Glenn Reynolds:

The good news for each party is that they only have to run against the other, and not against a competent one. The bad news for each party is that the same thing is true for their opposition. As I've noted before, it's like the Special Olympics of politics or something.

Yes. Whenever I see these approval ratings, I'm always amused at the thought of how many people will draw false conclusions from them. There is no point during his administration at which, had you asked me, I would have expressed approval of George Bush. I've thought that the country is on the "wrong track" my entire life (to cite another stupid poll question). Yet I was glad he won both times, because the alternative was much worse. I strongly disapprove of the Republicans in Congress. I disapprove of the Dems even more. I don't know how many are like me, but if there are a lot, then one can't draw any grand conclusions about the Dems' electoral prospects from simple approval ratings of either the president or the Congress.

I wonder how much support there would be for a party that was generally libertarian, except with a sane (i.e., not isolationist) foreign policy. I know I'd sign up in a New York minute.

[Update at 4:30 PM EDT]

Russ Mitchell has similar thoughts.

AMEN. Hell, I'm unelectable, but I might even run. But try to get the LP to figure that out...
the only way to do that is to show up at the convention in such numbers that you muscle out the isolationists. And THAT takes serious cadre.

If you're interested, I thrashed my own last night on just this topic:
http://boxingalcibiades.bl*gsp*t.com/2006/04/insanity-of-modern-libertarianism.html

aka, sign me up for my rubber room.

Anyone give any credance to the concepts
of the http://www.freestateproject.org/

The concept of concentrating the libertarian minded people in a small state.... I think it has more prospect for winning than any other solution.

I used to live in NH, now I live in the peoples republic of CA.

Paul

I've actually come to think that another party could be viable, but it would have to be run very well. I don't think "one issue" parties are viable at all, but if there are people who share a broader common mindset, I think they can pull it off.

The key, though, is to initially forget about national races. Assemble candidates for every office (or many offices at least) in a physically contiguous area. It doesn't have to be state wide, even... but don't run someone for statewide office unless you have candidates running for most of the lower offices.

The key to being a contender in a first-past-the-post race is being _seen_ as a contender. If you are viewed as a spoiler, you will not make the top two. But, if the electorate sees that you have carefully invested in your organization, and if they don't consider a candidate as stunts or once-off flukes, you can gain some traction.

That, and run someone with some social skills. :) That always tends to help.

Rather than promoting another party, I wish people with leadership skills and their heads screwed on straight would get angry enough to challenge the Dems and Reps in their primaries. The entire House and 1/3 of the Senate could be replaced this year if the right people would come forward and challenge the incumbents.

It's extraordinarily difficult to knock off an incumbent in a primary, and only occurs under unusual circumstances. The incumbent can almost always count on party support, because no party is willing to give up an existing seat. Maybe the blogosphere can change those odds, but there's no evidence of it to date.

I saw Markos Moulitsas Zuniga speak last night.

Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi were the people he seemed most opposed to - - the business as usual Democrats. He said Democrats need to support the 2nd Amendment and forgot about all that gun control nonsense. Also, Jim Webb (former US Navy Secy under Reagan) is someone Kos supports strongly. Hardly an "anti-war" type of guy even if he is anti-this-war. Joe Sestak running for the House (Naval Academy grad former and former commander of a US carrier battle group) is another anti-this-war not anti-war in general Democrat.

One of this things Kos advocates is "an eviction from the party's inner circle of the shrill single-issue advocacy groups (like NARAL Pro-Choice America) that demand absolute fealty to their positions" and here is a book review:

Crashing the Gate could have degenerated into a rambling, insular, self-congratulatory testimonial about how liberal blogs have changed politics. Instead, Moulitsas and Armstrong have written a lucid, concise, and deeply insightful book that exposes the Democratic Party as a moribund Beltway-centered apparatus stuck in neutral with greedy consultants, old campaigning tactics that no longer work, and party elites who grasp their ever-shrinking fiefdom and resist anyone who dares to challenge their authority.

Click the link and watch the TV ad. The folks needing a kick in the rear are the Democratic leadership.

Broken link: http://www.crashingthegate.com

Find the ad and watch it. The donkey gets kicked in the . . . :-)

Anyway, just remember Rand's post started with a link to Glenn Reynolds who wrote that maybe Kos was onto something.

We have created a political system that in effect takes a normal ordinary citizen, rich or poor, and transforms them into political whores. We then all gather every couple of years and complain about the fact that the only viable candidates are whores. Then using convoluted logic we concede though that may be true, they’re OUR whores and we should support them. Then a few months after they are elected we are disappointed by their behavior, when it’s we who should be disappointed with ourselves. After all they’re whores, what did we expect? jjs

"I wonder how much support there would be for a party that was generally libertarian, except with a sane (i.e., not isolationist) foreign policy. I know I'd sign up in a New York minute."

Lots, but politics is so ugly the chance a party of that type could become viable is slim. Look at how Ross Perot caught the imagination of so many before he imploded.

I think before it could happen a constitutional crisis would be needed that forced congress and the executive to limit it's powers to what the constitution says they should be limited to.

Look at how Ross Perot caught the imagination of so many before he imploded.

That's not a useful example. The Reform Party wasn't a political party with any coherent set of principles--it was simply a Ross Perot cult.

Boy,is that ever right. If you find one, Rand, sign me up, too.