Writing on his substack Waste No More Time, three-times Libertarian Party National Chair Nicholas Sarwark denounced current national Chair Angela McArdle: “She’s the most corrupt person to ever be Chair of the Libertarian National Committee…”
Speaking of the recent Presidential election, said of McArdle: “Angela McArdle is the first Libertarian Party Chair in history who has actively worked against the Libertarian candidate and for the Republican candidate.”
Sarwark notes that two Judicial Committee appeals are forthcoming. This author’s appeal, signed by 140 Party Sustaining members and 100 National Convention delegates, asks that certain LNC decisions at their October 6 meeting be overturned. Ms. Harlos appeal asks that an LNC decision in November be overturned.
Readers should note that ‘suspend’ is used in two different senses. The October 6 meeting temporarily suspended the Secretary from most of her duties. The November meeting ‘suspended” the Secretary, meaning ‘removed from office subject to the option of an appeal’.
Addressing fellow Libertarians who oppose McArdle, Sarwark asks:
1) Attend the Judicial Committee hearing on Saturday 11/23. It’s a Zoom Meeting.
2) Contribute to the derivative lawsuit to remove McArdle. At the donation site, the ‘Reference’ is ‘Derivative Lawsuit of the Libertarian Party.’
Readers should consider that their donations to the LNC might better be rerouted to the derivative suit or to actual Libertarian candidates.
She will go down and be ruined. It’s happening already.
I still encounter people who think libertarian means left wing socialist progressive. It would be many times more than this with a party called the Liberal Party.
I have never met anyone irl who thinks “libertarian” means “socialist”. In my experience that is a European thing, mostly from envious socialists screeching about how they used the label first, on four occasions in the mid to late 1800s.
But, why do you think it matters if people confuse liberal and progressive?
They can get the vote of the people who know what it means.
The people who don’t know what it means will be split as to their consideration of casting a vote. They will get some and not get others.
You seem to be under the impression that a voter must agree with a candidate/party in order to vote for them. That is not the case. I have met Italians who will preferentially vote for any Italian, women who will preferentially vote for any woman, Hispanics who will preferentially vote for any Hispanic, and blacks who will preferentially vote for anyone who is black without regard to any candidate positions or party vehicle.
Some people might choose to vote for a candidate who drives the last quarter mile to his campaign rallies in a red pickup truck because they think that makes him more a man of the people. They may be entirely wrong about that impression, but that doesn’t matter on election day.
If some people want to vote for a “Liberal” candidate because they are confused and think it means “progressive”, why would you object?
Then ypu must not have done much if any Libertarian Party ballot access petition signature gathering. I have done a lot of it, and within the last year I have encounteted some people who thought Libertarian meant left wing socialist progressive.
Maybe I live in an area where people aren’t morons.
I have done this type of work in 34 states plus DC. I would say there are people like this everywhere.
The people who still believe in freedom care. The movement to reduce the size and scope of government is important.
You are correct that the libertarian party has rarely elected people. But they have influenced elections over the years. I remember one specific race in our state a number of years back when the libertarian candidate received more votes than the margin between the Democrat and Republican statewide. When you add in the smaller vote totals of the other “Minor“ parties, neither the Democrat or Republican received more than about 46% of the votes.
The election was clearly influenced, and while neither of the other candidates was really any good, the voters chose the less dangerous of the two. The other proposed dramatically increasing state interference.
It can be easily argued that the libertarian party is no longer an effective and functional political organization, but they are not the entire movement.
In two weeks, the liberal party, formally known as liberal party USA, will hold its first national convention. This site and others are already bashing it because of the name, the fear of competition to the libertarian party, and even the logo. For the record, I think the logo should be something else.
And there are some days that I wonder why a classical liberal is calling itself the liberal party instead of the classical liberal party. Well, it has to be called something, and the “Democrats and Republicans are stupid and have failed everyone so choose us instead” Party is too long a name.
The label libertarian has been co-opted by the media and the far right. So yes, as a label for a movement, Libertarian is no longer a good choice. But the people who are still in that party care about the fact that they have a corrupt chair. Some care about the fact that she has ruled by dictate, and may possibly come under accusations of criminal activities at some point.
There is certainly a lot of smoke around that issue. Perhaps there is a fire. If you read recent FEC reports, there is clearly something wrong going on.
Mr Flood,
I am sorry to hear how much push back came from fear of competition. While I think the anarchist classic liberal team up is one of the best in political history I understand and respect the arguments you’ve made.
Branding issues aside I think the idea of more parties is good, there is a problem with issue dilution in the two big tents and many people hope for one of the things they want to be moved on but often it isn’t. If more third parties are form9ng that tells me not that third parties are fracturing but that more people are rejecting the two party system. We should be helping eachother in ballot access and in removing barriers for our candidates to get into debates and infront of people. But maybe I am just a crazy anarchist who believes in the power of voluntary cooperation
All good points.
There are obviously many reasons for people to object. For instance, the person who tried to make the case that third parties no longer need to exist would probably object. Would that be because he believes they really don’t need to exist, or because he is afraid they are causing too much competition for the major party the author favors. I suspect the latter.
Yes, more parties is a good thing. That is one of the reasons why I have intentionally avoided any attempts to convince my friends currently in the South Carolina libertarian party to leave.
I would expect that if one state elected a libertarian party candidate to Congress and another state elected a liberal party candidate, they would be more likely to be allies than enemies on the hill.
I frequently write here and elsewhere that I believe the libertarian party is being killed by the current leadership, But I am not actively calling people or emailing them asking them to leave their party. If they choose to stay, they choose to stay.
We will see.
What encourages me is that the liberal party does show energy that I have not seen in the libertarian party in quite a while. There is no national party stomping on state affiliates, and telling them who to put on the ballot or trying to steal their ballot access because one faction or another does not control the state party. Of course we could come back to this issue in 20 years and possibly find it different, but I hope not.
I sat in on a Zoom meeting this evening, where the discussion was not about issues or factions or disagreements, but about ways to build the organization and do it right. Build something that will be strong and able to last. Present a good and acceptable message to the public and hopefully be able to run candidates who succeed.
That is what the libertarian party was many years ago. But not anymore.
I appreciate your input and support with Liberal Party USA — our political strategist has done extensive polling over the course of the last few years and in recent exit polls from the 2024 election. “Liberal” as a political label has polled the best of anything that is tested against “Republican” and “Democrat” on a sample ballot, surpassing “Libertarian” and other potential labels by a WIDE margin among our target voters and is associated warmly with President Kennedy. Apologies to more mature liberty advocates, but the Liberal Party logo was designed with voters under 50 in mind. The symbolism of the bison is foundational to the party’s values and as a strong logo animal to compete with the elephant and donkey of the two major parties. We’re very excited for the moderate-liberty/fiscally responsible socially liberal coalition we’re building!
What other names did you test? “Prosperity” and “American Dream” come immediately to mind as choices.
The most important feature of people who remember President Kennedy is that they are on Social Security.
My guess is that most of the people that were surveyed had heard about Kennedy from their parents or grandparents.
He was assassinated about a month before my sixth birthday, so my memory of him is mostly of the funeral. I didn’t learn much about him until I later started following politics.
And don’t forget that Hollywood and the television networks did a number of versions of movies about him that continued into the early 1980s.
People who are politically active have moved past Kennedy, but don’t forget that there was his son and the controversy about his death. So the Kennedy family in general has been kept in view.
So it is quite understandable that people would associate the word liberal with Kennedy still.
I completely understand the target audience, however, it is still a logo that tends to work best west of the Mississippi.
In my survey locally, the only people who even knew it was a bison were hard right MAGA/Trump zombies. I don’t think they are our target market 🙂
But I agree that liberal goes over reasonably well.
Naming a party that is not a left wing socialist party the Liberal Party is a terrible idea. Most people have no idea what a classical liberal is. Most people think liberal means left wing socialist progressive.
Possibly. Possibly not. I certainly agree with you that the general public does not know what a classical liberal is. Whether they associate the word liberal with Left-wing socialist progressive is not something that I can necessarily agree or disagree with.
I was not involved with the group that started the project, so I was not involved in the research into what name to pick. I don’t know whether they surveyed 5 people, 500 people, or 5000 people.
It is usually pretty easy to smell the political stench of socialist progressives. I have not run into it in the people I have communicated with this fall. And there are a number of people involved that I know from the libertarian party and I know they are not socialists.
I did not say that the people in this party are necessarily left wing socialist progressives. I assume that they are not. My point is that with the name Liberal Party most people will ASSUME that they are left wing socialist progressives This will turn off most people from even looking into them, and out of those who like the name many of them will be disappointed when they find out that the Liberal Party is not a left wing socialist progressive party.
I have personally gathered over 100,000 signatutes for Libertatian Party ballot access, and I have probably gathered over 100,000 signatures on other petitions, and I have done this in 34 states plus Washington DC. I have also done public outreach and Get Out The Vote canvassings a bunch of times.
The vast majority of the public think that liberal means left wing socialist progressive. The word liberal is considered to be a negative by a large percentage of the population, and not just with Republicans and conservatives, but also with many independents, non-voters and even with.some libertarians.
The above use of the term liberal may go over well with some people, but those people already vote Democrat or Green or for some other left wing socialist party such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Hardly anyone associates the word liberal witj classical liberal or even knows what a classical liberal is.
Anyone who think it is a good idea to name this party the Liberal Party is likely a person who has done little or no petition signature gathering or public outreach.
Yes… I forgot for a moment how much petitioning you have done over the years.
In my experience, the very far left-most edge of the population that associates the word “liberal” means “left wing socialist progressive” is an identifiable demographic: People who, in the 1980s and 1990s, were HUGE Rush Limbaugh fans.
Because morality matters. She is a horrible person and I suspect a sociopath. She hurts people and spits them out. She LIED by omission to the delegates. Sarwark is right. She is worse than anything Bishop-Henchman did who at least had the sense to resign.
While he may be correct that she is totally corrupt… what difference does it make? The Libertarian Party has been pretty much a collossal failure since its inception. Never elected a member of congress (the Prohibition Party did that)… never elected a governor (the Prohibition Party did that, too) so why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth? It’s over for the LP and really, who cares?
Yeah, they should really just support the two big partys. Even though they don’t do what they say they will, they never safeguard our freedoms, they both perpetuate evil, but they win, and we won’t get our special prozes loke. free hams and $500 if we don’t vote for the people that win.
You see because people care, people are tryong to do something better. But yeah they didn’t immediatley become a big party winner so whats the point in trying. I mean the Marines lost 90% of their NCO and officers at Chipoltapec, thats why they gave up, they didn’t win and the other team was bigger and better.