In this week’s “radio address” Steve discusses his vision for addressing environmental issues through the market and grassroots citizen action:
When I talk with young Americans about the Libertarian Party and the future of our environment, I hear two things from them: That they’re unhappy with the choices being offered them by the “major parties” … and that what they’re looking for is a future of hope and opportunity, not a life of fighting relentlessly just to hold the line and perhaps do as well as their parents did. And when I tell them about the future that we have to offer, their eyes light up.
The challenges and problems that we face as a nation are very real, but there’s a flip side to the coin. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of the environment.
Yes, we are addicted to foreign oil. Yes, our energy industry is addicted to subsidies. And worst of all, the environment is being trashed by irresponsible corporations, right before our eyes. But on the other side of the mountain, there’s a future where we supply our needs with domestically produced, renewable, environmentally friendly energy provided by a competitive, unsubsidized free market for hemp and biodiesel.
Tune in for more:
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
I’m liking where this campaign is going. Positive, left-leaning without being annoying, yes. Good stuff all around.
We’re trying
For a couple of years, I’ve been saying that the LP needs to aim its outreach for the 2008 election cycle substantially to a particular “left” demographic — the younger set that (according to a new study released in the last few days) is finally becoming very politically active.
These are potential supporters who not only have no investment in the “major parties,” but who have been extremely disappointed in the performance of those parties over the last few years (those supporters’ formative years). I’m talking the 20-30 demographic here. They tend to be “socially libertarian” — anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-sexual-orientation-discrimination, etc., and hopefully they’re still open to persuasion on the economic side of things.
I’m happy that Kubby agrees that this is the way to go, and that he has a background which lends itself to that — and not just on the drug war. He founded and operated one of the first “eco-camps” for youth, Earth Camp One, in the 70s (described by National Geographic at the time as the best youth camp in the world). He’s what you might call a “redwood libertarian” in that he fits in with and gets along with the environmental set, and shares their concerns. He drives a biodiesel-powered vehicle, that kind of thing.
I’m by no means a prophet or anything, nor have I been the only person advocating this approach … but the entry of Ron Paul into the GOP primary race instantly makes it even more sensible. Lots of “right” libertarians are inclined, or at least willing, to support Paul, so the LP is probably going to “make its money” this time around — if at all — on the people who are looking for a libertarian alternative but who think of themselves as “left” rather than “right” when thinking in terms of that spectrum.
Phillies hasn’t emphasized a “left” versus “right” orientation in particular, or at least as much, but he has some credentials there as well. He’s been an ACLU activist, he’s emphasized “civil liberties” issues more than economic issues so far in his campaign and, like Kubby, he’s crossed the line in the political sand from climate change denial to proposing libertarian solutions.
Christine Smith has also somewhat emphasized an at least nominally “left” orientation with her praise of Gore Vidal and such (although Vidal himself has recently brought up the coincidence of “new left and old right” a la Rothbard).
Odd man out in this whole area seems to be Wayne Root. He seems to be pitching a “Republican, only I really mean it” line in a lot of respects (taxes, etc.) above and beyond the whole “image” thing. I’m trying to say nice things about Root when I can — if for no other reason than to balance out my less flattering comments — so I’ll report here that if you do a search on Root’s name and the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s URL, you’ll find some letters to the editor from him circa 2003-2005, i.e. before he was touted as a presidential candidate, that are very anti-tax and at least Goldwaterish, if not radically libertarian, in tone. I don’t agree that that’s a position that’s going to be a big voter draw for the LP this cycle, but at least it separates him from, say, Daniel Imperato, whose platform is only just now changing in an obvious (and not especially convincing) attempt to become “more libertarian” now that he’s seeking our nomination.
I just quickly looked over the “Imperato for President 2008″ website. Call me completely unimpressed. You can SAY that his platform is “only just now changing” but it needs to change a hell of a lot more than what I see on May 14, 2007….
Are you sure he’s asking for the Libertarian nod ?
I see phrases like “stricter regulation”, “workers rights”, “stricter guidelines for foreign-made goods”, “Government subsized”… want me to go on ?
that was “Government subsidized” lol. My slipup.
Tom,
Yes, Imperato is now an announced candidate for the LP’s nomination, he is attending LP conventions, he is distributing brochures which identify him as a Libertarian candidate for president, and it is my understanding (I won’t reveal my source on that, so take it any way you like) that he has recently made a substantial financial contribution to the national LP (well in excess of the amount required for “Life Membership”).
I have it on the authority of several people who have heard him speak or talked personally with him that he says he is “learning about libertarianism” and “changing his platform to be more libertarian.” I don’t have his “Libertarian for President” brochure in front of me, but I’ll try to find it. One thing he advocates in it is “saving” Social Security by making contributions to its trust fund the only tax-deductible charitable donation. Um … weird.
I don’t have anything against the guy, and I haven’t met or spoken with him, but I have yet to meet an LP member who has decided to support him. The rejection doesn’t seem to be personal, but more along the lines of “wow … did he make a wrong turn at Albuquerque or something?”
If this guy really is for “Government subsized”, then he sounds alright to me!
But, seriously, why would someone make such a substantial financial contribution to the national LP and declare his intention to be its presidential nominee when he is apparently just beginning to learn what libertarianism is all about? This makes me view his candidacy with the same degree of skepticism I have for Mr. Root.
Robert,
Imperato started running for president as an “Independent” some time ago.
I suppose it’s possible that he really is undergoing some kind of genuine ideological conversion, “on the move.” In my opinion, it’s better to do that before running for president than while running for president.
On the other hand, it could be that he just thinks it will be easier to hijack the LP’s ballot access and such than to do it all from scratch, and is willing to say whatever he thinks he has to say to do that.
Tom, that sounds much more likely.
Ballot hijack (which I believe is Imp’s purpose in courting Libs) will definitely be a failed strategy for him, as he should understand from the fact that Libertarians nominate in convention. I wish he would understand that, as I think he can do some genuine damage to the Party before he wastes his time and ours at the convention.
This is (one of many) good argument(s) against state-funded primary elections.
And speaking of the convention: what do we do about debates? I blush with shame to think of Root and Imperato yakking their fool heads off on C-Span. I predict a great deal of rowdiness and parliamentary wrangling.
Susan,
The convention debate is usually not a parliamentary matter — it’s an “entertainment function” operated by the convention’s hosts/contractors, not part of any official business.
In 2004, I believe that said hosts/contractors came up with a “menu” of requirements for candidates to participate — they had to have raised and spent more than $X and/or attended a minimum number of state conventions, and/or appeared on an LP primary ballot, etc. Not all of the requirements had to be met, but there was some kind of threshold. In any case, only three of the candidates (Badnarik, Nolan and Russo) met the requirements. Other candidates, including David Hollist and Jeffrey Diket didn’t, and were thus excluded.
If the contractors/hosts impose similar requirements this time, I suspect that Root and Imperato will easily meet those requirements. But, they might impose different requirements. No telling.
There are different kinds of “embarrassing candidates.”
Some of them will keep running, and show up at the convention, even if their fundraising totals come to $5 and a bowl of pasta, and even if they can be absolutely sure that they won’t poll ten delegate votes.
For others, embarrassment, or at least lack of making headway, is a two-way street. If Root and Imperato can be convincingly put out of the running in the next couple of months, they may disappear and be forgotten long before the convention.