 1934-1945 $ 236 billion $ 242 billion
H. Truman 1946-1953 $ 7 billion $ 249 billion
D. Eisenhower 1954-1961 $ 23 billion $ 272 billion
J. Kennedy 1962-1964 $ 23 billion $ 295 billion
L.B. Johnson 1965-1969 $ 42 billion $ 337 billion
R. Nixon 1970-1974 $ 121 billion $ 458 billion
G. Ford 1975-1977 $ 224 billion $ 682 billion
J. Carter 1978-1981 $ 299 billion $ 981 billion
R. Reagan 1982-1989 $ 1.860 T $ 2.841 T
G.H.W. Bush 1990-1993 $ 1.554 T $ 4.395 T
W. J. Clinton 1994-2001 $ 1.396 T $ 5.791 T
G.W. Bush 2002-2009 $ 5.849 T $ 11.640 T
B. Obama 2010-2017 $ 8.588 T $ 20.228 T
D. Trump** 2018-2021 $ 5.088 T $ 20.228 T
Party totals $ 14.725 T $ 10.519 T $ 24.474 T

*The FY deficit numbers for each President are based on the FY deficits stated by The Balance,        update August 26, 2019.

** Estimate of deficit based only on one term as President.

At the end of the Obama administration the two parties were almost statistically tied in the amount of debt they imposed on the nation. The seven Republican administrations imposed $9.637 trillion in debt. The seven Democratic administrations imposed $10.519 trillion. While both parties controlled the White House seven times during this period, the Democrats’ occupied the White House forty-eight years while the Republicans occupied it only forty years.  On a FY basis, Republicans, on average, increased debt by $241 billion a year whereas Democrats, on average, increased the debt by $219 billion a year.

The Trump administration however, is projected to add $5.088 trillion to the National Debt in his first term, leaving us with a National Debt of $24.474 trillion at the end of FY 2021. By comparison President Obama added $4.829 trillion to the National Debt in his first term. This time period however, includes the Great Recession and the added spending was necessary to hold off a depression.

Together, Obama’s two terms ($8.588 trillion of new debt) and the first term of the Trump administration ($5.088 trillion of new debt) added $13.676 trillion to the National Debt. Percentage wise the two administrations are responsible for 52% of the total National Debt. If there is a second term for the Trump administration, and it can hold the increase in the debt to projected amounts ($3.524 trillion), his administration would add $8.350 trillion to the national debt. Together, Obama’s $8.58 trillion and Trump’s $8.35 trillion would add almost $17 trillion to the national debt. Simply, Presidents Obama and Trump would be responsible for 59% of the nation’s national debt.

Therefore, after the first term of the Trump administration, conservative presidents, in their forty-four years in office, will have increased the national debt by $14.725 trillion whereas the wild-spending Democrats, in their forty-eight years in office, will have added  $10.519 trillion to the national debt.

So much for the myth that the Republicans care about debt and deficits? The moral of this story that Democrats tell the truth when they promise to spend our money and lots of it. Republicans merely tell us what we want to hear and when in office, they spend more of our money than Democrats.