Is there an anti-war party?

This post is intended to be an extension of the subject brought up in the previous post on the "Unstoppable Growth of Government" and a preview to another post I intend to write for the 9th anniversary for the start of the War in Afghanistan which is tomorrow.

One thing that was visibly apparent in examining the current positions of the two political parties with regard to government growth is that on national security issues, both parties are reasonably pro-government growth. What this means for foreign policy is that both parties are in favor of prosecuting wars abroad and in favor of fighting the "War on Terror".

According to Ron Paul, the Republican Party used to be the anti-war party, and that Nixon was elected to end the Vietnam War. History tells us a little bit different story, but the reality is that there has been some traditional conservatives in the Republican Party that have been historically anti-war, anti foreign military intervention, anti foreign aid. That has not been the case with the mainstream Republican Party, as Republican Presidents have been great proponents of military escalation and interventionism in the modern period since WWII.

So what about the Democratic Party? Well in the same modern period, Democrats have also tended to favor military escalation and intervention as well. Like the Republican Party, there is also a stream (a stronger stream in this case) of anti-war sentiment in the Democratic Party. Democrats historically have been more anti-war, and more anti military spending than Republicans in the modern period, but this has not meant that Democrats collectively have really espoused an anti-war stance. Even though President Obama was elected to end the Iraq War, he has continued to prosecute the War in Afganistan and to some degree has continued military intervention in Iraq, even after the end of "combat operations". If you take a look at modern military altercations and spending, you can see that both Democrats and Republicans have been very pro-military; Democrats perhaps a bit less so.

Major US military altercations:


Korean War- (D) Truman
Vietnam War- (D) Johnson and (R) Nixon
Persian Gulf War- (R) George H.W. Bush
War in Afghanistan- (R) George W. Bush and (D) Obama
Iraq War- (R) George W. Bush and (D) Obama

Notable increases in Defense spending since 1966. (From this graph and this):

1951-1953 - (D) Truman
1966-1969 - (R) Nixon
1982-1990 - (R) Reagan and (R) George H.W. Bush
2000-2010 - (R) George W. Bush and (D) Obama


Given this information, people considering themselves anti-war have had to vote according to which party will be less pro-war, and recently that has been the Democratic Party. But it is shown over and over again that voting Democrat is not an anti-war vote, and certainly voting Republican is not either.


Some people have rectified this situation by voting third party candidates; although this often amounts to "throwing away your vote" in the sense that third party and independent candidates almost never win, particularly in states where there is little precedent for such action.

These days, I would argue that the strongest third party in the United States is the Libertarian Party, as it represents a group of people virtually outside the purview of the two other parties, and because it consistently performs better than the Green Party, Constitution Party, (Now, the Reform Party is basically defunct) and other third parties in national elections voting and funding. (See 2000, 2004, 2008). It also tends to have the highest count of ballot access of the major third parties (45 states as of the 2008 election). I'm mentioning this because of a recent comment made by Mike Beitler, NC Senate Candidate for the Libertarian Party. He said, “The Libertarian Party is the last anti-war party.”

Recently the Libertarian Party has made attempts to court the liberal anti-war vote (they have a history of anti-war sentiment), and this statement by Dr. Beitler is no exception. Certainly the Libertarian Party is not the only or last anti-war party, as the Green Party in particular has been clear in its stances on non-violence. But at this point in elections, the Libertarian Party can almost certainly be considered the strongest anti-war party, especially because of the Party's ability to bring together a relatively wide coalition of freedom loving voters.

In certain districts where libertarians are running, they poll well, sometimes as high as 10 or 15 percent. There are some districts where the Green Party also polls well in the same manner. Despite this, it is highly unlikely that third party candidates ever win elections. Thus people who consider themselves to be anti-war have a serious dilemma. Should they vote for a third party candidate and almost certainly "throw their vote away" or should they vote for the Democratic Party, knowing that this party (on the whole) is marginally less pro-war than the Republican Party? Should progressives who believe in economic justice, and who consider themselves anti-war, vote for a libertarian candidate, even if they disagree with libertarian positions opposing government assistance of the needy? On economic (and some other) policies, Libertarians are perhaps best described as radical Republicans; how can an anti-war progressive vote in good conscience for less gun restrictions, less environmental regulation, and a repeal of major progressive taxes like the income tax?


For those who wish, perhaps naively, for world peace through non-violence, there are sadly no clear answers or solutions.


In the meantime... the Libertarian Party wants your vote.