LNC Reform-oriented Libertarians walked away from the past convention with some gains in the aftermath of a disastrous Mises Caucus takeover that nearly emptied our bank accounts by alienating members, turning away donors, and funding petty internal conflicts. That said, reformists still have their work cut out for them. Libertarian strategists must look towards the errors of the past convention to ensure a viable plan to return our party to a strong financial standing and with a renewed focus of political influence in the wake of two elections featuring vastly unpopular duopoly candidates. From this, the only conclusion to be drawn is that anti-Mises Libertarians must play better strategy or else they’ll lose the gains they made this past convention.
One unpopular truth that reformists must first digest is that they made these gains not because they played well, but because the Mises Caucus played poorly. This is not to disqualify the effort and work that reformists put into the convention to whip votes, but it should also not be understated how lucky we were that the stars aligned perfectly.
The financial disarray that the Mises Caucus left after holding power for one term could not be ignored by caucus-less moderate delegates. Even the Mises-endorsed treasurer made countless attempts to emphasize how dangerous the LNC’s finances were to a deaf crowd.
Had the Mises Caucus brought better strategy for their Presidential campaign and not fumbled their finances so irresponsibly, they definitely would’ve maintained or even expanded their authority in the Libertarian Party.
Strategy must be reoriented now before we face a more competent enemy.
Reformists must stop being scared of the word “takeover” when used in the context of state conventions. Understandably, this word has a negative connotation since it implies force of the minority to subjugate the organization under its control. Just look at the Mises takeover. But, our goal is not to replicate the Mises Caucus. Our takeover is not to put our own members into high-ranking positions, finance our own lawsuit squabbles, or to disenfranchise the votes of dues-paying members. Our goal is to reform the party’s structure to prevent these instances from happening, then walking away.
A takeover does not necessarily require a cult following to whip votes, or whatever impure strategies that reformists are hesitant to employ. In fact, doing the opposite is most preferable. Do not walk into convention waving a big anti-Mises flag, even if you are so. Candidates without caucus allegiance but good plans will be attractive to delegates, even moderates in the Mises Caucus. The goal is to work across the aisle to change bylaws and party structure to return power to the delegates and prevent all future takeovers.
Reformists must be prepared to disrupt the norm if they want change. An example of this can be found in the regional representatives on the LNC, who are empowered by agreements entered between state affiliate parties. Most of these representatives are blind followers acting against the interests of the party, like for the RFK JFC that is now funding ads for the Republican nominee. If Reformists want to retake the party, they must take state conventions and make clear that the will of the state delegates is to exit these agreements and join other regions which are not misusing our donor dollars. Reformists should not elect to stay in a regional agreement just because it is the norm. Instead, these representatives must be held accountable and stripped of their authority.
Candidate slates for the LNC must have established campaigns months before convention, not days. These candidates have a goal of making their name heard by uncommitted delegates and establishing themselves as a viable candidate in the mind of these voters. This feat cannot be achieved in days and, given how the last convention went, should not be rested solely on candidate speeches. Caucuses that are oriented towards LNC reform should assist in these operations.
We will soon be entering state convention season, which will require heavy brain-storming from reform-oriented caucuses, if they wish to be successful in 2026. Strategists must come together and make plans for which states they would like to put boots on the ground that will provide the most benefit while also requiring the least amount of resources. Otherwise, we may be too late to get change by 2026. There are dirtier ways to play, but I know there is a wide agreement between reformists that they will refuse to stoop to the level of their opposition. This is noble and respectable but will hinder progress. There are two options in front of the reformist caucuses: play dirtier or strategize harder. According to leadership, the former is not an option, so that leaves only the latter. Without a doubt, this will require significant work, volunteers, and attention to detail, but that is a small price to pay compared to another term under the regime of the Mises Caucus.
I agree with Sergio 100%. I will comment more after the election. But, I believe more needs to be done than just getting rid of the Mises Caucus. The process which we use to select our presidential candidate need to be changed. Also, and this has been discussed elsewhere, the presidential nominating convention should be held a year before the presidential election. It is obvious having the convention in May the year of the election is not working. The way we resolve state delegate disputes need to be fixed. Wasting a day on these disputes as happened this year has to stop. And, so on, and so on, and so on.
52 years of attempting to get libertarian views to mean something by utilizing the third party method. Who can make the case that this model is worth more time and money? Is there another path for reaching the public? Maybe it’s time to stop re-aranging the deck chairs and abandon ship? Someone please explain how Nolan’s dream makes realistic sense or let’s find other ways to be successful.
I’m with ATBAFT here. There are many other proven ways of reaching the public. From running as an independent, to running as an antiestablishment candidate with whatever views you have within the major parties, to single issue and multi issue advocacy groups of all sorts, educational foundations and efforts of different kinds, media of all sorts – we could keep going.
Does anyone know what happened to that Republican Libertarian group that got started in the early 90’s? I recall that Roger MacBride was involved, Erik Rittberg, Cliff Thiess, Ron Paul. Did working for libertarian principles within the GOP prove any more fruitful than working for the same through the third party LP?
They’re still around and hopefully providing their link will be allowed
Rlc.org
Ron Paul clearly thought working within the Republican Party was more suitable to him personally than working within the Libertarian Party, judging by the fact that he returned to congress as a Republican and was reelected a number of times and ran for POTUS twice as a Republican, by most accounts with more success than he had as a Libertarian. His supporters encountered a great deal of resistance within the GOP power structures, and not all of them drew the same conclusions as to where to concentrate the bulk of our energies subsequently. Ron Paul himself is still alive and could presumably be reached for comment if you tried, but I don’t know how easy or difficult it might be to get him to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You might well know him better than I do.
Eric Rittberg aka Dondero was Ron Paul’s chief of staff, but they had a bit of a falling out over US involvement in land wars in Asia and perhaps other matters. Mr. Dondero returned to the Libertarian Party as a signature gatherer, and had a subsequent career as a talk show host and guest, fundraiser for veterans and other causes, etc. I’ve lost track of him in recent years.
I think opinions vary as to how well working within the GOP works. My opinion is that it works to different degrees of success at different times for different people and that further details will get this submission rejected if I haven’t inadvertently crossed those lines already.
Further details, politely phrased, would within reason be acceptable.
The Republican Liberty Caucus still exists but, after Ron Paul retired that and Ron Paul’s related House Liberty Caucus both took a back seat to the House Freedom Caucus, which formed in 2015.
There had been some overlap in membership between all three groups. Justin Amash and Jim Jordan were members of all of them. Jordan was the leader of the House Freedom Caucus. After Amash supported impeaching Trump, Jordan and the House Freedom Caucus voted to condemn Amash and then more or less allowed Amash to publicly say he was resigning from the group.
So the RLC is a zombie and the House Freedom Caucus is full blown MAGA.
I’m in. In whatever capacity. Unless Colorado is taken back (use that instead of takeover if you want my advice), unless I sit with another state, not a likely delegate but would be more than glad to be floor advisor and help parliamentary wise.
Duque wasn’t heroic. I won’t say so why here. You can talk to me personally. Once you know, you will not want that.
And, given that the National LP is defined by dues paying members, there is no reason why Libertarians can’t be members of the old party, and any new party, at the same time.
All that energy might be better utilized in creating a new party. And that new party could make their work easier by being willing to support candidates in the old party who are not beyond the pale. Strategic semi-fusionism.
I’m done with caucuses in this party, but I’d make an exception for a Reform Caucus that only has two objectives: (1) absolutely obliterating from national and state party leadership the loyalists to McArdle, Heise, and the unrepentant elements of Mises PAC, * and (2) instituting structural and bylaws changes to ensure, as much as reasonably possible, that this cannot happen again. The best approach is probably a radical de-fanging of the LNC and vesting substantial, easy-to-use veto power in the state parties or, better yet, directly in the membership. Once that happens, the Reform Caucus can and should disband.
Slates for leadership roles should include people from all different “factions:” longtime party leaders, respected local activists and former candidates, Radical Caucus members, CLC members, former (or fed-up) Mises Caucus members who are willing to identify publicly as breaking with McArdle, and anyone else who shares those two broad goals and is willing to go on record about it. In fact, I’d love to see Todd Hagopian come back and run for LNC Chair. And while we’re at it, why not bring back Miguel Duque, the heroic defector who was the canary in the coal mine about what Mises Caucus has become?
We don’t need factional hardliners bringing their biases and “I told you so” gloating to this table. Set your differences aside for this one goal; you can go back to arguing after the day is won. Few things unite people like a common enemy. I wonder how McPriebus would appreciate this show of coalition-building, unity, and relevance?
As Mr. Ortega says, goal #2 needs to be substantial bylaws reform. State is more important than national in this regard; what ultimately happens at national is already decided by who wins at state, and outcomes on a state-by-state basis are a lot more feasible to plan. Rather than being centrally-dictated, each state’s own activists should have the final say on what they do and change in their state, but a national brain trust throughout the Reform Caucus could help to strategize and share ideas, and then take the best ideas from all the state activists and come up with the plan for national bylaws.
No scheming needed. No backroom deals or secret text threads. Everything should be entirely public and out in the open. McArdle once taunted her detractors to “catch her if they can.” Well, she’s about to watch as the plebs gather at the metaphorical gates to pull her and her crooked court jesters from the LNC throne room. It’s not going to be a fun 18 months (for them, anyway).
* Note: I did not say purge the individuals from the party. But they should be completely deprived of all officer, board, staff, and other similar leadership or communication positions. Their only available roles should be donor and untitled field volunteer. Many (most?) of them would probably naturally attrition at that point. Ironically they’ll have even less of a voice in Donald Trump’s Republican Party, which is enamored with its own brand of anti-free speech and pro-war constituents who hate libertarianism.
Think Sun Tzu. Don’t confine yourself to the territory of the enemy’s choosing. Find new, more favorable terrain over which to make your attack. A shadow party with a different name might consume less fruitless energy.
Keep something in mind. Affiliate “veto power” effectively means that each affiliate would be able to nominate a different presidential candidate. Is that what you want?
Oh, you mean like Angela McArdle and Hannah Goodman, alongside their various cronies, literally just tried to do in Colorado with RFK Jr.? You mean the very incident that served as the final tipping point for this fallout with Harlos and the subsequent unmasking of this LNC’s true intentions? Perhaps you could have chosen a better example.
And no, that is a fallacy. It obviously depends on how the veto power is constructed in the bylaws. Nothing in such a plan, broadly conceived, necessitates that it be written that an individual affiliate has unilateral power to veto within their own state. Veto power over LNC actions (or inactions) could, for example, be based on a decision of affiliates that represent more than 50% of the national sustaining membership. Other thresholds may be such as 2/3 or even 75%, not to mention the ability to exclude specific subject matter (like the presidential nominee).
Consider this nullification, a sort of LP “tenth amendment,” against an overreaching national party. I was certainly told the Mises Caucus supported political decentralization when I joined up.