EASTON Lori Roman does not hold back in her assessments of governments ramping up their enforcements of COVID-19 orders on small businesses and churches.

That includes tip lines set up by Gov. Larry Hogan as well as some local health departments and police departments encouraging residents to report neighbors and businesses who are not complying with coronavirus orders related to masks, social distancing or rules on capacities and gatherings.

We see a lot of state and county governments actively encouraging residents to snitch and each other, said Roman, who is president of the conservative American Constitutional Rights Union.

That is Orwellian, said Roman.

The conservative group started helping a Maryland church this month after it was issued an Order of Immediate Compliance by a local health department after receiving a complaint about whether social distancing and COVID mask rules.

The Community Methodist Church in Pasadena was issued the warning by the Anne Arundel County Health Department after receiving a complaint about whether face coverings were being worn during services and there was handshaking, high-fives and fist bumps by the congregation.

The Anne Arundel Health Department told The Star Democrat earlier this month that the church was not fined or sanctioned and that the complaint was closed after a follow-up visit by a health inspector.

Still, Roman does not like the idea of county health inspectors or police coming to churches to enforce COVID-19 orders.

Churches have very special protections in the Constitution and worship should not be infringed upon, she said in an interview with The Star Democrat.

The Florida-based conservative libertarian group is ramping up its advocacy for churches and small businesses in Maryland, including on the Eastern Shore, Roman said.

She also worries about local health departments in Maryland and other states presuming churches, restaurants and small businesses are guilty of violating COVID orders simply because they received a complaint.

Thats un-American, she said.

In response to rising reported COVID-19 cases, deaths and hospitalizations after the November election, Hogan pressed for more enforcement of the states pandemic orders requiring masks be worn indoors in public places as well as outdoors.

The governor and public health officials say the COVID orders and enforcement will help curb the spread of the virus.

Maryland has reported 5,152 deaths attributed to the coronavirus this year. There are currently 1,702 patients hospitalized for COVID statewide, according to Maryland Department of Health figures on Thursday, Dec. 17.

Roman said the COVID tip lines create a dangerous precedent for civil and religious liberties. What Orwellian world have we come to where a government official shows up at a church because a snitch said two church members shook hands, she said.

The governor also dispatched the Maryland State Police and pressed local police to do compliance checks to see if restaurants, bars and other businesses were abiding by coronavirus orders.

A COVID tip line was also established by the state police.

Top state health officials including Acting Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services Dr. Jinlene Chan and senior state medical advisor Dr. David Marcozzi have said masks and social distancing will still be required into next year even as they urge residents to get new COVID vaccines.

That is because there will be residents who will not want to get vaccinated.

There has been increasing resistance to state and local orders across the country restricting church capacities and shutting down restaurant dining while other types of businesses remain open and other types of gatherings such as progressive political protests have not been restricted or chastised.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against an order from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that restricted religious services but not some other businesses.

Roman also points to Maryland and other states releasing some prison inmates early to protect them from COVID while local health departments are warning churches about social distancing.

Its an upside down world, she said.

See the original post:

'That is Orwellian': Conservative group looks to help churches, small businesses deal with COVID crackdowns - Herald-Mail Media

Every ideology produces its own brand of fanatics, but theres something special about libertarianism.

I dont mean that as an insult, either. I love libertarians! For the most part, theyre fun and interesting people. But they also tend to be cocksure about core principles in a way most people arent. If youve ever encountered a freshly minted Ayn Rand enthusiast, you know what I mean.

And yet one of the things that makes political philosophy so amusing is that its mostly abstract. You cant really prove anything its just a never-ending argument about values. Every now and again, though, reality intervenes in a way that illustrates the absurdity of particular ideas.

Something like this happened in the mid-2000s in a small New Hampshire town called Grafton. Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling, author of a new book titled A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear, says its the boldest social experiment in modern American history. I dont know if its the boldest, but its definitely one of the strangest.

The experiment was called the Free Town Project (it later became the Free State Project), and the goal was simple: take over Graftons local government and turn it into a libertarian utopia. The movement was cooked up by a small group of ragtag libertarian activists who saw in Grafton a unique opportunity to realize their dreams of a perfectly logical and perfectly market-based community. Needless to say, utopia never arrived, but the bears did! (I promise Ill explain below.)

I reached out to Hongoltz-Hetling to talk about his book. I wanted to know what happened in New Hampshire, why the experiment failed, and what the whole saga can teach us not just about libertarianism but about the dangers of loving theory more than reality.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

How would you describe the Free Town Project to someone who doesnt know anything about it?

Id put it like this: Theres a national community of libertarians that has developed over the last 40 or 50 years, and theyve never really had a place to call their own. Theyve never been in charge of a nation, or a state, or even a city. And theyve always really wanted to create a community that would showcase what would happen if they implemented their principles on a broad scale.

So in 2004, a group of them decided that they wanted to take some action on this deficiency, and they decided to launch what they called the Free Town Project. They sent out a call to a bunch of loosely affiliated national libertarians and told everyone to move to this one spot and found this utopian community that would then serve as a shining jewel for the world to see that libertarian philosophies worked not only in theory but in practice. And they chose a town in rural New Hampshire called Grafton that already had fewer than 1,000 people in it. And they just showed up and started working to take over the town government and get rid of every rule and regulation and tax expense that they could.

Of all the towns in all the world, why Grafton?

They didnt choose it in a vacuum. They actually conducted a very careful and thorough search. They zeroed in on the state of New Hampshire fairly quickly because thats the Live Free or Die state. They knew that it would align well with their philosophy of individualism and personal responsibility. But once they decided on New Hampshire, they actually visited dozens of small towns, looking for that perfect mix of factors that would enable them to take over.

What they needed was a town that was small enough that they could come up and elbow the existing citizenry, someplace where land was cheap, where they could come in and buy up a bunch of land and kind of host their incoming colonists. And they wanted a place that had no zoning, because they wanted to be able to live in nontraditional housing situations and not have to go through the rigamarole of building or buying expensive homes or preexisting homes.

Wait, what do you mean by nontraditional housing?

As the people of Grafton soon found out, a nontraditional housing situation meant a camp in the woods or a bunch of shipping containers or whatever. They brought in yurts and mobile homes and formed little clusters of cabins and tents. There was one location called Tent City, where a bunch of people just lived in tents from day to day. They all united under this broad umbrella principle of personal freedom, but as youd expect, there was a lot of variation in how they exercised it.

What did the demographics of the group look like? Are we talking mostly about white guys or Ayn Rand bros who found each other on the internet?

Well, were talking about hundreds of people, though the numbers arent all that clear. They definitely skewed male. They definitely skewed white. Some of them had a lot of money, which gave them the freedom to be able to pick up roots and move to a small town in New Hampshire. A lot of them had very little money and nothing keeping them in their places. So they were able to pick up and come in. But most of them just didnt have those family situations or those 9-to-5 jobs, and that was really what characterized them more than anything else.

And how did they take over the local government? Did they meet much resistance?

When they first showed up, they hadnt told anyone that they were doing this, with the exception of a couple of sympathetic libertarians within the community. And so all of a sudden the people in Grafton woke up to the fact that their town was in the process of being invaded by a bunch of idealistic libertarians. And they were pissed. They had a big town meeting. It was a very shouty, very angry town meeting, during which they told the Free Towners who dared to come that they didnt want them there and they didnt appreciate being treated as if their community was an experimental playpen for libertarians to come in and try to prove something.

But the libertarians, even though they never outnumbered the existing Grafton residents, what they found was that they could come in, and they could find like-minded people, traditional conservatives or just very liberty-oriented individuals, who agreed with them on enough issues that, despite that angry opposition, they were able to start to work their will on the levers of government.

They couldnt pass some of the initiatives they wanted. They tried unsuccessfully to withdraw from the school district and to completely discontinue paying for road repairs, or to declare Grafton a United Nations free zone, some of the outlandish things like that. But they did find that a lot of existing Grafton residents would be happy to cut town services to the bone. And so they successfully put a stranglehold on things like police services, things like road services and fire services and even the public library. All of these things were cut to the bone.

Then what happened over the next few years or so?

By pretty much any measure you can look at to gauge a towns success, Grafton got worse. Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The towns legal costs went up because they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double homicide, over a roommate dispute.

So there were all sorts of negative consequences that started to crop up. And meanwhile, the town that would ordinarily want to address these things, say with a robust police force, instead found that it was hamstrung. So the town only had one full-time police officer, a single police chief, and he had to stand up at town meeting and tell people that he couldnt put his cruiser on the road for a period of weeks because he didnt have money to repair it and make it a safe vehicle.

Basically, Grafton became a Wild West, frontier-type town.

When did the bears show up?

It turns out that if you have a bunch of people living in the woods in nontraditional living situations, each of which is managing food in their own way and their waste streams in their own way, then youre essentially teaching the bears in the region that every human habitation is like a puzzle that has to be solved in order to unlock its caloric payload. And so the bears in the area started to take notice of the fact that there were calories available in houses.

One thing that the Free Towners did that encouraged the bears was unintentional, in that they just threw their waste out how they wanted. They didnt want the government to tell them how to manage their potential bear attractants. The other way was intentional, in that some people just started feeding the bears just for the joy and pleasure of watching them eat.

As you can imagine, things got messy and there was no way for the town to deal with it. Some people were shooting the bears. Some people were feeding the bears. Some people were setting booby traps on their properties in an effort to deter the bears through pain. Others were throwing firecrackers at them. Others were putting cayenne pepper on their garbage so that when the bears sniffed their garbage, they would get a snout full of pepper.

It was an absolute mess.

Were talking about black bears specifically. For the non-bear experts out there, black bears are not known to be aggressive toward humans. But the bears in Grafton were ... different.

Bears are very smart problem-solving animals. They can really think their way through problems. And that was what made them aggressive in Grafton. In this case, a reasonable bear would understand that there was food to be had, that it was going to be rewarded for being bolder. So they started aggressively raiding food and became less likely to run away when a human showed up.

There are lots of great examples in the book of bears acting in bold, unusually aggressive manners, but it culminated in 2012, when there was a black bear attack in the town of Grafton. That might not seem that unusual, but, in fact, New Hampshire had not had a black bear attack for at least 100 years leading up to that. So the whole state had never seen a single bear attack, and now here in Grafton, a woman was attacked in her home by a black bear.

And then, a few years after that, a second woman was attacked, not in Grafton but in a neighboring town. And since the book was written and published, theres actually been a third bear attack, also in the same little cluster and the same little region of New Hampshire. And I think its very clear that, unless something changes, more bear attacks will come.

Luckily, no ones been killed, but people have been pretty badly injured.

Youre fair, even sympathetic, to the libertarians you profile in this book, but I do wonder if you came to see them increasingly as fanatics.

You know, libertarian is such a weird umbrella term for a very diverse group of people. Some libertarians are built around the idea of white supremacy and racism. That was not the case with these libertarians. Most of the libertarians that I met were kind, decent people who would be generous with a neighbor in any given moment. But in the abstract, when theyre at a town meeting, they will vote to hurt that neighbor by cutting off, say, support for road plowing.

So I guess what I noticed is a strange disconnect between their personalities or their day-to-day interactions and the broader implications of their philosophies and their political movement. Not sure Id use the word fanatic, but definitely a weird disconnect.

Theres a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, youll have to distort or ignore reality to do it usually with terrible consequences.

Yeah, I think thats true for libertarianism and really all philosophies of life. Its very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Did any of the characters in this story come to doubt their libertarianism as a result of what happened in Grafton? Or was it mostly a belief that libertarianism cant fail, it can only be failed?

One of the central characters in the book is a firefighter named John Babiarz. And John had the distinction of running for the governor of New Hampshire on the libertarian platform, and did better than any other gubernatorial libertarian candidate has ever done in America. And he invited the libertarians to come in and begin the Free Town Project. He was their local connection.

But by the end of the project [sometime in 2016], he had really drawn some distinctions between himself and many of the extremist libertarians who came to town. He still considers himself to be a libertarian, and a very devout one at that, but by the end of the project he was at odds with most of the other libertarians. And it shows that until you actually have a libertarian-run community, its very hard to say what it is or what it will look like.

In the end, do you think these people bumped up against the limits of libertarianism, or is this more about the particular follies of a particular group of people in a particular place?

I think they bumped up against the follies of libertarianism. I really do think that there is a hard wall of reality that exists thats going to foil any effort to implement libertarianism on a broad scale. And I think if you gave a libertarian the magic wand and allowed them to transform society the way that they wanted to, it wouldnt work the way they imagined, and I think it would break down just as Grafton did.

Maybe thats the lesson.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

There is tremendous power in understanding. Vox answers your most important questions and gives you clear information to help make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. A financial contribution to Vox will help us continue providing free explanatory journalism to the millions who are relying on us. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today, from as little as $3.

Read the original post:

A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: Author Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling on the Free State Project - Vox.com

The National Constitution Center recently conducted a fascinating exercise in which it named three groups to produce their own revised versions of the Constitution: a conservative team, a libertarian team, and a progressive one. Each team included prominent scholars and legal commentators affiliated with their respective camps. Here is the list of participants:

Team libertarian was led byIlya Shapiroof the Cato Institute and includedTimothy Sandefurof the Goldwater Institute andChristina Mulliganof Brooklyn Law School. Team progressive was led byCaroline Fredricksonof Georgetown Law School and includedJamal Greeneof Columbia Law School andMelissa Murrayof New York University School of Law. Team conservative was led byIlan Wurmanof Arizona State University College of Law and includedRobert P. Georgeof Princeton University,Michael McConnellof Stanford Law School, and Colleen A. Sheehan ofArizona State University.

It is perhaps worth noting that Caroline Frederickson is the former president of the American Constitution Society (liberal counterpart to the Federalist Society), and that libertarian team leader Ilya Shapiro is a different person from me.

Each team produced a rewritten version of the Constitution, and an introduction explaining the changes they made from the status quo. The Progressive Constitution and Introduction are available here, the conservative versions are here, and the libertarian ones here.

There are importantand often unsurprisingdifferences between the three teams. But there are also notable points of convergence. NCC President Jeffrey Rosen summarizes some of them in an Atlantic article on the project:

The results surprised us. As expected, each of the three teams highlights different values: The team of conservatives emphasizes Madisonian deliberation; the progressives, democracy and equality; and the libertarians, unsurprisingly, liberty. But when the groups delivered their Constitutionswhich are published hereall three proposed to reform the current Constitution rather than abolish it.

Even more unexpectedly, they converge in several of their proposed reforms, focusing on structural limitations on executive power rather than on creating new rights. All three teams agree on the need to limit presidential power, explicitly allow presidential impeachments for non-criminal behavior, and strengthen Congress's oversight powers of the president. And, more specifically, the progressive and conservative teams converge on the need to elect the president by a national popular vote (the libertarians keep the Electoral College); to resurrect Congress's ability to veto executive actions by majority vote; and to adopt 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. The unexpected areas of agreement suggest that, underneath the country's current political polarization, there may be deep, unappreciated consensus about constitutional principles and needed reforms.

As Rosen points out, the libertarian team may well also agree on 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, which they omitted from their draft constitution only for tactical reasons (because they wanted to focus on specifically libertarian proposals, as opposed to generic "good government" measures). Elsewhere, team leader Ilya Shapiro has endorsed the idea, and it enjoys considerable support among other libertarian legal scholars and commentators (myself included).

In addition to the points of convergence highlighted by Rosen, it's worth noting that all three teams would abolish the Eleventh Amendment, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as giving states broad "sovereign immunity" against a variety of constitutional and statutory lawsuits brought by private citizens. The conservative constitution puts it best, I think, in proposing to replace sovereign immunity with an explicit statement that "Neither the United States nor any State shall enjoy immunity from suit in the courts of the United States."

Yet another point of agreement is that all three teams would abolish the requirement that the president must be a "natural born" citizen, thereby allowing immigrants to hold the nation's highest political office. This has long been my own view, as well.

It is too early to say that these areas of agreement can result in successful constitutional amendments. The obstacles to enacting any significant amendment are high, and the three teams' views are not fully representative of their respective political camps. Nonetheless, the points of convergence between the three teams are at least plausible candidates for amendment initiatives which deserve serious consideration.

All three proposed drafts include useful ideas aside from those on which there is convergence. The conservative and libertarian constitutions both contain valuable (though different) constraints on federal spending. The conservative version also forestall court-packing by fixing the number of justices at nine, and proposes a ranked-choice voting method for the presidency that might well be an improvement over the status quo.

The progressive constitution includes thoughtful proposals for forestall gerrymandering by requiring legislative districts to be drawn by independent commissions, banning discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, and protecting secular exercises of conscience on the same basis as free exercise of religion. Interestingly, the progressive drafters chose not to follow the example of left-liberal constitutional drafters in other countries by including a variety of "positive" welfare rights in their draft (a decision I commend, though some of their ideological allies might not agree).

Perhaps not surprisingly, I am most in agreement with the libertarian draft constitution. Indeed, I agree with that team's work even more than I expected to, based on what I previously knew of their views.

I particularly commend their "Ellis Island Clause" (which would sweep away most federal immigration restrictions, thereby returning us to something like the original meaning of the current Constitution, as understood by Madison and others) their expansion and clarification of the Fifth Amendment's protections for property rights, and the modification of the Thirteenth Amendment to include an explicit ban on the military draft and other forms of mandatory service imposed by the state. I defended the latter idea in my 2018 testimony before the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service.

I am disappointed that none of the three teamsnot even the libertariansthought to limit Congress' nearly unconstrained power to restrict international trade, the harm of which has been compounded by ill-advised legislation giving the president the power to impose tariffs on almost any foreign-produced goods he might wish to target. This issue is high on my list of "Things I Hate About the Constitution"areas where even the most correct possible interpretation of the present Constitution leads to bad outcomes. The libertarian draft does include useful provisions reigning in the Supreme Court's expansive interpretations of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but does not address the power to regulate international commerce, which is subject to many of the same abuses.

Obviously, I also differ with the teams on various issues, particularly the conservatives and progressives. I oppose the progressives' proposals to exempt a wide swathe of campaign finance restrictions from the First Amendment, and their plan to give Congress a new power to "legislate for the general welfare, insofar as such action is necessary to address problems that are national in scope, and that are unlikely to be addressed adequately by state or local governments." I also find troubling their proposal (inspired by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I think), to create a general exemption from all constitutional rights for legislation "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." I fear this provision will exacerbate the already problematic tendency of courts and legislatures to carve out exemptions from constitutional rights, especially when they don't especially like the right in question, when the legislation at issue conforms to their ideological proclivities or some combination of both.

When it comes to the conservative constitution, I am not convinced by their elaborate proposal to restructure the Senate, or by their endorsement of Alexander Hamilton's approach to the spending power over James Madison's. I think Madison's more limited view (largely endorsed by the libertarian team), is preferable.

While I have few disagreements with the changes made by the libertarian drafters, I do think they were wrong to dispense with the Seventeenth Amendment, which made the Senate directly elected, as opposed to chosen by state legislatures. The team is probably right to think that eliminating the Seventeenth Amendment probably wouldn't change much, as most state legislatures would essentially delegate senatorial selection to popular vote anyway. That had already happened in all but a few states before the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment. But if little would change, and that little would not be an improvement, I see no reason to change the current rule in the first place. I discussed this issue in greater detail in a 2011 debate with co-blogger Todd Zywicki.

Much more can be said about all three teams' proposals. What I cover above only scratches the surface of the many interesting ideas and issues they raise.

I doubt that any these proposals will actually be enacted any time soon. Even the ideas the three teams agree on would face an uphill struggle in the constitutional amendment process. Still, it is clear that at least some aspects of the Constitution can use reform. The National Constitution Center and its three teams have made a valuable contribution to the discussion of these issues. I hope others can build on it!

UPDATE: I have updated this post to include the point that all three teams would abolish the requirement that the president must be a "natural born" citizen. I defended that position myself in various writings, most recently a USA Today op ed coauthored with Harvard law Professor Randall Kennedy.

Continue reading here:

Thoughts on the National Constitution Center's "Constitution Drafting Project" - Reason

Its hard to belong to the Republican Party because of Donald Trump and Corey Stewart. Its impossible to belong to the Republican Party ofSidney PowellandLin Wood.

It is impossible to belong to the Republican Party of Amanda Chase who has more in common with your average Republican than she does with Abraham Lincoln, Edmund Burke, or Calvin Coolidge. State Senator Amanda Chase has brilliantly and cynically chosen to encapsulate the spirit of mass hysteria, of an actual mental health crisis, in order to rise to power.

If she follows through on her threat to run as an Independent, itll either be the final waning of her star or a death blow to the RPV. The white nationalist populists will support primaries now after years of demanding a convention. Establishment folks switched their votes to conventions. At least we can all ignore principled arguments for one or the other and accept that either side will choose the likeliest path to victory.

To my Chamber of Commerce Republican friends, Senator Amanda Chase better reflects the average Republican voter in Virginia than you do. Some of this is my fault.

I moved to Virginia with libertarian principles and came in contact with TEA Party leaders like Waverly Woods. I wrote vociferously on behalf of Congressman Dave Brat against Eric Cantor.

I warned Brat against Trumpism, but he was smarter than I was. He knew he couldnt stand on principle against the Trumpers and survive. Trump flipped enough educated white voters to the Democrats to destroy a Republicans chances in the 7thDistrict.

Even a once staunchly libertarian candidate like Nick Freitas, who went all-in on his bizarre support for an authoritarian like Donald Trump, was unable to pull off a victory there. I will say that I am beyond pleased to see Delegate Freitas Facebook feed return to the poised, principled, libertarian and constitutionalist tone I had grown so accustomed to.

What the Trumpublican Party represents and what your Republican Party now is, is a monster with no morality, no philosophy, no reality, and no core. It can evolve and change, shift and morph, acclimate itself to whatever fake QAnon conspiracy is in fashion for a split second on the internet. How can you compete?

These people dont believe the media. They dont believe the scientists. They dont believe the experts or the political or bureaucratic class. They dont believe in anything except skeptical, radical disbelief. These are realities that a theologian, philosopher, and economist like Dave Brat couldnt harness. There was no way someone as educated as he could hold the hearts of those so opposed to education as they.

People like Shaun Kenney and Brian Schoeneman tried to warn me and I laughed at them. Lee Pillsbury has been asking me to write an apology letter to Eric Cantor for years. Im not sorry for supporting Congressman Brat, but I am sorry that his campaign spawned a populist movement that proceeded to wreck the foundations of the Republican Party in Virginia.

At the time, I figured they were just more mindless examples of the corporatist duopoly trying to make money off of a corporately driven Republican Party. I didnt listen. Im still not sure I was wrong about their motivations, but Im 100 percent certain they were right about me.

I didnt know what I was talking about. I didnt know who I was working with. I didnt see the nationalist and populist undertones of my friends in the TEA Party movement. Just about everything they told me was happening, happened. And I mocked them for it. I laughed at them because they saw me and the movement I had associated myself with more clarity than I saw myself.

Wow was I wrong!

Im sorry.

I dont and wont support the corporate Republicans. I wont support trickle-down economics. I feel as though there really is something harmful to big government supporting big business while the little guy gets left behind. But let me admit this, to all my libertarian-leaning friends still trying to make something of their involvement in the Republican Party: If you think that you can work with these nationalists and populists and faux conservatives and keep your freedom, retain your self-respect, and support liberty, then you are me five years ago reading an article written by you five years from now.

Wake up.

These people deprived us of Dave Brat. These people deprived us of Denver Riggleman. These people have cost us statewide election after statewide election, and Im not coming back.

However. Im over 40. You dont need me. You need young people. Dont keep making the same mistakes. Dont keep embracing hysteria. Embrace reason, science, good government, good policy, and for the love of God be smarter than the other guys. You probably already are!

Steven Brodie Tucker is a Senior Contributor at Bearing Drift.

More here:

The Republican Party of Amanda Chase Bearing Drift - Bearing Drift

There's a parlor trick that libertarians who interact with Capitol Hill sometimes play among themselves, and it usually goes something like this:

Besides the usual suspectsusually understood to be Reps. Justin Amash (LMich.) and Thomas Massie (RKy.) and Sens. Rand Paul (RKy.) and Mike Lee (RUtah)are there any good ones left?

"Let me give you a name of somebody who's come to Congress and really surprised us," Massie told me two years ago. "Andy Biggs from Arizona. If you see two No's on a bill; it's 428 to 2, the two No's will be most often me and Justin Amash. If you see three, it's now Andy Biggs. He's doing it on a constitutional basis. He recognizes when the Republicans are voting for bigger government, and he doesn't fall for it."

Biggs, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, has a 100 percent rating from the limited-government outfit FreedomWorks. He's a reliable vote against federal spending increases, against warrantless surveillance, and in favor of bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. He recently became the first GOP member of Congress to support declaring a formal end to the Korean War.

So how is Biggs taking President-elect Joe Biden's victory? By calling Republicans who acknowledge it "Neville Chamberlain's" (sic) who keep "feeding the totalitarian monster, hoping to be eaten last." Such florid language was not an outlier. Here's the top of Biggs's post-election piece for Townhall:

The fierce beast of the Left, the omnivorous viper of the Democrats, has been let loose. Every tyrant needs quislings. Unfortunately, there are appeasers even among Republicans. The 'useful idiots' of the Left are being eaten already; the appeasers will be next.

Those who demand grace from Trump supporters as we watch the nation stolen from us, deny the peril from a ravenous beast that will consume our freedoms and chain the American people.

The passage of days, and the repeated disintegration of the president's conspiracy theories upon contact with the legal system, did nothing to dull Biggs's Trumpian fervor. "This election is a joke," he declared in a video with Rep. Paul Gosar (RAriz.). Watch:

"FACT CHECK: Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar still touting baseless election-fraud claims," went the Arizona Republic headline (and please do click on the links therein before pre-emptively waving that conclusion away).

In a Washington Times piece Monday, Biggs made the improbable assertion that, "The foundation for the future that Mr.Trumplaid appears to be so strong that the only way to defeat it is to lay waste to any vestige of Americanism and our institutions. And that includes resorting to cheating to try and disenfranchise more than 70 million voters."

Hyperbolic overselling of my-team Potency and their-team Evil is of course not uncommon in politics, even if it's a bit amusing coming from someone fond of using "Derangement Syndrome" as an insult. But Biggs's post-election performance can be read as a cautionary tale about the limits of what might be called "Libertarian Populism" within a Trumpified GOP.

Faced with a crude, big-government nationalist, some office-holding libertarian-leaners of a more temperate dispositionnamely, Amash and former Sen. Jeff Flakechose exit rather than continuing to lose arguments within and face voter hostility from without. Those who remainedMassie, Paul, Biggstend to derive visceral enjoyment from slinging the political bull and coloring outside the lines.

Paul and Massie are considerably more likely to ape Trump's language and selectively amplify his complaints about the Deep State, Fake News Media, and Swamp. And the House Freedom Caucusco-founded by Amash!has long since abandoned its original purpose as a check on executive power in favor of running Trump-protection, even to the distraction of holding the line on spending.

To the extent that there will be any libertarian values in a post-Trump GOP, they will be transmitted via Twitter-firehose from populists like Biggs: anti-war and anti-mask ("Seeing Fauci & Birx at the White House podium yet again brings back months of memories of their work to destroy American freedom and our society as we knew it," he tweeted this week), pro-border wall and pro-Section 230-rewrite.

The congressman's career arc in the age of Trump has drawn some negative reviews. "The descent of U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs into becoming just another partisan brawler has been painful, and disappointing, to watch," concluded Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb. "Biggs has the talent, and had the opportunity, to be more than that." More from Robb:

As president of the Arizona Senate, Biggs was themost influential state legislator since Burton Barr, the House majority leader for two decades, from 1966 to 1986.

In Congress, he became apublic thought leader for conservatives.His commentary was forceful and sometimes biting. But it had some intellectual depth and focused mostly on substantive policy issues. It was generally more ideological than partisan, serving as much to influence the Republican position as to skewer the Democrats.

But: "With the defeat of Trump in the presidential election, Biggs has gone around the bend."

Biggs, obviously, has a different interpretation: that Trumpism is just getting started, bay-bee. From his Washington Times column:

While the left-wing media apparatus is giddy because to them the election looks like a smackdown of Mr.Trump, they are missing the fact that the president has remodeled the Republican Party and built an infrastructure that can be quite enduring. In fact, it is ironic that the Trump Party is emerging as the most potent force in American politics. It overcame seemingly endless amounts of money for its opponents, a cacophony of hateful media coverage and censorship of its message, and ultimately, what appears to be systemic cheating.

I wish Biggs all the success in the world in persuading the GOP to be more anti-war, anti-surveillance, and anti-spending. And I hope those values are not discredited by their association with partisan conspiracy-mongering.

See more here:

'This Election Is a Joke,' Insists Libertarian-Leaning Congressman Andy Biggs - Reason

Our commenting has been temporarily disabled.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read the original:

Letter to the editor: Biden win is a threat to our liberties - TribLIVE

Indiana voters supported Republican President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election with nearly 59% of the ballots with three-quarters of the vote counted. Here's how the state has voted in the past. Wochit

A record 3 million Hoosiers cast their ballots in the Nov. 3 election, according to turnout data released Tuesday by the Indiana secretary of state's office.

Sixty-five percent of the state's 4.7 million voters wanted a say in the top-of-the-ticket race between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, higher than any presidential election since Bill Clinton unseated President George H.W. Bush in 1992. That year 74% of registered Hoosiers voted.

Although Biden won the presidential election nationwide with 306 electoral votes, Trump carried Indiana 57% to 41%.

We continue to see that candidates and issues drive turnout,Secretary of State Connie Lawson said in a prepared statement. Presidential elections tend to have higher turnout rates."

Here are the number of Hoosiers who voted in the past five presidentialelections:

Hamilton County and Wells County had the highest turnout at 75%.Greene, Hancock and Whitley counties followed at 74 percent.

A Congressional race played a pivotal role in the high turnout in Hamilton County.Republican Victoria Spartz defeated Democrat Christina Hale for an open seat that drew national attention and millions of dollars in spending.

Elsewhere in the area, Boone and Hendricks counties were at 72%, Johnson at 70% and Marion at 59%.

An unprecedented 61% of registered Hoosier voters 1.9 million cast their ballots absentee amid the coronavirus pandemic. In the June primary, 51% of registered voters, or552,779 people, voted absentee.

In the last presidential election, 33% voted absentee. In 2012, 22% voted absentee.

Locally, Boone County had 84% vote absentee, Hancock had 82%, Johnson had 79%, Hamilton had 73%, Hendricks had 68% and Marion had 55%.

Gov. Eric Holcomb easily was reelected with 56.5% of the vote. Democratic challenger Woody Myers had 32.1% and Libertarian Donald Rainwater had 11.4%, the highest that party has ever received in a gubernatorial runin Indiana.

Libertarians typically receive3% to 4% in that race.

Rainwater wasn't quite the most successful Libertarian ever to run in Indiana. That record goes toSteve Osborn, who collected 12.6% of the votein the 2006 U.S. Senate race against Richard Lugar when no Democrat ran.

In a more typical three-way race, Andrew Horning has the Indianarecord for a Libertarian candidate inthe 2012 U.S. Senate race. He had 5.6% that year.

Call IndyStar reporter Chris Sikich at 317-444-6036. Follow him on Twitter: @ChrisSikich.

Read or Share this story: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/24/indiana-elections-2020-record-3-million-hoosiers-cast-their-vote/6412265002/

More:

A record 3 million Hoosiers voted in the 2020 election - IndyStar

STEVE GOLDSTEIN: When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, one of the key reasons may have simply been the impact of third-party candidates like Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. In 2020, the effect is less clear, but Jo Jorgensen, this year's Libertarian nominee, got 1.84 million votes nationally. Did that help decide any states in Joe Biden's favor? And what's the outlook for third parties more generally? To talk about that, I'm joined by Matt Welch. He's editor-at-large for Reason. So, Matt, how would you compare Jo Jorgensen's impact with what we saw from Stein and Johnson in 2016?

MATT WELCH: The biggest impact the third-party voters had in 2020 is perversely not in voting for the third party in 2020. By which I mean, it's what happened to Gary Johnson voters and Jill Stein voters from 2016. What did those people do? Because the total third-party vote back in 2016 was about 7.8 million people. That's a lot. This time it's going to end up at around 2.6, 2.7 million. Those 5 million people went somewhere. And what we have discovered both in looking at pre-election polls and with the usual grain of salt about polls but also in the results everywhere. Like, state after state, Donald Trump got basically the same percentage give or take a few states that he did last time. But he didn't add any of those voters. Those voters went overwhelmingly for Joe Biden. So that's the biggest impact that they had. Jo Jorgensen, who's not a very well-known person at all, a Clemson University psychology lecturer, she did the second-best result in the history of the Libertarian Party, which, granted, they don't have a history of doing exceedingly well. But that's 1.2%, which is bigger than much higher named candidates, including Gary Johnson back in 2012 Gary Johnson had been a successful two-term governor. So that suggests that the people who at this point stay in the Libertarian Party, they might just be kind of Libertarians at this point. There's a, there is a permanent vote that's larger than it used to be in that party right now. The impact on the race is more, however, about where the kind of spike vote in third party interest it was the highest in 20 years in 2016 where those votes went. They did not go for Donald Trump, they did not like Donald Trump.

GOLDSTEIN: So can we make the assumption that the five million or so people of those folks who ended up going for Biden, did they go for Biden for the same reason it seems a lot of folks who were independents did? They were just a little bit sick of the Trump drama, the Trump rhetoric?

WELCH: Yeah, I think that is completely safe to say. I mean, if you think about voted for Gary Johnson-Bill Weld in 2016, there were, by definition, people who didn't want to vote for, for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, in this case. Joe Biden, for his margin of victory I mean, think about it. He's going to beat Donald Trump by about 6 million votes. The difference in third party votes is about 5 million votes. I mean, you could it's not the same people and don't make that that mistake but still, you can't help but notice that overlap. So he will depend, his margin of victory depends on voters who were not enthusiastic necessarily about his platform to the extent they knew anything about it at all. It's people who did not like Donald Trump either his policies, you know, if they're libertarian voters, they probably don't like Donald Trump's authoritarian tendencies, his immigration policies, his anti-free trade policies, his big government policies he expanded government faster than Barack Obama did, measured by dollars. So they probably didn't like any of that. But mostly it's they just don't like the chaos, don't like the guy. So that is not a mandate for a Green New Deal necessarily for those people. Maybe Green Party voters who are voting for him want the Green New Deal. But I think it's more an anti-Trump vote and a sign that Trump was able to grow his vote but not grow his percentage just because it was a bigger election. He couldn't convince people outside of the tent to come in for him.

GOLDSTEIN: So Matt, what moves the momentum, what moves the needle forward for whatever non-Republican or Democrat out there when it comes to running for president, let's say the next time around? Is there more of an open field as we see that a lot of folks voted for Joe Biden simply because they didn't really like Donald Trump or thought Biden was likable but we didn't like his policies, whatever it may be? Does it take where we're at right now in 2020, the fact that, frankly, a lot of people 2016 this goes as well people were not that excited about the two major party candidates. Does that move the needle at all toward not getting a third party candidate with Ross Perot-level percentages, but at least something that really has an impact across the country, not just in select states?

WELCH: A lot of it will depend on what kind of implosion happens or does not happen in both parties, right? The Republican Party is going through its last Trumpism spasm, and we'll see how long that lasts. Could be a long time, who knows? The Democratic Party is always willing to have some kind of, you know, moderate versus [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] AOC fight, the Bernie Bros versus the moderates. That could happen as well, and that will impact it. The thing to think about it: 2018 midterms, which is the highest turnout midterms in 100 years, was terrible. It was a wipeout for all third parties and independent candidates. They undershot their polling by so much. Why? Because when you when you really think that the opposing team is going to do horrible things or are just horrible people themselves, you vote for the people to vanquish them, regardless of your lack of affection for the people that you were voting for. So how do you break that cycle? This is one reason why I argue that Jo Jorgensen's total this year is damn impressive. One point two percent. OK, it's tiny. But the fact that she's an unknown person outside of the Libertarian Party and not particularly well-known within says that at least there's, there's some vote there. I know for a fact that people like Justin Amash, the congressman from, from Michigan who became the first Libertarian congressman this year when he switched parties. He was thinking about running for president. And part of the reason why he did not this time around was because the field, the backdrop was so bad. So if the backdrop becomes good, if major parties are engaging in some kind of off-putting civil war amongst themselves, then that opens the space for people with much higher name recognition and, and much better kind of political skill, including a Justin Amash character in that case for the Libertarian Party, but other people for the Greens or others, to open the door for something that expands broader. But it's hard. We have a two-party system.

GOLDSTEIN: Matt Welch is editor-at-large of Reason. Matt, appreciate the time.

WELCH: Thank you very much.

See original here:

How Trump Pushed Third-Party Voters To Choose Biden In 2020 - KJZZ

Local communities of Brookhaven, Buckhead, Dunwoody and Sandy Springs were Biden country in the presidential election, joining other metro Atlanta suburbs in flipping Georgia blue for the first time since 1992.

Democrat Joe Biden earned about 61.1% of the total votes in those four communities, while Republican incumbent Donald Trump won only about 37.5%, according to official precinct-by-precinct results mapped and analyzed by the Reporter in the interactive map shown above. (At press time, a recount requested by Trump was pending, but was not expected to significantly change the results following a previous review that combined aspects of an audit and a recount. That previous review did not alter any local results.)

The map shows how strongly precincts in local communities leaned toward either major-party presidential candidate. The darker the blue, the higher the vote for Democrat Joe Biden, and the dark the red, the higher the vote for Republican Donald Trump. Scroll over the map to see the results for individual precincts.

Biden handily won each of the communities as well, with the following approximate percentages:

Brookhaven

Biden 64.5%, Trump 34%

Buckhead

Biden 60.7%, Trump 38.1%

Dunwoody

Biden 59%, Trump 39.6%

Sandy Springs

Biden 60.8%, Trump 37.5%

As the Reporters map shows, Trump lost every precinct in Brookhaven and polled no higher than the 50% range in Dunwoody. (Numbers for Brookhaven are approximate because precinct lines capture some voters outside of the southern city limits.) Sandy Springs had only two precincts that leaned Trump: one in the eastern panhandle above Dunwoody and another in southern High Point around Windsor Parkway.

Buckhead won the distinction of both the bluest and the reddest voting precincts among local communities. Biden took 93.1% of the vote in 06Q, a precinct in the Armour and southern Lindbergh neighborhoods. Trumps best performance 58.2% came in the Kingswood and Randall Mill neighborhoods in western Buckhead.

Trump also prevailed in some precincts in North Buckhead and in neighborhoods along West Paces Ferry Road. Among those was Tuxedo Park, whose residents include Gov. Brian Kemp and U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the Republican who faces Democrat Rev. Raphael Warnock in one of Georgias two nationally spotlighted runoff elections for U.S. Senate seats coming Jan. 5.

In a handful of local precincts, neither Biden nor Trump won a majority of the votes, including some areas in northern Dunwoody, southern and western Sandy Springs, and Buckheads Paces neighborhood.

Biden and Trump werent the only presidential candidates on the ballot. Libertarian Jo Jorgensen drew small numbers of votes in local precincts. The local Libertarian hotspot? Brookhavens Cross Keys High precinct, where Jorgensen won about 2.5% of the vote.

John Ruch with mapping and analysis by Maggie Lee / maggielee.net

Facebook Twitter LinkedInEmail

See more here:

By the Numbers: Local communities were Biden country in Nov. 3 election - Reporter Newspapers

Over the past 50-plus years, Charles Koch grew his family business, Koch Industries, into one of the largest privately held companies in America. At the same time, he played a leading role in creating or supporting the modern libertarian movement and some of its major institutions. Among them: The Cato Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Mercatus Center, and the Charles Koch Foundation, a nonprofit that supports many organizations, including Reason Foundation, which is the publisher of Reason magazine. Along with his brother David, a longtime trustee of the Reason Foundation who passed away last year at the age of 79, the 85-year-old billionaire became not only one of the most successful businessmen in the country but also one of the most controversial, with leftists blaming "the Koch brothers" for many of our contemporary problems.

Koch has just published Believe in People, a book that seeks to "offer a paradigm shift [that] calls for all of us to move away from the top-down approach to solving the really big problems" by instead "empowering people from the bottom up to act on their unique gifts and contribute to the lives of others."

In a conversation with Koch and his co-author, Brian Hooks, who is the chairman and CEO of Stand Together and the president of the Charles Koch Foundation, Reason's Nick Gillespie discusses the 2020 election, the successes and failures of the libertarian movement, and what Koch and Hooks see as the defining challenges and opportunities in the coming decade.

For a video version of this interview, go here.

Read more from the original source:

Charles Koch and Brian Hooks: Believe in People - Reason

Video above: Giuliani argues to block Biden win in PennsylvaniaDemocrat Joe Biden was certified Tuesday as winner of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, culminating three weeks of vote counting and a string of failed legal challenges by President Donald Trump.Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf first disclosed in a tweet that the Department of State had certified the vote count for president and vice president.Wolf sent a certificate of ascertainment to the national archivist Washington with the slate of electors who support President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.Pennsylvania's 20 electors, a mix of elected Democrats, party activists and other staunch Biden backers, will meet in the state Capitol on Dec. 14.One of them, state Democratic Party chair Nancy Patton Mills, said she will also lead the Electoral Colleges meeting in Harrisburg next month.Patton Mills said she was gratified that Pennsylvania was the state that made it possible for Biden to win.Bidens win in the state, giving him its haul of 20 electoral votes, put him over the 270 needed and led The Associated Press to declare him the president-elect four days after Election Day. Biden has collected 306 overall electoral votes to Trump's 232.The Pennsylvania results show Biden and Harris with 3.46 million votes, Trump and Vice President Mike Pence with 3.38 million, and Libertarian Jo Jorgensen with 79,000.Democratic Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, in a news release, called the states election officials and poll workers the true heroes of our democracy.We are tremendously grateful to all 67 counties who have been working extremely long hours to ensure that every qualified voters vote is counted safely and securely, Boockvar said.Trump made Pennsylvania a centerpiece of his unsuccessful legal attempts to invalidate the election results, launching legal attacks on vote counting rules and county election procedures.A federal judge on Saturday dealt a serious blow to the Trump campaigns legal efforts by dismissing a lawsuit that he said lacked evidence and offered strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.The federal government on Monday recognized Biden as the "apparent winner of the national presidential contest.

Video above: Giuliani argues to block Biden win in Pennsylvania

Democrat Joe Biden was certified Tuesday as winner of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, culminating three weeks of vote counting and a string of failed legal challenges by President Donald Trump.

Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf first disclosed in a tweet that the Department of State had certified the vote count for president and vice president.

Wolf sent a certificate of ascertainment to the national archivist Washington with the slate of electors who support President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

Pennsylvania's 20 electors, a mix of elected Democrats, party activists and other staunch Biden backers, will meet in the state Capitol on Dec. 14.

One of them, state Democratic Party chair Nancy Patton Mills, said she will also lead the Electoral Colleges meeting in Harrisburg next month.

Patton Mills said she was gratified that Pennsylvania was the state that made it possible for Biden to win.

Bidens win in the state, giving him its haul of 20 electoral votes, put him over the 270 needed and led The Associated Press to declare him the president-elect four days after Election Day. Biden has collected 306 overall electoral votes to Trump's 232.

The Pennsylvania results show Biden and Harris with 3.46 million votes, Trump and Vice President Mike Pence with 3.38 million, and Libertarian Jo Jorgensen with 79,000.

Democratic Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, in a news release, called the states election officials and poll workers the true heroes of our democracy.

We are tremendously grateful to all 67 counties who have been working extremely long hours to ensure that every qualified voters vote is counted safely and securely, Boockvar said.

Trump made Pennsylvania a centerpiece of his unsuccessful legal attempts to invalidate the election results, launching legal attacks on vote counting rules and county election procedures.

A federal judge on Saturday dealt a serious blow to the Trump campaigns legal efforts by dismissing a lawsuit that he said lacked evidence and offered strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.

The federal government on Monday recognized Biden as the "apparent winner of the national presidential contest.

Go here to read the rest:

Pennsylvania certifies Biden as winner of presidential vote - WXII The Triad

In the midst of denying the reality of his 2016 loss of the popular vote in an interview segment that aired Tuesday night, President Trump declared himself "somewhat libertarian."

"They always talk about [2016 Green Party candidate] Jill Stein," he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham, referring to claims that Stein sapped votes from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. "Jill Stein took, what? Half a percent?" Trump continued (wrongly). "Well, I have a Libertarian [candidate Gary Johnson] I'm somewhat libertarian; I have to be honest with you; [Kentucky GOP Sen.] Rand Paul will tell you that I have a Libertarian candidate on last time that got, what? Four and a half or so percent? [Also wrong.] Those are all Republican voters. They're wasting their vote, because they have to vote for us."

As a libertarian, no. No to all of this. No, in fact, to the self-serving claims of "libertarianism" by Republicans who just want to use weed or get our votes. No to the assumption that the Republican Party is automatically the lesser of two evils from the libertarian perspective. Whatever case there used to be for that alliance rested on the GOP at least pretending to share libertarians' fiscal conservatism. With Trump, that pretense is gone. We do not "have to" vote for Republican candidates generally, and we certainly don't have to vote for this Republican.

"If you analyze it," then-GOP candidate Ronald Reagan told the libertarian Reason magazine in 1975, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." The "basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom," Reagan continued, "and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." He went on to reject the anarchist wing of the libertarian movement to explain his lack of affiliation with the Libertarian Party, making a Hobbesian argument for the necessity of government. Still, Reagan concluded, "libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The "heart and soul" line became a well-worn slogan of conservative-libertarian fusionism, Reagan's three-legged stool of traditionalist social conservatives, defense hawks, and limited government types (some libertarians included) who sought a free market, fiscal discipline, low taxes, and a minimal regulatory bureaucracy. Libertarians quoted Reagan to try to hold the GOP to small-government principles; Republicans quoted him to try to keep libertarian votes in-house.

Actual libertarians weren't deluded enough to ignore the distance between them and their GOP allies on social issues and foreign policy. (Read that Reagan interview and the divergence is obvious when subjects are raised like gambling, prostitution, the Vietnam War, and the draft.) But the common libertarian thinking was that if you must choose between working with the Democrats or the Republicans, the GOP was closer to the libertarian perspective on the meta-issue of the size and scope of government. The Democratic Party might be a better ally on many specific issues, but it lacked the fundamental skepticism of the state the "desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom" Reagan had expressed.

Thus did many libertarians consent to be grafted, however uncomfortably, into the third leg of the stool. That relationship is why libertarians are widely considered part of the American right despite our insistence we're nothing of the kind. It's why what we might call "pop libertarianism" or "folk libertarianism" in America tends to be whatever the Republican Party is currently doing plus a few vague ideas about government overreach being bad when it inhibits what you, personally, would like to do.

Once there were libertarians in the GOP fold, the GOP fold realized it could claim the libertarian label. The joke that a libertarian is just a "Republican who likes to smoke pot" is not without basis there are plenty of Republicans who like to smoke pot and believe that makes them libertarians. Your Republican uncle might say he's "somewhat libertarian" because he's mad on Tax Day or irked with his city's housing code, but he doesn't subscribe to any cogent libertarian conception of government and rejects large portions of the Libertarian Party platform.

Trump's comment to Ingraham is exactly this behavior. He is not libertarian by any measure. He is a nationalist, militarist, and protectionist perfectly happy to meddle in our personal lives in libertarian parlance, a statist through and through. The occasional policy overlap between Trump and libertarianism is often a product of his self-protection (as in his sudden interest in privacy when he thought his own was invaded) or his utter incoherence (as in parts of his foreign policy, and there more the rhetoric than the policy itself).

Unfounded Republican claims of libertarianism were incorrect in the heyday of fusionism, but they're downright absurd now. "Today, many leaders of the Republican Party have coalesced around a desire to purge libertarians, with our pesky commitments to economic liberty and international trade, from their midst," Reason's Stephanie Slade recently wrote at The New York Times. They hope the free market, limited government leg of Reagan's stool "can be reduced to sawdust and scattered to the winds," she said, warning that "Republicans may be tearing out their movement's heart and soul."

I'm unconvinced Reagan's assessment was ever an accurate description of the GOP. The Republican Party of 1980 to 2015 often let fall its limited government ideas outside the economic realm; the drug war, mass surveillance, and the Pentagon playing world police are all big government, too. But even if Reagan was right then, libertarianism is emphatically not the heart and soul of the Republican Party today. The tear is complete. If the alliance ever made sense, it does not anymore.

Some individual Republicans may still practice a conservatism of which Reagan's characterization is apt, but if we're speaking of the GOP as a whole the GOP that just spent four days at its national convention backing Trump to the hilt, lying about his foreign policy record and protesting that he is very nice in private and has lots of Black friends then I repeat: no.

Libertarians are not properly part of the GOP coalition, if indeed we ever were. There is no libertarianism in the soul of the Trumpian Republican Party, and Republican partisans today are not libertarians. The limited government leg of the stool is broken. If libertarians accede Trump's demand of our permanent loyalty at the polls, the best we can expect is splinters.

Read the rest here:

The obliteration of the Republican-libertarian alliance - The Week

The Texas Supreme Court on Saturday rejected an attempt by Republicans to kick 44 Libertarians off the ballot in the November elections.

Several Republican Party candidates and organizations had sued to remove the Libertarians, arguing they did not pay filing fees a new requirement for third parties under a law passed by the Legislature last year. But the Supreme Court dismissed the suit, finding that the Republicans missed the Aug. 21 deadline to successfully boot people from the ballot.

The available mechanism for seeking the Libertarians removal from the ballot for failure to pay the filing fee was a declaration of ineligibility, the court wrote in a per curiam opinion. But the deadline by which such a declaration can achieve the removal of candidates from the ballot has passed.

Groups affiliated with both major parties have gone to court in recent weeks to remove from the ballot non-major-party candidates perceived to be a threat. In general, Libertarians are believed to peel votes away from Republicans, while the Green Party is thought to siphon votes from Democrats.

In multiple cases citing the same lack of a filing fee paid, state and national Democrats were successful in removing some Green Party candidates. The Supreme Court suggested that at least some Libertarians may have made the same mistake, but said the GOP was too late in bringing its legal challenge forward.

Although the result in this instance may be that candidates who failed to pay the required filing fee will nevertheless appear on the ballot, this Court cannot deviate from the text of the law by subjecting the Libertarian candidates applications to challenges not authorized by the Election Code, the court wrote.

The rest is here:

Texas GOP can't kick 44 Libertarians off the ballot, Supreme Court rules - The Texas Tribune

Editor's note: If you'd like an email notice whenever we publish Ross Ramsey's column, click here.

If you would like to listen to the column, just click on the play button below.

While many of us were relaxing over the long Labor Day weekend, the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling that could decide some of the closest races on this years general election ballot.

The all-Republican court rejected a Republican effort to erase 44 Libertarian candidates from the ballot. The GOP candidates and organizations that sued to remove the Libertarians missed their deadline for taking people off the ballot, so the third-party folks will stay. Democrats, who filed their challenges on time, earlier got the courts to knock several Green Party candidates off the ballot.

The theory operating here is that Libertarian candidates siphon more votes from Republicans than from Democrats. A related bit of political folklore is that Green Party candidates take votes that would otherwise go to Democrats.

Sometimes, the minor-party candidate gets a share of the vote that is larger than the distance between the two leading candidates. In 2018, U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, R-Helotes, beat Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones by 926 votes, or by 0.44 of a percentage point. Ruben Corvalan, a Libertarian, got 4,425 votes, or 2.11%. The folklorists in politics would have you believe those votes would otherwise have gone to the Republican, but whos to say for sure? Without Corvalan in the race, somebody would have broken 50% and put the might-have-beens to rest.

State Rep. Gina Calanni, a Democrat, beat a Republican incumbent by 113 votes in a 2018 race in which a Libertarian got 1,106 votes. Former state Rep. Mike Schofield, R-Houston, will probably never forget Daniel Arevalos name.

Neither the Libertarian Party nor the Green Party has ever won a statewide or legislative race in Texas. But third-party candidates sometimes get enough votes to keep winners below the 50% mark. That can still be enough in a general election; all the winner has to do is get more votes than everyone else like Hurd did against Ortiz Jones.

Sometimes, a third-party candidate racks up a relatively large number, usually as a kind of protest against a major-party candidate. U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, easily won reelection in 2018, with 80.9% of the vote. The rest went to the only other candidate: Jeffrey Blunt, a Libertarian.

The Texas House elections in 2018 got attention because of the 12 seats Democrats took away from Republicans, but there were a number of close finishes in which a third candidate might have changed the outcome, making those races targets this year. For instance, state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, won reelection by 1,428 votes; the Libertarian in his race got 1,644 votes. Stickland decided not to run for reelection this year.

Perhaps more interesting, especially in light of the weekends Texas Supreme Court decision, were the close House races where only two candidates were in competition in 2018. Adding a third candidate to the mix could mix things up in 2020. Some were Republicans, like Collin Countys Matt Shaheen and Jeff Leach, who won with 50.3% and 51.2%, respectively. Morgan Meyer, R-Dallas, got back to Austin with 50.1%; if 111 people had decided to vote for his opponent instead of him, Joanna Cattanach would have gone to Austin.

Dwayne Bohac won by 0.1 of a percentage point, in a race where a write-in candidate got 20 votes. A third party whose name actually was printed on the ballot would almost certainly have done better. Maybe that wouldnt have changed the winner, but it would have changed the vote counts.

Thats just foreshadowing. This year, the Democrats are trying to win 9 more seats, and their first House majority in almost two decades. Republicans are trying to reverse four or five of their 2018 losses, because that many of the Democratic victors prevailed by very narrow margins.

Every year sees some close races. Candidates do everything they can to get an edge in those close races. And sometimes, the most effective way to do that is to have a third-party candidate in the race.

Read the original post:

In close elections, third-party candidates can tilt the results - The Texas Tribune

NH Primary Source: Its official: Libertarian Party candidates to be on general election ballot

Updated: 4:09 AM EDT Sep 3, 2020

BALLOT ACCESS CONFIRMED. The Secretary of States Office on Wednesday certified that nine Libertarian Party of New Hampshire candidates will appear on the general election ballot on Nov. 3.>> Download the FREE WMUR appIt was the final step in the LPNH effort that began in the spring to relax the thresholds for nomination papers needing to be collected, due to the restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, to have the candidates appear on the ballot.The party last week said it collected enough nomination papers in each congressional district to meet lower thresholds ordered into place by a federal judge.This closes this cycles ballot access saga, said LPNH vice chair Richard Manzo.Appearing on the ballot will be candidates for president Jo Jorgensen; for U.S. Senate, Justin ODonnell; for 1st Congressional District, Zachary Dumont; for 2nd Congressional District, Andrew Olding; for governor, Darryl W. Perry; for Hillsborough County Attorney, Nicholas Sarwark; for Hillsborough County Treasurer, Richard Manzo; for Hillsborough District 14 state representative, Robert Daniel; and for Sullivan County District 9 state representative, Tobin Menard.

BALLOT ACCESS CONFIRMED. The Secretary of States Office on Wednesday certified that nine Libertarian Party of New Hampshire candidates will appear on the general election ballot on Nov. 3.

>> Download the FREE WMUR app

It was the final step in the LPNH effort that began in the spring to relax the thresholds for nomination papers needing to be collected, due to the restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, to have the candidates appear on the ballot.

The party last week said it collected enough nomination papers in each congressional district to meet lower thresholds ordered into place by a federal judge.

This closes this cycles ballot access saga, said LPNH vice chair Richard Manzo.

Appearing on the ballot will be candidates for president Jo Jorgensen; for U.S. Senate, Justin ODonnell; for 1st Congressional District, Zachary Dumont; for 2nd Congressional District, Andrew Olding; for governor, Darryl W. Perry; for Hillsborough County Attorney, Nicholas Sarwark; for Hillsborough County Treasurer, Richard Manzo; for Hillsborough District 14 state representative, Robert Daniel; and for Sullivan County District 9 state representative, Tobin Menard.

Read more:

NH Primary Source: Its official: Libertarian Party candidates to be on general election ballot - WMUR Manchester

President Donald Trump has been making some libertarian noises lately, and also some noises about libertarians. In the latter category, POTUS declared himself in an interview last week to be "somewhat libertarian," and a likely recipient of ex-Libertarian votes.

"Jill Stein took, what? Half a percent?" Trumped mused innumerately to Fox News Channel's Laura Ingraham. "Well, I have a LibertarianI'm somewhat libertarian; I have to be honest with you; Rand Paul will tell you thatI have a Libertarian candidate on last time that got, what? Four and a half or so percent? Those are all Republican voters. They're wasting their vote, becausethey have to vote for us."

Well, no, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about some of Trump's most libertarian noises, such as calling out military brass and their enablers for backing "endless wars." On today's Reason Roundtable podcast, Nick Gillespie, Peter Suderman, Matt Welch, and Katherine Mangu-Ward discuss the president's actual record on policies dear to libertarian hearts; critique Joe Biden on same, and also spend time on school reopening, teachers unions, Christopher Nolan's filmography, and the true meaning of Labor Day.

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: "Noisey" by ELPHNT.

Relevant links from the show:

"Bridget Phetasy Is Politically Homeless. You Probably Are Too." By Nick Gillespie

"Will-to-Power Conservatism and the Great Liberalism Schism," by Stephanie Slade

"You Have Libertarian Alternatives to Biden and Trump This November," by John Stossel

"This Labor Day, Police and Teachers Unions Are Making a Bad Year Worse," by J.D. Tuccille

"Teachers Unions Push Families Out of Public Schools," by J.D. Tuccille

"Hispanic Parents Want More Choices for School," by Daniel Raisbeck

"California's Job-Killing A.B. 5 Scaled Back, but Only for Some Professions," by Scott Shackford

"California Police Unions Once Again Side With Bad Cops To Kill a Good Bill," by Scott Shackford

"School Calls Cops on 12-Year-Old Boy Who Held Toy Gun During Zoom Class," by Robby Soave

"Be Skeptical of Stories About TikTok 'Benadryl Challenge' Overdoses," by Scott Shackford

"Disney Thanks Chinese Labor Camp Authorities in Mulan Credits," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"Time May Not Exist Anymore, butTenetDoes, and It's in Theaters Now," by Peter Suderman

The rest is here:

Trump's Struggle To Win the Gary Johnson Vote - Reason

By CANDY NEALcneal@dcherald.com

The General Election ballot and early voting locations are set.

There are a few contested races for local government seats, but none for the school board positions.

The roster of candidates on the ballot are:

U.S. President/Vice President: Democrat Joseph Biden/Kamala Harris, Libertarian Jo Jorgensen/Spike Cohen, Republican Donald Trump/Mike Pence, and write-in candidates Brian Carroll, Howie Hawkins, Randall F, Shawn Howard, Abram Loeb, Valerie McCray, Deborah Rouse/Sheila Marie Cannon, Joe Schriner, Christopher Stried, Kasey Wells, Mitchell Williams and James Johnson Jr.

U.S. Representative District 8: Democrat E. Thomasina Marsili, Libertarian James Rodenberger and Republican Larry Bucshon

Indiana Governor/Lt. Governor: Democrat Woodrow Myers/Linda Lawson, Libertarian Donald Rainwater II/William Henry and Republican Eric Holcomb/Suzanne Crouch

Attorney General: Democrat Jonathan Weinzapfel and Republican Todd Rokita

State Representative District 63: Democrat Teresa Kendall and Republican Shane Lindauer

State Representative District 74: Republican Stephen Bartels

County Commissioner District 1: Republican Chad Blessinger

County Commissioner District 3: Republican Nickolas Hostetter

County Council At-Large (three seats): Democrats Matt Brosmer, Todd Cassidy and Atalie Schroering, and Republicans Sonya Haas, Mike Kluesner and Doug Uebelhor

County Coroner: Republican Katie Schuck

County Surveyor: Republican Kenneth Brosmer

County Treasurer: Republican Kitty Merkley

Circuit Judge: Democrat Nathan Verkamp and Republican Kevin Crouse

Greater Jasper School Board District 2: Arlet Jackle

Greater Jasper School Board District 3: Greg Eckerle

Greater Jasper School Board District 4: Tim Demotte

Southeast Dubois School Board At Large: Cecelia Hamilton

Southeast Dubois School Board District A: Nathan Schuler

Southeast Dubois School Board District C: Matt Eckert

Southwest Dubois School Board District 1: Courtney Schwartz

Southwest Dubois School Board District 3: Jonathon Menke

School board positions are non partisan.

Early voting locations have also been set. Early voting will be held from Tuesday, Oct. 6, to noon Monday, Nov. 2. The locations and times are:

Dubois County Courthouse Annex: Oct. 6 to Nov. 2

Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Wednesdays: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Saturdays, Oct. 24 and 31: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Monday, Nov. 2: 8 a.m. to noon

35th Street Fire Station, Jasper

Monday, Oct. 26 to Friday, Oct. 30: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Saturdays, Oct. 24 and 31: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Huntingburg Event Center

Thursday, Oct. 29 and Friday, Oct. 30: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Saturday, Oct. 31: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Ferdinand Library

Saturdays, Oct. 24 and 31: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Dubois Library

Thursday, Oct. 29: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Saturday, Oct. 31: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

St. Henry Fire Station: Monday, Oct. 26, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Haysville Fire Station: Tuesday, Oct. 27, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Schnellville Fire Station: Wednesday, Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Birdseye Fire Station: Friday, Oct. 30, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

General Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 3.

See the original post here:

Election, early voting sites set - The Herald

Earlier this year, Trump announced that the federal government would take steps to designate antifa a loosely-affiliated network of antifascist activists, many of whom self-identify as anarchists a terrorist organization.Recently,Trump signed a memorandum that aims to withhold federal funds from what it terms "anarchist jurisdictions," to be identified using several factors set out in the memo (e.g., "whether a jurisdiction unreasonably refuses to accept offers of law enforcement assistance from the federal government").

Anarchism as a set of philosophical values favors relationships and organizations based upon the freely-given consent of all participants; as a body of ideas, it resists violence, oppression, and domination by definition. Historically and traditionally, to be an anarchist is to be a critic and opponent of the capitalist system.

However, it turns out that this, on its own, can accommodate a diverse range of libertarian visions for a future stateless society: Anarchists may be communists who look forward to the abolition of private property and market competition, or primitivists who oppose civilization itself, or even free-market individualists who recognize a difference between capitalism as it exists (and has existed) and a genuine free market absent the kind of coercive special privilege and monopolism anarchists oppose.

The divisions within anarchism don't stop there. Anarchists have disagreed amongst ourselves as to when, for example, state violence may be met with violence, or when it is permissible to attack fascists, white supremacists, and Nazis physically. For well over a century, anarchists have engaged in arguments as to the merits of violent action, the propaganda of the deed, sabotage, terrorism, and assassinations.

This debate roughly tracks the historical divide between those classed as individualist anarchists (variously phrased "philosophical anarchists" and "Boston anarchists") and those called social anarchists (frequently associated with anarchist communism or anarchist collectivism, for example).

The individualist wing of the anarchism movement largely favored an incremental, evolutionary approach, in which libertarian and mutualistic institutions would gradually and peacefully replace today's authoritarian institutions, transforming society.

At its best, anarchism represents both a philosophy of mutual respect, contract, and cooperation and a set of strategies for building right now, both within and outside of the existing order the infrastructures of mutual aid and a better world. Over one100 years ago, introducing his biography of the pioneering American inventor, musician, businessman, and anarchist Josiah Warren,

William Bailie explained that anarchism "teaches not violence, nor does it inculcate insurrection. Neither is it an incipient revolution." Bailie went so far as to argue that anarchism "is not even a menace to the social order, nor yet a plotting for the destruction of kings and rulers." For Bailie, following leading anarchist lights like Warren and Benjamin Tucker, anarchism was about principled opposition to systemic violence and hence chaos. Anarchism's wholejustification for existencewas to prosecute the argument that the existing order is founded up violence, oppression, and exploitation that a freer and more just world, without ruling classes or ruled classes, is both desirable and possible.

Anarchist infighting has been a venerable tradition. For his part, Tucker insisted that anarchist communism was a contradiction in terms (a term that "has no sense"), even remarking that the anarchists fighting in the Spanish Civil War were "a crazy bunch", adding, "'Anarchism' in Spain is a misnomer." He frequently criticized anarchist communists for making appeals to violence and revolutionary action. "There is not a tyrant in the civilized world today," he wrote, "who would not do anything in his power to precipitate a bloody revolution rather than see himself confronted by any large fraction of his subjects determined not to obey." He argued that any revolution that "comes by violence and in advance of light" is foredoomed, built upon a foundation of sand. The whole hope of humanity, Tucker said, is bound up in avoiding just the kind of "revolution by force" that so many anarchists were attempting to touch off.

Attempts to police the label or excommunicate certain elements are exercises in futility, usually self-serving and tendentious notably because anarchist history does include episodes of violence. And anarchist violence, even at its very worst, has always paled next to the systematic, institutional violence of the state, the crimes of which are especially dangerous in that they're never called what they are. Paraphrasing Max Stirner, the state calls its violence law the violence of all other crimes.

But even if particular self-identified anarchists believe that violence and destruction are somehow excusable or justifiable given the situation or the historical context, they are strategically unsound as tactics for positive, liberatory social change. Depending in large part on how anarchists proceed from here, anarchism could be poised to become a vital source of new ideas at a point of apparent crisis in our history. But to fulfill that function, it will have to be anarchism of Tucker's "philosophical" variety certainly not without direct action, but embracing direct action only of the nonviolent kind.

David S. D'Amato is an attorney, a columnist at the Cato Institute's Libertarianism.org, and a policy advisor at both the Future of Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute.

Continue reading here:

What do anarchists believe? | TheHill - The Hill

Click here for updates on this story

ATLANTA, GA (WGCL) Some residents in Fulton County can head to the polls on Tuesday to cast their early ballot to fill the seat of a congressional icon.

Early voters will be able to cast their ballot to fill the U.S. House seat left vacant after the death of Congressman John Lewis.

Lewis died in July after a battle with pancreatic cancer bit.ly/2FhBSHG. He represented the district since 1987.

The candidates vying to fill the remainder of Lewis term are:

Robert Franklin (Democrat)-Former president of Morehouse College: franklinforcongress2020.com

Kwanza Hall (Democrat)-Former Atlanta city council member: kwanzahall.com

Barrington Martin II (Democrat)-Educator: votethedream.com

Steven Muhammad (Independent)-Business Leader: muhammadforcongress.org

Chase Oliver (Libertarian)-Chairman of Libertarian Party of Atlanta: chaseforhouse.com

Abe Mable Thomas (Democrat)-Ga. State Representative: ablemable.com

Keisha Waites (Democrat)-Former Ga. State Representative: keishawaites.com

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed an Executive Order at the end of July announcing the Special Election to fill the term for Lewis District 5 seat.

The winner of this race will only serve the remainder of Lewis Congressional term through January 3, 2021.

If no candidate receives at least 50% of the vote, the top two contenders will advance to a December 1st runoff.

If a candidate wins the Special Election outright, he or she will serve 96 days in congress, and if the election advances to a runoff, their tenure in congress will be 33 days.

The Georgia Democratic Party selected State Sen. Nikema Williams to represent the democratic party on the ballot in November for the district bit.ly/35g2Xps. The winner in the November race will serve a full two year term.

Early voting for the Special Election runs from Tuesday, September 8 to Friday, September 25 from 8:30 a.m. 6 p.m., and Saturday, September 19, from 8:30 a.m. 6 p.m.

Residents will be able to vote at the following Early Voting locations:

Buckhead Library

269 Buckhead Avenue

Atlanta, GA 30305

C.T. Martin Natatorium and Recreation Center

3201 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SW

Atlanta, GA 30311

College Park Library

3647 Main Street

College Park, GA 30337

Evelyn G. Lowery Library at Cascade

3665 Cascade Road

Atlanta, GA 30311

Metropolitan Library

1332 Metropolitan Parkway

Atlanta, GA 30320

Northwest Branch at Scotts Crossing Library

489 Perry Boulevard, NW

Atlanta, GA 30318

Ponce De Leon Library

980 Ponce De Leon Avenue, NW

Atlanta, GA 30306

For more information, please click: bit.ly/2ZhXSJk.

Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.

Continue reading here:

Early voting starts Tuesday to fill the remainder of civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis' term - ABC17News.com

TOPLINE

Third-party candidates helped determine the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, but this go-round the mostly obscure slate of alternative hopefuls appear far less viable, making 2020 more of a two-party election.

ORLANDO, UNITED STATES - 2020/07/10: Jo Jorgensen, the 2020 presidential nominee of the Libertarian ... [+] Party, gives her acceptance speech during the 2020 Libertarian National Convention at the Orange County Convention Center. Jorgensen is the first woman to receive the Libertarian presidential nomination. (Photo by Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Third-party candidates collectively won around 4% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 6% of the vote in Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016,enough to sway those races, which were decided by less than a point, and hand President Trump an electoral college victory despite Hillary Clintons 2 percentage point lead in the national popular vote.

At least one 2020 candidate has gotten considerable national attention Kanye West, whose bid appears to be backed by GOP operatives aimed at hurting Democratic nominee Joe Bidens chances but hes unlikely to approach the impact of 2016 Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein because he is struggling to get on the ballot in pivotal battleground states.

Other third-party challengers include the Libertarian Partys Jo Jorgensen, a Clemson University lecturer; Green Party nominee Howie Hawkins, a retired teamster and self-described eco-socialist; and Constitution Party candidate Don Blankenship, a former coal mine executive who went to prison over the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion.

Only 1.8% of voters said they back a candidate besides Biden or Trump in a Suffolk University poll of 1,000 registered in late August, a significant drop from the more than 5% who voted third party in 2016, which could have a significant impact on how the race plays out in states where third-party candidates helped shape the race in 2016.

Biden is also far more popular than Clinton was, and Trump has galvanized Republicans behind him and boosted his favorability rating since 2016, meaning the bloc of voters who view both candidates unfavorably the primary source of votes for third-party candidatesis much smaller.

The major impact third parties had in 2016 may be the primary driver behind the low support for marginal candidates this year. There is fear that this election is both very important and might be very close, making it dangerous or irresponsible to squander one's vote on a third party, Columbia University political science professor Robert Erikson told Forbes.

J. Miles Coleman and Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginias Center for Politics argue there are far fewer divisions within the two parties than there were in 2016, with Trump having faced no real opposition in his GOP primary and Biden wrapping up the Democratic nomination relatively quickly. This naturally removes some of the oxygen for third party candidates, and the lack of major intra party strife makes this election, to us, more reminiscent of 2004 and 2012, when George W. Bush and Barack Obama won second terms in competitive elections that featured very low levels of third party voting, they write.

With just two months until Election Day, third-party candidates are unlikely to get much more national exposure. While Jorgensen and Hawkins meet the Commission on Presidential Debates requirement that they be on enough ballots to secure an electoral college victory, neither has come close to the necessary 15% threshold in at least five national public polls to participate.

See more here:

Third-Party Candidates Played A Major Role In 2016, But 2020 Is A Two-Man Race - Forbes