It should be apparent to those of us who keep up with politics that the historical center has increasingly come under assault from both the left and the right. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the two impeachment trials of the former president. Presently, it looks as if he will be acquitted even though he has clearly committed impeachable offenses and violated the “high crimes and misdemeanors” bar as stated in the Constitution. And why? Because the Republicans have abandoned any pretense of probity to favor the far right of their party. In contrast, the Democrats have maintained their left of center moderates regardless of some far left members.
Historically, there have usually been two political parties in the United States, consisting of both conservative and liberal wings or members. This tended to moderate policy positions resulting in actions and legislation best described as left or right of center, avoiding either extreme. Parties were themselves coalitions of differing views as opposed to separate parties who came together to create coalition governments in what I would call the “European model.”
Third parties in the United States have never been very successful largely because they generally have focused on single issues which, if popular, were often highjacked by the major parties to attract votes. The Populist Party in the late 19th century, Ralph Nader’s Green Party in 1996, and Reform Party in 2004 are examples. One of the shortcomings of third parties for voters is that they appear too ideological and out of step with conventional or popular values. The Libertarian party is a case in point with its cocksure solutions to problems and contempt for opposing views.
We need two parties, conservative and liberal, with strong centers of moderates who can resist the tendencies toward the extremes. This has been, in my opinion, the real genius of American politics; it has kept us honest and on track to work for the vast majority of citizens, many of whom are apolitical and just getting on with their lives.
I became acutely aware of the downsides of right and left, radical and reactionary, politics when I was in and out of Central America in the 1980s and 1990s. This was the time of the Contras in Nicaragua and the civil war in El Salvador that featured the struggle between the far right party, Arena, and the Farabundo Marti (FMLN) on the left. It was clear that both wanted to eliminate the center so as to achieve power; they had a stake in continuing the violence. The 1980 assassination of Oscar Romero, Archbishop of El Salvador, who spoke out against poverty and social injustice is a poignant example.
The recent stirrings among Republicans discussing possibilities for a new party to replace or reform the present one offers hope. It is my opinion that if the Republican Party of Nixon’s day still existed, the impeachment and conviction of Trump would be a foregone conclusion.
Libertarians are not cocksure of anything except that they want to left alone to live their lives in liberty. As a political group, a political party, the only thing they do agree on is that they don’t believe in the initiation of force or coercion to achieve their goals. To be a member of the Libertarian Party you have to attest that you hold that view. What exactly is cocksure about that?
Libertarians don’t claim magic solutions to millennia of rule by force. They do say that the cycle of rule by force and coercion will only be broken when solutions are achieved without force or coercion. Until such time as we evolve to at least imagine that living together without forcing our individual – or group will – upon others, is a better solution, we can anticipate those being forced and coerced will push back.
Bottom line is that both the Republicans and the Democrats, as well the Greens, Communist, Constitutionalist, Socialist, Progressives, Fascists etc etc, bring solutions based on compelling other people to live and act as their special group thinks best. They are all authoritarians. They collaborate, coalesce, negotiate, posture and pontificate to pile together enough power to compel their will on others.
To say that possessing a love for liberty is “out of step with conventional and popular values” shows a total disconnect with understanding the national discontent. Probably hard to see way down here from way up there.
It might all be better understood thinking back to what those guys meant when they pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.” Just ideologues out of step I suppose.
Reading Mr. Aiken’s response is like being forced to listen to Trump’s lawyers attempt to justify the Capitol attack–perhaps worse!
Jack, your argument would be more credible if you had displayed the same concern and emotion during the last four years as the Trump administration trashed many of the principles and values of the Libertarian party.