As former state secretary of the Libertarian Party of an unnamed state (anonymous forum) what Libertarians mostly agree upon is that the two major parties are just shadings of each other, so interchange epithets like 'Republi-crats' and 'Demo-cans'. Most of us believe the government shouldn't be involved in private persons' business if they aren't harming anyone else. More later if this goes anywhere...

I guess one reason that this hasn't replaced Republicratism and Democanism, though, is that liberals and conservatives can't agree about WHICH things, precisely, the government should keep its nose out of and which things they actually welcome government oversight on. I think you are both right that the Libertarians have staked out a pretty significant area of ground that is often common, and they challenge this left/right oversimplification we can sometimes fall into. And that's a healthy and positive thing.

Libertarianism sure looks good on paper, but they have yet to field a candidate that seems credible to me. I look forward to that changing someday.

Honestly, I'm not a very political person, so I can't speak authoritatively on shades of democrat and republican and why Libertarians haven't been able to 'field' a credible candidate. However, I think the biggest hurdle to the return to traditional liberalism has less to do with the current political landscape and more to do with the fear of dismantling big government that has come to subsidize many aspects of american life -- farm subsidies, social security, high tax rates for rich and poor alike. it's a 70-year hole that has been dug by conservatives and liberals alike and is going to be very difficult to reform.

LanSr, I'd love to hear your views on the ability or lack thereof of libertarianism or traditional liberalism to bring together a seemingly divided nation.

You are exactky right, MiamiDavid. At times, the Party is so iconoclastic, it and the people who run it miss the forest for the trees.

Examples: Running a former whorehouse madam for governor. Picking Dennis Means as a Vice Presidential candidate a few elections back. The man could only live legally in California because the governor at that time stated publcly he wouldn't allow extradition, And if he had been smuggled onto Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation, he'd have been stuck there like a butterfly on a pin. He'd have had no effective chance of helping very many Americans anywhere. I remember thinking, and arguing at the National convention at the time: DON'T YOU SEE THIS? Has too much wacky tabaccy altered your perceptions? Are you for real? I, and others like me were voices crying in the wilderness at that convention.

These types of actions trivialized the Party and its message. Harry Anderson had a great idea in 1980, and a terrific platform. He'd have probably had a better chance in the 1996 or 2000 elections.

But it was a time people wanted a straight-shooting, paternalistic 'folksy uncle' of principle. The rest, as we lived through, is history.

Good points from all three of you. Thanks LanSr for looking hard at the party that (was? is? - we don't really need to know) your own. I have had that same impression - I listen to one of them talk and it goes along making great sense for a while, then they come out with some wacky zinger that ensure that very few people will vote for them.

And Portia, yes, there is an uneasy alliance between right and left on some of this big government stuff (not that I'm saying big government is either bad or good!) - kind of 'you can keep yours if I can keep mine'.