There has been a trend over the last few years of disgruntled single issue ex-Democrats and ex-Republicans joining the party who say that they "like our position on" the drug war(Democrats) or property rights(the republicans) but they feel that we need to "Change" our stance on... all our other beliefs! Question- Do you think that the party has done enough to educate new members on what it means to be a libertarian ( I just heard of a Socialist Libertarian) or do you (like me) believe that in a pathetic effort to raise our voting record from .46% to .92% they have forsaken the true meaning of libertarianism in order to get some more cash rolling in to the "National Office"?

There are people who call them themselves socialist libertarians, but those are all "small l" types; I've not heard of any even being interested in the LP.

I personally think the LP is much too purist to ever have any chance of electoral success. But that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't stay what it is. It serves pretty well in a purely educational role and as a standard of libertarian ideals.

To win elections with American public opinion being what it is would take something else entirely: libertarian-leaning centrists. Ventura and Schwarzenegger have shown that it is possible to achieve electoral success by marrying "liberal" social policies with "conservative" economics. The LP can't possibly bend that far and shouldn't, but I'm willing to support Republicans and independents who are even a little libertarian.

I think there is a bit of that, but I don't think it is too destructive. The key is for us libertarians to keep reading, keep exploring, and keep explaining. We need to keep educating new and prospective libertarians, teaching them about freedom, and its consistently applied principles.

- Rick