New “Boston Tea Party” Splits from LP
Thomas Knapp of the popular Kn@ppster blog is apparently fed up with the Libertarian Party in the wake of last weekend’s convention. In response, he’s begun laying the groundwork for a new political entity that he calls the Boston Tea Party.
The new party’s website: http://www.bostontea.us
The press release…
“Cyberia” (PRWEB) July 5, 2006 – Citing the Libertarian Party’s “abdication of its political responsibilities to the American people,” activists have founded the Boston Tea Party (www.bostontea.us) as an alternative, Internet-based vehicle for libertarian political action.“For various reasons, the ball got dropped in Portland,” says Boston Tea Party founder Thomas L. Knapp, referring to the Libertarian national convention, held over the July 4th weekend in Oregon. “Factional disputes led to a wholesale gutting of the party’s platform—a muddle in which the party was left without a mechanism for expressing its positions on several of the foremost public policy issues facing America’s voters.”
Rather than setting up the new party as a splinter group, Knapp says that he thinks of it as a “hopefully a pinch hitter, going to bat for America while the LP nurses its wounds and prepares to get back in the game. Until and unless that happens, the Boston Tea Party will fill in. Americans deserve—and desperately need—a pro-freedom party which forcefully advocates libertarian solutions to the issues of the day.”
Those solutions will be set forth in a program to be put together by the new party’s organizational convention, to be held online, Knapp says, in the next 30 to 60 days.
Knapp, however, hasn’t completely given up hope for the LP. On his own blog he goes on to state that:
It may be that libertarians can find some way to save the Libertarian Party from itself, make it relevant and put its feet back on the path toward organizational success (and, as a result, America’s feet back on the path toward human freedom).I hope that that’s what happens. Really. As a matter of fact, I have not resigned, nor do I intend at this time to resign, my membership in the LP. Since I am not a national officer, I have no obligation to belong to only one national political party; and since the Boston Tea Party has, as yet, no state affiliate in my state, I am free to support and serve my state LP until such time as that changes and/or until the LP and the Boston Tea Party nominate opposing presidential slates which I’d have to decide between. Perhaps the Libertarian Party will right itself in some unforeseen and unforeseeable way, and the Boston Tea Party will slide back into, or never emerge from, obscurity.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
The name is bad. Sounds like an event rather than an ongoing political party.
The website would have been better used for a company selling a line of Boston Tea drinkable products.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Make a small party smaller. AWESOME!
Fuckin’ A!
Don’t people understand that this is always a dumb idea?
July 5th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Continually complaining about how others are working towards freedom is dumb.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Enjoy your tea….
July 5th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Enjoy whatever it is that you enjoy …
July 5th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
This is what destroyed the socialist movement.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
The Democrats implementing the Socialist’s platform destroyed the socialist movement.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
One probably-unneeded-by-now correction: As the internal material reflects, the Boston Tea Party is not a “splinter” from the LP. It’s just a divergent effort, and I consider it likely that many BTP members will, like myself, continue to be active LP members.
As far as the “destruction” of the socialist movement goes, someone needs to tell those guys they’ve been “destroyed.” They haven’t noticed. The Chinese haven’t noticed, President of the Socialist International Tony Blair hasn’t noticed, the Democratic congresscritters who are members of Democratic Socialists of America haven’t noticed, the numerous Greens serving in public office haven’t noticed, and the Socialist Party USA/Social Democrats USA apparatchiks—including former Reagan UN ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, former Deputy Defense Secretary and now World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, and American Enterprise Institute honcho Joshua Muravchik— who make up the “neoconservative” movement which now dominates the GOP and US foreign policy haven’t noticed.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
July 5th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
I think folks need to realize that the Boston Tea Party is not intending to “break up” the LP - its more like a way for the more principled members of the party to collaborate and collect thoughts for change.
That’s just my two cents on the matter.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Like a caucus?
July 5th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
We have a guy (who is an acquaintance of mine) here in Wisconsin who started a new party several months ago, which I haven’t from since.
Does Third Party Watch know of the Justice Party?
New party generating immediate interest
http://www.theweekextra.com/blogs/politics/2005/12/new-party-generating-immediate.html
The Justice Party?
http://rightofftheshore.blogspot.com/2005/11/justice-party.html
Whitewater Man Creates New Political Party
http://wfrv.com/politics/local_story_331162812.html
Beam Me Up, Bernie!
http://dennisyork.blogspot.com/2005/11/beam-me-up-bernie.html
btw – I went to high school in Whitewater.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
There is certainly no need for another libertarian party. The main reason that the Libertarian Party is still a minor party is that its policies are so rigid that it turns off most mainstream voters.
You anti-socialists should not be so quick to condemn the Socialist Party USA and others. As a card-carrying member of SPUSA, I can tell you that we have plenty of anarchists among us. Personally, I do not understand why they don’t migrate to the Liberatrian Party where they would fit in much better. However, we are a multi-tendency Party and we have all sorts of people involved. “Let a hundred flowers bloom.”
One more thing, I voted for Elizabeth Keathly for Governor of California in November of 1974. She was the Peace and Freedom Party’s nominee for governor and was part of the libertarian faction of the Party. So, you all might want to look at us socialists as allies, not enemies.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
put its feet back on the path toward organizational success
But the LP wasn’t on the path to any kind of success—if you don’t recognize that, you’re delusional.
As for socialism—well, I suppose the ideology is alive and well. Although a good counter-argument could be made (defensiveness of socialists re proven superiority of market economy, loss of absolute control over a billion people, etc.).
I suspect Stuart was thinking in terms of political parties. Socialists have a long history of purging each other due to lack of “purity,” so that pretty soon the one true Socialist Party has become 17 splintered variants—e.g., “Revolutionary Trotskyite Socialist Workers Peoples Party.”
July 5th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Oh no, the Reform Party affliction!
The Constitutionalists, VETSparty, reform parties and now, Libs!
2008: 451 minor and micro parties with 1327 adjunct groups.
Ballots the size of telephone books!
July 5th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
The Ed Clark Campaign of 1980, even with Anderson in the race to split the vote 4 ways, was not successful? Going from 0 to 1.1 million votes in 9 years is not that shabby.
The LP post 1983 didnt want political success. They had a cult of freedom to build instead.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Richard and Tim,
The LP has, at various times, garnered various levels of success and attempted to exploit them for more. Clark in 1980, of course, was the high-water point, but as many problems as I had with Harry Browne’s campaigns, he DID bring the LP back up from the 1992 Andre Marrou low vote total and his supporters’ programs DID pump up the dues-paying membership numbers.
No matter what the LP does, people will see problems with it—and those problems won’t be illusory, they’ll be real. Tim, Dr. Milsted and other RLC members saw real problems and came up with the more important part—solutions. I see problems, and I’m offering solutions. “The market” will decide which solutions work and which don’t—and one thing about the market is that there’s often room for competing solutions to both be successful … to a point. I view the BTP as more collaborative dissent than outright competition, but I’m sure it will take on shapes I haven’t anticipated, and that it will work—or not work—or both—as time goes on.
I hate to be “in the middle,” but as Tim himself has pointed out, I tend to be a “practical purist,” and with the divisions in the party accentuating themselves in particular ways, I see an opportunity for the “purist” wing of the LP to re-examine itself, make itself better at what it DOES do well, and emerge in 2008 as one wing of a libertarian creature with a big-ass wingspan .
Regards,
Tom Knapp
July 6th, 2006 at 1:26 am
I’m still waiting for someone to form the Anarchy Party.
Then a few years later, disgruntled anarchist purists will break off and form the Anarchy Reform Caucus.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:18 am
This is the most excited Ive been about the Libertarian Party in years. Ive never been a member, but I share the philosophy and use to get stuff in the mail. I never joined though because it was always obvious to me that they were too extreme to win (or even be minimally successful); I always thought of the LP as more of a ThinkTank than a real poltical party.
I hope the reformers are successful, but from what Ive read they couldnt even get the nutty sounding “cult of the omnipotent state” out of the platform, which I think shows just how irrational the purists are. They did get alot of the planks removed though, so it seems to me like they were somewhat successful. I think the best thing that could happen for the LP is for Mr Knapp, with all due respect, to really start another party and hope the extremists all leave. I think only then will more reasonable people in the party be able to create something that has a chance to win.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:00 am
Jonesy
The neolibertarians could’ve easily started their own party, but chose instead to take over the Lp, leaving paleolibertarians no choice but to compromise their principles or leave the party. Essentially the neolibertarians laid claim to the name “Libertarian Party”, a name that for 30 years has been associated with paleolibertarian principles.
It’s their party now, and anyone who can’t conform should get out, is the message I’m getting from them on nearly every forum.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Jonathan Gullible,
I have one thing to thank the Reformers for – I didn’t know I was a so called “purist” until the aftermath of this Convention. Ever since I joined the LP I was aware of the purists vs. pragmatists problem. I saw a purist get chased out of a local party – I met him twice and he seemed to be very well organized and quite nice. But I still hadn’t seen enough to know how I felt on the matter.
I figured the reformers would get rid of the pledge – not eliminate 44 planks completely.
I wouldn’t say I’m a “purist” but I do consider myself a paleo libertarian. The reason being – I’m not sure how much you can chip away at something and still have an entity of substance left. I crave truth and righteousness and don’t feel this can be found without an organization that remains true to its founding principles.
I know now exactly where I stand – something that I’m happy about!
July 6th, 2006 at 9:59 am
I thought I would suggest the “Cult of the Omnipotent State” to my son as a name for his alternative rock band.
The Libertarian Party is simply going through some growing pains in dealing with some of their issues just like we in the Constitution Party have been doing. I suspect both will survive and grow and begin to make life increasingly uncomfortable for the major parties in the not too distant future.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Most Paleolibs, especially centered around the the Von Mises Institute at Auburn University won’t have anything to do with the LP either, especially when it runs candidates like Chief Wana Dubie for the Missouri state legislature or has members named Starchild.
The people in charge or have strongly influenced the LP for the past 23 years have the pure libertarian/anarchists types that’s driven the party into irrelevency and have drawn weirdos to its banner that’s driven people away from the party. Jesse Ventura should have been a libertarian. But as he told a news reporter in an interview “I thought I was a libertarian too, but then I saw their platform. These guys are a bunch of anarchists.”
Now, I don’t know the whole details of the platforms that have been replaced or what’s been thrown out. Obviously if there’s going to be a schism its got to be over serious policy divisions like the war on Iraq, not over legalizing prostitution or opium dens or because you lost the game fair and square and now you’re crying like a baby you didn’t get your way. Obviously if the LP starts supporting the war or the expansion of federal power because of it then it is becoming GOP light. But if not, it has a golden opportunity to draw in disgruntled conservatives and small “l” libertarians that vote for the GOP if it presents itself in a less-radical light like it was back in 1980. Or draw liberals who are also dsigusted with the rise of state power.
But beyond this, the LP has to find and organize libertarian-leaning social groups to its banner. They’re all out there, they have communities, they just need to be engaged. The LP did not do this and the party suffered. The LRC needs to start organizing and concentrating its strength in libertarian places. This what the whole Free State Project is an attempt to do in New Hampshire. Running candidates everywhere who have zero chance of winning is not sound a strategy. The Greens are far more influential and far more success at influencing the debate because they are concentrated in placeds where they are strong and have organized their voting base. The LP or any legitimate schimatic party needs to do the same.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
“Jesse Ventura should have been a libertarian. But as he told a news reporter in an interview ‘I thought I was a libertarian too, but then I saw their platform. These guys are a bunch of anarchists.’”
Source?
July 6th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
To Chris Moore: I sorry I can’t be more specfic, but some newsshow back in late 1998 after he got elected to early 1999 when he first took office that was interviewing him, it might have been for one of the cable network. I’m sorry I can’t provide more detail of the where and when from that long ago but I do remember him making this statement.
And if you think about it, it makes sense. There’s a reason why he ran with the IP (or Reform back then in Minnesota) rather than the LP
July 6th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
I am thinking that he might have said that on the old Arsinio Hall Show. I remember him saying that as well, but it wasnt on the news.
Of course, I never dreamed in 1999 that I would have to quote a source to Chris Moore to prove I want lying about something I said in 2006, so I didnt turn on my VCR.
Arsinio’s show really was’nt that funny – waste of a good tape.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
I predict that this Boston Tea Party will not, at any point, have any impact on anything.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:07 am
paleolibertarian??? WTF?!?
the [expletive deleted] libertarian party is too [expletive deleted] small to have so many [expletive deleted] subgroups.
no wonder they can’t get any [expletive deleted] thing done, they’re too busy trying to define themselves with a new [expletive deleted] term every few months!
[expletive deleted]
!
if they would quit trying to cram everyone who joins into a [expletive deleted] subgroup they might just be able to grow their [expletive deleted] party!
They’re more stringent in their [expletive deleted] ideology than the [expletive deleted] communists and about as welcoming as a [expletive deleted] root canal!
That [expletive deleted] pledge completely throws away the their first amendment rights to petition the government for redress. The platform deserved to be gutted since it advocated anarchy.
The BTP sounds like a good idea. It’ll probably overtake the LP in a few years and be much more viable. At least up to the point where they start excluding those who don’t think a certain way 100% of the time on 100% of their issues.
[expletive deleted]!
July 7th, 2006 at 9:22 am
“Of course, I never dreamed in 1999 that I would have to quote a source to Chris Moore to prove I want lying about something I said in 2006, so I didnt turn on my VCR.”
Tim, I didn’t ask YOU to prove anything.
Sean posted a direct quote that I had never heard nor heard about. I was curious about the source. I never called Sean a liar. I didn’t imply that he was a liar. And Sean, if you thought I was impling you to be a liar, then I apologize.
But, remembering exactly what he said in one interview in 1999 is difficult.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
It is a shame, hopefully things will iron out. We work with LP a lot on common cause issues. The only thing I could hope for is that some of the LP folks might come over to CP-those that have our views, but joined LP.
Where are the LP folks on here that thought the CP in fighting was funny??? Guess you are not laughing as much now
July 7th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
“I hope the reformers are successful, but from what Ive read they couldnt even get the nutty sounding “cult of the omnipotent state” out of the platform, which I think shows just how irrational the purists are.”
That’s because changing the statement of principles requires a 7/8ths vote.
I posted this on Hammer of Truth, but I think it is equally relevant to this thread.
Contrary to some comments, I think we have desperately needed to have an internal debate like this for 30 years. Right now the LP seems headed for full on war between the reformers (Libertarian Reform Caucus, current LP leadership) vs. the radicals (Radical Caucus, Rothbard Caucus, Boston Tea Party), and I am not sure where the party will be in two years. I really don’t want a bad term schism by one group or the other, as abrasive as I can get when talking to radicals. The fact is the groups have two radically different viewpoints on whether government has a role in our lives, how candidates should go about being elected and how they should use their power in office if they get there, whether being principled means always acting consistently with those principles vs. realizing that one cannot always get their long-term goals accomplished when they refuse to compromise in the short-term, if replacing evils with lesser evils is principled. In fact, we don’t agree on much with regards to running a political party.
This has been a problem that has cost the LP many members over the years and has hindered our ability to be an effective party. I think we need some serious internal soulsearching as to whether we’d prefer to always be right or whether we’d prefer to be political and get political objectives accomplished. These are the two directions we are arguing about, and I feel like our effectiveness as a party will always be hindered until we take time to sort things out. As much as I hate to say it, because I think LP presidential candidates are the best nationwide publicity for the party, perhaps we should not run a presidential candidate in 2008 and instead devote our next convention to figuring out if we can work together or if we need to amicably go our separate ways. It doesn’t matter how many Americans don’t know about us when we don’t even know our own identity as a party.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
I think the smarter thing might be some sort of emergency national meeting in 2007. This needs to be sorted out well before the 2008 convention so that the party can get together behind a strong Presidential nominee.
I’m not always a huge fan of running Presidential campaigns… but besides the fact that ballot access in many states is at stake, it seems like 2008 will be a prime year for “alternative” candidates. People are fed up with both major parties. If there’s a time to strike and maybe break the million vote mark, I think 2008 is it.
Also, you stated:
“I think we need some serious internal soulsearching as to whether we’d prefer to always be right or whether we’d prefer to be political and get political objectives accomplished.”
This is a bad argument because it gives “purists” the moral high ground right off the bat. The reform effort should be framed more as altering the platform to better represent the “average Libertarian” out there.
I think there are many people who don’t feel that the more “pure Libertarians” are really more correct in their views. Private highways and fire departments, legalizing every single drug, and totally abolishing the income tax and replacing it with nothing seem like really bad ideas to many people.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Jonesy: The “Cult of the Omnipotent State” language is some of the least nutty language in the platform. It’s actually true. Read Rousseau or Hegel. There is a cult. They teach how the state represents the “general will” in our colleges. I can proudly talk about the Cult in front of ordinary Americans and it makes sense to them.
Yes, it is a bit of an obscure reference, but we can work with it.
It’s the categorical language that abounds which gets us into trouble. Language calling for no taxes, or no eminent domain. These bads can and should be reduced dramatically, but there is a point of diminishing returns.
The ultra-radical environmentalists make the same mistake regarding pollution and use of the land. However, the environmental movement has successfully fractured into many separate organizations. They have their ultra-radical protest groups and their political compromise groups. This is effective.
We libertarians need to do the same thing. Divided we stand.
July 8th, 2006 at 3:22 am
“This is a bad argument because it gives “purists” the moral high ground right off the bat.”
I don’t think it does, personally. I feel like it is less moral to be counterproductive to one’s own cause than it is to admit that not everything we want is acceptable at this time (and thus we must pick our battles). Attaining a libertarian future relies on libertarian political success; many purists seem not to care about political success at all. While politics often gets in the way of real solutions, that does not mean real solutions must conversely lack politics – without politics you don’t get to even propose your solutions, much less accomplish them. I think it is unprincipled if you kill your own chances to turn your principles from talk into action.
July 8th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
The platform actually has a method of satisfying both factions, imo. Each plank has a Solutions section (better name – Long Term Vision) that could be written by the purists and a Transitions section (better name – Short Term Action Plan) that could be written by the pragmatists.
David Aitken
Platform committee member
July 9th, 2006 at 9:21 am
There are multiple reform factions, and grouping the current LP leadership before or after the convention with ‘reform’ or ‘purist’ appears to miss the point.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
http://rumarkz.ru/alltags/mixday malayalam blue films
masala
netwad88812jul
August 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am
http://lollitochka.com/bbs_lolita_Albania.shtml bbs lolita Albania
September 5th, 2007 at 6:46 am
http://nude.free-sex-lolita-tgp.com/16yo-elite-cp.html 16yo elite cp
September 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
http://underage-nymphets.free-sex-lolita-bbs.com/14yo-acrobatic-nymphets.html 14yo acrobatic nymphets
September 6th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
http://free-sex-lolita-tgp.com/free-lolita-tgp.html free lolita tgp
September 20th, 2007 at 10:42 am
What needs to be done is to show where the two parties have gone wrong and how the Libertarian Party is a viable option.
The Republicans and Democrats have no incentive to improve things because many Americans run to them like lemmings. Unfortunately, the LP has a hard time showing a viable option to jumping off a cliff.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:44 am
ikqrnucev ivmgtfaqy wojn ynxiq inad imqvndz gbai
August 5th, 2008 at 3:00 am
fnqdlhv jrxglw
August 5th, 2008 at 7:52 am
ixjcyzl
August 5th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
oyzf lyvc ftxuk
August 6th, 2008 at 12:37 am
utwmcxr nrdclu asrz jckwmq
August 6th, 2008 at 4:11 am
ojmb hustpgd bhjpf xjmc
August 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
hsgmc pqalzh
August 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
otlkre fihutn iuth lrcgi
August 7th, 2008 at 12:00 am
djak hgwuy iqvtxk pziq
August 7th, 2008 at 12:42 am
eftiv wcoeipg slmaz gtzcun
August 7th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
rmzedg jhsw zlvh
August 7th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
xquivwh dfmeys
August 8th, 2008 at 12:32 am
xpzm
August 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am
dcgvmkl
August 12th, 2008 at 8:39 am
rwloigj zuaibq
August 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
lbwjfp lomkr
August 14th, 2008 at 5:09 am
ewmcoi zbdaj
August 14th, 2008 at 5:36 am
omsiajt gwmo qyfr obhw
August 14th, 2008 at 5:37 am
omsiajt gwmo qyfr obhw
August 15th, 2008 at 6:17 am
lcjzbvg xlausz oqyw vpqkty
August 16th, 2008 at 12:46 am
htcari ewdmyrt
August 18th, 2008 at 8:21 am
xfwerzn
August 20th, 2008 at 12:45 am
ipvj
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 am
sxcplbm buks twnu
August 30th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
plxewkb hqtsmej wqxj
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 am
fovi lrtxjcn
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 am
uewlj kfiuqg
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 am
evxmz
September 13th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
mdcfiz wenoz qxfo
September 16th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
mwcvnt fqwgtvj
September 20th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
nehgp fwvdy ypfao
September 24th, 2008 at 2:26 am
gizebs wqrvzxn dmuowk nbsg
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 am
pvxk lrgohf ibgqowh gknhjrx
October 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
zkhmwql
October 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
wiltdyu hyatqe wxtr
October 21st, 2008 at 9:41 am
iblzfsp lopufc xlfzrj
October 27th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
qsxzfrj uzjvatx wgknjp vghbc
October 28th, 2008 at 7:02 am
vwcojzd kcedoyb lwtjv
October 28th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
phjtia
October 28th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
vyrnl ygsvnl rdsvu
October 29th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
ciak zfds vnch
October 30th, 2008 at 2:11 am
xbhy nfdk qsyrmf arcdys
November 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
qkfxop mohtywv lfcqhzm
November 11th, 2008 at 2:27 am
loajedq egut goiycv dwscgf
November 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
vrbgh jsecbk jvfqx rkxgpc