Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute (providers of the only bumper sticker that adorns my car) has written an interesting piece on why he thinks we will see a Libertarian President by 2016.

His first problem is that he takes the fall of communism and extends that to the triumph of libertarianism. Communism was a failed form of economics and government from the get-go but there are many other forms of government on the spectrum between communism and libertarianism. Socialism comes to mind and that is still flourishing in Europe at the moment. I also note he mentions “the unprecedented percentage of the world’s people living in free democratic countries” — something that wouldn’t happen if the pacifist isolationists in the LP were running things in the early 1940s.

He goes on to quote Bush’s second inaugural speech to try and provide evidence Bush is libertarian. I think No Child Left Behind, The Patriot Act, and the Prescription Drug Benefit should disabuse anyone of that notion. I might contribute to his speech writer’s reelection campaign though.

He describes how the two major parties will split, and how the limited government types in each will flock to the LP (or some new entity). I’ve made similar points in a speech to the Libertarian Party of North Carolina and on my LJ, however his scenario seems a bit contrived.

First off the leftists in the Democratic Party won’t split off while they are the minority. Dividing their forces is politically stupid and they know it. The 200 million in 527 money is controlled by lots of various factions, not all of whom agree with each other (think conservative blacks vs gays).

Running a Hollywood celib is not going to bring them credibility. Publicity maybe, but not credibility with the flyover state voters. Nor will this new party really do much to help third parties by opening debates or ballot access requirements. Ross Perot ran a pretty successful campaign in 1992 and it did little to help third parties. In fact, it caused the two major parties to close ranks and restrict debate access even more. The LP will not benefit.

If any party is going to split first it will be the GOP. As the Democrats, under Dean, continue their march to irrelevance becoming a regional party that holds a few seats in other urban areas, both the religious moralists and fiscal conservatives will find less and less reason to stick together. I believe the only reason they do so now is to form a coalition strong enough to beat the Dems. There is going to be a battle for the heart of the GOP in the coming years. The pundits will have you believe that the moralists are the front-runners, but from my observations so far of the GOP the battle has not yet been decided.

Even if the split does occur people will not flock to the current LP. The party offers nothing to elected officials who want to keep their jobs. They don’t have armies of grass roots volunteers (the few in the LP now would not go work for former Dem or GOP “statists”), they can’t raise money to save their lives, and its not like they have a eloquent or workable platform. Regardless of the hard work of folks like Michael Dixon, George Squyers, Mark Rutherford, Joe Seehusen and the various reformers like Carl Milstead and Tim West I don’t see this changing. This is the real reason I quit the LP. When and if one or both of the major parties split, the departing elected officials will form themselves a new party taking their contacts, donors, staffers and resources with them.

I do agree that a party based on ” individual liberty, equality under the law, free enterprise, and lower taxes” will unite the country. In fact it already has. The voters have given the Whitehouse and Congress to the party that promotes that.