by Dan Sherrier

Massachusetts’s famous Senate race is over, and as you’ve probably heard by now, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley – not by a landslide, but by a comfortable margin of 53-46.

If you’re an advocate of smaller government and reducing the federal debt, Brown was the clear choice–even just on the health care issue alone. And that’s a rather enormous issue.

Joe Kennedy: No hope

Nevertheless, the Libertarian Party (LP) was willing to risk spoiling the election in Coakley’s favor. The party applauded its senatorial candidate, Joe Kennedy (no relation to the late Ted Kennedy), for refusing to drop out of the race.

In a press release, Wes Benedict, executive director of the LP, stated: “In fact, no one is ’stealing’ anything. The votes belong to the voters, not the candidates. If voters choose Kennedy over Brown, it’s probably because they understand that Brown is a typical big-government Republican. If voters choose Kennedy over Coakley, it’s probably because they understand that Coakley is a typical big-government Democrat.”

If the Republicans are the "Big Government Party," than the Dems are the "Gigantic Government Party"

Brown might meet the LP’s definition of “big government.” But compare him to Coakley – or compare the average federal Republican to the average federal Democrat – and see that you can’t apply the exact same “big-government” label to both. If Brown is “big,” then Coakley is gigantic.

It’s possible that some Massachusetts voters might have switched from Coakley to Kennedy. But it’s unlikely for most. Government spending is an issue that concerns many American minds. The Tea Party folks are evidence of that, and they’re not everyone who cares about the situation. (I have never participated in any Tea Party, and I’m concerned about government spending. I suspect many more fall into this category.)

On this issue, and the issues that stem from it, the Libertarians and Republicans vie for the same constituency. Both parties are opposed to the Democrats’ plans for America. They don’t agree on everything, but both would like to reduce the size of government and thwart current Democratic proposals, such as the healthcare legislation, cap-and-trade, and any more massive spending bills that might arise.

Yes, the Republicans spent too much money when they were in the power. They messed up. Those who participated deserve a good scolding.

But they’ve been behaving themselves better over the past year, beginning with their near-unanimous opposition to the $787 billion stimulus bill. There’s a reason the Democrats try to smear them as “The Party of No” (as if saying “yes” to any legislation that passes through Congress is automatically a good thing).

Just because the Republicans screwed up in the past doesn’t mean they definitely will in the future. After all, many of the big-spending offenders were voted out, hence the current Democratic majorities. And we can find better Republicans to replace the incumbent Democrats. Brown is just one example of new Republican blood at the federal level.

Libertarians need to hook up with Republicans

Here’s my suggestion to the LP: Join forces with the Republican Party, at least temporarily.

Focus on the common ground. Put isolationism and drug-legalization on the back-burner for now. When the Democratic Party is sufficiently neutered, then you can break away and present your alternative to the Republican Party.

Libertarians, your official motto is “Smaller government. Lower taxes. More freedom.” What short-term compromises are you willing to make to achieve that? And aren’t the current Republicans working to bring us in that general direction, or at least to slow down the growth the Democrats want to enact?

Republicans are far from perfect, but they’re many times better than the Democrats

Peter Schiff has it right. He’s very libertarian-minded, but he’s running for Senator from Connecticut as a Republican. Look at the issues he outlines on his web site. He focuses on the common-ground topics. Schiff could actually win in 2010 and produce accomplishments that would make both libertarians and conservatives happy.

At different times over the past year or so, I’ve referred to myself as both conservative and libertarian while maintaining a distance from both the Republicans and Libertarians. Between these two parties, I qualify as a moderate. I can find items to disagree with on both party platforms, but I can at least understand from where both sides are coming.

The national Democratic Party’s plans, however, strike me as a blueprint for power-hungry politicians. Let’s scare them about global warming. Then let’s scare them about health care coverage. And let’s make sure they believe that only the government can heal a sick economy. Then we can enact more regulations and further justify our existence!

I’d much prefer to see Republicans vs. Libertarians as the two major parties rather than Republicans vs. Democrats. In order for that to happen, the Republicans and Libertarians first need to work together to thwart the Democrats, which will take time and hard work.

Or, the Libertarian Party can stand on the sidelines with its 1 percent of the vote and continue to shout, “Well at least I took my stand! I tried! ‘A’ for effort!”

Editor's Note - Dan Sherrier is a regular contributor to the North Star National which covers politics and opinion from all angles. Special thanks to Editor Dan Calabrese.