9 for ’08 Series- Robert W. Milnes

05Mar07

Welcome to Mango Ice Cream’s first installment of the “9 for ’08 series.” As we all know, the political scenery has been and is still dominated by two major parties. A great number of highly qualified candidates go completely unnoticed, year to year, election to election, simply because they fly under this Republican vs. Democrat radar.

The goal of this series is to present interviews with a selection of those candidates- you can read it to either (a) expand your knowledge about American politics even if you’re already a supporter of another party or candidate, or (b) seriously consider voting for the interviewee if his/her views match your own.

Without further ado, here’s the first installment- candidate Robert W. Milnes.

MangoIceCream: Please very briefly summarize your platform for those readers unacquainted with your campaign.

Robert Milnes: Since I am campaigning for the libertarian party nomination, I try to conform my platform and positions & proposals to that. Fortunately, many libertarian ideas, positions etc. are in agreement or at least compatible with greens. Fortunately also, introducing the libertarian principle of voluntary participation to many leftist programs makes them acceptable-at least in my opinion. Revolutionary changes for the better to Progressive. So my emphasis is on assuring that party identification can be maintained while a strategy to get as many candidates of both parties on every ballot but only one per ballot (so as to not split the vote) can be pursued. I have suggested in 2008 that it be agreed that ballot access be on a first come first served basis. That would allow both sides to pursue self interest in getting on as many ballots as possible initially. Then once there is one of each on-hopefully-all ballots, it would be agreed that both sides do all they can to get that one elected. The executive ticket could be “hybrid”-one of each, or not. But since the LP will almost certainly get more ballot access nationally and their convention is before the Greens, the Greens should simply endorse the LP ticket.

MangoIceCream: There has been some criticism by Libertarian opponents of your desire to form this “Progressive Alliance” with the Green Party. Beyond attaining the 1/3rds American Progressive vote, is their any philosophical reasoning behind this alliance?

Robert Milnes: The philosophy of alliance in order to win. The commonality of progressivism. It could be looked at as The Greater Progressive Party with leftist and rightist members. The 1/3 progressive vote is an estimate. The Libertarian Vote study (Cato Institute) put the extended libertarian vote at 13%. The Gallup Governance Study found consistent polling at about 20%. However actual people describing themselves as libertarian and voting libertarian is about 1%. Voters are evidently initially open to voting libertarian, and many of those are evidently leftists (20%- 13%=7%). However as the actual election approaches, voters evidently abandon this in favor of choosing between the democrats and republicans in order to not “waste the vote”. So the desire to not waste the vote leads to the choice between “the lesser of two evils”. The goal would be to get the initial voters to stay with the hope of eventual victory and expand the 20% to 34%- the minimum in a close three way race. Most of the additional 14% would come from leftists. I estimate the very maximum progressive vote under ideal circumstances at 50%.

MangoIceCream: How much opposition did you expect to receive to this hybrid ticket, and how much has there actually been?

Robert Milnes: I expected some opposition initially. But I expect that to change to support as the initial resistance lessens. So far it is too soon to judge, but it is safe to say so far it hasn’t been spinning my hitometer!

MangoIceCream: You have mentioned that one of your goals would be to gradually reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Could you expound on why and how this could be achieved? Do you advocate the U.S. reducing its numbers as well?

Robert Milnes: Why it should be achieved is simple. It would eliminate the possible catastrophe of nuclear winter. The actual number is estimated to be about 100 depending on several factors. It could only be achieved through persistent and innovative negotiations and programs. One such program is simple purchase of nuclear weapons materials-by the UNITED STATES. It might be found that keeping a weapon operational but without the nuclear material might be a necessary item in an overall defense strategy. Not being sure whether a weapon is conventional or nuclear could add deterrent effect without actual capability. Nuclear proliferation must be prevented. Reduction of the nuclear “club” of countries should also be reduced whenever possible. If negotiations between Pakistan and India could remove all there, that would leave China in the most disadvantaged position having no nuclear allies. So they would have to be allowed more than say the U.S and Russia. If they had 25 each, China 40, then England, France and Israel could have the remaining 10. I see no way of compelling Israel to give up all of it’s unofficially recognized weapons. And there is no compelling reason for England and France to have many weapons.

MangoIceCream: Could you please talk briefly about Karen Kwiatkowski whom you have expressed interest in including as your vice-presidential candidate?

Robert Milnes: Unfortunately, I have never met or spoken with her. We briefly emailed last year, but evidently after her brief association with George Phillies, she decided to remain neutral and not campaign much. This is more consistent to the libertarian party procedure of nomination of the vp by delegate vote there.i.e. the presidential nominee has no direct control of the vp nomination. She is the obvious counterpart to me. Female to my male, Southerner (Va.) to my Northerner (NJ). Libertarian to my Green identification. Military experience to my total lack of military experience or study.etc.

MangoIceCream: Is your campaign focused more on the promotion of the “Progressive Alliance” concept or more geared towards an actual Presidential run? If the latter, how difficult has it been for you to acquire donations from more traditional Libertarian and Green groups for your campaign?

Robert Milnes: Evidently donations are sparse all around. The introduction of Ron Paul has diverted a lot of support to him. I have decided to run a “default” campaign to the convention. I will represent the progressive alliance strategy. If no one else, including Ron Paul, declares support for it, a vote for me at the convention would be a vote for it. If other candidates support it, I could endorse a “more electable” candidate. We’ll see.

MangoIceCream: What are your stances on abortion and gay rights- two issues which figure to be large factors in the ’08 election?

Robert Milnes: I am pro-choice. However I am developing a voluntary health program one consequence of which could be the virtual elimination of the need for abortion. I support GLTB rights.

MangoIceCream: Please describe your personal character in 3 words.

Robert Milnes: Very depressed optimist.

MangoIceCream: Please describe your campaign in 3 words.

Robert Milnes: In to win.

Advertisements


12 Responses to “9 for ’08 Series- Robert W. Milnes”

  1. A reference to my websites was not included in this interview. http://www.robertmilnes4president08.com

  2. 3 texasranger

    It’s true that Greens and Libertarians are both “progressives,” but they’re on totally opposite sides of the spectrum. I really see this as a flaw… open ended question: which Libertarian values are compatible with Green ones specifically?

  3. Texasranger, I would rather not get into a lengthy reply here. I’d invite people to read the greens 10 key values & the libertarian platform. Your criticism is valid. On an issue by issue basis, right off, both are anti-war in Iraq. Both for decriminalization of recreational drugs. Anti-death penalty. Pro-choice. One area of contention involves economics. Another private property. Gun control. Agreed, both sides are progressive. Progressives disagree on some things, even leftist progressives & rightist progressives. So I would suggest in the interests of winning the elections, progressives agree to disagree on some things & get with the program-the progressive alliance strategy. Hope this is helpful.

  4. 5 texasranger

    Thanks for the reply Mr. Milnes.

  5. Where can I find the greens 10 key values?

  6. 7 Terrell

    Mr. Milnes, you clame that progresives should agree to disagree, by that logic, why cant democrats and republicans agree to disagree?

  7. Ezekiel23, try the greens website http://www.gp.org

  8. Terrell, They should agree to disagree where there is no consensus or agreement in a formal alliance. The republicans and democrats have no formal alliance.

  9. Good site!!!

  10. test


  1. 1 9 for ‘08 Series- George Phillies « Mango Ice Cream

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: