I'm a registered Libertarian in my state. I'm amazed at what a truly lousy job they do publicizing a party that seems to have the best interests of the entire nation, save their silly "unlimited immigration" crap. Their "legalize drugs" platform needs to come out of the 70's and get updated for today. Heroin should not be sold at the local 7-11.Party of Principle - the Inherent Contradiction
Thursday, May 17, 2007
America needs a real libertarian party – one which gets freedom-lovers elected to partisan offices. Unfortunately, the existing Libertarian Party was set up for different purposes: to educate the public about a very narrow and radical brand of libertarianism, to use elections as publicity stunts to this end, and to remain pure until the day that society collapses under excess government, whereupon the voters will be desperate enough to vote for anything new – including radical libertarianism.
Over time, many LP members – myself included – have decided on a different purpose for the LP: to move public policy in a libertarian direction by electing libertarians to public office. This new mission was even added to the bylaws. Unfortunately, this new mission has been sabotaged by the remaining relics of the old mission: a restrictive membership pledge, an overly radical platform and statement of principles, and purist party members intent on keeping the party on its original track.
This LP's divided purpose leads to legendary infighting within, and countless wasted hours and dollars expended on hopeless campaigns. It is long past time for the LP to fully make the transition to the new mission, or change its mind and go back to its original mission. In its current mixed state, the LP is harmful to the libertarian cause.
After the LP's dismal showing in the 2004 elections, I called together a meeting of LP activists from Buncombe County for a long term strategy meeting. We considered several options, including:
Keep on going the way we have been.
Put out a resolution distancing the local party from the national platform so our candidates could have a chance.
Launch a reform effort to turn the LP into a real political party.
Start a new, moderate, libertarian party.
Give up on third party politics.
The overwhelming consensus was to go with Option 3, and thus the Libertarian Reform Caucus was born. At the time I was 40% in favor of this option and 60% in favor of Option 4, but decided to go with the consensus and threw all my weight behind the Caucus. For the next year and a half I burned through most of my spare time building the reformthelp.org web site, and many others put in a great deal of time (and some treasure) promoting the Caucus, writing platform proposals, and other tasks.
As a result of these efforts, the Caucus was a major force at the 2006 LP National Convention in Portland. We had advertised in Reason, Liberty, and LP News; we had mailed the registered delegates; we had a table at the convention; and many of our members traveled to Portland for their first national convention. In addition, I had wheedled my way onto the bylaws committee in order to get the membership oath on the agenda and to protect the platform retention process.
Come Saturday, the delegates voted to keep the Oath. It was somewhere close to a 50-50 vote, but we needed 2/3 to make the change. The designs of the Founders prevailed, and I heard many a "no" from activists I had worked with over the years. Time for Option 4 in my mind, and I removed my delegate badge and left the floor.
Later that day I got the word: most of the old platform planks failed the retention vote. The "Portland Purge" had begun.
The worst case scenario had happened. The reform forces had won enough to anger the old guard, but the reforms were insufficient to turn the LP into a real political party. Nonetheless, I was sucked back in and tried to use the political capital gained in order to finish the job. I put together a proposal to various LNC members for a new hypertext program, that could entice new members and voters with a menu of sensible proposals, in a way that does not commit individual candidates to a particular course of action. There was interest at first, but the idea went nowhere.
Then, when I got home, I saw the press release: "Libertarian Party Moves Forward as 'Party of Principle' at 2006 National Convention." Staff had opted to downplay what had happened, referring to it as "a matter of housecleaning." I was sorely miffed. Here was a chance to rebrand the party: "New and Improved Libertarian Party – Now with Common Sense!" They even had a new logo to go along with a rebranding effort.
Of course, I have no right to be mad at the LPHQ staff. They were following the true will of the convention. Many delegates did vote to remove old planks as a matter of housecleaning. The platform had grown rather ugly after the 2004 reformatting. To rebrand the party without a true mandate would have been out of line.
Thus, the waffling continues and the party withers. This must end. The pragmatic libertarians need to either finish the job in 2008 or get out and let the purists have their protest organization. The alternative is wasted time, effort and acrimony.
To this end I call for pragmatists to up the ante. It is not enough to fix the platform and the pledge; we must give staff an unequivocal mandate for a major rebranding effort. It is time to change the slogan. It is time to put an end to "The Party of Principle."
For the past few years I have been lambasted by purists and called "unprincipled." Very well. I accept the label, nay, wield it as a badge of honor. I am unprincipled. I do not shoehorn all my ethical and legal thinking into a single axiom. I reject the need to follow the Zero Aggression Principle to its ultimately ridiculous conclusions. I boldly proclaim that:
Replacing an elected republic with warring "protection services" is woefully imprudent;
Standing aside for genocide is contrary to the ideals of liberty;
Defaulting on the national debt is a recipe of economic disaster;
Defaulting on Social Security obligations is robbing the older generations;
Selling the remaining wilderness to be raped by corporations is robbing future generations;
Cutting government in random order without regard to other considerations is the height of incompetence.
I have had it with this monochrome principle. The Good is a nonlinear multidimensional function. Deal with it!
I am not a libertarian in order to promote a simplistic, impractical and inhumane philosophy. I am a libertarian because I love liberty, because the government has grown way too large, because too many people rot in jail without need, and too many others live in fear of unjust fines and lawsuits.
Exactly how I come to these conclusions is irrelevant. Different libertarians come to similar conclusions from different angles, from different principles. Building the party around one narrow principle results in a tiny party, sending a message to the country that there are very few who truly love liberty. The cause is harmed by the existence of such a party.
A political party is either a diverse coalition of somewhat similar interests, or it is a joke. A party of principle is a joke, and it's the statists who are doing the laughing.
So I call on libertarian pragmatists to go for it in 2008. Finish fixing the platform, get rid of the membership pledge, and change the slogan.
Some would council for a more timid approach; they rightfully point out that a call to change the slogan would inflame the purists. So be it! If the pragmatists cannot beat the purists up front in a fair contest, they should lose. It is better to lose than to linger. There is always Option 4.
America needs a real libertarian party – one which gets freedom-lovers elected to partisan offices. Unfortunately, the existing Libertarian Party was set up for different purposes: to educate the public about a very narrow and radical brand of libertarianism, to use elections as publicity stunts to this end, and to remain pure until the day that society collapses under excess government, whereupon the voters will be desperate enough to vote for anything new – including radical libertarianism.
Over time, many LP members – myself included – have decided on a different purpose for the LP: to move public policy in a libertarian direction by electing libertarians to public office. This new mission was even added to the bylaws. Unfortunately, this new mission has been sabotaged by the remaining relics of the old mission: a restrictive membership pledge, an overly radical platform and statement of principles, and purist party members intent on keeping the party on its original track.
This LP's divided purpose leads to legendary infighting within, and countless wasted hours and dollars expended on hopeless campaigns. It is long past time for the LP to fully make the transition to the new mission, or change its mind and go back to its original mission. In its current mixed state, the LP is harmful to the libertarian cause.
After the LP's dismal showing in the 2004 elections, I called together a meeting of LP activists from Buncombe County for a long term strategy meeting. We considered several options, including:
Keep on going the way we have been.
Put out a resolution distancing the local party from the national platform so our candidates could have a chance.
Launch a reform effort to turn the LP into a real political party.
Start a new, moderate, libertarian party.
Give up on third party politics.
The overwhelming consensus was to go with Option 3, and thus the Libertarian Reform Caucus was born. At the time I was 40% in favor of this option and 60% in favor of Option 4, but decided to go with the consensus and threw all my weight behind the Caucus. For the next year and a half I burned through most of my spare time building the reformthelp.org web site, and many others put in a great deal of time (and some treasure) promoting the Caucus, writing platform proposals, and other tasks.
As a result of these efforts, the Caucus was a major force at the 2006 LP National Convention in Portland. We had advertised in Reason, Liberty, and LP News; we had mailed the registered delegates; we had a table at the convention; and many of our members traveled to Portland for their first national convention. In addition, I had wheedled my way onto the bylaws committee in order to get the membership oath on the agenda and to protect the platform retention process.
Come Saturday, the delegates voted to keep the Oath. It was somewhere close to a 50-50 vote, but we needed 2/3 to make the change. The designs of the Founders prevailed, and I heard many a "no" from activists I had worked with over the years. Time for Option 4 in my mind, and I removed my delegate badge and left the floor.
Later that day I got the word: most of the old platform planks failed the retention vote. The "Portland Purge" had begun.
The worst case scenario had happened. The reform forces had won enough to anger the old guard, but the reforms were insufficient to turn the LP into a real political party. Nonetheless, I was sucked back in and tried to use the political capital gained in order to finish the job. I put together a proposal to various LNC members for a new hypertext program, that could entice new members and voters with a menu of sensible proposals, in a way that does not commit individual candidates to a particular course of action. There was interest at first, but the idea went nowhere.
Then, when I got home, I saw the press release: "Libertarian Party Moves Forward as 'Party of Principle' at 2006 National Convention." Staff had opted to downplay what had happened, referring to it as "a matter of housecleaning." I was sorely miffed. Here was a chance to rebrand the party: "New and Improved Libertarian Party – Now with Common Sense!" They even had a new logo to go along with a rebranding effort.
Of course, I have no right to be mad at the LPHQ staff. They were following the true will of the convention. Many delegates did vote to remove old planks as a matter of housecleaning. The platform had grown rather ugly after the 2004 reformatting. To rebrand the party without a true mandate would have been out of line.
Thus, the waffling continues and the party withers. This must end. The pragmatic libertarians need to either finish the job in 2008 or get out and let the purists have their protest organization. The alternative is wasted time, effort and acrimony.
To this end I call for pragmatists to up the ante. It is not enough to fix the platform and the pledge; we must give staff an unequivocal mandate for a major rebranding effort. It is time to change the slogan. It is time to put an end to "The Party of Principle."
For the past few years I have been lambasted by purists and called "unprincipled." Very well. I accept the label, nay, wield it as a badge of honor. I am unprincipled. I do not shoehorn all my ethical and legal thinking into a single axiom. I reject the need to follow the Zero Aggression Principle to its ultimately ridiculous conclusions. I boldly proclaim that:
Replacing an elected republic with warring "protection services" is woefully imprudent;
Standing aside for genocide is contrary to the ideals of liberty;
Defaulting on the national debt is a recipe of economic disaster;
Defaulting on Social Security obligations is robbing the older generations;
Selling the remaining wilderness to be raped by corporations is robbing future generations;
Cutting government in random order without regard to other considerations is the height of incompetence.
I have had it with this monochrome principle. The Good is a nonlinear multidimensional function. Deal with it!
I am not a libertarian in order to promote a simplistic, impractical and inhumane philosophy. I am a libertarian because I love liberty, because the government has grown way too large, because too many people rot in jail without need, and too many others live in fear of unjust fines and lawsuits.
Exactly how I come to these conclusions is irrelevant. Different libertarians come to similar conclusions from different angles, from different principles. Building the party around one narrow principle results in a tiny party, sending a message to the country that there are very few who truly love liberty. The cause is harmed by the existence of such a party.
A political party is either a diverse coalition of somewhat similar interests, or it is a joke. A party of principle is a joke, and it's the statists who are doing the laughing.
So I call on libertarian pragmatists to go for it in 2008. Finish fixing the platform, get rid of the membership pledge, and change the slogan.
Some would council for a more timid approach; they rightfully point out that a call to change the slogan would inflame the purists. So be it! If the pragmatists cannot beat the purists up front in a fair contest, they should lose. It is better to lose than to linger. There is always Option 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment