The so-called “reform” movement within the ranks of the LP might more accurately be called a “deform” movement.

The “reforms” called for by the Westies and their ilk have already been adopted in some form by the numerous statist parties. The “reformers” simply ought to enlist their energies on behalf of the statist parties and leave the LP as The Party of Principle . . . as designed. (N.B. Yeah, we really MEANT that IN 1972!)

Ideas move people. Strong ideas move more people. Equivocators and wimps with watered-down messages move no one.

The Welfare-Warfare is about to collapse, and will leave an ideological vacuum as void. Filling it with the avid statism of the “reformers” will not make it.

The dustbin of history beckons . . .

The primary problem is one of division of labor: the LP has been made up to be the head of the libertarian movement, therefore all of the libertarian movement claims a piece of it as their own, each doing what their tiny slice of the entire libertarian movement as a whole thinks is most important.

Therefore, you have all these people at cross purposes with each other defending their turf in the party, and nothing gets done becuase you cant herd libertarians in a focused direction. Nobody wants to give up their little slice of the party.

The LP is viewed as the head of the entire libertarian movement when it really should be the tail. There’s literally hundreds of libertarian groups and advocacy groups out there, and there’s only one LP.

Unlike baseball, there is no World Series in politics. Some candidates may achieve only three percent of the vote on election day, but he overlooks the Libertarians that have won victories and are sitting in office today.

As I see it, it took at least a century for America to get in the mess that it is in. It will probably take at least a decade before we begin to see it turn around. Rick Miller’s generation is into instant gratification. I believe we need to look at our investment in alternative party politics as inter-generational Kingdom advancement. Rather than worry so much about results, I want to field candidates that I can feel comfortable voting for. The Republican and Democrat parties seldom provide such candidates.

Miller insinuates that if your favorite sports team is a perpetual loser you ought to abandon them and support a winner. I don’t care about spectator sports or whether that makes sense for fans. But politics should not be a spectator sport, and if someone abandons a political party they have joined on principle just because it doesn’t win enough elections, I think they are rotten citizens.