Medved on libertarians

Michael Medved thinks libertarians are losers for not helping his gang gain power. [via Unqualified Offerings]

John Hawkins: Now you have a big problem with "Libertarians" or "Losertarians" as you call them. Why is that?

Michael Medved: It's because they cheapen whole definition of politics...You're talking about thousands of people over election after election, wasting their time, accomplishing absolutely nothing. See, I take politics very seriously. If God forbid, there had been a switch of 300 votes in Florida, if 300 people had voted differently or if 500 Republicans had decided to stay home, we would have had a very different President right now. This is serious business.

These people are of course exercising their rights, but I think it's about time, particularly with a party that has been around as long as the "Losertarians", for people to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. They're not gaining support, they're losing support.

What Medved is crucially wrong about is what cheapens politics is not refusal of libertarians to vote for the phants, but that politics is no longer an extension of ethics. Although Medved misses the fundamental ethical underpinning lying at the heart of libertarians' disapproval of the two parties currently in power, he is absolutely right about one thing - it is positively true that the Emperor has no clothes.

Share this

What has Medved ever

What has Medved ever accomplished with his vote?

I'm proud to "cheapen [the]

I'm proud to "cheapen [the] whole definition of politics." Politics is a dirty word and it deserves to be cheapened.

I always find the argument that people who vote for third-party candidates are wasting their time incredibly silly. Voting for any candidate is a waste of time, as the chances of one vote having an impact on the outcome of the election is next to nil.

500 Republicans had decided to stay home, we would have had a very different President right now.

And possibly a much better one. But I doubt it. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

And yes, the Libertarian Party is an embarrassment in terms of practical success, but I do respect their adherence to principle even when compromise would gain them short term success.

There's one big problem with

There's one big problem with his argument. If there's a presidential election and you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas and you vote for your respective party you're almost certainly likely to fail because everyone and their mother knows California will go to the Dem and Texas to the GOP.

Are we talking libertarians?

Are we talking libertarians? Or Libertarians?

I consider myself a libertarian. I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and "independents."

I think Medved is talking

I think Medved is talking about the big-L's.

What Medved is saying is an

What Medved is saying is an exact right-wing mirror image of the anti-Nader resentment of the kind of people with "Democrats Care" bumperstickers who believe in a place called Hope.

Just stay in a major party and work to change it from within. Yeah, right. Nothing's calculated to increase a professional politician's respect for you like regarding you as a captive constituency. What a load of crap.

It's only the threat of taking one's vote elsewhere that gives the mainstream party establishments any incentive to change.