Sticking a fork in the Libertarian Party???
Doug Mataconis has weighed into the debate started by Brad Spangler which we’ve also entertained at this site. The topic: Should the LP stay or should it go now?
Mataconis:
A look at how the world has really worked since the Libertarian Party was formed in the early 1970s would seem to add credence to Spanlger’s position. Aside from the Election of 1980, which was largely financed by the family fortune of the LP’s Vice-Presidential candidate, no Libertarian Party candidate for President has been able to gather anything close to 1,000,000 votes and none have garnered what would be considered a statistically significant amount of the vote in any election. And, except for one or two notable exceptions, no Libertarian Party candidate can be said to have had a significant impact on a contested election.
I’ll be the first to agree with respect to presidential election returns. However, Mataconis seems to be forgetting local elections, of which quite a few (even contested ones) have been won by Libertarians. I just spent the weekend with an elected Libertarian County Commissioner from the Nashville suburbs and talk frequently with former Birmingham City Councilman Jimmy Blake. These sorts of people have a profound impact on local politics.
Additionally, Libertarians often lead winning legislative or local initiative victories. I just posted about one which hit my hometown just today.
I also wonder if Mataconis would be of the same mind if someone such as Bob Barr jumped into the presidential race.
In addition to the local angle (which is the most important to me), other Libertarians point to absolute vote totals in Federal and other elections. There is more than one way to measure the success of a political party.
Mataconis strengthened a point which I had made earlier.
Spangler:
A shutdown of the Libertarian Party would get radicals and moderates out of each others hair. Radicals could pursue the long neglected non-electoral strategies for long-term radical change and moderates could apply their energies to seeking small reforms inside the major parties, as Ron Paul does,” wrote Spangler. “Sufficient social space for needed overlap between wings and their ideological cross-fertilization would exist organizationally in groups like ISIL and the Advocates for Self Government, as well as out on the internet in political discussion forums of all sorts generally.
Gordon:
My friend Brad forgot one key group of people: There are those of us who would prefer to pursue electoral strategies but don’t have the stomach to work within the major parties, at least for any prolonged period of time. Many of us find neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party reformable. To use some of Spangler’s logic, the Ron Paul presidential campaign has underscored this point.
Mataconis:
But winning elections, some people will say, is not real why the LP exists. It’s purpose, they contend, is to educate the public about libertarian ideas.Well, if that’s the case, then I don’t think it can be said that they’ve done a very good job there either. If they had, then 35 years of education should’ve been something that Ron Paul’s campaign could have tapped into. Instead, the major party candidate that came closest to libertarian ideas was soundly rejected by the members of his party.
Mataconis asks, “Time to let the LP die a merciful death?”
I don’t think so, but I can see why some might make the argument.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I did find it puzzling that the Paulites where aive about their ability to change the GOP from within. Nonetheless, they have to go through the motions and get run off just as many of us did.
Rather than disbanding any third parties, we should have pushed for a unified ticket for this one year rallying around a platform that would have given us all a better shake in electoral politics. For instance I promote the National Election Reform Platform (NERP) at www.IndependentAmerica.org. Unfortunately the big two parties hijacked our attempt at unity with their failed Unity08 venture which was nothing more than a distraction to prevent the merging of the third parties into a unified force. Had we suspended our ideologies for one election cycle to gain in the long-run would have been a worthy goal.
So no, the LP or any third party should not disappear. But they might consider fusing with the Greens for one cycle to open up ballot access, debates participation and several other common issues.
Thanks for engaging in the argument Stephen…
March 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
If it weren’t for the Libertarian Party, the Republicans would hold the U.S. Senate right now. Libertarians tipped a US Senate seat in Nevada in 1998 to the Democrats (Harry Reid owes his election to Michael Cloud); in 2000 (Slate Gordon lost because of a Libertarian in Washington state that year); in 2002 Tim Johnson was re-elected because of a Libertarian in South Dakota; and in 2004, Conrad Burns lost his Montana seat because of a Libertarian.
No Green Party nominee has ever tipped any U.S. Senate race.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Reiterating a point does not strengthen it, particularly when it missed my original point—that regardless of preferences exhibited by libertarian activists, electoral politics is a poor tool for bringing about liberty. The British army preferred to wear bright red uniforms and march in orderly columns down the center of the road while they were attempting to pacify the rebellious American colonies. We all know how that worked out.
I should mention, of course, that the conventional retort is that there is no alternative to electoral politics—assuming one doesn’t go for doomed and mindless “adventurist” attempts at violent insurrection. That is incorrect. There is another option. Like Marxist revolutionaries, we have a sophisticated libertarian / market anarchist theory of revolution and libertarian activists can apply that theory to the long term struggle to bring about the objective conditions for revolution.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Like Marxist revolutionaries, we have a sophisticated libertarian / market anarchist theory of revolution and libertarian activists can apply that theory to the long term struggle to bring about the objective conditions for revolution.
the closest corollary to your preferred brand of libertarianism are marxist revolutionaries?
no one fucks the LP up more than their own.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
SIGH . . . is there no room for a third party that drives issues or effects outcomes as Mr. Winger points out ?
Does anybody have the primal urge to fight power in a non-violent manner regardless of outcome ?
Can’t we appeal to the average person tired of the state without developing the cascading realms of milquetoast centrism ?
Isn’t it being realistic to look at all the other third party attempts throughout American history and say no dominant ideology, movement or grassroots effort as ever emerged beyond the either/or capacity of the single plurality mechanisms?
Isn’t is possible that the reformist sentiment will take the traditional success of the LP ( simple existence & persistence) and dump it into the dustbin of history like all the whacky elements of the Reform Party did to their own party?
Isn’t it about possibilities on some visceral level, without the hope and hype of celebrity, success or monied interests ?
Nope. It’s all, win, win, win.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Out of the question. If the LP COORDINATES the vote with the GP, BOTH retaining their identities, they could actually win the executive ticket & coattail A LOT of congressional & state ballots. But nooooooooo…..
March 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Who said anything about the Libertarian Party dying? The Prohibition Party still exists 139 years after its founding and they haven’t enjoyed much success lately either.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“...no Libertarian Party candidate for President has been able to gather anything close to 1,000,000 votes and none have garnered what would be considered a statistically significant amount of the vote in any election. And, except for one or two notable exceptions, no Libertarian Party candidate can be said to have had a significant impact on a contested election.”
It’s understandable. Considering all of the entitlements and subsidies distributed by the feds, reform is almost a pipe dream. But like my good friend, Steven R. Lin…something, wrote the other night here at TPW about being a pacifist, “it’s a start”.
The LP needs to become greater promoters and marketeers of it’s products. I am proof that the LP can recruit members if the right candidates are here to back. Go WAR!
March 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I don’t think a libertarian revolution is on the agenda. If society reaches the point where a violent insurrection is successful, the various authoritarian trends – particularly white supremists and neo-Nazis – have more guns than libertarians do. Mr Spangler needs to restrict his fantasies to reading sci-fi novels.
Libertarian failures in Presidential races do raise a point – why continue to waste resources on an activity that has proved to fail every time? We need to build active local Libertarian groups, strong enough to elect people to Congress and state legislatures. City council members and county commissioners give us a little credibility, but cannot really change society.
If we need to use the Libertarian Party to lay the groundwork with candidates that raise issues, and then back limited government Republicans or antiwar Democrats to actually elect people, that will still be more useful than wasting time, money, energy and credibility running candidates for President.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“Libertarian failures in Presidential races do raise a point – why continue to waste resources on an activity that has proved to fail every time?”’
A lot of people came into the libertarian movement BECAUSE of a Libertarian Party Presidential race.
I came in because of the Harry Browne campaign in ‘96. I know others who came in because of the Harry Browne campaigns in ‘96 & 2000, and I know others who came in from the campaigns of Roger McBride, Ed Clark, David Bergland, Ron Paul, Andre Marrou, and Michael Badnarik.
The Presidential race is the race that gets the most attention from the general public and the Libertarian Party’s Presidential campaign is more of an advertisement for the libertarian movement than it is a campaign to actually win the office since the LP has yet to be in a position where that is even close to being possible.
“We need to build active local Libertarian groups, strong enough to elect people to Congress and state legislatures. City council members and county commissioners give us a little credibility, but cannot really change society.”
Local races are great, but not as many people pay attention to local races and local races don’t get as much media attention either.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Quoth Tim:
“the closest corollary to your preferred brand of libertarianism are marxist revolutionaries?
“no one fucks the LP up more than their own.”
Brad is by definition not “one of their own”—he left the LP some time ago.
When he was WITH the LP, however, he got himself elected to the North Kansas City, Missouri city council. That’s what “purists” do—and they actually do quite a bit of it while the “reformers” sit around and bitch that it’s impossible for anyone to get elected to office until the party changes everything about itself in order to accommodate their whims.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Thomas L. Knapp, so you are saying this is the best the purists can do with the party? Agreed.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I rank Mataconis and the Liberty Turd-papers down there with Dumbero and his neocon rag.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Tom, you are full of shit on this one. Plenty of reformers get elected as well—more, actually. However, they don’t make a point of trying to expel elected Libertarians from the party when they don’t like a particular vote. That’s the job of purists.
Purists attack and protest when a borderline libertarian who has done a tremendous amout to promote the party comes to speak at a convention.
Purists worked to expel an elected state house member in Vermont.
Purists drive people out of the party.
—
Meanwhile the reformers have called for the party to include radical and moderate libertarians.
(Radical and purist are not synonyms. One can be a radical without being a purist.)
March 12th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Bob,
No, I’m not saying that this is the best the “purists” can do with the party. I’m saying that when certain “reformers” claim
a) That “purists” don’t care about getting elected; and/or
b) That Libertarians can’t get elected unless (insert internal party complaint which absolutely, positively must remedied before any forward movement can be accomplished here) ...
... they’re ignoring the facts.
“Reformer” Tim has written off the LP because it refuses to transform into Silly Putty for his hands to shape into what he deems “electable” form. For him, it’s all speculative—he COULD run for office and he COULD win if only the party would magically shapeshift into the form he wanted it to take, on the basis of no other “evidence” than the obvious (to him) righteousness of his demand that it do so.
“Purist” Brad has written off the LP, too, but his case is very different. He didn’t wait around pissing and moaning for Ye Olde Magickal Shapeshift Day. He went out, busted his ass, and got himself elected to the office, i.e. he acted and achieved results, disproving the accuracy of Tim’s proclaimed data on the parameters of possibility. And, having done so, he eventually concluded that the game was not worth the candle.
I can respect Brad’s conclusions whether I agree with them or not. I’ll respect Tim’s conclusions when and if he decides to prove them instead of demanding that they just be accepted on faith.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
As a member of the peanut gallery I’ll point out that part of the problem is that the party has failed to clearly state its case. The literature is limited and not up to date and media releases are few and far between. Often even the candidates are unclear on what the LP is about. Limited outreach to potential contributors doesn’t raise the needed funds. Little, or no help in building the local and state organizations.
If we did a bit more of some of these things we might have more success. How’s that for a start.
Just pissin’ into the wind again.
MHW
March 12th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Nobody has answered my question: Thye whithering away of the state =if socialism>soviet communism>anarchism, then is that the same or different anarchism as the libertarian anarchism?
March 12th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
And the purist vs. pragmatist battle continues…
The local election races are good for political resume building and campaign experience, name recognition, and developing political and community respect. Only then can people move up the ladder. So those races do serve some purpose.
State and federal legislative races are the next step up from them, and the LP still has an impact on those. Having run a campaign in CO in 2002 that did exactly that (kept the Repulicans in control of the CO state Senate by one vote), I know firsthand what kind of impact that can have.
Presidential race, that’s another animal entirely. The Presidential race as a candidate seeking office is a bust and we all might as well face that fact. The Electoral System is skewed enough that we have no legit shot. A Presidential race is therefore reduced to two things: barking at the edges of the major candidates and raising party awareness with the voting public (marketing). The LP sucks at that marketing at that level, which is a dysfunction of three things: money, members/infrastructure, and visibility. The only way to get around this is to build the infrastructure and membership from the ground up, and with it will come the money, and the visibility. The LP has relied on the message alone for too many years and has neglected the nuts and bolts of how a political party runs. I’d be much more interested in a LP Presidential candidate who promised to work to get that infrastructure built, raise the cash, get the members, and increase the visibility in a positive manner. At the Presidential level, we’re just Not Ready for Prime Time.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Carl, “...include radical and moderate libertarians.” Does moderate include left libertarians?
March 12th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Carl, I thought radical=purist. my bad.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I guess I don’t know third parties that well, but it seems like a problem with them in general is how much energy they devote to presidential elections. Going against such corrupt, powerful forces as the Two Parties and their accompanying Interests, it is much easier to start local. If a really good third party politician is elected locally, it will empower that party and change the minds of a lot of people concerning third parties. They will think, “Hey, this guy’s from a third party, and he was great. Maybe they’re not so bad. Maybe I would even vote for them a larger level.”
March 12th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Michael,
I don’t see anything in what you write that I’d necessarily disagree with, except as it relates to the “purist”/”reformer” conflict.
While there are certainly some “reformers” who do get into the nuts and bolts and try to make things actually happen, in my experience that’s more commonly a “purist” trait. So far as I can tell the “reformers” are, perversely, almost entirely INTERNALLY focused—waiting to control the party before trying to actually use it to accomplish anything; while the “purists,” contra the “reformer” character sketch of them, are the ones to get out in the world and actually bust their asses to make things happen.
At this time, the presidential campaign is a tone-setting activity within the party, and a probably not especially efficient public information activity outside the party. That may not sound as sexy as “we can win, go team!” but it’s also not unimportant—and since we’re going to do it, we might as well do it as right as we can instead of chasing after con-man rainbows.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Bob,
No, the anarchism which would theoretically follow a Marxist revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, establishment of socialism and progression into communism is not the same as “the libertarian anarchism,” if by the latter you refer to the Konkinite agorism that Brad Spangler advocates.
The two share a few features—for example, each has a theory of class conflict, but with different classes and different factors distinguishing the classes, and both posit a revolutionary rather than electoral path—but neither the specific strategies/tactics nor the desired end states are the same.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I agree with Stephen Gordon: The LP has quite an impressive record, even of late, with winning local public offices. By my count, about 400 to 500 currently hold public office, over 100 in California alone.
Unfortunately, the National LP doesn’t seem to even give a shit about their elected officeholders. The National LP abolished their two-decades long “List of Elected Officials” back in 2001. (I was the keeper of the List during Jim Turney’s tenure as LP National Chair in 1986/87.)
I once called up Shane Cory from Montana, to tell him excitedly about a newly elected Libertarian City Councilman I had found – Phillipsburg, MT an isolated community of 950 tucked away in the Mountains.
His reaction? Ho-hum. Something along the lines of “umm, okay, we’ll look into it.”
The LP has a dues-paying State Senator in Montana who sits on the LP Exec. Committee of the State – Jerry O’Neil. They don’t even list the guy as an elected Libertarian.
Until the LP starts re-emphasizing elected Libertarians serving in public office, people like Spanger and Mataconis will continue to value the Party a lot less. Bet these two guys don’t even have any idea that there’s 500 some elected LPers in the US including a sitting State Senator.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Andy is right. I came into the Libertarian Party cause of the 1980 Ed Clark for President Campaign. I almost left the Party 4 years later when David Bergland ran. I was disgusted with him. Couldn’t believe that this guy was in the same Party as Ed Clark. Like night and day.
Fortunately, I stuck with it, and overcame my strong reservations with Bergland. I got active in the Party and soon learned Bergland was despised by a great many others.
But, like Andy says, the Presidential Campaign of Clark is what originally attracted me to the Party.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Why is Dondero making so much sense today? No offense, of course.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“Unfortunately, the National LP doesn’t seem to even give a shit about their elected officeholders. The National LP abolished their two-decades long “List of Elected Officials” back in 2001. (I was the keeper of the List during Jim Turney’s tenure as LP National Chair in 1986/87.)
I once called up Shane Cory from Montana, to tell him excitedly about a newly elected Libertarian City Councilman I had found – Phillipsburg, MT an isolated community of 950 tucked away in the Mountains.
His reaction? Ho-hum. Something along the lines of “umm, okay, we’ll look into it.”
The LP has a dues-paying State Senator in Montana who sits on the LP Exec. Committee of the State – Jerry O’Neil. They don’t even list the guy as an elected Libertarian.
Until the LP starts re-emphasizing elected Libertarians serving in public office, people like Spanger and Mataconis will continue to value the Party a lot less. Bet these two guys don’t even have any idea that there’s 500 some elected LPers in the US including a sitting State Senator.”
Hey, something on which we agree!
Yeah, the LP ought to at least LIST every elected official they have in this country at every given moment. One of the most common questions that I get asked about the Libertarian Party is does the party ever actually elect anybody to office.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
The rumors of the Libertarian Party’s demise are greatly exaggerated. As long as governments in the US at all levels continue to take away individual rights and the major parties permit or encourage this trend, there will be a Libertarian Party. Don’t write the LP off. She is a real fine party and her best years are ahead. Stay focused, work hard, and proclaim liberty to the land.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Andy, I try my best to keep up a List of Elected Libertarians nationwide over at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com But it’s quite a chore.
If anyone wants to assist, I’d be more than happy to have you help.
Aaron Bitterman tried to keep a list for a while, and it was pretty good. But even he got overwhelmed. Doing such a chore volunteer sucks.
If anyone wishes to donate to the effort to maintain an accurate and up-to-date List of Elected Libertarians nationwide, please go to www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com and make a donation (upper right-hand corner PayPal button.) Thanks.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Yeah, the LP ought to at least LIST every elected official they have in this country at every given moment. One of the most common questions that I get asked about the Libertarian Party is does the party ever actually elect anybody to office.
What is their excuse for not doing so? There is a lot less content at LP.org
then there used to be with Joe Dehn running it as a volunteer.
I thought they were supposed to make the site better?
Instead it seems to have gotten worse.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Unfortunately for the LP. We don’t need neocon infiltration. Although Carl and his retard caucus would just love that.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
What, did AIPAC and the neocons fire you?
March 12th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Eric,
While I regard most of your projects as counter-productive, trying to maintain some semblance of a listing of elected/appointed libertarians/Libertarians is something for which you deserve, and have, my thanks.
Here’s an idea for the strictly LP side, just for shits and giggles:
Why sit around complaining that LPHQ doesn’t keep track of elected/appointed Libertarians and what they’re up to? Why not just set up an independent project to do it—and possibly other things as well? Just because something should be done, it isn’t obvious that LPHQ is, or should be, responsible for doing it.
All right, then, Eric, you just got my ambition level up a bit:
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Libertarian Party Public Service Caucus—an organization of Libertarians serving in elected and appointed public office.
Current status of the LPPSC, according to me as its self-designated concierge-in-birthing:
– A parked domain name that may have not even finished DNS propagation by the time you read this.
– A roughly defined set of goals:
1) Identify and maintain a public list of Libertarians serving in public office;
2) Track and positively publicize the notable accomplishments of Libertarians serving in public office;
3) Facilitate active involvement in the Libertarian Party by Libertarians serving in public office; and
4) Assist Libertarians in public office in achieving re-election and “promotion.”
I’ll get a skeletal web site up as soon as possible, and then start soliciting the volunteer work and officeholder participation necessary to making it a real and effective organization. Maybe we can have things together enough for a meatspace reception/meeting in Denver.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Maintaining a list of current libertarian elected officials almost seems like a no-brainer. Kudos to Eric for bringing it to attention. I don’t always agree with Eric, but it seems like so simple an ideal that LPHQ would already be doing it.
Any word on why LPHQ isn’t maintaining a list?
Also, it does look like lp.org is nearly dormant. With the way the web has exploded as the center for politics, it seems like the website should be high on the list of priorities, but it obviously is not.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Tom,
As contributions to the new caucus:
1) A while back Bonnie Scott and I prepared a Candidate Support CD, stocked with large amounts of good material elsewise nearly impossible to find, e.g., the Gene Cisiewski county organizing manual. It’s available free to candidates and supporters. Just ask me or one of my state coordinators for a copy.
2) Comments on a blog are a remarkably inconvenient way to have coherent discussions on this effort. There’s no threading or comment organization. That’s why I paid for TheDailyLiberty http://www.thedailyliberty.com , where I send some of my own articles to keep it somewhat active. However, TDL is not supposed to be a “phillies” site, it is supposed to be one of my gifts to the Libertarian Party. Those who want to have this discussion continue at TDL, whose data organization is modeled after Daily Kos, are welcome to come on over.
Best,
George
March 13th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Sean Haugh of the LPUS staff recently released a list of Libertarians in office: http://www.lp.org/organization/elected_officials.pdf. How come I know about it and some of the “purists” here don’t? Because Sean turned to a couple of can-do reformers—Scott Lieberman and me—to help him massage the data he collected. Since then, the moderate LPCA administration of Kevin Takenaga has been discovering—and networking together—some more elected Libertarians in California that even Sean missed.
There are also these lists:
http://www.lpedia.org/index.php/Libertarians_In_office
http://libertarianwiki.org/Elected_Libertarians
I would suggest that people work on merging all the above data into the LPedia list, rather than starting a new one.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Knapp,
I ran for office (WV House of Delegates) in 2000, getting 3% in a 3 way against a popular R and a 5 or 6 term incumbent democrat. Back when Dr. Robert Kerr was WV party chair. So I ran for office as a L 4 years before I wrote a single line in my blogs about ‘reforming’ anything (August 2004).
You’re also quite aware of my medical condition which was the tipping factor in me renouncing the oath ( and it felt really good) and leaving the LP. As it turns out, March 2nd is the 2nd anniversary of the discovery of my brain tumor. Wonder of wonders, I still haven’t died yet. I am supposed to be as of right now. but I keep waking up in the morning.
I take credit or blame for only one goddamned idea that I proposed at the time:
That an organization that claims to be a political party has to be a political party first, that it’s job has to be POLITICAL, electing it’s candidates to office as it’s first priority. Nothing else matters and can be done better and faster by other orgs.
I also claimed that the LP had sabotaged itself over and over again arguing over stupid arcane bullshit and running unsuitable candidates since it’s inception and that the net result has been a actual loss of liberty instead of gain.
Don’t patronize me with shit like:
“Reformer” Tim has written off the LP because it refuses to transform into Silly Putty for his hands to shape into what he deems “electable” form. For him, it’s all speculative—he COULD run for office and he COULD win if only the party would magically shapeshift into the form he wanted it to take, on the basis of no other “evidence” than the obvious (to him) righteousness of his demand that it do so.
I wrote off the LP because of a inherent contradiction inside it that simply cant be changed : the LP is the only political party in the world who runs candidates for public office to NOT GOVERN, and that have to swear false witness when they take the oath of office should they get elected. In other words, their first official act should they be elected is to knowingly commit a crime.
There’s no reforming that. Thats just fucked up.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Tim,
You’re correct: There’s no way of reforming problems that exist primarily in your imagination.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Look, if someone wants to advocate non-political “revolution,” that’s their business.
If someone wants to have a sham political party to hold high the banner, they should do that.
And, if someone wants to have a big-tent LP that is relevant and runs credible campaigns, they should do that.
It strikes me as PROFOUNDLY presumptuous that any of these 3 basic “camps” is somehow “objectively” the correct strategy. The revolutionaries seem to largely be out of the LP, and I wish them all the best.
The debating-society vs. the real-politics camps are now in a bit of a knife fight that started in Portland. I hope it’s mostly settled in Denver. If the debating society-ites win, I wish them luck, and I’ll likely scale back my activism to perhaps nothing. If the real-politics camp wins in Denver, my take is we have an OUTSIDE shot at becoming a force in American politics.
I am amused, however, that anyone in these three camps believes they are “right.” That seems awfully foolish. We all take our best shot at what we believe the “right” thing is, but to judge others “wrong” lacks humility, and fails to recognize that none of us has a crystal ball.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Disinter: Unfortunately for the LP. We don’t need neocon infiltration. Although Carl and his retard caucus would just love that.
Me: Is this name-calling really necessary? You may believe you can gauge the intellect of those you do not know, but you are apparently ignorant of the fact that Carl quit the LP and the Reform Caucus many months ago. And, no, the Reform Caucus doesn’t encourage “neocons” to join. Neocons like the size of government at current or perhaps higher levels. I can’t say I know a soul in the Reform Caucus who doesn’t want to see the government shrink. That’s my view.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Robert, you’re pissing in the wind. You see Leftist Libertarians only care about one issue: Anyone who supports the War on Al Qaeda is automatically a “NeoCon.”
Let alone the fact, that that person may be stridently Pro-Choice which is 100% opposed to the NeoCon platform. Doesn’t matter that the person may be in favor of Drug Legalization, Prostitution, Gambling, severe Tax Cuts, Privatization, opposed to Affirmative Action, in favor of Gun Rights, for Tuitiion Tax Credits.
All that doesn’t matter. Anyone who favors the War on Al Qaeda is a “NeoCon,” and that includes everyone from completeLLesbian liberal Democrats like Tammy Bruce, all the way to the Pat Robertsons and Bill Bennetts of the world.
I know, awfully large coalition those “NeoCons” have isn’t it?
March 13th, 2008 at 5:56 am
I heartily endorse Tom Knapp’s effort, and hopes he invites me to participate.
(Though, I would caution that the List should include elected libertarian Republicans, as well.)
March 13th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Yeah, sure Disinter, I’m sure AIPAC would love to have me on the payroll, especially since I endorse abolishing foreign aid to Israel. That’ll go over real well with them.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Eric,
My intention, as soon as practicable, is to put together an interim committee to run the caucus. I’ll be glad to serve that committee, but don’t intend to serve ON that committee.
In other words, I won’t be the one making the decision as to whether or not to include “libertarian Republicans.”
My recommendation will be that the list include (and that voting caucus membership be open to) all Libertarian Party members who are currently serving in public office, with non-voting “emeritus” membership to former officeholders who were Libertarian Party members at the time they held office.
I would recommend that the “current officeholders” list note next to each name specific indicators, ie:
A=Appointed
E=Elected
NP=Non-Partisan Office, LP member
PLP=Partisan Office, LP member holding office under Libertarian label
POP= Partisan Office, LP member holding office under other party label
So, for example, my listing would look something like:
Thomas L. Knapp [A, NP] Selective Service System, Local Board Member
Ron Paul’s listing would look like:
Ron Paul [E, POP], US House of Representatives (R-TX)
And a theoretical future partisan LP state legislator’s listing would look like:
John Smith [E, PLP], Alabama House of Representatives (L-14)
But, the people who ultimately run the thing (I’ve already selected 4 of the 5 “organizing committee” members, all elected Libertarians of note, and and will be inviting them to participate shortly) will make those decisions. The only role I’ll have is implementation (until I can get others doing that as well) and initial recommendations.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:38 am
if the problems in the LP existed only in my head, I dont think we’d be having this discussion. Like it or not, I had a influence for bad or good while I was involved and the end game has not yet been played. I dont know how it will tun out any more than any other.
My guess is that the ‘real libertarians” will ‘succeed’ in their various tasks, and people like Bob Barr will slap their head, say “I could had a V-8!” and go AWOL.
maybe not. We’ll see.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Here’s a list:
http://libertycongress.org/
March 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Yes, and a complete moron too.
CIA admits al-qaeda was invented to promote fear.
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html
March 13th, 2008 at 10:11 am
One retard down, a few more to go…
March 13th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Bob, I think “debating society” vs. “real politics” is too much of a caricature. Yes, there are exclusivist radicals who care too much about exhibiting their self-righteousness and state-hatred and not enough about increasing liberty. But there are also pom-pom reformers who care too much about getting LP members into office and not enough about using all the tools in the electoral/political toolbox to maximally move public policy in a libertarian direction. One of Carl’s old essays said “garnering 5-10% of the vote at-large wins nothing”. That’s nonsense. If we had to choose between 1) winning 5%-10% in many federal elections and 2) winning a dozen seats on city councils and in state legislatures, it’s obvious which we should choose. Even if you fantasize not about such smaller offices but about promoting these farm-team Libertarians to Congress, look how much liberty Ron Paul has been able to legislate during a couple decades there. It would take another 20 Ron Pauls before their votes in Congress would even START to move the needle. But if 5%-10% of the vote consistently went for increased economic and civil liberty, then lessarchist voters would be recognized as a crucial swing-voter bloc to which incumbent-party politicians would happily pander. Unfortunately, there are smart reform leaders who see all non-LP politicians as irredeemably evil, and while they don’t quite say we need to breed LP congressmen in vitro, they are convinced that Congress will only vote for more liberty when it is 51% controlled by LP members who started their careers getting elected to water board.
So my complaint with Rockbardian/anarchist radicals is not that they want to “debate”. My complaint is that they DON’T want to debate. They instead want the LP to be a Rockbardian purity-certifying society, whose sacred scrolls declare it beyond debate that Rockbardian anarchism is the only principled school of libertarianism. They have no qualms about engaging in any kind of retail politics—as long as it is used to proclaim (rather than question or debate) their purity and their hatred of the state. The votes and dues of other kinds of libertarians are entirely welcome, as long as they genuflect to all the Rockbardian idols, and don’t try to make the LP ecumenical towards other schools of libertarianism.
The alternative we reformers need to offer is an LP that is ecumenical towards all the major schools of libertarianism. We need to offer an LP that seeks to unite all the voters who want both more personal liberty and more economic liberty behind the electoral choices that will most move public policy in a libertarian direction. We need to offer an LP that has enough faith in markets and competition to believe that any step toward increased individual choice and responsibility will only build the empirical case for more such steps. We need to offer an LP that has enough intellectual self-confidence and faith in the marketplace of ideas to believe that libertarianism is not a flickering candle that can be extinguished by a stray breath from the impure, but rather is an intellectual bonfire that will set a blaze in the hearts of anyone who wants more liberty, and will suck the oxygen from anyone who wants less.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“In other words, I won’t be the one making the decision as to whether or not to include “libertarian Republicans.”
I believe the list should only include those that are members of the Libertarian Party. It should not include “libertarian Republicans” (whatever that is defined as). If we were honest and if we included Republicans we would have to include libertarian Democrats, libertarian Greens, libertarian Reforms, and so on. How would such “libertarians” even be defined.
Also, the Liberty Caucus and its predecessor organization since the 1980’s have had to “game” the list of elected libertarian Republicans to make the organization look larger than it really was (is) and to make the organization look more successful than it really was (is). There are those that have been on their list that stretches the definition of libertarianism. Their organization is so small they must feel the need to stretch the definition. We should have no part in this.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:44 am
The LP can survive and even propser if gears itselkf away from trying to elect Presidents, governors and or Senators, which it cannot do, and focus on local politics where it has been successful and where Libertarian ideas can make the most impact upon public policy. The Greens have done this, why can’t the LP?
For the big, statewide and national races, the LP has to choose candidates that will push the major party candidates in their direction and be an advertisement to the party in order to attract new members and activists. And the LP should be open to cross-endorisng major party candidates that share their views and working for such candidates as well as many LP activists worked for Ron Paul. The Paul campaign worked out of the Minnesota LP’s state office for all of 2007. Such allianes can be useful when pushing the state legislature to adopt better ballot access laws like IRV, fusion tickets and such.
The LP can live and live well if it understands its role within the political system we have.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Richard, I do not agree with your assertion that no Green ever tipped a Senate race. The Indie Greens ran Gail “for Rail” Parker against that train-wreck of a candidate George Allen in 2006 and were acknowledged by the WSJ as having made a difference. We ran against his lack of fiscal responsibility and support of Bush in his downstate backyard. I plugged her and hammered Allen everywhere I went in my congressional race in the 5th. So our 26,000 votes factored into his 9,000 vote loss. Hence we ma have indeed made a difference.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Re: “retard”, “moron”: See, Bob? Mike Nelson (aka disinter) proves my point that LP radicals aren’t interested in debate. Only two of them (Knapp and Starchild) are actually skilled at debating (i.e. engaging the arguments of their adversaries), and (surprise) neither of them actually toe the Rockbardian line. The rest pretty much confine themselves to drive-by sloganeering and namecalling, ranging from bottom-feeders like Nelson all the way to satire artistes like Keaton. There are plenty of radical libertarian intellectuals outside the LP, but they generally don’t stoop to answering the arguments of LP reformers. When they do, it’s not pretty:
http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/01/anarchist-questions-freedom-train.html
March 13th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I agree.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Libertarians are radicals now? Isn’t that an example of the name calling you are so terrified of?
Holtz you are a retard AND a moron. Now go cry in your corner.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Only a moron would think that all labels are epithets. And only a retarded moron would think that a group calling itself “LP Radicals” considers the label “radical” to be an epithet. Do you think either of those two thoughts, Mike disinter Nelson?
Go to lpradicals.org, and read:
Libertarian Party Radical Caucus basic principle #1: “Radical” is not a word we will apologise for. Neither is “purist”.
Stephen, this is suspiciously easy, even considering it’s disinter. Please fix your site so that people can’t so easily post under another’s name and make them look bad, as somebody apparently just did to disinter here.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Re: “retard”, “moron”: See, Bob? Brian Holtz proves my point that while he throws a childish temper tantrum whenever someone uses big, bad, un-politcally correct words, like the ones he just used, it exposes him to be the hypocrite that he is.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Words like jerk, moron, bottom-feeder and even MONSTER are common in real political discussions that Republicans and Democrats have. The fact that Libertarians are using them too shows that Libertarians in some ways are normal.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Tim,
You write:
“if the problems in the LP existed only in my head, I dont think we’d be having this discussion.”
You alluded to a very specific problem—the incompatibility of the LP membership oath with holding government office.
Like you, I agree that the oath should be abolished, because:
– It’s an anarchist, or at most voluntaryist-minarchist oath, and therefore does, as you say, technically preclude any service in public office the holding of which would constitute an at least implicity sanction of the initiation of force.
– A lot of LP members consider the above factual claim erroneous, and will go to great lengths to persuade themselves that they are correct, including swallowing weird-ass bullshit fairy tales about it having been a COINTELPRO-proofing tool rather than meaning what it plainly says in language familiar to, even if unadopted by, adherents of almost every school of libertarianism which existed at the time of its adoption.
Those two things reinforce each other as a reason for ditching the oath. If I’m right, then the oath technically precludes participation in electoral politics. If I’m wrong, well, I’m not the only one who thinks so—and the meaning of the oath is in sufficient dispute that it is for all intents and purposes a meaningless/useless piece of verbiage, which is why I feel free to hold public office while simultaneously certifying my compliance with it.
THAT SAID —I’ve never seen any evidence that more than a handful of people give a tinker’s damn about the pledge, or have even spent much time thinking about it one way or the other. It’s an interesting hobbyhorse, but believe it or not it isn’t what has stopped the LP from electing people to office. It isn’t even a significant factor in stopping the LP from electing people to office.
If you say that the pledge is what’s keeping you out of the LP, what you’re really saying is that you don’t want to be in the LP, but feel like you need an excuse, and can’t find a good one.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Jose,
You write:
——-
I believe the list should only include those that are members of the Libertarian Party. It should not include “libertarian Republicans” (whatever that is defined as). If we were honest and if we included Republicans we would have to include libertarian Democrats, libertarian Greens, libertarian Reforms, and so on. How would such “libertarians” even be defined.——-
My advice to the ultimate “owners” of the caucus (its members as presumably represented by some kind of committee) will be to list only verified members of the Libertarian Party. However, that would include members of the Libertarian Party who were elected to office on another party’s ballot line.
I will definitely advise the organization against getting into the game of trying to discern which non-LP-member politicians are “libertarian [insert party affiliation here]s.” It is the Libertarian PARTY Public Service Caucus, not the Libertarian BECAUSE WE SUBJECTIVELY NOLAN-CHARTED THEM Public Service Caucus. Membership in the party is a reasonable criterion for inclusion.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
The reason I prefer to let people like Capozzi, Holtz and Hogarth fight over the platform is summed up quite well here:
“In most years, the caucuses only serve the purpose of choosing the delegates who will eventually go to the state convention and run the party’s business, draft a party platform and some resolutions – much of which is routinely ignored by actual candidates – and go to lots of meetings.”
http://ourtribune.com/article.php?id=2992
Seems that Republican and Democratic candidates aren’t cry babies when it comes to their platforms. They leave the platform to members of the debate society like Capozzi, Holtz and Hogarth.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Brian Holtz:
I agree with the premise, however, it sound be noted that this only works if we can get ~9% on a consistent basis. This shows why the Arin Sime campaign was a failure: He got ~8%, but accomplished nothing. It was an isolated race. The proof: We have been running ~8% candidates since we started our party, and have had at least one candidate in the nation, in every election cycle, garner around 8%, and we’re in no better shape (some would say worse) than 20 years ago.
And this is why the Rothbardians will never accomplish anything: it’s silly to assume that to think like Rothbard makes one a “pure” libertarian. There is no such thing as a “pure” libertarian; only what you think a pure libertarian is. Milton Friedman accomplished 1000x what Rothbard did in his life. Some wouldn’t call Friedman a “pure” libertarian and some would. In any even, Rothbard’s love for the rent-controlled apartment he lived in and his activism (including endorsing Pat Buchanan and GHW Bush) show in his later years he was anything but libertarian.
Jose C.,
I think we should, however, I would define a libertarian Republican much more narrowly than Eric would. I would say that any list could only include people who were once or currently LP members (Ron Paul) or extremely, extremely rare circumstances (Jeff Flake). Not every RLC member would make the cut in my book, while Dondero would throw McCain and Bush into “libertarian Republicans”
March 13th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Sorry, didn’t close the italic tag.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Tim,
Glad you are still around and able to join us here.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Quoth Jeff Wartman:
“Milton Friedman accomplished 1000x what Rothbard did in his life.”
I consider that an insult, but probably not the kind of insult you expect. Saying that Milton Friedman “accomplished” 1000x what Rothbard did is like saying that Hitler “accomplished” 10,000x what Manson did.
Rothbard’s negative impact on liberty (rent controlled apartment, etc.), was probably minimal, and outweighed by his pro-liberty work. He was no Charles Manson by any stretch of the imagination.
Friedman’s negative impact on liberty, on the other hand, was considerable if indirect. I doubt if his entire body of pro-freedom work makes a significant dent in his anti-freedom work—proposing withholding as an economic planner in the FDR administration, leading to the permanence and universality of the income tax, for example. Or his “negative income tax” advocacy, eventually expressed as the Earned Income Credit entitlement. He is at least indirectly responsible for literally trillions of dollars in government confiscations of wealth. Just like Rothbard was no Manson, Friedman was no Hitler. But he matches the analogy a LOT closer than Rothbard does.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
LP radicals aren’t interested in debate. Only two of them (Knapp and Starchild) are actually skilled at debating (i.e. engaging the arguments of their adversaries), and (surprise) neither of them actually toe the Rockbardian line.
Brian, I would actually love to engage your ideas in extended debate, which I am reasonably good at, but probably not quite as good as you.
Unfortunately, I type too slowly for that, have borderline carpal when I type a lot, and have other things I need to work on, so I don’t think it is the best use of my time.
But I acknowledge that you have some interesting arguments, and wish I had the time to engage them more fully.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Sean Haugh of the LPUS staff recently released a list of Libertarians in office: http://www.lp.org/organization/elected_officials.pdf. How come I know about it and some of the “purists” here don’t?
Awesome!
How come some of us didn’t know about it….possibly because it is not linked from the rest of the website?
March 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
By the way, the list is incomplete.
For example, Tim Cowles, Madison City Council, Madison, Alabama.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
And this is why the Rothbardians will never accomplish anything:
I disagree. I think the Mises Institute, LewRockwell.com and Antiwar.com
actually accomplish quite a bit in the political/philosphical education realm.
Some may think they accomplish more than the LP and some would say vice versa. I think we need both.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
In any even, Rothbard’s love for the rent-controlled apartment he lived in and his activism (including endorsing Pat Buchanan and GHW Bush) show in his later years he was anything but libertarian.
True, some of Rothbard was best when he aligned with the left and at his worst when he aligned with the right wingers. See
http://mises.org/story/2099
March 13th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Mike Nelson wrote:
MN) throws a childish temper tantrum whenever someone uses big, bad, un-politcally correct words, like the ones he just used (MN
I didn’t call anybody here a “moron” or “retarded moron” unless they subscribe to the two propositions that I challenged you to endorse. Thanks for fleeing the scene, and exonerating me of the charge of calling anybody those names.
Wes Benedict wrote:
WB) Words like jerk, moron, bottom-feeder and even MONSTER are common in real political discussions that Republicans and Democrats have. (WB
“Monster” got the offending Obama adviser booted from his campaign. “Jerk” and “moron” are boorish epithets that diminish only the person who spews them. Diagnosing such spewage by calling it a “bottom-feeder” debate tactic is nowhere near sinking to that level. Anyone (like Nelson) who thinks otherwise needs to look up “use-mention distinction” on Wikipedia.
Tom, it was suggested to me by a prominent LP leader that David Nolan only spreads the COINTELPRO interpretation of the Pledge so it can be kept as a cudgel for use against non-radicals. Do you think Nolan is that Machiavellian?
Wes, I can’t agree with the cargo-cult idea that the LP should not care about its Platform simply because the incumbent parties ignore theirs. However, if the PlatCom’s draft passes, then (modulo the environment-related language we’re still drafting) I wouldn’t see any screaming need to change the platform until, say, artificial wombs are invented, or robots demand to vote. If Platforms are so uninteresting to you, maybe you would support Tom’s World’s Smallest Platform:
[X] supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose.
or my World’s Smallerest Platform:
Outlaw only fraud and force initiation. Tax only land rent and polluting/ congesting/ consuming the commons. Provide only network natural monopolies and protection of life and liberty.
which can even fit on a bumper-sticker:
What you do or make is fully yours, but what you take or spoil is not.
Jeff, yes by “winning 5%-10% in many federal elections” I meant doing it in like 1/4 of them, not merely doing it in one race out of hundreds each cycle. Ditto to everything else you said.
Tom, can I quote you as saying that “Milton Friedman had a huge negative aggregate impact on human liberty” in every discussion we hold in front of libertarian audiences? That would save me a lot of typing.
P.S. How is it that your aggregate-impact-on-human-liberty calculator works only when you’re talking to people other than me? Did you put some new batteries in it or something? 
Pauli, these blog-comment and email duels aren’t the most productive way to debate anyway. I’d much rather have you nominate the best radical arguments you can find for reference/inclusion in the relevant advocacy pages on http://libertarianmajority.net/. That shouldn’t take much typing at all.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Holtz says:
So you are a moron then.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Brian,
1) It would be irresponsible of you to “quote” me as saying something I didn’t say. It would be at best a paraphrase.
2) My aggregate-impact-on-human-liberty calculator doesn’t work, ever. Neither does anyone else’s. That doesn’t mean I won’t occasionally pull a box out of my pocket with blinking red lights on it and wave it around in the hope that people will assume I have, in fact, solved for X. I’m a sneaky sonofabitch that way, and someone should probably keep an eye on me.
In any case, I’m less excited about playing the dozens here than I am about hopefully having found a project to work on that might be helpful to the LP and not require me to indulge in these kinds of arguments for it to be a success.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
“Milton Friedman had a huge negative aggregate impact on human liberty”
Tom,
My thinking along those lines are not to just consider the economic philosophies that he put forth, but to consider the ramifications of the involvement of the Chicago school of economics and the US Government in shaping overthrown goverments in South America like say…the rise of Pinochet in Chile, The Ford Foundation etc. As libertarians it should be the duty of all to study the other side of things and the perspectives of those who were not big fans of Mr. Friedman. A good place to start, if you want to understand the Iraqi quagmire is Naomi Kleins (sp?) book… Shock Doctrine – The rise of disaster capitalism. Alot of people have died in order to institute free market reforms in places south of our border. A reading of this book can help one understand why people like Chavez, a democratically elected leader, despises capitalism and America in general.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Rothbard’s activism in his later years, while not actually doing anything to compel people to do anything (as some of Friedman’s early work did) was anything but libertarian.
There is no question that Friedman is responsible for some things that we would view as a negative, namely developing the federal withholding system. However, Friedman was very clear about certain aspects of the withholding:
(1) The withholding should only be used during wartime to finance just wars (such as early WWII, when Friedman worked on the committee which developed withholding)
(2) We should find a way to abolish it now.
I don’t think any public intellectual could live up to some arcane model of what the “perfect libertarian” should be.
The moment we stop picking at each other’s political positions like scabs and trying to destroy each other because we don’t fit each other’s idea of a “perfect libertarian” is the moment we set ourselves up to actually do something.
The biggest problem is that we are arguing about little details in a libertarian utopia. So, instead of reformers and radicals nitpicking about details of that libertarian utopia, let’s recognize that we almost all believe our country is heading for more and more destruction and personal liberty, and work together, within the political system, to restore basic liberty and we can argue about the details of a libertarian utopia when we’re close to one. Until then, lets worry about bigger problems on which we nearly all agree.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The list of elected Libs is linked to – form the Organization page:
http://www.lp.org/organization.shtml
http://www.lp.org/organization/elected_officials.pdf
But there seems to be an issue on the LP site: when you back up to the directory level, you get some weird template-site. Clicking on a link within that gets you to:
http://www.libertarianparty.net/organization/
Which looks like the old LP site before the change, and the ‘home’ button on that gets you back to LP.org
Maybe one of you can-do reformer types could pass along that issue to the national staff and maybe they Can Do something about it.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Jeff Wartman wrote:
JW) instead of reformers and radicals nitpicking about details of that libertarian utopia (JW
I don’t think either should neglect thinking about or advocating for the details of their vision of libertarian utopia. I also don’t think either should have their vision declared Best In Show by the LP’s foundational documents. In the struggle over those documents, only one side is chanting “Pledge and Platform, on the wall, who’s the most libertarian of us all?” If I wanted my own libertopian vision to be the Platform, I’d have pushed for adoption of http://ecolibertarian.org/manifesto instead of a generic big-tent Platform that even David Nolan admits is a faithful elaboration of the LP Statement of Principles.
Nelson/disinter, only a moron would think that I think that all labels are epithets. So tell us: did I just call you “moron”, or not?
Susan, by “back up” you apparently mean manually editing the URL. I would agree that’s a problem only if the most popular browsers offered a ubiquitous go-up-one-level-in-the-URL feature, but alas they don’t. Still, I wonder why the list isn’t linked from the home page. I suspect it’s because our ~180 elected Libertarians comes in 2nd to the Green’s last count of 226: http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html
Tom/jre, you guys should consider forming a He Man Friedman-Haters’ Caucus. You could even throw in Hayek for defending taxation, Mises for defending conscription, Rand just for being Rand, and then you’d be iconoclasts about almost the entirety of Doherty’s 5-icon libertarian pantheon. You’d be the koolest kids on the block.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
The list of elected Libs is linked to – form the Organization page:
http://www.lp.org/organization.shtml
My mistake. I was using the buttons at the top to navigate through the pop-up submenus rather than clicking on the top buttons individually.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Pauli,
If you include the i on the end you should include the e after it. They are a package deal. Paul is OK too.
these blog-comment and email duels aren’t the most productive way to debate anyway. I’d much rather have you nominate the best radical arguments you can find for reference/inclusion in the relevant advocacy pages on http://libertarianmajority.net/. That shouldn’t take much typing at all.
I throw out links occassionally. I think this one is one of the best.
http://mises.org/story/2099
March 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
A lot of people came into the libertarian movement BECAUSE of a Libertarian Party Presidential race.
True, I came in because I needed an anti-drug war candidate to vote for in ‘92. I got Libertarianism in One Lesson as part of my inquiry packet and things started to click. They clicked further as I read through the “for further reading…” books in the back index.
In other words I came in through a presidential race first and then the party into the movement as a whole, which is fairly typical.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I pretty much just skimmed over most of the posts, especially the ones involving name calling, so I don’t know if the points I’m about to bring up have been mentioned before or not. But I’m going to mention them anyway, and try to stay somewhat on topic.
The first point I would like to bring up is that the LP is probably just about as suceessful or unsuccessful as any other third party. Can anyone here name a third party since the Republicans that has been a smashing success? Obviously not, since we still have a two party system instead of a three party one. So, in guaging the effectivness of the Lp, we need to compare it to other third parties, and see where it ranks there.
The second point I would like to bring up is the issue of running canidates for “unwinnable” races, such as President and Congress. I can honestly say that we can’t win if we don’t run. Whether we should “focus” on these races is debatable, but we should at least run a canidate for them for the hell of it, if nothing else. The Presidential race is an exception, since it does bring at least some people into the party that might not otherwise be here, and it gives us both a reason and an opportunity to maintain ballot access.
The third point I would like to bring up is the futility of trying to “reform” the major parties. Both parties have their bases, and will pander to them no matter what we do. Republicans will pander to their Conservative base with idea’s like the Defense of Marrige act, while Democrats will pander to their Liberal base with Social programs like health care and higher taxes on the rich to help the poor. Only the LP is built on a libertarian base, and thats where Libertarians find their natural home.
The final point I would like to bring up is something that should be obvious, but maybe its not. The lackluster successes of the Lp is Partly because many Americans do NOT want a libertarian country. They want the government to keep jobs from going oversees, stop the banks from forclosing on their homes, keep us safe from terrorism. ect. Obviously, these people will not vote for a party that considers lost jobs and Forclosed homes as part of the free market system, and opposes giving the government extra powers to fight terrorists. Since these people make up a good chunk of the voting block, they contribute to our lack of dazzling success.
So basically, I’m saying that the LP does as well as any other third party, and should not be disbanded because we haven’t reversed a two hundred year trend towards Socialism in a mere 40 years. ((Yes, I know it hasn’t quite been that long, but I think you see my point.))
March 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Another link I highly recommend
http://praxeology.net/blog/2006/11/24/greensleeves-was-all-my-joy/
and for you Christians
http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf
March 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
>>Tom/jre, you guys should consider forming a He Man Friedman-Haters’ Caucus. You could even throw in Hayek for defending taxation, Mises for defending conscription, Rand just for being Rand, and then you’d be iconoclasts about almost the entirety of Doherty’s 5-icon libertarian pantheon. You’d be the koolest kids on the block.>>
Hard to top that, You are so Witty! BTW, I am a fan of Friedman. It Sounds like you got him stuck up yer but in the same way you accuse the people who like Rothbard.
>>I’d have pushed for adoption of http://ecolibertarian.org/manifesto instead of a generic big-tent Platform that even David Nolan admits is a faithful elaboration of the LP Statement of Principles.>>
I believe that Mr. Nolans description of the Brian Holtz DP Platform was…..”It has no teeth in it” I agree.
After Vegas I decided not to worry about it, if you get the votes, we get the platform. No matter how much the platform committee deck is stacked, no matter how hard Mr. Carling, Ms. Mattson, and you conspire to use roberts rules and parlamentary tricks to forge your direction… in the end it boils down to votes. If you get the 2/3 votes needed then fine, the delegates will have spoken. If not, mabey next time around the new platform committee may make it a priority to work on a few important planks and not try to change the lp world in one fell swoop. If you have the votes and pass your platform it will not change my approach to Liberty, but I believe it will be a negative for the party in the long run. If it’s successful, one day in the future we will have our own McCain within our midsts running on some godforsaken platform that does not even resemble libertarianism. Good Luck with your platform endeavors, we’ll see what happens in Denver.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Brian,
I’m not saying the various factors shouldn’t put forth their ideas for a libertarian utopia, I’m saying we should put aside differences in details for that utopia because we’re not even close to a libertarian utopia, and we can all find common ground with the overall idea that we need to be more free.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Brian,
You write:
“Tom/jre, you guys should consider forming a He Man Friedman-Haters’ Caucus.”
I normally don’t participate in the formation of organizations which I’d be ineligible for membership in (unless the ineligibility is technical and I support the agenda). I’m not a closet monetarist or anything, and I don’t rate Friedman as highly as Doherty does, but I admire some of his work. Matter of fact, I probably have a more favorable opinion of him in general than I do of Rothbard.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Thomas,
“Michael,
I don’t see anything in what you write that I’d necessarily disagree with, except as it relates to the “purist”/”reformer” conflict.”
Well, I saw it first-hand at the recent LPC convention with a purist finding a vast centralization conspiracy existing where none actually existed, and it cost him a lot of credibility and respect for harping on it at every chance he got. From what I’ve seen, the “reformers” are generally in the position of trying to get the LP to move forward and make progress towards electoral success while the purists are generally more concerned about philosophical purity within the party (whatever flavor-of-the-month that purity may be). Call me a reformer, then, I guess, because I have been working to fix the internal mechanisms so they help rather than hinder the real out-in-front efforts. Both reformers and purists have activists as well.
“While there are certainly some “reformers” who do get into the nuts and bolts and try to make things actually happen, in my experience that’s more commonly a “purist” trait. So far as I can tell the “reformers” are, perversely, almost entirely INTERNALLY focused—waiting to control the party before trying to actually use it to accomplish anything; while the “purists,” contra the “reformer” character sketch of them, are the ones to get out in the world and actually bust their asses to make things happen.”
I must be an anomaly, then, because I see the nuts and bolts as being almost completely outside the philosophical arguments that seem to envelop the party all the time. I prefer to leave that stuff to the Platform where IMO it belongs and focus on operations like Bylaws etc.—the how we do things, not necessarily the why is where I focus. That’s mainly because my own opinion of libertarianism is going to be different than the next person’s and I acknowledge that, whether I either agree with them completely or think they are the biggest dolt in the multiverse.
At this time, the presidential campaign is a tone-setting activity within the party, and a probably not especially efficient public information activity outside the party. That may not sound as sexy as “we can win, go team!” but it’s also not unimportant—and since we’re going to do it, we might as well do it as right as we can instead of chasing after con-man rainbows.”
March 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Sorry, last post got sent in mid-stride (wish I knew why this laptop did that!)
To finish it:
“At this time, the presidential campaign is a tone-setting activity within the party, and a probably not especially efficient public information activity outside the party. That may not sound as sexy as “we can win, go team!” but it’s also not unimportant—and since we’re going to do it, we might as well do it as right as we can instead of chasing after con-man rainbows.”
I think the current LP Presidential race is more of a dial tone stuck on fast busy and nobody has stepped up to take the call. I agree that we should not be “chasing after con-man rainbows”, but I think the focus of the Presidential race, if we even have one, should be marketing and not the edge-yapping I mentioned before. The LP Presidential candidate is the Salesman-in-Chief of the LP for that race, and they had better be able to sell the goods. So far with this batch, I haven’t seen it, and I admittedly am a very tough and contrarian sell, whichis why my current national delegate vote is NOTA.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
While I tend toward the radical end of the Libertarian spectrum I strongly believe that there is much to be learned from listening to much of what is said. There are a lot of things the LP needs to learn to do. Developing some good work habits would be first on any agenda.
There is no reason for the website to be in such poor condition.
Weekly distribution of press releases and better working relation with the media needs to be a priority.
After 37 years in operation we should have a number of pamphlets and they should be updated regularly. We are missing opportunites on a number of issues. With inflation running at 4.5% annually we definately should have something on that specific issue, but we do not have anything.
Candidates need better information in order to run effective campaigns and expecting them to put packets together during a campaign is foolish. Regardless of whether it is a campaign for president, or the local school board the National party needs to get it act together and start providing candidates with better information and it should be avaiable well ahead of time.
The platform is a mess. I realize that the work has been done with good intentions, but on a number of planks past ones should have been put together by people with a better understanding of the issues and some degree of knowledge in craftsmanship. Sometimes it helps to know how to call someone an ass without being rude. The same goes for writting about government policy. It needs to be stated in such a manner as to sell the issue. The platform that came out of the Las Vegas meeting looks more like and empty bucket. It needs to be filled out.
National needs to get off its backside and develop some plans to help out the state and local parties. A few how to manuals need to be written and distributed.
Outreach needs to be an ongoing project. It has been hit and miss at best. That needs to change
I could go on, but I’ll let someone else finish.
MHW
March 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Holtz: Bob, I think “debating society” vs. “real politics” is too much of a caricature.
Me: Sure, yes, a bit of a caricature, agreed. Rothbardians = debating society advocates, more or less. Sure, they don’t seem to want to engage the points that “reformers” make, and instead engage in Leninist tactics like disinter does, labeling others as “retards” and so forth. Disinter brings new meaning to the idea that “it takes all kinds.”
And, yes, there’s a range of those of us who are more interested in “real politics.” Regardless of how real “real” might be, non-Rothbardians do seem to want to make libertarian ideas RELEVANT to voters. That might be people that want to see the LP become a kind of effective protest party, mounting campaigns that are on the edge but relevant. Others want to start to win campaigns. I’m probably somewhere in the middle.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I wrote: “...but on a number of planks past ones should have been put together by people with a better understanding of the issues and some degree of knowledge in craftsmanship.”
This wasn’t meant to be an example of poor sentence construction, but it sure turned out that way. The only excuse I have is that I was talking to my wife.
What I think I meant to say was that with a number of planks in previous platforms it would have helped to have someone with knowledge of the subject and some skill in crafting a sentence write the plank.
MHW
March 13th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Paulie,
Thanks. I’m doing so well my next MRI has been postponed until June.
Knapp,
[/qIf you say that the pledge is what’s keeping you out of the LP, what you’re really saying is that you don’t want to be in the LP, but feel like you need an excuse, and can’t find a good one.[/q]
I dont want to be in the LP - it I did I would not have left but I do feel strongly that the country needs a political party that represents the best of the founding fathers ideals while acknowledging we no longer live in their time.
I’m quite proud to say that I am not any sort of a libertarian. The word to me was not worth ‘reforming’ – it simply has got too much baggage with it. The Kingdom wasn’t worth fighting for, and the emperors were all running around with no clothes on complementing each other on their sense of fashion.
meanwhile, we lost more liberty in the last 4 years than in the previous 20, IMO.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
jre, regarding Nolan saying the Pure Principles draft “has no teeth”: I have an email from him saying “What you have proposed is basically an expanded, more detailed version of the Statement of Principles.” I also have a recording of him saying the Pure Principles draft is
DN) very vague and avoids committing us to specific positions [on issues like] Iraq, the drug war, the police state, the economy [and] everything from the right to keep and bear arms to our opposition to reinstituting the draft to our opposition to wage and price controls etc. (DN
The problem with his seven claims is that six of them are just flat wrong, as I document at http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/02/platform-committee-meets-friday.html. On the seventh, Iraq, the Pure Principles Platform says exactly what is said by the 2004 Platform that Nolan wants to restore: nothing. The word “Iraq” wasn’t even in the 2004 Platform.
There were no “parliamentary tricks” used in Vegas to pass our draft. No PlatCom member voted against recommending that the Denver delegates delete all 15 planks from the 2006 Platform. With a quorum varying between 13 and 15 members, only 6 of 30 recommendations attracted more than one nay for adoption, and only 3 of them more than two. We had two more members who couldn’t attend but who would have voted for our draft. If there was a “parliamentary trick” in Vegas, it was the use of unlimited debating that made us need all of 21 hours over two days to adopt a draft that had largely already been written by a subcommittee. We spent a disproportionate fraction of our time on a series of barely-seconded proposals that ended up being defeated N-2 or even N-1.
We were painfully aware that the rules governing our committee did not allow us to set time limits on debate or even call the question. The rules allow any member to indefinitely defer a vote by offering any kind of non-dilatory debate, and allow any two members to offer arbitrary number of non-duplicative amendments. I have no problem with a minority wanting to get the committee on record as having considered competing proposals, but there’s really nothing other than social sanction that can let a supermajority write its report if a minority is determined to be obstructionist. Alicia was scrupulous (nearly to a fault) in always asking if there was more debate whenever the debate paused. We didn’t like those rules, but we followed them, because they are the rules this Party has chosen for us.
The design of the Platform rules seems to intend that a minority should make its case through 4-person minority reports, rather than through dilatory trench warfare against the majority’s efforts to write its own report. I’m not saying that delay is what was intended, or that ignoring the rules in order to seat the two alternates would have exacerbated these delays, but (from the perspective of the majority’s Platform repair efforts) it surely wouldn’t have helped. If the majority has misjudged what sort of Platform repair the Denver delegates will prefer, then the proper time and place to determine that is when the majority’s recommendations go head-to-head against any minority report(s).
March 13th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
jre, I don’t see the PlatCom’s draft as “trying to change the lp world in one fell swoop”. It just tries to repair the Portland crater with a baseline platform foundation that most Libertarians can agree with. There are really just two historic substantive changes we’re proposing. The first is that we’re advocating effective silence on abortion, and in doing so we’re agreeing with the delegates of the last 3 NatCons who in aggregated plank retention voting put the old abortion plank dead last out of 62 planks. The second is that we’re agreeing with the Bylaws Committee on a way to excise the “cult of the omnipotent” language—a change that David Nolan says came within one vote of the requisite 7/8 margin in the early 90s.
I’m glad to hear that the PlatCom’s draft won’t “change your approach to Liberty”. The whole point of Platform reform is that the Platform shouldn’t be used as a cudgel to make Libertarians change their approach to Liberty. I shouldn’t use the Platform to make you a geolibertarian, and you shouldn’t use the Platform to make me a Rothbardian (or whatever else you might want to make me).
Jeff, the whole idea of the Pure Principles draft
(http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform) is to describe all and only the “common ground” you’re talking about. If our draft includes any details about “utopia”, or if it leaves out any significant piece of “common ground”, then I’d like to know about it ASAP, because there’s still time to fix it before Denver. The more eyes on it now, the fewer bugs to deal with in Denver.
Michael S., I will to a limited extent defend Tom’s characterization of reformers as internally-focused. Despite the lore about the Dallas Accord, the radicals had what was in effect their dream platform for 30 years, from 1974 to 2004. What did we get to show for it? Which kind of candidate—reformer or radical—was most likely to be motivated to run on such a Platform? That Platform kept me out of the LP all through the 1990s, and it took a once-in-a-lifetime total GOP control of Washington for me to realize that the Republicans would never put their small-government rhetoric into action.
You see, Tom, to me, it’s as if there are an array of parties that are all obviously wrong, and there is one party that is very close to right—except that it also advocates the bizarre policy that the letter ‘X’ be stricken from the English language. Given this situation, if I have to choose between trying to reform the anti-X party, or hitting the sidewalks to recruit for the anti-X party, I’ll choose reform a large fraction of the time. Because frankly, I’m sick of the sidewalk response that goes: “Aren’t you the party that opposes the letter X? What’s up with that?” I’m not saying our party