Did You Ever Have To Make Up Your Mind, The Third?

I'd like to thank Lisa Renee & Steve for their ProLibertarian comments on my last-Tuesday post, and I also checked out the NeoLibertarian website which was recommended. It throttled about the head what I thought I knew about the movement, and made me realize that even within smaller parties there is room for changing points of view.

The article threw me off a bit, because I reviewed a post about Murtha My Dear, and there was a great deal of challenge to his "facts" that left me a little cold. One of the things I've always liked about my Libertarians is that they tend to be against involvement in foreign affairs. However, the author did not convince me that the war has been worth it, just that some figures are not quite as bad as they seem. I'm sure though, with as many people who state they are Libertarian (such as Joe Scarborough), there is much room for argument on ALL arguments, including the war. I still see valid points in many of the other posts.

I'd also like to add that the Libertarians are a force that demand attention. The party may not be making huge waves in presidential elections yet, but local, state and US House elections have seen many turns toward Libertarian candidates. California, for instance, had several double digit percentages for Libertarians running for US House seats in 2004, with the 11th district candidate, Jerry McNerney, taking 39% *(please see correction below)! Now wouldn't that be interesting if we could have a Libertarian in national office soon?!

But I've said enough about the Libertarian Party, there are other voices that are stirring up trouble for the two-party system as well. In the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate race, Arlen Spector, (now in his 50th term) should have had no problem defeating Democrat Joseph Hoeffel. Well, he did win by 11%, but there was an another 4% that Rick Santorum (had it been his year) certainly would have kept. These votes went to James N. Clymer, running on another one of those third party tickets. Many Republicans had more than misgivings with Spector due to possible decisions he would make on future judiciary nominees for their views on abortion. However, Spector just being moderate was enough of a sticking point for a the greater central portion of PA, which is conservative enough to earn nickname Pennsyltucky.

The Democratic and Rebublican parties are great corporations (says Ralph Nader, I believe), like CocaCola or the Catholic Church, and full of people who do not feel their views are expressed by the two-party system. For the Democratic disaffected, I posted about the Greens two weeks ago. For the Republican unsatisfied I posted about the Libertarians last week, but there is another side of the Republican mind that cannot find comfort in the Libertarian Party, so I offer that the Constitution Party may be a better fit.

I have heard many Republicans claim to be Libertarians in philosophy. Libertarians want government out of their business almost completely. The Republicans pick up on this at times. There are some similarities, such as tax reform and smaller government, which Libertarians embrace and Republicans are supposed to be for. But there is no mention of God that I have found on the Libertarian website, and there is a push for the decriminalization of drugs. For the Constitution Party, however, there are distinct differences from Libertarians, and a much more conservative agenda than mainstream Republicans. From the main page of the official website, it is stated, "Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations."

The Constitution Party mission statement is stated:

"The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations."

The history of the CP states:

The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro-life, pro-gun, pro-American sovereignty and independence, and in favor of a strong national defense. It is also the only party that is anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, and anti-unchecked immigration. We also oppose special rights for homosexuals, the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws,and both foreign aid and military interventionism.

These focus areas are a departure in many key areas from the Libertarians, and in complete opposition to the Greens. Clearly, not my kind of party. However I wouldn't mind if they stole a large portion of the far-right Republicans to bring the party into a more centrist "John McCain" area.

The Constitution Party, (American Independent Party in California) developed from the U.S. Taxpayer's Party, formed before the 1992 election. It was in 1999, gearing up for the 2000 election, that the name changed to the Constitution Party to reflect the fact that it's members were interested in the bible.

The Taxpayers, just starting a run in '92, only won 43369 votes (0.04%), but earned 184,820 (0.19%) in 1996. Then, possibly due to a name change that departed from a symbolic "anti-tax vote" or the competition from Pat Buchanan's hijack of the Reform Party (taking 0.43%), the newly named Constitution Party received only 0.09% of the 2000 election votes. It rose marginally to 0.13% in 2004.

The Constitution Party is gaining momentum is some states, such as Pennsylvania, but as the Greens have done to the Democrats, The Constitutionalists are taking a strong voice away from the Republicans. Much of what I've heard on the news about Bush's judicial nominees comes down to the religious base, if they continue to defect to the Constitution Party, the Republicans may no longer be annoying to me.

For now, like the Greens, the majority of their votes seem to be over a dissatisfaction with a major party. Maybe this is because they are still a recently created group, but there has been very little buzz about their message, and little or no movement toward candidates winning double-digit percentages of the vote. Like the Greens, however, I continue to hear talk about the party, so if things continue status quo for the Republicans, we may see a spoiler in a near future election from the Constitution Party. I wouldn't doubt that 2008 will be rife with voters looking for new places to throw away their votes.

* It has been brought to my attention that the Washington Post information regarding Jerry McNerney was incorrect. He is a Democrat, which would certainly explain the high numbers. Perhaps the words Liberal and Libertarian are too similar. However several of the other double digit California Libertarians do appear to be, in fact, Libertarians. Unfortunately I cannot find a way to strike-out text on Blogger, but the mistake will remain with this correction according to blog etiquette. Thanks to Matt for the real information.