Hello Libertarians! This is one of a series of opinion articles I’ll be privileged to write for you once per month on an “inside baseball” topic for the Libertarian Party. I encourage everyone who has an opinion on whatever we’re talking about this month to comment or send phillies@4liberty.net your longer editorials, which may well be published.
On Fracturing
The LP Alliance is getting stronger month over month. We’re steadily picking up steam, getting new members and beginning to win at state conventions which were Mises dominated one or two years ago.
Reacting to that, some people in the Mises caucus are contemplating creating their own political party or maybe taking over the existing Constitution Party. The opinion of some on our side has been “Good riddance to bad rubbish,” but I have a different perspective. I think it would be bad for the libertarian movement in general, and also bad for the Libertarian Party, if there was a second exodus of people from the LP.
I felt the same way a few short years ago when a different group of people recently removed from power quit the LP and started the Liberal Party. It has historically been terrible for political movements to fracture into different political organizations working at cross purposes to each other.
I used to point and laugh at the communists and socialists because they could not put aside their internal differences and work together, and I thought smugly to myself that we libertarians had more sense than they did. There have been times during the last 100 years when the population in general were in favor of some hard core socialist ideas, and they could have had a permanent large political party dedicated to promoting their beliefs.
Instead, they could not get elected under their own banner because they were too busy being focused on which one of them was the true heir of their ideology.
Sound familiar?
Instead of one political party focused on taking down their opposition and building themselves up, they had:
The People’s Party, the Socialist Labor Party of America, the Socialist Party of America, the American Labor Party, the Working Families Party, the Communist Party of the United States of America, the Socialist Action Party, the Socialist Alternative Party, Socialist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Worker’s World Party, the U.S. Labor Party, the Socialist Equality Party, the Working Class Party, the Independent-Socialist Party, the Freedom Socialist Party, the Labor Party, the African People’s Socialist Party, the Communist Workers League, and a host of other small parties in the various US territories.
(By the way, anybody want to see my complete list of every political party ever in the U.S? No? OK.)
It has been good for America that they got mad at each other and could not keep themselves as a coherent organization, but it will be bad for America if we follow in their footsteps.
What should we do instead? How do we know who’s a real libertarian, and how do we keep them from breaking away?
To answer that question, a voice speaks to us from the distant past. The following is an editorial from David Nolan, the major founder of the Libertarian Party, from the May-June 1974 issue of the LP News:
“In our last issue, we had an editorial entitled “On falling off the edge,” in which we discussed the bizarre behavior of the American and People’s Parties, and pointed out that there is a lesson to be learned from their experiences.
“That lesson, we said, was that “any third-party movement must always be on guard against becoming too narrow in its appeal…and must always be wary of its own lunatic fringes.”
“And, apparently, most of our readers understood what we meant. A few, however, wrote in to ask if this was meant as an “attack on anarchists.”
“The answer is “No.” It was not meant as an “attack” on any philosophical group. In fact, if you re-read the editorial, you will note that the word “anarchist” never appears.
“Rather, the editorial was aimed at those so-called “libertarians”–of whatever stripe–who see their viewpoint as the only valid one, and would gladly destroy any organization which does not promote their own views exclusively. And this includes the extreme ortho-Objectivists, the monomaniacs who want to turn the LP into a single-issue party, and the rabid atheists who call for a “removal from party office” of all religious libertarians…as well as some (but not most) anarchists.
If the LP is to succeed, we must seek to broaden our appeal, and not to narrow it. We should work to recruit all who are in fundamental agreement with our Statement of Principles…whether they consider themselves ACLU Liberals, Birchers, Miseans, Objectivists, Jeffersonians, or, yes, Anarchists. The only proviso we should attach is that they be willing to work with one another to promote the ideals we all share (as defined by the Statement of Principles), rather than seeking to “rule or ruin.”
The troubles of the American and People’s Parties, we believe, amply demonstrate the folly of any other policy.
≁ DFN”
So if the current Mises faction loses at the Grand Rapids convention and wants to go start their own group, should we tell them not to let the door hit them on their way out? No! They are in fundamental agreement with our Statement of Principles. Whoever loses at the 2026 convention, it’s going to hurt. At that moment, if we are gracious to each other, we can begin to repair the damage that has been done.
Something similar will be true for the Liberal Party. In the likely aftermath of the 2026 convention, it will be time to invite them back in. They are in fundamental agreement with our Statement of Principles. Some of them won’t immediately come back, but that’s OK. At that moment, if we are gracious to each other, we can begin to repair that damage too.
Tom, I was a member of an unofficial Yahoo Constitution Party group back in the day in 2004. During 2004 when Michael Peroutka was the presidential candidate of the Constitution Party discussion was held about merging the Libertarian and Constitution parties. The consensus was a merger would not work. There were three reasons given (the disagreement between the members of the parties as it related to the views on abortion and immigration were two reasons given). It was felt the divide on these two issues were too great. I believed the issue as it relates to abortion could have been overcome (The Libertarian Party has had disagreements on abortion since the founding of the party in 1972 and has somewhat survived.) but I agreed the divide as it related to immigration (immigration in violation of the laws) was to great.
The other concern given was who would be in charge of this new merged party. In other words who we be chair, vice-chair, etc.? Who would be in a new national committee? Who would be in charge of the state parties? Who would from either party be willing to give up power? I also agreed these questions would be an issue and would be hard to overcome.
Finally, the Constitution Party has a more religious outlook as it relates to America and the foundation of society e.g., the importance of the family (a father, mother, children and extended family) for a well functioning prosperous, safe, free America. This was one of Michael Peroutka’s campaign themes. He argued the big government administrative state given to us by both Democrats and Republicans was causing us to lose the foundation of the family which is needed in society causing us to lose our freedoms and cost us our prosperity. This view does not bother me as I somewhat agree with it. But I suspect there are many in the Libertarian Party who do have issues with this outlook.
“I could perhaps have been more vigorous at deleting comments, but I was wasn’t.” – George Phillies
Thanks! While there is a fine line between moderation and censorship your efforts to keep this site on track is appreciated. When a site is totally unmoderated it becomes like BAN which is nearly unreadable these days.
Several commenters were about to launch into a disagreement about abortion. This issue was remote to the original post, so I did not pass the comments. A comment on a matter of fact on a different topic that included personal criticism also did not pass. I could perhaps have been more vigorous at deleting comments, but I was wasn’t.
Obviously not seeing the comments not allowed cannot absolutely judge but can say this: I think you are doing a good job. I used to love IPR and the articles there are still very good but the comments section is a cesspool beyond what it has ever been, and I am frankly shocked at how bad it is at times. Even though I like the articles, I never visit any longer. This is the site I look to for this kind of content. I know good advice is never to read comments, but often there can be great insight in comments, and if I have to avoid comments, I avoid the site.
Independent political report is now just as moderated as this site.
My view is quite simple. Just be Libertarian and stop these wide ideology swings. The fixation on making feel welcome or unwelcome in specifics has distracted us from what we are here to do. Too much personality focus and not enough on basic Libertarian beliefs and a general “don’t be a jerk” comportment. Those who cannot stomach that and work with it, will find a place they are happier without rancor. Those who may not agree but want to peacefully work with us should be welcome. Perhaps naive, but I am optimistic. I get great calls from former and current MC who see me as a “safe person to talk to” who are just tired of all … this. To quote Lee Wrights, I am not at war. I think nearly everyone needs to step back and reflect. Things don’t happen in a vacuum. There are predecessor causes, which have predecessor causes…. turtles all the way the down. Then when reflection is over, let go, and work. Maybe I am just really tired but I miss the idealistic old days when I first joined. Maybe I will never get that back. But I am going to try. But yes, there is great healing to be done and sunlight to be let in. I’ll stop. I feel like I am just vomiting up platitudes…. hopefully something came across. Unfortunately some of the rhetoric from the edges is pitchforks, and frankly, we can’t survive that. My focus right now as I said to Chair Nekhaila is an old Florida safe driving slogan, I want us to “arrive alive” in Grand Rapids.
“Reacting to that, some people in the Mises caucus are contemplating creating their own political party or maybe taking over the existing Constitution Party”
What is the source for this, George?
Who spoke about “taking over” Constitution Party?
Aaron Harris?
If the tent becomes too large the difference between the Libertarian Party and the two dominant political parties becomes less and less and the incentive to join the LP becomes less as well.
I disagree. LP should be open to all Liberty minded people. From civil libertarians to AnCaps.
That’s the only way this will work and grow.
Both the R and D parties are authoritarian.
R want to tell you how to live your life. …Abortion, drugs, sex work, trans rights, gay marriage, illegal porn, illegal sex toys, etc.
D are economic collectivists.
They both love war.
LP traditionally has been against all that.
There is a clear difference.
You seem to think that the cultural left – I’d use other terms which would probably not be allowed here – just wants to live and let live and not impose their preferences on those of us who have other’s. You would be incorrect. Aside from the fact that there’s an irreconcilable difference, for example, between those of us who see abortion as murder and those who profess that it’s a personal choice, here’s an example of the left’s cultural intolerance:
https://notthebee.com/takes/yes-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-just-said-what-you-think-she-said
There are many other examples like this. The left – Democrats, if you wish – absolutely wants to tell people how to live their lives. It’s a fantasy to believe that conflicts over, for example, levels of public nudity/modesty, public displays of affection or more, what is or isn’t allowed on public airwaves, publications sold to or websites available without proof of age to children, what items can be displayed outside of stores or store sections accessible only to adults or sold without proof of age, etc, can just be avoided.
It’s not enough to sweep all that under the rug with the notion that in libertarian utopia there would be no public schools, public property or public accommodations of any sort, given that we all live in a real world where that won’t be the case in the foreseeable future, if ever.
I actually didn’t say any of that, as shown by your preface, “you seem to think…”.
What I said was, R and D are both authoritarian.
And private property rights would solve a lot of those issues you listed.
Not all.
The point is, there is a huge difference between R/D and LP.
However, its vital we get back to the understanding that all healthcare decisions should be between the patient/parents and doctors, not the government.
Abortion, trans rights, etc.
You said “R(epublicans) want to tell you how to live your life. …” and my point was that Democrats do as well. If that’s what you meant to say, it wasn’t clear.
If you think abortion is murder, then don’t get an abortion.
See how that works.
Many disagree and the only libertarian position is this is a decision between the patient and doctors and the gov’t shouldn’t be involved.
You do you and let others decide for themselves, Mr. Paleolibertarian.
Libertarianism 101.
Argument over the abortion issue is ended. Any comment raising it, unless there is a post on the topic, will be trashed. That’s the whole post.
I suppose I should also correct the Mr. part, since I’ve purposely never said whether it’s Patricia or Patrick.
George Phillies, why am I not permitted to correct the personal attack that I am a “paleolibertarian”? I consider it to be a personal attack to claim that I am any kind of libertarian. As I’ve repeatedly made clear, I’m not any kind of libertarian and never will be.
That is true, especially once people able to follow long division see that 2% spoiler votes–consistently and persistently cast by voters who know what they VALUE–repeal existing laws. Observe that in EVERY article on the internet by unknown poobahs claiming competence to evangelize on the arcana of post-Gary-Johnson voting systems and the eructations of Maurice Duverger, the one word you can count on NOT finding is VALUE. The message in every case is that winning is what entrenched looter politicians do, and winning is NOT repealing moronic laws in order to save their fat asses from being tossed into heavy traffic by voters. Don’t be a fool! Vote AGAINST what you value! under no circumstances may your vote prick the thin skin of either faction of the looter kleptocracy. For THAT the Good Lawerd made porcupines!
I am former Mises from a while ago. They need to go. They do not hold to the Statement of Principles. The Constitution Party is a good fit. McAddled already said she is advocating a mass purge. This can no longer be tolerated.
Currently, the Constitution Party isn’t a very good fit for anyone except LDS (Mormons) and isn’t on the ballot in very many States, especially states without a substantial LDS percentage of population. Exiles from the Libertarians can attempt to take over such infrastructure as does exist, but it may not be as easy as you might think, given that they have proxy voting at their national conventions and other such tricks to give the Utah/Nevada group a leg up to retain control.
The Constitution Party is not controlled by Mormons, or associated with LDS.
Howard Phillips and Darrell Castle are not Mormons.
Phillips was born to the Jewish faith, for crying out loud.
My friend Howard Phillips passed away in 2013. Mr. Castle is also not in the currently dominant faction of the Constitution Party. That faction is indeed LDS, informally led by Janine Hansen. I have no problem with LDS folks, but I do have a problem when they’re insufficiently inclusive of all the rest of us who aren’t.
>They are in fundamental agreement with our Statement of Principles.
Are they really?
The general point about schisms resulting in smaller groups is sound, but the Mises Caucus embodies values that are antithetical to libertarian principles and they carry an attitude of hostility toward anyone who does not agree with them.
People like that are not useful in any group, and a group that removes them will experience addition through subtraction.
I know, am am friends with, some people in the Mises caucus. They’re not all irredeemable awful people.
In fact, there are only 8 people that I think should never be trusted with a leadership position again. Aside from those 8 (who most will agree have misbehaved), I’m willing to be open minded. You will meet some good Mises people in their rank and file if you don’t automatically assume they’re all awful.
Which 8?
I’d never give the keys back to McArdle, Padgett, Heise, Joshua Smith, Kauffman, Hannah Cox, Malagon, or Chadderton.
At least in Missouri, there are plenty of people who swing both ways, so to speak, and we all get along fine.
Dave Smith
Ah! Nick, my hero! Thanks for showing up. Schismatic flaking away at looter voting blocs is exactly what leveraged spoiler votes do, and why they are as law-changing as the waves that, eventually, pound rocks into sand. I observed with keen attention how a fake debate was staged to trap Nick under an avalanche of George-Wallace/Infowars sockpuppet-house ordure-flinging much like artillery–to soften up the LP for the Anschluss. Christian nationalsocialists have since 1980 struggled to ignore, then laugh at, then attack, and lately to infiltrate with fifth-column saboteurs VOTERS PLAINLY HATE. Nick has with legal expertise steered us past many a minefield and has earned the thanks of all who seek to repeal bad laws by casting good spoiler votes. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/lp-platform-committee-infiltrators/
Say what you want about Nick.
The bottom line is he grew LP in both membership and donations, the very opposite of McArdle and Mises.
Nick was successful, the Mises takeover was a disaster, as McArdle herself stated.
Gary Johnson was OK, he never should have picked Bill Weld.
Gary did good as Governor of NM. He reduced the size of gov’t, cut taxes, privatized and left with a budget surplus.
There was nothing not libertarian about Chase Oliver’s platform.
Mises didn’t support him because he was gay.
We all know what the MC has done in recent years: blatantly racist social media postings using official LP accounts, most of its leadership openly endorsing Donald Trump and trying to sabotage the LP Presidential campaign, etc. Party finances have been devastated and growth has been thrown into reverse.
The LP would be in a stronger position today if any split had come sooner. Sarwark was correct to try to distance the LP from the crap coming from the Paleo’s after Charlottesville, even if that did directly lead to the formation of the Mises Caucus and put us in the position we are today. The mistake was not doing it sooner. PaleoLibertarianism was never a good strategy for party growth.
There is one clear difference between the situation the LP is in and all of those various socialist splinters: The LP was demonstrably stronger without the MC in control of anything. I know of no reason to believe that they intend to stop using counter-productive, Trump-like, shock value messaging, or that they will not attempt to give more Trump-like Republicans our ballot access in the future. If all of them left the party, we could actually start to grow again, even if it takes a few years to patch up the damage they have done to the libertarian brand.