LP Member Austin Martin has proposed a series of tactical steps to advance the Libertarian Party. The steps are somewhat reminiscent of those proposed by former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean to advance his party, the details being different, namely large numbers of boots on the ground tasked with doing party-building.
His full proposal appears as Resolution-in-Support-of-PDR (1).
Knowledgeable readers may have opinions on the financial aspects, especially given that the National Party is more-or-less out of money.
Coherent messaging and protecting the LP brand on the one hand and decentralization on the other are contradictory.
The LP has effectively had decentralized messaging for its entire existence. The result is public confusion about what the LP stands for and New Hampshire’s brand destruction.
I think it’s a reasonable assumption, although not explicitly stated in this article, this is the same Austin Martin:
https://thirdpartywatch.com/2025/02/03/lp-hawaii-state-chair-threatens-lnc/
For those not clicking on the link, the short version is that Mr. Martin threatened those on the national committee who would carry out what he called a coup by electing a new chairman to replace their then recently resigned chairwoman with being metaphorically pilloried through his musical talents and otherwise harrassed online and perhaps also in person by himself and folks he would recruit for the purpose of doing so.
Despite the “threat,” and what I subsequently read were Mr. Martin’s repeated interruptions of the meeting, the new chairman was handily elected at the meeting. The “coup” succeeded.
I’ve not seen any updates as to whether the threatened harassment has been at all carried out, but I’ll venture a guess that it hasn’t, or that if it has at all been carried out, the extent has been far less than what Mr. Martin promised or threatened.
Much more recently, Mr. Martin has been elected as a regional alternate to the same lnc and participated non-disruptively, at least to my knowledge, at their recent meeting.
As for Mr. Scott’s comment, wouldn’t it be equally applicable to Mr. Sarwark’s plan at https://thirdpartywatch.com/2025/05/31/how-a-political-party-contests-every-federal-race-in-2026-by-nicholas-sarwark/ ?
And , to Michael Wilson’s proposal for a list of issues all of which all candidates, the national party, and all local and state committees he proposes unite around for the next 20 years?
If the answer is yes, then I agree with Mr. Scott – there is, can, and should be no central plan for freedom.
But then everyone has his or her own notion of what is and isn’t freedom and how to best achieve it, which is something I don’t have to be a libertarian to agree with .
This bothers me. Isn’t membership, fundraising, activism and messaging what the state and local party organizations are there for in the first place? This feels like a completely duplicative (and expensive) structure, with potential for disaster if National contracts with an “Operator” in uncooperative State X, and then State X contracts with their own “Operator”, the two operating at cross purposes.