The Libertarian Party – A Brief Overview

How the Libertarian Party Came to Be

It is August of 1971 – Richard Nixon is in office; our boys are still in Vietnam; the gold standard was just abandoned – and a small group of “Objectivists” inspired by Ayn Rand’s thinking heard Nixon’s speech about wage and price controls (Burns, 2007).  This proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.  Already quite displeased with the current trend in US politics and foreign policy (as demonstrated through our intervention in Vietnam), this small group of like-minded individuals continued to meet in Westminster, Colorado, trying to put a finger on exactly how much support this new movement had.  Membership increased in the ensuing months culminating in the official creation of the Libertarian Party by an eight member committee vote on December 11, 1971 (Winter).

It can be said that the Libertarian Party was born of the merging of two ideologies:  fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (Kirby and Boaz, 2010).  There was nothing conservative about a decision to control prices and wages.  This in fact was evidence of greater government control over the market place; in very apparent contradiction to the principles held by the Republican Party.  Libertarians sought to serve as an intermediary party for those that felt left out by the Democrats and Republicans.  The Libertarian Party was able to represent an interest in a smaller, less taxing, federal government while also speaking to a desire for more individual freedom (Burns, 2007).  The departure of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party from their respective platforms was the primary impetus for the creation of the Libertarian Party.  Or as put more plainly on the Libertarian Party website, “The Libertarian Party was created in December of 1971 by people who realized that the politicians had strayed from America’s original libertarian foundation, with disastrous results” (Libertarian Party).

In 1972 John Hospers and Tonie Nathan ran for the Libertarian Party in the presidential election.  Even though they only gained ballot access in two states, the party secured an electoral vote – the first ever for a female vice-presidential candidate.  The vote was cast by Roger MacBride, who in 1975, was selected as the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president (Burns, 2007).

Within the larger libertarian movement, smaller sub-ideologies had always existed, but managed to manifest itself in the form of a schism in the 1975 Libertarian Party convention.  How limited should “limited government” actually be, had always been an area of contention within the libertarian movement.  Some endorsed the entire absence of government in lieu of free market opportunities that fill the void where government once was, while the “minarchists” endorsed a strictly minimalist government where only the most basic of services are provided (Burns, 2007).  Anarchists split with the rest of the party when it was decided that they would not endorse illegal activity such as tax resistance.  The 1975 party platform was cemented through compromise when it was determined that a Libertarian could officially support the total absence of government as represented by the anarchist wing, or minimalist government as represented by others (Burns, 2007).

Support for the Libertarian Party and the “libertarian” Agenda

Placing a firm finger on the interest groups and voter groups that support the Libertarian Party can prove to be a tricky task.  Kirby and Boaz’s analysis (2010) of 2004, 2006, and 2008 ANES data demonstrates that supporters of Libertarian Party candidates do not self-identify as libertarians.  Their study shows that, when based on survey questions not directly referencing the term “libertarian” and instead focusing on self-identifying as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”, Libertarians are largely from a central swath of the political spectrum.  In other words, centrist Democrats, independents, and centrist Republicans, in sum account for the core of Libertarian Party support (Kirby and Boaz, 2010).

Drawing further upon the previously mentioned study, 2008 post-election surveys performed by ANES found that 14% of those surveyed considered themselves libertarian, roughly the same percentage in 2004.  Gallup polls have consistently found 20% of those surveyed to be libertarians, but use a more ambiguous question to make this judgment.   The CATO Institute commissioned Zogby to ask the ANES questions to just over a thousand voters from the 2006 election.  Kirby and Boaz found that “only 9 percent of the voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves as libertarians; 50% said “conservative” or “very conservative” and 31 percent said “moderate”” (Kirby and Boaz, 2010).  This again points to the importance of how questions about party subscription are posed and the choices presented when posing those questions.  When Zogby asked half the sample group an additional question not drawn from the ANES questions; “would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”, 59% of respondents answered in the affirmative.  The remaining half of the lot was asked the same question, adding “also known as libertarian” to the end.  44% of those asked this question responded yes (Kirby and Boaz, 2010).  This figure almost seems at odds with the general trend (noted above) of reluctance to self-identify as libertarian, but is quite promising for the party.  It would be fair to conclude that the Libertarian Party is in a constant state of flux – comprised of disaffected members of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Between 2004 and 2008, a Pew Research poll found that those that identify themselves as Republican had fallen 6% (Bartlett, 2008).  Kirby and Boaz (2010) point out that ANES data demonstrates that libertarians have had a strong tendency to vote Republican in recent presidential elections.  But in 1992, libertarians nearly split evenly amongst Bush, Clinton, and Perot.  This sway in support for the Libertarian Party is indicative of where their support comes from.  The fringe left of the Republican party and the fringe right of the Democratic party meet in the middle at times of party unrest to account for the swing in the data presented above.  “Government at all levels is too large, too expensive, woefully inefficient, arrogant, intrusive, and downright dangerous. Democratic and Republican politicians have created the status quo and do not intend to change it” (Libertarian Party).  This passage sums up succinctly why those that do – throw their support behind the Libertarian Party.

Is the Libertarian Party…Actually a Party, and if so, How?

During certain periods of the Libertarian Party’s existence it could be argued that it was not technically a party at all.  Ed Crane, National Libertarian Chair in the late 70s went on record stating “I strongly believe that the purpose of the Libertarian Party is 100% educational”, adding the caveat that, “This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to elect people to office” (Burns, 2007).  The central purpose of political parties is to get people elected to office.  They serve other purposes as well, but these all are in service of this main cause.  In the 70s the Libertarian Party’s objective was to educate first; get people elected second.  This in essence changes the Libertarian Party into something other than a political party.  In more recent times, there is little debate about the central purpose of the Libertarian Party – getting folks into office.  Libertarian Party members winning seats in state offices all across the US, as well as Ron Paul gaining ballot access in 46 states in 1988 and Andre Marrou  gaining access in all 50, demonstrates that the party was serving its central purpose (Libertarian Party).

The Libertarian Party currently serves the other functions that define a party as such, as well.  The party actively promotes their libertarian ideologies by running successful campaigns at the state level, advertising and mobilizing media attention, and authoring policy analysis and other forms of written persuasion.  They also have a party platform, which has been voted on by party members at the national convention, which espouses their positions on issues regarding government.  The party inspires loyalty in their die-hard supporters by having rallies, talk and television shows, and maintaining the Libertarian Party as the third largest party in the United States, a great source of pride amongst party members (Libertarian Party).   The party exists, in essence, to assure that all of these functions occur and that the party achieves its goal of getting libertarians elected into office.

It is clear that the Libertarian Party is a party of principle.  This is where the Libertarian party does its best work.  The principles of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are of prime importance to libertarians.  The endorsement of free market capitalism (in its truest practice, contrary to policy under republican governments) and personal liberty as exemplified in “legalize everything”, are both salient positions held by the Libertarian Party.  Freedom in your home and freedom in the marketplace are the two hallmarks of the Libertarian Party because of their success at promoting policies on agreed upon principles.

The Libertarian Party website focuses on their successes in getting candidates to run for office on the state or federal level over time.  What they cannot focus on is their success in getting candidates to actually win seats.  Sparse successes across states, like Alaska, have been witnessed, but a truly galvanizing number of seats just have not been filled by Libertarian Party members (Libertarian Party).  Trending over time, it seems that the Libertarian Party only exists as a result of disaffected Republican or Democrats, and lacks a firm body of its own from which to draw the political capital to truly get their own party members elected.  The Libertarian Party is playing against a “stacked deck” of sorts.  As laid out by Duverger’s Law, a single-member district plurality system (SMDP) deters the development of third party options by polarizing the decision making process.

Libertarian Party Effects on Voter Turnout and Interest Groups

Boaz and Kirby argue in “The Libertarian Vote” (2006) that “Libertarians are increasingly a swing vote, and they are a larger share of the electorate than the fabled “soccermoms” and “NASCAR dads.” And lately neither party has shown much interest in the libertarian vote, as Republicans counter big government liberalism with their own big government conservatism”.  It is clear from this conclusion, that from a perspective of numbers, the Libertarian Party brings no new players into the fold.  As mentioned earlier, the sum of their base is disaffected Republicans and Democrats who have also been consistently politically active.  The use of the term “swing vote” denotes action.  Their vote sways results in elections – no vote, no swing.  So, it is safe to conclude that the Libertarian Party does not make a significant impact on voter turnout.  Those that would vote Libertarian are already quite involved with politics and are not newly mobilized voters.   The influence of the SMDP system thwarts third party participation, so those that would vote for Libertarian Party candidates cannot because Libertarian candidates are not on the ballot, resulting in the swinging tendency accounted for in Boaz and Kirby’s study (Boaz and Kirby, 2006).

The Libertarian Party platform of smaller government and more individual freedom gives a number of political interest groups more political capital.  But, the Party’s similarity to an interest group makes this topic difficult to draw out.  Interest groups driven to see a change in drug laws align themselves with Libertarian candidates who generally feel that drug laws are not part of the federal government’s Constitutional mandate.  Simply stated, any group whose interests align with the Libertarian Party’s would aggregate more political capital than they once had.  Any group that supported reform aimed at lessening the impact of the federal government in your life, decreasing taxes, or increasing the personal freedoms of citizens to do as they wish as long as they do no harm to others, would find that they had more leverage.  The number of candidates that run under the Libertarian Party banner make this important.  In 2003, the Libertarian Party ran nearly 1700 candidates for office nationwide with more than 600 gaining seats in office (Libertarian Party).  The Boaz and Kirby (2006) study, based upon ANES figures from 2004, found that nearly 16 million libertarians voted in the presidential election.  This suggests that there is a great deal of power to be had by aligning your interest group with the Libertarian Party.

Response from the Two Major Parties[*]

There are a number or responses that the two entrenched parties in the United States take towards the Libertarian Party, and the greater third party movement as a whole (Eisner, 1993; Lewis-Beck and Squire, 1995).  Lewis-Beck and Squire’s article on ballot access concluded that “ruling major parties, exercising their preferences for office and ideology in an imperfect world, act with differential aggressiveness to keep third parties out”(1995).  Eisner (1993) argues that there are “considerable structural, political, and legal barriers third-party and independent candidates face as they endeavor both to amass voter support and to inform the electorate.”  He explains, as addressed above, the effect of Duverger’s Law on elections, and how campaign finance laws are “tilted” to benefit the Democrats and Republicans.  In addition he addresses the “omnipresent threat of” third parties “being co-opted or delegitimized” and restrictions to ballot access (Eisner, 1993).

Structurally speaking, the “winner-take-all” plurality system employed by the Electoral College directly assists in thwarting third party participation in presidential elections.  Eisner explains that “In plurality elections, party identification alone virtually assures that either the Democrats or the Republicans will emerge victorious. Faced with the prospect of narrowly losing in a state and getting nothing, a third party often succumbs to the pressure to moderate its agenda and coalesce with one of the major parties” (1993).  Given the dominance of the two major parties in holding down both houses of Congress over the last one hundred and fifty years, it is fair to conclude that neither party has any interest in adjusting the status quo to afford third parties an opportunity to challenge them on more level ground.

In addition to the structural impediments, legal speed bumps exist that further hamper the ability of third parties to have an impact on elections.  Campaign finance legislation is written in such a fashion as to make it extremely difficult to acquire federal campaign funds.  This compounds a third party’s initial status as underdog, given that “minor-party coffers” pale in comparison to those of the two major parties (Eisner, 1993).  Eisner asserts that this disparity between campaign funds fosters “an undemocratic influence on electoral politics”.  He concludes that the dominance Democrats and Republicans hold over decision making in Washington results in campaign finance regulations that “diminish the likelihood that a minor party can significantly affect an electoral outcome” (Eisner, 1993).  Ballot access is yet another legal obstacle with which third parties must contend.  The qualifications that must be met to gain ballot access are different state to state.  This puts third party candidates at a financial disadvantage.  Third party campaigns are presented with a dilemma – should they spend what little money they have on gaining ballot access in as many states as possible, an expensive and time intensive task, or, spend that money on media exposure, voter education, or other campaign expenses?  (Eisner, 1993)  When third party candidates have been successful in gaining nationwide ballot access, it has been a result of the personal fortunes of the candidates as demonstrated by Perot’s campaign and the 1980 vice-presidential campaign of David Koch of the Libertarian Party.  This points a damning finger at the impact campaign finance laws play in a third party’s ability to run a competitive campaign.

As noted above, data shows that libertarians and Libertarian Party members are swing voters in recent elections (Kirby and Boaz, 2010).  As a response to this trend, both parties seek to co-opt the fringe members who hold perspectives closest to their own.  Both parties strategically pick candidates to pander to particular, “micro-targeted” sections of swing voters that are projected to be of importance in one race or another (Eisner, 1993; Boaz and Kirby, 2006).  As demonstrated by Sarah Palin’s participation in recent rallies, the Republican Party is attempting to nestle the less extreme elements of the TEA Party movement under its wing.

In sum, the response of these entrenched parties has been to institutionally create “barriers, impediments, and constraints” in the path of the Libertarian Party.  The “winner-take-all” system of elections facilitates the bi-polarization of the contest into a decision for or against one of the major parties.  Democrats and Republicans pursue a legislative agenda that restricts the financial avenues available to third party candidates – the very funds that would make them more competitive.   Furthermore, with funds stretched so thinly, hard decisions must be made about the importance of wide ballot access versus the importance of more direct forms of contact with voters.  Lastly, much strategy is employed by both parties to court the attention of members who might swing in favor of the Democrats or Republicans.

Into the Future

What does the future hold for the Libertarian Party?

The Libertarian Party (and third parties in general) finds itself at a great institutional disadvantage.  The section above speaks to the severity of the situation.  Not touched upon above, is the importance of political socialization in the study of politics, and particularly when addressing the topic of third party participation in US politics.  Eisner writes:

The stranglehold the two major parties have on voters’ preferences and voting patterns is also a result of socialization. Voters are socialized into a two-party norm, one that is reinforced daily by the portrayal of elections as two-party contests. To vote for a third-party candidate is not only a rejection of the two major party candidates; it is a self-conscious breach of the loyalty to the two party system that is a central feature of the American voter’s political psyche (1993).

This stranglehold Eisner writes about is the most powerful response from the two parties, working in concert, to deter third party participation in US governance.  This political socialization is demonstrated throughout US schools and institutions of higher learning; such as the University of New Hampshire.  In this author’s opinion, the very class this paper has been prepared for, in fact, further cements the stranglehold that the two-party system paradigm holds on electoral politics.

The Libertarian Party was born out of dissatisfaction with the political climate in American government.  Unfortunately the reality of this two-party political system gives the Libertarians little hope for the future.  The systemic and institutional barrier created by the Democrats and Republicans greatly hinders any ability for a third party let alone the Libertarian Party, to have any meaningful impact without having their agenda co-opted by either of the two major parties.  If like-minded individuals have any chance of changing the political direction of this country they may need to find a way to change the political system first, if they are to have any chance of securing real meaningful political gains.

Works Cited

Bartlett, Bruce. “Does the Libertarian Party Matter?” Wall Street Journal [New York] 22 May 2008: A13. Print.

Boaz, David, and David Kirby. “The Libertarian Vote.” Policy Analysis 580 (2006). The Cato Institute, 18 Oct. 2006. Web. 20 Apr. 2010.

Burns, Jennifer. “O Libertarian, Where Is Thy Sting?” The Journal of Policy History 19.4 (2007). Web. 17 Apr. 2010.

Eisner, Keith D. “Non-Major-Party Candidates and Televised Presidential Debates: The Merits of Legislative Inclusion.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141.3 (1993): 973-1027. JSTOR. Web. 22 Apr. 2010.

Kirby, David, and David Boaz. “The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama.” Policy Analysis 658 (2010). The Cato Institute, 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 17 Apr. 2010.

Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Peverill Squire. “The Politics of Institutional Choice: Presidential Ballot Access for Third Parties in the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 25.3 (1995): 419-27. JSTOR. Web. 22 Apr. 2010.

“Our History | Libertarian Party.” Libertarian Party | Smaller Government | Lower Taxes | More Freedom. Web. 17 Apr. 2010. <http://www.lp.org/our-history>.

Thomburgh, Nathan. “The (Not So) Lunatic Fringe.” Time 21 July 2008: 36-39. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Apr. 2010.

Winter, Bill. “1971-2001: The Libertarian Party’s 30th Anniversary Year.” News Article. Web. 17 Apr. 2010. <http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3/message/9701>.

---

[*] The Libertarian Party is the United States’ third largest political party (Libertarian Party).  So, this section addresses more broadly the responses of the Republicans and Democrats to third parties in general given the size of their membership in contrast to smaller parties.