by Schuyler Windham
I know how frustrating it can be to invest so much of yourself — your time, energy, attention, and money into something only to see it flounder or backtrack. We don’t want to feel like we’ve failed at something and we know that consistency is key to success. How do we then determine when to keep investing and when to step away so we can live to fight another day?
After witnessing the illiberal government reaction to the pandemic in 2020 (in particular how my local county government treated small businesses), I left my childhood political party. This was a difficult decision because everyone in my immediate family is a Democrat. My church community was for the most part Democratic Party members. It was like starting over and that was frightening. I lost relationships over the decision, but I do not regret it.
My husband had gotten involved with the Libertarian Party in North Carolina during the 2008 anti-war era. He was the one who urged me to check out the local party and see if it was something I was interested in. I was certainly attracted to the medical freedom message of the Libertarian Party. As I was more of a Liberal, less of a progressive, and despised authoritarianism, it was not a difficult leap to make as I learned more about libertarianism and saw how I aligned with the Libertarian Party platform planks.
I decided to run for Nebraska State Legislature in 2021-2022 with the endorsement of former Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke and served as the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska focused on fundraising efforts until the takeover in 2022. That election year the former LPNE SCC ran 23 candidates and had more statewide candidates than even the Democratic Party. We had peaked at close to 18,500 registered Libertarian voters and had a healthy monthly donor program.
Yet after the takeover, the party has since been bleeding voters every month and is the only party (or nonpartisan category) that is losing registered voters in Nebraska. All other voter registrations are growing. During a presidential election year, the LPNE failed to recruit more than a couple local candidates to run for office and refused to rally around the 2024 presidential nominee Chase Oliver. Instead, the Nebraska chair signed a letter of support for RFK and the vice-chair mocked Libertarian presidential candidate Lars Mapstead for hosting a primary watch party in May. The unprofessionalism and lack of support for Libertarian candidates has been a glaring issue nationally and locally.
I invested a lot of time into marketing for the Lancaster County Libertarian Party affiliate and encouraged local volunteers to donate monthly. This was an uphill battle as someone actively worked against my efforts and earlier this year revealed he was a Republican Party saboteur. This person continues to be a consultant to the state party leadership on bylaws issues, which is absolutely baffling. My husband and I attended the Libertarian Party national convention with hopes of electing new leadership and patching the sinking ship. At this point we had given our heart and soul to the LP for over 3 years and had nothing to show for it — or worse, the party was dying and with a horrid brand association to MAGA and Trump.
We went to advocate with the Mapstead campaign — the candidate who I determined had the revenue and strategy to shake up the game. However, we only barely made it out with an Oliver nomination to combat Rectenwald. I had my suspicions about Rectenwald as I was doing research on the candidates for my Lancaster County Libertarian Party blog write-up. This was not a person who had advocated in libertarian spaces reliably for any length of time and I had no trust or confidence in him as a candidate.
I speculated if Rectenwald had received the nomination he would have dropped out to endorse Trump before the end of the summer, just as RFK ended up doing. That was essentially confirmed with his tweets saying how he would have hated running against Trump in addition to his associations with MAGA related people and content. Lately, many Libertarians have expressed a mix of emotions at Rectenwald’s antisemitic tirades on X, anger at what he’s saying and relief that he didn’t receive the LP nomination. Politics can be a very dirty game, so it is not off the wall to speculate that his campaign would have concluded with an endorsement of Trump and with the intent to make the Libertarian Party look unprofessional and hateful (example: Rectenwald’s disgusting tweets about Chase Oliver).
So if anything, going to the convention to vote against Rectenwald was a win for democracy and liberty. We at least gave voters a choice on their ballot to vote for Chase Oliver. However, the win was only temporary and it feels hollow compared to the lack of professional leadership and positive direction the LP could have continued moving toward had the takeover not happened in Reno or the 2024 convention elections gone differently.
That leaves us with a question.
What next?
Some people are intent to stick with the Libertarian Party and attempt to regrow it. I really wish them well and hope they are successful. We need a healthy multiparty system where everyone can be better represented and pass pro-freedom policies. If good Libertarian candidates run for office I will likely vote for them — however I just don’t see that happening in Nebraska and in many other states where experienced advocates were driven out of the party. I certainly don’t want to give any more of my time and money to a national and state party who are not aligned with my values.
I have already surpassed my 3 Year Rule with the LP. The 3 Year Rule keeps me from suffering the results of the sunk-cost fallacy.
The dictionary describes the sunk-cost fallacy as the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.
It can be very challenging to step away from something that we’ve invested a lot of time, energy, attention, and money into. Nostalgia in particular can be a huge weight on our hearts. The 3 Year Rule is a good timeframe parameter to assist in making a determination of where our resources could be best invested for success and not experience burn-out. Checking in with ourselves and our projects every 3 years or so is a helpful guide to prevent mismanagement of our time and energy.
I really felt at a loss after the convention and was preparing for an uphill battle to regrow my new political home. However, that was going poorly as several people commented “why would I want to advocate with a party taken over by toxic elements?” I really don’t blame them. It’s a hard sell. The takeover culture is also unfortunately a cyclical phenomenon between the various factions of the LP as to who has control over the platform and vision of the party which is of course far from harmonious. This stressful cycle persists every 5-10 years and will likely continue to do so. That’s not an environment I have an interest in working within. Not to mention any concerted efforts of political opposition to take over their competitor which we would need another at least 10–15 years to bounce back from and implement certain bylaws safe-guards in all 50 state affiliates to prevent from happening again.
I want a serious political party that will elect candidates to office who will enact freedom policies and repeal unjust laws. I want to advocate with people who respect the political and legal system we have and are willing to navigate it respectfully. I want a political party that will support our candidates and never stray from the mission such as what the LP did for RFK and Trump, throwing its own presidential nominee and other candidates under the bus for opposition candidates. While I enjoy lobbying, I am not here for that purpose but instead for a legitimate political party to compete against the duopoly. I also want a party focused on good policy, not ideological purity. Policy change takes time and is always a jagged line toward liberty and justice.
Thankfully, I am not alone. Liberal Party USA was formed by disenfranchised liberty-lovers who are intent on building a serious and professional political competitor to the establishment. We promote (classical) liberalism and have a platform that is secure, not subject to the whims of factions or caucuses who disagree with one or more of our party’s positions and the ultimate strategy dedicated to policy change by supporting and electing our own candidates to office, not fusionism.
Just the same as leaving the Democratic Party (which I also gave a lot of time volunteering on campaigns), I know how challenging it can be to start over. I do not regret the years I invested into the LP — I met amazing advocates and built my skills to grow a political party organization and get candidates elected. I also learned certain boundaries to ensure a professional working environment for everyone. Yet as per my 3 Year Rule, it is time to see how my talents and resources can better be utilized with another organization which does not have such a tarnished brand and organizational mismanagement as unfortunately what happened with the LP.
I am currently serving as the Chair for Nebraska Liberal Party and we have already seen positive growth with moderate voters being attracted to our message. I welcome disenfranchised Libertarians and (classical) Liberals to Liberal Party USA — simply take a look at the platform at LiberalPartyUSA.org/platform and see if you align with the policies. The 2024 Inaugural Convention is in Houston, TX December 6th-8th and we’d love to see you there! Everyone has talents to contribute to the liberty movement in our own unique way and you may find as I have that this is a healthy path forward together.
I am optimistic about the future, that from the ashes a phoenix is rising anew with a vision of peace, opportunity for prosperity, and freedom for all people. I hope you consider joining us at Liberal Party USA and advocate with a new political home.
[Thank you for your consideration in publishing my opinion piece for Third Party Watch — please let me know if you have any questions!]
AS posted:
The only comment I was able to get (via a Facebook post) was that if you’re in a state that doesn’t have a “Liberal” Party, then you can’t attend their inaugural convention and take part. Their response was “start a state party!”
Well, it was that way in the Libertarian Party back in the 1970-1980’s Someone had to take initiative in a lot of places to make it happen.
One think that I predict will vex the neo-Liberals when they hold their convention in December is foreign policy. Expect some fireworks over:
1. Immigration. Should illegal immigration be made legal?
2. Trade. Should free trade be unilateral or negotiated?
3. Defense. Are foreign treaty alliances always bad?
It should be interesting
Re Kyle’s point, I am also in Oregon and had the same experience. The only comment I was able to get (via a Facebook post) was that if you’re in a state that doesn’t have a “Liberal” Party, then you can’t attend their inaugural convention and take part. Their response was “start a state party!” like it’s Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland putting on a show in the back yard. Starting a political party on a statewide level is a heck of a lot harder than that (no thanks to all the state regulations). So I’m staying Libertarian for now. Luckily, I don’t have to join National to be active in Oregon.
The biggest problem with the Libertarian Party was that it tried to copy the two major parties by allowing anyone who could contribute $25 to join the party. I believe a party should be very selective about who can or can’t be a member. It shouldn’t something that anyone can just join and hijack. In the US we’ve weakened political parties via the primary system to the point where they’re just big tent brands that don’t actually stand for anything. To me that’s not the purpose of a party. The purpose of a political party should be a tight knit group of people dedicaded to certain ideals and policies. Australia doesn’t have a primary system but they still have more choices than we do under a ranked choice voting system.
Do Democrats and Republicans charge money to join? Not as far as I know. Actually, come to think of it, libertarians don’t either. 25 used to be a newsletter annual fee, but they cancelled the newsletter, so now there’s no reason to send them money unless you really want a wallet card with your name and theirs and no money on it (negative value) or just to send them money to say you did ie you get nothing.
If you just want to “join” you either sign a blood oath nobody agrees on the meaning of (in fact, there are diametrically opposite readings of what it means) or if you live in a state that allows it register to vote as one or both. In some places they have meet ups in person or via zoom, discord, phone party line etc. But with rare exceptions anyone can show up or join if they want – no fee or vetting .
You send them money to become a sustaining member, which has certain privileges. The dues were never the ‘newsletter fee’. Most other political parties do not have memberships in our sense.
I don’t recall receiving any other tangible privilege. Newsletter and wallet card only. Even voting rights at convention events were not necessarily hinged on paying monthly or annual fees, although that differed depending on where you lived or for president convention meetings what state you decided to pretend to be from. What were the other benefits I forgot? Tote bags? Motel discounts? Cash back on purchases? Honest question as I remember none over and above monthly to quarterly newsletter and a wallet plastic card with no credit swipe .
I thank the author for her time and effort building the LP. I joined the party in 1978. We’ve seen a lot of people come and go over the decades. Most people come in, see it’s not going to happen in two years (in her case, three years), and they take off. I joined the LP for life, so for me it’s a lifetime thing. After all, eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty. I would suggest that new people coming in to the party treat it as a marathon–not a sprint. Over time, you will see different NatCom’s come and go, and unfortunately, more often than not, they end up re-inventing the flat tire. Then they give way to others to lead. But all the effort and contributions add up to a better, stronger party. We have ballot access under control, and I can tell you that the name recognition is a lot better than it was when I joined! So, to those who have left the party, please come back, give us the balance and experience that we need, and make it a 30-year plan, not just 3. We’ve seen a lot of other parties come and go, but I firmly believe that the LP has stood the test of time. We are part of the “social fabric” of the nation now, and we’ll be a party for at least the next 100 years. The ballot access we have didn’t appear overnight, and we’ll see that it doesn’t disappear overnight. How successful we are depends on us and our ability to retain members. I believe that we will get our chance to govern, if nothing else because the democrat and republican leadership seem to be dedicated to their own (and the country’s) destruction.
The probalem now is it’s not another branch of Libertaroansiam calling the shots. The current leadership was offered the years of experiance and very blatanly told that experiance “it lost so get lost” they can’t expect us to pull them out of the pit they dug for themselves.
You say ballot access is under control but do we have 50 state ballot access? If not then we don’t have it under control, unless the goal is to shrink the impact of the party? And name recognition in exchange for our foundation and principles was a poor trade and exactley the short term goal orientation you appear to oppose.
If the LP wants to return to where it was it must return in priniple to what it was.
We don’t have it in three states. Two of which the Democrats made an effort to kill third parties. It can be under control if people are willing to actually bleed a little by donating to those state in addition to their own.
A very well written commentary. The author is absolutely correct in her analysis about the sunk cost fallacy. The issue becomes quite emotional for many who have been active in the libertarian party for a long time.
I spent 16 years as a very active participant. It took me a couple of years (and a massive heart attack) to get my head back in the game after I left the LP. I have spent the last several years “wandering in the desert“ politically.
I looked at several alternatives and tried to start the process of building a new party here in my state. I recently “discovered“ liberal party USA. While it is not perfect, I believe it is the best chance for a classical liberal party to reappear. I have been arguing the case here and elsewhere for a new classical liberal party for a while.
I would urge anyone who is a classical liberal either still in the LP, or who left the LP in the last few years because of the shenanigans going on, to consider looking into liberal party, USA. I would also encourage those of you who have been staying out of party politics as a classical liberal because you didn’t really feel completely at home within the LP as it existed for the past few decades. It hasn’t really been a serious party for a while. In my opinion, the latest takeover is simply the ship finally hitting the iceberg after steaming past many of them for years.
At this point in time, there are close to a dozen state affiliates of this new party. The groundwork is being laid for new parties in other states, including here in South Carolina.
If you consider yourself a classical liberal, you should strongly consider getting involved in your state either with one of the new members of liberal party USA, or in helping to form a new state party.
I agree with the author that if the LP has a good candidate running that is on my ballot, I will likely consider voting for them. Of course, once our state affiliate has ballot access, I would hope that libertarians would consider voting for our candidates where they don’t have one.
This party is not being formed in an attempt to destroy the libertarian party. The goal is to offer exactly what the author referenced. A serious and rational party with positions that the public will support.
A lot more people are classical liberals than they realize. I have talked to a number of people over the years that I told were classical liberals that had no idea until they understood what it means.
So please consider getting past whatever “sunk cost” is holding you back. And remember that the people who are your friends that are still within the LP will still be your friends. They do not become an enemy if you decide to take another path.
I am supporting Project Liberal and am interested in getting involved with the Liberal Party, but although the website says the party exists in my state (Oregon), and I signed up to volunteer, I have been unable to actually get in touch with anyone involved in the nascent Oregon party, despite multiple attempts. As far as an outsider can see, there is absolutely nothing happening here and no organization to get involved with. (And no committee has been registered with the Secretary of State.) I didn’t want to start it myself as it appeared someone else was doing it already… but now I’m not so sure.
New parties are tough to start up. I live in a state where the Libertarian Party affiliate disassociated itself from the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. The party is now affiliated with the Liberal Party USA. We shall see how this all works out and just how confusing things will get when trying to explain the differences between the two parties with similar names and very similar abbreviations. I do like the Bison, however. The state party currently uses a porcupine which is great as well. We’ll see…
I speculate Liberal Party will attract people who are chill with pluralism whereas there unfortunately tends to be confusion in the US with what exactly libertarians believe since the label “libertarian” continues to be co-opted by the right more so. I’ve already had a prominent community member who was wary of conservatarians and the LP start promoting classical liberalism on his all politics is local page. That is very flattering and I see growth for the liberty movement in recruiting moderates who may be soft to the Liberal label and branding vs the libertarian one. And totally agree — while the porcupine is cute, the bison is really awesome!
For anyone concerned about the left, all I do is say we’re pro-free market and responsible with taxpayer money and that immediately turns them off. The left knows that progressivism and liberalism are different so it doesn’t take much to convince them. Whereas there are plenty of people on the right who identify as libertarians who are farther from liberty than I was as a pro-business Democrat. That’s how wild the political compass is right now. But at least giving voters more options and keep pushing for that multiparty system is worth the effort!
I have never met a Democrat who knew the difference between a liberal and a progressive. I have seen entire articles written by people on the left purporting to explain the difference and getting it completely wrong. The only thing they know is that it is currently more fashionable to call oneself a progressive than a liberal.
Republicans aren’t any better informed.
If nothing else I appreciate the Liberal Party for reclaiming the Liberal label, since neither big party hold Liberal values and most people today just consider Liberal a synonym for Progressive.
Does the Liberal Party have allowances for anarchy as a legitimate form of Liberal Governance?
Sadly your assesment of the cooption of Libertarian by the right is spot on, they use it as a buzzword to insinuate they believe in some individual liberties when both the neo-conservative and progressive sides of the political machine are moving together away from the individual principals of liberalism and toward higher authoritarian control.
The Bison was my Platoon’s symbol so I am partial, but I like the message of the porcupine better. Once the Libertarian Party is returned to its proper principled leadership and path I would love to see more 3rd party candidates conduct joint forums and debates.
One advantage of forming a “Liberal” Party is that the members get to define what they mean by “Liberal” Of course, this has already happened with “Libertarian” Before the LP became well known, folks would ask “Why a Libertine Party?” or “Do Librarians need a party?”
But, altho, the Libertarian Party tried to define itself as being in the classical liberal tradition, lefty media popularized the idea that the Libertarian Party was a hard right party. They succeeded so well, that hard right people joined the party and decided that they owned the name. So, a word to the wise: opponents of the Liberal Party will try to define it for them.
The best way to keep your enemies from defining you is to have your own media outlet. But even that doesn’t always work, if you media doesn’t have enough reach. Probably the closest thing that the Libertarian have had to media outlets are Reason Magazine and CATO.
But, Reason doesn’t try to define libertarianism; it simply tries to report a wide variety of things of interest to libertarians.
CATO, on the other hand is decidedly the voice trying to define libertarianism in classical liberal terms. So much so that many current members of the Party that have bought into the hard right characterization of libertarianism simply don’t consider CATO to be libertarian.