Last updated on April 22, 2025
Fracturing what exactly? By Pat Jones
In a recent piece, Tom Rowlette editorialized against a split in the Libertarian Party which would result in one of its current factions continuing to form the Liberal Party or another joining the Constitution Party. But, what holds all these folks together? What precisely is the set of views and policies on which all of them agree? How broadly do they cast their net, and who do or don’t they exclude – and how?
I don’t currently consider myself a libertarian of any sort, but I have a couple of times in the past. I joined the libertarian party in 1987-9 to support Ron Paul – I’ve supported all his political activities since the 1970s, and voted for him in the 2008 and 2012 presidential primaries as well as the 1988 presidential general election. I subscribed to his newsletters for decades, donated to all his congressional campaigns, etc. Likewise, I’ve supported Bob Barr throughout his political career, including his stint as the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2008, and briefly was a paid member again that year, although I didn’t renew the following year. I’ve never formally revoked my membership signature, so in that sense only I’ve “been a member” for 28 years.
Even before that, in between, and ever since, I’ve had libertarians tell me I am one of them, particularly at their public outreach booths. I’ve always scored well within their section on their little quiz/political map, would get rid of about 90% of taxes and spending if it were up to me, and well over 90% of laws and regulations on the books. And yet, I’ve had libertarians tell me very vitriolically that I’m not now and never have been a libertarian. This happened especially during those stints when I did call myself one, but recently in the comments here and on another such board I’ve been just as vociferously informed by several people that I couldn’t have ever been a libertarian, given that I supported the American (Independent) Party of George Wallace, John Schmitz, and Lester Maddox, the splintering of which chief Libertarian Party founding organizer David Nolan refers to in his 1974 piece quoted by Mr. Rowlette, and supported Wallace in the 1972 presidential primary. OK, fine: I have no particular fetish for the term, so it’s far simpler to agree I’ve never been a libertarian.
Although, I wonder: who should libertarians have supported in 1968? Richard Nixon? Hubert Humphrey? In 1972, when your candidate was on the ballot in two states which were very far from mine, geographically as well as culturally, should all libertarians have supported Nixon or (shudder) McGovern? In 1976, your candidate also had many ballots he didn’t appear on, including mine. Were Ford and Carter good choices for libertarians?
It’s true that by 1980, I could have voted for your candidate, and chose Reagan instead, as I had in the 1976 primary. I supported him every time I could in an election, too.
Mr. Nolan’s piece says the Libertarians should include, among others, John Birch Society members and ACLU liberals. How would this work? I’ve been involved in the John Birch Society since I was a kid in the 1960s, and remain involved now. My father was nearly a charter member – he joined in 1959, if I’m not mistaken. We’ve always seen the ACLU as communist, and liberals as mainly communist dupes. What sort of alliance would this be?
Mr. Rowlette also writes of the socialists:
“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.”
It’s true that the myriad of socialist parties has done them no favor, but that’s a long way from the fantasy that they could have had a permanent large political party. There are many people who are vaguely “centrist,” and many who find the Republicans to be generally too far to the left – I’m one of the latter – yet no permanent large party representing either set of such beliefs has come close to coalescing. In fact, over the past century, libertarians came closest to a “permanent large” party outside the big two, and were never even close to being of the same order of magnitude as them.
Aside from that, and including that one as detailed above, I’ve supported many of the efforts to build a “permanent large” alternative party over the years, from the American/American Independent Party to the Reform Party of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan to the Constitution Party. They have all been subject to fracturing, churn, and people walking away. In nearly 60 years of being involved with such efforts, since well before I could actually vote myself, that’s been the one constant.
I mentioned abortion in this article. May I address the issue in the comments here, it would you accept a separate article about it?
George Phillies, thank you for publication of the comment, but is that in itself an answer? I don’t want to spend time composing a piece if I know you won’t publish it or think you probably won’t.
I’d like to summarize my thoughts on irreconcilable differences with those who believe abortion is “health care” rather than (s I believe) infanticide, or a “personal choice” as opposed to quite literally murdering babies. I also have thoughts to share regarding the peculiar libertarian notion of evictionism as well as the idea that a party or political group can plausibly sweep these irreconcilable differences under the rug or take no position on them, which I also disagree with.
Those of you on the opposite side of this issue might actually find agreement with me on the last point. Can my opinion on this matter be welcomed in your publication, even if that welcome is profound disagreement?
I will be setting up a specific post for debate on abortion. Comments on abortion are allowed there. Comments on abortion elsewhere will be smited.
Thank you.
To answer your question, I believe anyone who is in fundamental agreement with our Statement of Principles should be welcome in the Libertarian Party.
What is “fundamental agreement”? What level of disagreement would you permit? How would you police whether or not someone is in fundamental agreement? How literally or loosely do you allow people to interpret it? What practical policies in the real world of today might or might not fall within the bounds of a plan ostensibly aimed at a world in keeping with that statement?
Do you agree with Mr. Nolan that John Birch Society members and ACLU liberals can both agree with your statement? If yes, what if anything does the statement mean and who if anyone does it exclude in the real world of today? How do you see such an alliance possibly working?
Do you agree with the libertarians over the years who insisted I am one because I test in their section of their quiz and would eliminate the vast majority of government if I could, and the ones who sent me a membership card and immediately offered me various titles as soon as I attended one of their meetings? Or, would you agree with those who insist I can’t be one because I don’t regret actively supporting George Wallace in the general election for President in 1968 and the primary election of 1972 (except to the extent that I later found out that he didn’t really believe in the policies he advocated in public during the most famous decade of his life), and voting for our family friend and my political mentor Lester Maddox for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and President? Who do you think libertarians should have supported or voted for for President in 1968, if you have any opinion on that?
Do you agree with those libertarians who would exclude me for disagreeing on certain particular issues such as abortion, immigration, etc? Are there any specific litmus test issues you’d have for libertarians, and if so what are they? Is there a combination of issue disagreements which would be a bridge too far? How would you enforce that?
There are many practical questions not addressed by your answer.
I have to agree with you. The Statement of Principles is open to all sorts of interpretation. Great discourse and I hope this generates lots of further discussion. The libertarian/liberty movement really could use some self introspection. Thank you.
I count 14 questions. That seems like a lot. But if I can answer them all, maybe I have all the answers that will put the Libertarian Party back on track to liberty in our lifetime, so here we go.
1. Fundamental agreement means when you read the Statement of Principles you say “Yes, that rings true in my heart.”
2. I would permit any level of disagreement with it which does not rise to being basically out of line with what it says.
3. I allow people to interpret it in any way that makes sense. It is not a vague document.
4. The answer to number 4 can be found in the entirety of the Libertarian Party platform, found at https://lp.org/platform-page/
5. Yes, I agree with him.
6. The statement means exactly what it says, but in particular: “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.” It would exclude people who operate “on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor.”
7. “Communism is evil” could be the motto of the John Birch society, and “Freedom of speech is good” could be the motto of the ACLU. Such an alliance is natural, and should work well, between everyone who believes that communism is evil and freedom of speech is good.
8. Yes, I would agree with them.
9. No, I would not agree with them. George Wallace was a despicable segregationist, and so was Lester Maddox. If you voted for them because they were against the war in Vietnam and that overrode their terrible character flaws, that’s legitimate.
10. 1968 had particularly bad Presidential candidates. Given that Humphry campaigned on continuing the Vietnam war, and that every other candidate campaigned on bringing the war to an end, I would have advised libertarians to vote for any candidate other than Humphry but to not enthusiastically support any of them.
11. No, I would not agree with them.
12. There are no specific litmus test issues I have for libertarians.
13. The bridge too far is not set by how much of the platform you agree or disagree with.
I’m not sure that it’s logically possible to fundamentally agree with the Statement of Principles and also disagree with every plank in the LP platform. But for the sake of argument, if there was a person who somehow held that combination of beliefs, I would say that that person is a libertarian who should probably not be nominated for any elective office or internal leadership position.
14. I would not enforce it. I would, instead, be careful about who gets to officially represent us.
Pretty much it boils down to this: I don’t think that the key to success of a political movement, or a political party, is to precisely define all of the people they should exclude. We should instead focus on attracting people to our finer qualities, and then do a good job promoting those who represent us well when they run for office.
Excellent and thorough answers.
I don’t believe your answers really address my points, and my questions weren’t numbered. Indeed they were not even meant to be any sort of exhaustive list, but just illustrations of a larger point. Trying to read your answer completely, much less respond completely , would take a lot of scrolling back and forth to try to see which question you were answering where. I’ll try to boil it down as best I can.
Being basically out of line with what your statement of principles says is highly ambiguous and yes, it is a very ambiguous document when it comes to concrete issues of the moment and how to approach them. It’s illogical to require people to fully agree with your platform, when that platform is subject to change every few years. Indeed, even your statement of principles is subject to change every few years, although in practice it’s next to impossible, and your party does not actually require anyone to agree with it either.
But even if it did, it’s possible to justify any issue position as temporarily necessary to achieve its purpose – say, to create a winning coalition, or we must solve x before we can address y, and many other twists and turns. And you explicitly don’t have an enforcement mechanism, so whatever words you used to suggest that you would put any teeth behind any requirements of any kind are merely aspirational, not realistic.
The unfortunate reality of politics, even minor party politics where no real power is at stake, is that various people of different degrees of delusion and various motivations, including bad ones – vanity, greed, and so on – attach themselves to any party, organisation, or movement, and the ability to exclude is therefore inescapable.
As for specifics, I’m not sure where you got the idea that, for example, Wallace was for surrender in Vietnam. General LeMay said the war should have been won with nuclear weapons. Wallace said he’d end the war in 90 days. My support (not vote, as I was not yet of age) wasn’t based primarily on foreign policy. It wasn’t based on segregation either, since that was not a national policy or an issue in the presidential campaign, other than as far as it concerned unconstitutional federal overreach into state and local affairs.
Maddox ran for President in 1976, when the Vietnam war was over. Thus, my vote and support for him had nothing to do with Vietnam. I supported him for Governor and Lieutenant Governor as well, and as I mentioned he was a family friend and political mentor to me. I don’t believe you know anything about his character. As with Wallace, his presidential campaign did not suggest using the power of the president to somehow impose segregation on unwilling states.
If you think 1968 was particularly bad, other than Goldwater in 1964, who should libertarians have supported in, say, 1960, 1956, 1952, etc? I honestly don’t know. But I think the high degree of overlap between states won by Goldwater and Wallace wasn’t mere coincidence, either.
I don’t agree that the ACLU is about “free speech.” As a communist front organization, they defend free speech and other civil liberties only as long and to the degree that they aid the ultimate goal of totalitarian communist victory – for example, by weakening our moral fiber through cultural degeneracy or by removing any impediments to communist propaganda. A dedication to free speech wouldn’t explain many of their concrete positions, and you couldn’t know much about the JBS and our views to think we would have some “natural alliance” with them. I could go into a great deal of detail, but it would be rather besides the point here, except to show that your proposed alliance is unnatural and unworkable.
New Federalist: I’m not for alcohol prohibition. Even if I was, I wouldn’t be for taking a political party approach to it.
Well Pat… there is always the Prohibition Party. Not many Drys left but a lot of history and tradition.