Radley Balko | February 17, 2009
Indianapolis City-County Councilman Ed Coleman is ditching the GOP and joining the Libertarian Party.
Coleman says the Republican Party no long represents its stated principles. He says he has become disillusioned by the GOP's abuse of power and lack of transparency in governing, particularly when it comes to the city's Capital Improvement Board, a quasi-government agency charged with dishing out corporate welfare (including the sweetheart deals worked out with the city's two professional sports franchises that I blogged about earlier today).
The Libertarian Party takes a lot of abuse, much of it deserved. But under the leadership of Mark Rutherford, the Indiana LP has made some impressive progress in recent years. Rutherford recruited a host of accomplished, serious candidates for several local, state, and federal races. As Dave Wiegel pointed out last fall, the Indianapolis Star had high praise for LP 2008 congressional candidate Eric Schansberg, calling him a "prime example of how far the Libertarian Party has advanced in Indiana."
Last November, Indiana (my home state) voted for a Democratic president for the first time since 1964. If the state's LP can consistently field reputable candidates that siphon off even a small amount of the vote, it could present some real problems for the state's Republicans.
Thanks to Joshua Claybourn for the tip.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I hate it when GOP people switch - it just reinforces the Libertarian as pot smoking rupublicans meme.
I have been following the Indiana LP for several years. They're
serious, level-headed, and well-organized. They've basically been
kicking ass. While I've pretty much written off the LP nationally,
I'm very impressed with Indiana's organization. They deserve any
support the rest of us are willing to lend.
IIRC, other states which have strong LP organziations include
Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia. Let me know if I'm missing
any.
Organizing libertarians is like herding cats. My hat's off to anyone with the slightest bit of success in this regard.
.it just reinforces the Libertarian as pot smoking
republicans meme.
and why is this a bad thing?
I hate it when GOP people switch - it just reinforces the
Libertarian as pot smoking rupublicans meme.
Is it just me, or is it the case that Dems never dump their party
for the Libs? Why might that be?
Eric Schansberg is now a Republican...oops.
This is such a non-story in Indy that not a single member of the
local media showed up for the "press conference".
"Is it just me, or is it the case that Dems never dump their
party for the Libs? Why might that be?"
It's just you. A lot of people (such as myself) spent a lot of time
believing that the democrat party actually cares somewhat about
freedom (at least relative to the republicans). I am not sure why I
let myself believe that for so long, but I expect that a lot of
people are in the same boat.
RC Dean - are you talking about people in general, or elected officials?
This is such a non-story in Indy that not a single member of the
local media showed up for the "press conference".
The local media in Indy isn't exactly noted for go-get-it-tivness
or thinking-outside-the-box-ness.
Plus, Indy is the one big city in America more boring than the one in which I toil. You'd think the press corps there would be anxious for a little something out of the mainstream.
RC Dean - are you talking about people in general, or
elected officials?
Elected officials.
I hate it when GOP people switch - it just reinforces the Libertarian as pot smoking rupublicans meme.
The only Democrat in history to jump was Mike Gravel. And he's
still trying to figure out why the party didn't like his idea to
tax and regulate everything that moved.
Then I'd say it's not all that often that Republicans switch,
either, although more frequent than Democrats.
Back in the 1980's - prior to PC / speech codes, Democrats were
generally better on the 1st Amendment, (think Ed Meese) the 4th
Amendment, the WoD, the 5th Amendment, and a few other
issues.
IMO, Clinton was a big factor in the Democrats becoming almost
completely un-libertarian. While much better than typical Democrats
from a fiscal point of view (helped by a Rep Congress), he helped
push the Dems into a "we're tough on crime, too" stance that all
but destroyed the Dems advantage for most civil libertarian issues.
His administration was also not big on the 1st Amendment.
Back in the 1980's - prior to PC / speech codes, Democrats were generally better on the 1st Amendment
Nah, they wanted to save the Fairness Doctrine, and they opposed
equal treatment of religious & non-religious organiz'ns in
contracting with or getting favors from gov't.
I can confirm that both the current State Chair of the LPIN
(that would be me) and the current Vice Chair (Dan Drexler) are
both former Democrats.
Sincerely,
Todd Singer
In addition to Todd's comment, the current Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Marion County is also a former Democrat.
The Indiana LP is chock full of libertarians in name only. A
short conversation with the activists and the candidates will
demonstrate what an unprincipled bunch they are. Few could name a
single prominent libertarian intellectual, aside perhaps from
Rand.
Typical was the 2006 LP candidate for Indiana Secretary of State,
whose major issues were: 1. Bringing the Bureau of Motor Vehicles
under the control of -- guess who? -- the Secretary of State; 2.
Opposition to gerrymandering; 3. "Voting machines we can trust";
and 4. "Promoting voter turnout."
http://mikekoleissues.blogspot.com/
With few exceptions -- including the recent candidate for governor
-- the Indiana LP is Libertarian without libertarianism.
Robert, I take it that you are responding to me. The very
existences of the Secretary of State, and the Bureau of Motor
Vehicles are anti-freedom. The LP candidate took no positions on
those issues that couldn't have been taken by Republican or
Democratic candidates; or which diminish the existing limitations
on freedom. So, your point is more correctly that he didn't propose
anything that would extend the power of the state vis-a-vis those
agencies. That is the purpose of the Indiana Libertarian
Party?
I didn't mention that, before he ran for Sec. of State, Mike Kole
had a job issuing permits on behalf of one of the local
governments, and he declared that he was "proud" to have done that.
Mark Rutherford, for whom Mr. Balko has such kind words, was a
prosecuting attorney who, to my knowledge, never expressed any
objection to the prosecution of victimless crimes while he held the
post.
Excepting Andrew Horning, Indiana LP candidates have been most
adroit at hiding any hint of libertarian principle from the voters
who they vainly hope will embrace them. They claim that the time to
be principled is after they take office. Yeah, sure.
Coleman was first elected in 2007 to the Indianapolis City
County Council as an At-Large Representative in the 14th largest
city in America, and represents a little under 800,000 Hoosiers. He
is now the highest elected official in the Libertarian Party within
the United States.
That sounds like we are pretty organized, and are actually
functioning in government.
By the way, 4 or 5 of Horning's proposals are being considered in
Indiana's legislature, due to Andy and other INDIANA libertarians
(small L as well as big) lobbying their legislator, and explaining
in a calm manner the effect libertarian principles can have on our
State and local governments. We also have about a dozen
libertarians working of state and local boards to reform from the
inside.
Anarcho litmus tests hurt your cause, and alienate you from
actually making a dent in the massive problems we have in this
country. Just because we don't speak in the same terms as yourself,
it doesn't mean we aren't fighting for the same cause. If you were
on the ground in Indiana, I'd think you'd be please with our level
of radicalism.
"Anarcho litmus tests hurt your cause, and alienate you from
actually making a dent in the massive problems we have in this
country."
Translation: Abandon principles and behave opportunistically. Just
the strategy which has increasingly marginalized the LP. This is
precisely where the Libertarian Party and libertarianism part
company: right where it matters most.
I live on Earth. In Indiana. What I find is a party whose members
are poorly read, know little about libertarian principles and
history, and who will grasp at almost anything they think will get
LP candidates elected. In short, it's a party which has abandoned
principles even before gaining power. It begs credulity to imagine
that the devotion to principle of LPers would grow once they were
elected. Every Hooser LP member I've heard from in detail says the
same as you do: principle should be sacrificed to necessity. Mostly
it's the necessity of the person speaking to be elected.
Speaking of which... Government is, by its nature, a socialist
enterprise. Why would genuine libertarians want to gain positions
of power in a socialist operation?
This councilman is now a member of the LP. What in his political
history demonstrates that he is also a libertarian?
Ed Coleman's courage is inspiring.
"As we are liberated from our own fear, Our presence automatically
liberates others." --Quote by Marianne Williamson
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245