Answer of the Week #1

Time for our first answer of the week. First, the winning question (and huge thanks to everyone who wrote in!):

Q: Do you think it's hypocritical of me to place a Libertarian Party bumper sticker on my car if I'm not a Libertarian? I put the sticker on my car as a form of protest against the two-party system.
-- Barry, Powder Springs, GA

A: I don't think it's hypocritical, really. Though I should admit that I have never found "hypocritical" to be a very useful label -- I think we all adopt conflicting viewpoints sometimes. I usually have at least two minds about most things, including what to eat for dinner.

But to speak to the political point, libertarianism isn't explicitly Republican or Democratic. So if you identify with a major party but think we should have more choice -- and you have libertarian leanings -- then I don't think you aren't betraying your identity as a Republican or Democrat by also identifying as a libertarian. You can be both: Because we do only have two major parties, those groups are broadly construed. Libertarians are both Republicans and Democrats, and Republicans and Democrats both often adopt libertarian viewpoints.

A deeper issue here is the conflict between libertarianism as an ideology and as a political party. The party translates the ideology into practice -- it places a higher value on certain politics and policies as opposed to others, and those priorities can shift over time. For example, libertarianism, the ideology, advocates for no government interference across the board (except for defense of property), the Libertarian Party has traditionally emphasized less government interference in the economy, although it has increasingly advocated for less government in the bedroom, as well as for drug legalization. Parties are essentially filter mechanisms for ideologies --they weight different aspects of the ideology differently and choose some to concentrate on. So the question of how the Libertarian Party interprets the ideology is a very interesting one. It's an issue every party faces, whether big or small.

Now, I would say that if you are really annoyed by the two-party system, you better take up yoga or drink more, because it's probably not going anywhere. American elections are winner-take-all (or first-past-the-post); so even if a third party were to win 20% of the vote around the country, they would probably not win 20% of the seats in Congress but only a handful, if any. The history of smaller parties in the U.S. is one of short-lived movements and occasional regional impact. Their most important roles have been (a) playing the spoiler, tilting the election to one of the major parties (some argue that this happened with Perot in '92 and Nader in '00), (b) being absorbed by one of the major parties, and (c) highlighting issues that the major parties were neglecting (such as Perot with the budget deficit). So supporting a third party can have some indirect impact.

What you might be really really annoyed with, though, is the ways in which power is concentrated and maintained through the two-party system. And if that's the case, I have two suggestions: one, check out groups that oppose gerrymandering, which is undemocratic and which entrenches and concentrates power; and two, take a look at efforts like Instant Runoff Voting, Range Voting, and Ranked Voting. These proposed reforms could benefit smaller parties, and that might broaden the political spectrum quite a bit, especially in the House of Representatives.

So thanks to Barry for his great question. And if you have something you've been wondering about, send me an email! I'm at jessamynconradpolitics@gmail.com, or you can post something on my pages at Facebook or MySpace.