What a Loser We Have in Harry Browne
by Dave Munger

I've been asked to write an article telling people why they shouldn't vote for Harry Browne. Since I am not voting for him, I suppose I should be able to come up with some good reasons.

I'll minimize in the "throwing your vote away" argument, since anyone I'm trying to persuade at this point is incorrigibly "principled". To make my weaker points first and get them out of the way, Gore really could win, in which case government will get bigger. Republicans tend to be more libertarian when they've recently been winning in a landslide. When they get scared and desperate for votes (as when they actually take steps to shrink the government, and are perceived as extreme as a result), that is when they resort to more Democrat-like tactics. So if Bush wins, the closer the election is, the more "moderate, reasonable, non-partisan, common sense solution oriented" he will be as President.

When you complain about Republicans being similar to Democrats, you are complaining about the natural consequences of giving only a very small margin (and consequentially weak mandate) to those who run against Statism. It's the voters' way of telling them, "Don't really do what you said you would, just don't do what the other guy's were going to. Unless there's a crisis, give me someone else's money right away!" William F. Buckley pointed out the natural advantage that Democrats have in elections; they can always promise more. Bush can say he wants to spend $5 billion on education, and all Gore has to say is "I want to spend $700 billion on education, you cheap bastard." Of course the argument must be changed entirely so that the voters no longer act as if the candidates are talking about money from their own pockets. But the only way this can ever happen is if the person promising to exchange more of your money (your labor in quantifiable form) is beaten by a very large margin. Nothing could be worse than for people to keep winning this way. As long as they do, the most that Anti-Statists can ever accomplish is to have some vices legalized, only to be taxed and regulated until they are driven back underground.

There seem to me to be two major reasons to vote for Browne. One is his intelligence, which is an overrated quality in a presidential candidate. People who always vote for the guy who they think is the smartest probably thought that Piggy should have been put in charge of the island when they read "Lord Of The Flies". The idea that the president ought to be a genius is actually an offshoot of the Left-Statist axiom, "The President runs the country."

The second, and best, reason to vote for Browne is simply that he is, for whatever reason, the Libertarian Party's candidate (just as many will vote for the Democratic and Republican candidates so that the other party won't win). This, however, does not require that Browne be the perpetual nominee. Traditionally, someone only runs for president so many times.

A strong case could be made against the Libertarians running a candidate for president at all. The recent successes of the cause have been associated with think tanks, foundations, and local offices. Presidential campaigns not only divert resources away from that which is effective, they ensure that the Party is more visible in it's failure than in it's successes. We must ask again, why is the Libertarian Party running a candidate for President at all?

Not because there is any chance he might win. Nader has a better chance. The only good that can be accomplished by a Libertarian Presidential campaign is that it might draw attention to local campaigns and to the national movement. By this criteria, Harry Browne is a proven spectacular failure. By using this same criteria, the Party could be liberated from the necessity of choosing a candidate who would make a good president, and in the next few elections, nominate someone who would get better (that is, more) press.

The Arizona branch of the Libertarian Party has already refused to re-nominate Browne and instead chosen the science fiction author L. Neil Smith. I personally would like to see the really funny guy and known Libertarian Drew Carey run for President at least once. Whatever money is being spent on the Browne campaign every four years should be used entirely for the purpose of persuading Carey to run, even if that leaves nothing for T-shirts.

A different candidate should be run for President on the Libertarian platform every four years until they have a real chance of winning. Then pick a candidate who would make a good President. In the meantime, the press would at least report that a new candidate had been nominated, and a little more interest would be generated each time.

© 2000 Dave Munger