Press "Enter" to skip to content

Evans Won’t Seek Libertarian Primary Synergy with Nelson

Last month I thought I had a brilliant idea: get Libertarian candidate Kurt Evans to conditionally back Republican Rep. Stace Nelson in the GOP Senate primary. Nelson gets synergy with Libertarian-leaners (who already make up a chunk of his campaign team); Evans gets to build his party in active primary organizing; both men improve their chances of fighting the Rounds-corporate-fascist threat to our liberty.

So much for that idea. Evans had a conversation with Nelson last week. Kurt Evans reports that an Evans–Nelson alliance is "unlikely," given his impression that neither party seems to believe that Evans can do much to help Nelson.

Evans has a slight preference for the policies and personality of GOP primary challenger Larry Rhoden. Evans says the state senator from Union Center "seems to be unusually careful (especially by campaign standards) to adhere to the literal truth, as well as to follow the Golden Rule in his dealings with his political opponents." Evans is thus picking the wrong Republican. Nelson's temperament and policies align better with South Dakota's Libertarians than do Rhoden's. Nelson is an outsider; Rhoden is a GOP leadership insider.

If Evans's assessment of Rhoden's character is accurate, then he's leaning toward a Republican who doesn't stand a chance of decoronating Marion Michael Rounds. No Republican following the Golden Rule (is that synonymous with Reagan/Parkinson 11th Commandment?) will out-smile or out-polite insurance salesman Rounds. The only way to beat the Rounds-Wadhams machine is to knock it out with all the ferocity that it will try to knock you out (wishing well won't stop Wadhams from doing unto you whatever it thinks necessary).

Evans may rightly keep his campaign clear of Republican Party politics and focus simply on reaching Libertarian voters to get on the ballot. But in an election cycle when the number of voters seeking an alternative to the two main parties is surging, and when the number of registered Libertarians isn't enough to sell out the Corn Palace, Evans should look for every chance he can get to raise his party's profile and organize new members. A conditional primary alliance with the one declared Republican who best reflects the policies and temperament of South Dakota Libertarians would give current and potential Libertarians a campaign to get excited about.

Stace Nelson could help Evans inspire, recruit, and train new Libertarians; uninspiring GOP insider Rhoden will not. Libertarians, you're on your own!

11 Comments

  1. Troy 2013.10.14

    I rank Rhoden and Bosworth as having the most libertarian tendencies.

    Rounds and Nelson have more traditional conservative tendencies.

    I'm sure many will not understand the distinction. And, to explain it, I'd have to [write] a book. But, I get why Evans would lean to Rhoden vs. Rounds or Nelson.

  2. grudznick 2013.10.14

    Mr. Rhoden probably is the most conservative and libertarian. I like his libertarian streak, that he is pragmatic enough to get done what needs getting done by working with others. It is how our country was built.

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.10.14

    Troy, Bosworth's ideology, much like Noem's, is pure self-promotion. The only way in which she reflects Libertarian ideology is in matching the political incoherence of many people who pretend to be Libertarians.

  4. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.10.14

    Seriously? Then what's Rhoden doing in the mainstream GOP leadership?

  5. Kurt Evans 2013.10.14

    caheidelberger: "Then what's Rhoden doing in the mainstream GOP leadership?"

    Infiltrating, obviously (ha ha). Thanks for clarifying my position, Cory. Let me clarify it even more by saying that I don't think the Republican "11th Commandment" is synonymous with the Golden Rule. In fact, when a Republican has made a bad public policy decision, I think those two rules essentially contradict each other. Your other points are well-taken.

  6. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.10.15

    Curious: if the Golden Rule and Reagan's 11th do conflict, which one should take priority? And do they really conflict if a Republican thinks, "Boy, if I make a bad public policy decision, I sure wouldn't want my fellow Republicans talking about it publicly"?

  7. Kurt Evans 2013.10.15

    Good questions, Cory. I'd say the Golden Rule should take priority, and the conflict arises when a Republican thinks, "Boy, if I didn't know about a bad public policy decision, I surely wouldn't want the truth to be withheld from me just for the sake of partisanship."

  8. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.10.15

    You know, this Kurt guy is sounding pretty sensible. Now he'd really show some sense if he said nuts to Senate and ran for House to unseat Kristi Noem. :-)

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.12.12

    You all know Larry just wanted to say titular.

  10. interested party 2013.12.12

    busted.

Comments are closed.