The Libertarian Party of Colorado and the state’s Republican Party have entered into an agreement that is ostensibly designed to help the right defeat the stranglehold Democrats have on the Centennial State’s politics. Both parties have agreed to certain concessions in order to accomplish this objective. The agreement has been both lauded and pilloried in Republican and Libertarian circles on social media. The question is: Will anything come of this?
The Libertarian and Republican parties in Colorado have decided to establish a “handshake” deal in which the state-level GOP will refrain from involving itself in local elections – especially ones in which Libertarians are running candidates. In return, the Libertarian Party will not run candidates in state elections – especially close elections in which the GOP would need every vote it can get.
In a letter to Libertarian Party of Colorado chairwoman Hannah Goodman, Dave Williams, Chairman of the state’s Republican Party made his pledge. He said the deal is intended to work “towards a common goal of promoting limited-government and personal freedom in Colorado.”
The GOP acknowledged the Libertarian Party’s “focus on electing limited-government candidates to local office,” and affirmed that it “aligns with our own principles of individual liberty and free-markets.”
“As such, the Colorado Republican Party agrees not to involve our state organization directly in municipal non-partisan elections that your party is targeting resources and efforts towards,” Williams wrote.
He continued: “By ensuring the presence of similarly aligned voices and perspectives within our local governments, we can actively challenge the dominance of radical Democrats, fostering a more balanced and accountable system that serves the best interests of all Coloradans.”
Conversely, the Libertarian Party of Colorado agreed not to run “spoiler candidates” at the state level that could jeopardize the GOP’s chances of winning these seats. There was a caveat to this pledge, however. In Goodman’s letter to Williams, she affirmed that the state’s Libertarian Party would not run candidates in statewide elections provided that the GOP only pushes Republican candidates who are liberty-focused .
“The illusion of choice between the democratic and republican [sic] parties has been whittled away over the years as the GOP continues to support policies and practices they never would have stood for years ago,” Goodman wrote. “We watched democrats and republicans [sic] stand together over COVID lockdowns, vaccine mandates, destruction of both the first and second amendments, and many more tyrannical moves throughout recent years.”
Goodman continued:
We are calling upon the Republican Party to take our goals and objectives into serious consideration and run strong Liberty minded anti-establishment candidates going forward. If the Republican party runs candidates who support individual liberties, we will not run competing candidates in those races. Furthermore, we reserve the right to run our candidates if you choose not to put forth strong Liberty candidates.
On the surface, this might seem to be a mutually beneficial deal for both parties. However, a closer look suggests that the agreement might not be worth the digital paper on which it was written.
For starters, this is an arrangement between the two state parties. It would not stop local Republican parties from running candidates in local elections – which they most certainly will. This would only mean that if the state GOP is serious, they will not “directly” use its influence and resources to defeat a Libertarian candidate.
What many folks don’t know is that the state Republican Party is rarely intimately involved in local races. This is typically the case in most states. They might offer support as backup in their state’s communities, but their primary role is to ensure the election of statewide candidates.
Local races are typically left up to local or county parties. In essence, what the state GOP is pledging to do isn’t much different from what it would normally do in the first place, which does little or nothing to give Libertarians a better chance at winning local seats.
Additionally, the notion that the GOP can be trusted to run liberty-focused Republican candidates seems absurd given the party’s recent history. Indeed, on numerous occasions, the party has worked to keep Libertarian candidates off the ballot in states like Texas and New York. As I’ve said a million times, Republicans run on a libertarian platform and then govern like Diet Democrats(TM) once they get into office. The GOP is Lucy and Republican voters are Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. It’s hard to have faith that this arrangement will yield better results.
This isn’t to say that liberty-focused Republicans do not exist. I’m also not saying Williams’ intentions are not positive. But it is folly to expect that the GOP is going to push a candidate that actually fights for liberty instead of one who will use the rhetoric–and then behave like Mitt Romney after being elected. Sure, some might squeak by. But I doubt it will do enough to make a difference.
Of course, I could be wrong. If it turns out that I misjudged the situation, I will happily eat that crow with healthy dollop of BBQ sauce. But if history is any indication, this deal is a well-intentioned waste of time. The Libertarian Party would do well to continue focusing its efforts on winning at the local level without trusting that the GOP will ever become an ally. This is best shot that we have to amass influence and the power to weaken the government over the long term.