Libertarian Party Advised: Forget About Being the Party of Principle
Brian Doherty | May 21, 2007, 4:19pm
Both the post and the detailed comment thread well worth reading for those who enjoy worrying over the future of the Libertarian Party: Former Libertarian Reform Caucus man Carl Milsted calls on the LP 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!
My article on the LP platform changes in 2006 that Milsted liked, but thought didn't go far enough.
For those who want to think about the long history of the libertarian movement that led to this declaration of frustration on Milsted's part, I can only suggest you read my new book, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement and my site dedicated to it.
Tim | May 21, 2007, 10:17pm | #
I started writing about the need for a real LP political party on Aug 13th 2004 on my blog The New Libertarian. Others before me, like the Prince William County, VA. Libertarians, who disavowed the national platform, and Lois Kanasewski from PA (former LNC member, former PA state chair) came before me.
"Every good blog needs a starting point, something to anchor the blog and tell everyone why they took it upon themselves to become a self publisher. For me, that was the current state of affairs of the Libertarian Party, which I have been a card carrying member of since about 1989. ( With a 2 year exception when I got so pissed off I quit. This was due to the Harry Browne/Perry Willis scandal) I rejoined as a full dues payer in 2003.
I think the Libertarian Party is so fixated upon it's principles that it continues to undermine itself in elections; that some ( but not all) of it's candidates are certified whack jobs; and that the LP desperately needs politically savvy leadership that knows how to run campaigns on issues non-party members care about and who understand the nature of political involvement in the US. Frankly, most LP candidates dont even meet one of the listed criteria - and most party regulars like it that way. A recent quote from a man off of a posting on the who I shall not name really was the impetus behind this blog. He said:
"I prefer the Libertarian Party to remain politically powerless becuase it keeps our message pure."
This is precisely the RECIPE FOR LIBERTARIAN FAILURE. The Libertarian Party cannot continue to be a debate society, a personal confirmation or belief shrine, or a private club for the "True Believers". After years of near endless bickering, the LP has not, on the national level, managed in 30 years of involvement in American politics to slow or reverse the growth of government in this country. That is a record of abject failure. Our success on the State level is almost as bad, with some candidates who can compete for votes, but not many.
Almost all current Libertarian office holders hold local and small town offices where it is difficult to get anyone to participate in the process, no matter what party they are in. Compare that failure, and it can be described in no other way BUT a failure, with the most successful third party The Socialist Party USA headed by Eugene V. Debs. From 1904 to 1940 The SPUSA did not win any Presidential Elections, and ran mostly unsuccessful campaigns otherwise; yet by 1938 their campaign platforms were the LAW OF THE LAND, having been adopted by the major parties in a bipartisan manner.
In the same amount of time, libertarians have failed to gain a single platform plank into law and had very small successes ( such as the turnback of a state income tax in Tennesee ) on the state level. True, much has changed in those years but the difference is still striking. Since 1980, the LP has never gotten above a half of a percent vote in any national election for POTUS. While about 25% of the electorate identifies themselves as Libertarian on some issues, only 2~3% actually vote for LP candidates generally, and the LP has about 140,000 people that are registered as Libertarians who refuse for some reason who join the party as a dues paying member.
It occurs to me that when the majority of people who identify themselves as a member of your party actually refuse to join, you may have a problem. While it is very true that the major parties have stacked the deck in political involvement, I dont believe that this is the reason for the Libertarian Failure. When the majority of your registered members refuse to join the political party, it points to deeper problems. I believe the main problem is the inherent contradictions in the LP belief:
That pure Liberterianism is the cure for every problem America faces. I do not believe this to be the case. History can and does show us that no one single philosophy has a inherent right to leadership; and that when voters are faced with uncompromising positions that do not take their concerns into account, they will reject them.
Americans, except in time of great crisis, have always voted against any philosophy of governance that cannot be compromised in some manner to obtain passage into law and effect. I refer specifically to such things as the Pledge one is forced to sign saying that one will not use force as a way of obtaining power; the fact that all politics is force to some degree or another seems to not matter.
SO. What we are going to do here is move along in time together and try to understand why Libertarians keep losing, what can be done about our current state of affairs, and explore how to make the Libertarian Party from A third party into THE third party.
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. THOMAS PAINE Common Sense January 1776] -----
I quit the party and took my money with me recently for a number of reasons not needed to be listed here. The LP simply is'nt a political party, nor can it be reformed into one. It was built so that it's members who believe as they do have a refuge from actual political involvement.
It's a Bohemian Grove for anarchists.
Carl | May 22, 2007, 12:56pm | #
Actually Rimfax: I have never run for office. I have worked at burnout levels for others who have.
I have come to the conclusion that a political party that cannot recruit at least one activist per precinct cannot realistically support real campaigns. And activists either read platforms or hear what is in platforms indirectly.
The intolerance within the LP repels many good activists. Consider the firestorm in Atlanta when Neal Boortz spoke. I was disgusted -- even though my own political positions are considerably different from Mr. Boortz'.
Imagine if the DP required that you be as liberal as Nancy Pelosi, or if the RP demanded that you be as clueless as W.
Both of the major parties are coalitions. The Republicans include neocons, true conservatives, right-leaning libertarians and many members of the Religious Right. The Democrats include union members, minority activists, welfare advocates/recipients, environmentalists, and social liberals.
There is great conflict between many components of these coalitions. Many union members are hurt by the environmentalists, and are just as socially conservative as Jerry Falwell. Many of the conservatives and libertarians in the Republican big tent loathe Bush's spending habits.
These parties are built upon some very broad themes. The Democrats are built upon the themes that equality is important, and that government can be a positive force for good. The Republicans are supporters of business and tradition.
A party built on a coalition of those who want more liberty could be competitive. But it has to be a coalition. And notice the word "more."
The Libertarian Reform Caucus was created to turn the LP into that coalition. Such is the position of the Caucus.
My position is somewhat different. I helped form the LRC to
ask the LP if it wanted to be that coalition. I can take "no" for an answer. There is always Option 4.
In Portland the answer sounded about half and half. Radicalism prevails due to rules set up in the past to prevent adaption.
At this point I am slowly turning over operations of the Caucus to others who have become active since Portland. I am starting work on Option 4.
But for a while yet I will continue to ask the question: do ye
really want a pure LP? I ask this because I have many times witnessed purists recruiting moderates. There is a disconnect between stated theory and revealed preference.
Soon, I will write a follow-up article on why I call myself "unprincipled," and why "principles" as typically defined by libertarians, are a mistake. Better to focus on the underlying values, and treat "principles" as rules of thumb.
Carl | May 23, 2007, 2:01pm | #
Many in the LP would argue that your #1 is the same as ZAP. In libertarian circles, at least, the term "principle" is a rule to
always live by; it is like a clause in a constitution. Many in the LP are in constitution-mode most of the time, which is why there is so much agonizing over watering down (temporarily?) the platform.
Preview to upcoming article: I reject "principles" in favor of the underlying
values. Example values would be:
1. Freedom is good
2. Pushing people around is bad
3. Clean air is good
...
One can derive rules of thumb based upon such values, but they don't rise to the level of "principle", at least not as so many libertarians understand the term.
Note how values can conflict on the margin. To have absolutely clean air requires a great deal of restriction on freedom -- whether this restriction is based on contract, tort or EPA regulation. A value judgment needs to be made regarding the tradeoffs. Do we allow some air pollution in order to allow farmers to burn brush? To allow people to purchase cheap electricity?
Allowing some values to trump the value of noninitiation of force on the margin does not constitute a slippery slope to socialism! Liberty does not require ZAP to trump all other values, for a simple reason: freedom works -- usually. In fact, freedom usually works better.
Voter education need only entail:
1. Reminders that freedom is of value in and of itself.
2. Reminders that there are many opportunities to increase freedom while increasing other values at the same time.
Edward | May 23, 2007, 9:08pm | #
Toward a Libertarian Political Party By Ben Kalafut
http://www.rationalreview.com/content/13872
This really is worth reading. Here's just a taste:
Libertarian policy positions sure seem to be catching on, but I’m not feeling any freer.
Drug legalization doesn’t raise eyebrows anymore. School choice, likewise, is old hat and even homeschooling is too mainstream to be called cutting edge. Gun control is stalled like a Third Way economy, privatization isn’t nearly the controversy it used to be, and megacorporations, not usually champions of the free market, are calling for carbon trading.
It’s clear that libertarian think tanks and issue advocacy groups are getting our ideas taken seriously, but the result has mainly been statists adding free minds and free markets to their toolbox.
Politicians without libertarian values are not going to set aside their agendas to advance ours. Nonlibertairans may borrow our ideas, but they will not set us free. To move policy in the libertarian direction, we must either elect libertarians to office or be enough of a threat at the polls to force nonlibertarians to make concessions to earn our votes.
In short, we need a libertarian political party.
End Losertarian Strategy
After over 30 years, the Libertarian Party can boast slightly over 500 incumbent officeholders, a sad number when compared to the Socialist Party at its peak, let alone to the Democratic or Republican parties, but not surprising considering how many Libertarians run to lose. Expecting defeat may be realism, but adoption of defeat as a strategy is madness.
Most of the LP’s best-funded and most professional campaigns are waged by candidates who’d like the LP to be a political party but would rather it not be a libertarian one. I don’t mean that the candidates aren’t libertarian, but rather that they assume that libertarian positions, no matter how well-tuned to the race, are nonwinners. Usually their strategy is to gain office as center-right Republican Lite candidates, emphasizing guns and taxes, downplaying civil liberties and civil society, and throwing in a privatization scheme as a libertarian token.
This wins dinner invites from Republicans and perhaps a morsel of respect from the press for having practical ideas. However, Duverger’s Law virtually guarantees that of two nearly redundant candidates, voters who prefer the weaker of the pair will cast their votes for the stronger. Thus the Republican Lite strategy doesn’t even make for good spoilers.
