on why the libertarian party isn't winning

TL;DR: while many libertarians think that the reason why their party hasn't gained traction is due to the powers that be of the two major parties are blocking them out, the real reasons have more to do with our election methods, as well as fatal flaws within the libertarian party platform itself.

 

so... why is the libertarian party not winning?

to me, there seem to be at least two compelling reasons.

1)

the first reason is due to how elections work.  

in short, doesn't matter if you have one candidate, two, three, or more, whichever candidate gets the most votes wins.  there are some examples of offices in various places and levels of government that use different schemes, like a two-phase run-off in cases where no one candidate gets 50%+1 of the ballots, but the same problems arise.

that type of election reinforces a two-party system, and only two. if a third party candidate gains traction, that candidate will leech votes away from the candidate prefered by the majority.  

for example, if you have two candidates, left and right, and a third candidate who is right-ish, the advantage goes to the left even though most of the voters went right (example: perot and bush vs clinton).  if the third candidate is left-ish, the advantage goes to the right even though most of the voters went left (example: anderson and carter vs reagan).

more details about this here:

https://jimbarryalloneword.blogspot.com/2020/10/on-voting-3rd-party.html

2)

what i want to hit in this article is another reason why libertarians aren't winning, and that is, their own platform doesn't resonate with enough americans.  imagine that. ;-)

i'll explain:

in short, pretty much every plank in the libertarian platform supports one or both of the following two rough ideas:

1. government: smaller size, shorter reaching, less intrusive, supporting more personal reliance. government can be a platform for achieving cost-benefits of regionalizing some services like public safety, civil law, infrastructure, (see, adam smith) although there are some differences in what direction and how far some of these things go, but in the end, the attitude that every problem must first or solely consider government in the solution needs to philosophically vanish.  in fact, most problems can be solved and most progress can be (and should be) achieved without government.

2. society: individual rights and responsibilities are paramount.  things like decriminalizing drugs, pro-choice, and when it comes to lgbtq, rather than accept and support them, the position is that they don't care and it shouldn't matter at all, to anyone other than the individual themselves.  someone's gender identity and sexual preference is their own business, and not up to anyone else to accept or support.  each human's path in life is theirs to pursue, and as long as their pursuit doesn't infringe on others' similar rights, there should be no judgment or consequence imposed by any other individual, group, religion, or government.

so how does that related to the other parties and social belief systems:

in short, 

a. while conservatives are mostly not fascists, the republican party does remotely point toward fascism, in that you can see it from here.  in other words, the extreme fringe of republicans/conservatives are fascists, and fascists who want to compromise and operate within our current political landscape prefer republicans.

b. while liberals are mostly not socialists, the democratic party does remotely point toward socialism, in that you can see it from here. in other words, the extreme fringe of democrats/liberals are socialists, and socialists who want to compromise and operate within our current political landscape prefer democrats.

then it might be helpful to think of libertarianism this way:

c. while libertarians are mostly not anarchists, the libertarian party does remotely point toward anarchism, in that you can see it from here.  in other words, the extreme fringe of libertarians are anarchists, and anarchists who want to compromise and operate within our current political landscape prefer libertarians.

the problem with libertarian party is that while many of their planks are appealing to both conservatives and liberals, not enough of the planks do.

meaning, those planks that deal with the role of government are very appealing to republicans, but the planks that deal with social progressivism run completely against their grain, to the point of being deal-breakers for them.

and those planks that deal with society are very appealing to democrats, but the planks that deal with personal liberty and smaller government responsibility run completely against their grain, to the point of being deal-breakers for them.

while it might be tempting to think that since the libertarian party has something for everyone, that means that the reason why they're not given a chance to support the true nature of american society must be for some reasons that are corrupt or unfair.  basically, that one of the only things the two major parties agree on is to keep the two-party system.  and when those two parties agree on something, whether the reasons for agreeing are the same or different, then that's what you're going to get.

in other words, the thought is that most americans would support the libertarian party and platform, given the chance, but that the powers that be have a stranglehold on power, preventing them from doing so.

while it might be tempting to believe that, and maybe there is some truth to that, i submit that this isn't the only reason.  some of the reasons why libertarians have failed so far is very fair, in that not enough americans resonate with most or all of their platform.  

basically, for most americans, while some of the libertarian platform is attractive, too much of the platform is abhorrent.  

liberals don't want a system with fewer government services and regulations. to them, government is there to protect individuals from corporations, and the rich and powerful.

conservatives don't want a system that supports the degradation of the moral fabric and obedient order of society.  to them, government is there to protect society from individuals who they feel threaten that.