Instapundit links to an article at The Economist, pointing out that the margin of victory in some Democratic wins was less than the number of votes obtained by the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, it then veers off into the “conventional wisdom” that any Republican voting for the Libertarian Party is just shooting themselves in the foot:

And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one’s goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation’s economic policy leftwards.

Well, there’s always that fear. The problem is, if we constantly give in to it, nothing will ever change. We have an electorate that is about as restless as it has ever been. We’ve always had a looney left or and a whacko right; but now that the left is about to be unleashed. Hopes that the Democrats won’t be as stupid as the Republicans were have got to be on a par with opium dreams–come on, they’re the Democrats, you know, the ones that almost handed this election back to the Republicans? Will it scare conservatives and centerists back into the Republican fold? That’s what the Republicans have to be hoping today, as they play musical chairs and put new faces to the front.

There’s only one way to get any change in the status quo: break one of the national parties. I had hopes two years ago, that it was going to be the Democrats that would break first, as the last of the “Libermans” gave up the rear-guard action and decided the only sane choice was to split the party. Instead, it’s going to have to be the Republicans. Fiscal and legal conservatives have two enemies in the Republican party: greedy politicians and the religious fanatics. The first is what got us conservatives into this hole, and the second doesn’t care how much power it gives to the government, as long as (their version of ) the bible is law.

I wish it were still possible to build a national party from the ground up in this country, but the truth is, only about 1 person in 100 has enough desire for change to strike out in entirely new directions, and can combine that with enough will to make a change. If that one person wants to influence 50 of the remaining 99, he or she is going to have to already be in a position of leadership. Much as it pains me to admit is, Joe Blogger down the street isn’t going to get it done. But such people of influence are already part of the current Dem/Rep power structure; they generally don’t see any benefit in being revolutionaries and overthrowing the established order.

The only way to bring these people forth is for it to be clear that they will have followers. And as long as the voters continue to deliver votes to a political class that’s all struck from the same mold, discontent, no matter how strong, will continue to be judged within current boundries; a perceived lack of followers ensures a lack of leaders. Therefore, I judge voters for the Libertarian Party in the recent race as not being counterproductive, but registering their discontent. They are asking for a leader to emerge who will not be just another face, telling the same lies.

Will they get one?