Hello Libertarians. This is the fourth 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.
If a neutral, outside observer was looking at the last few years of the Libertarian Party, that person would probably conclude that the legacy of the Mises Caucus has been mostly negative for us. It would be easy to jump from that conclusion to saying that everything about the Mises Caucus was awful and that we should jettison everything and everyone associated with it, but I have met too many good people who either are or were Mises affiliated to believe that. My general observation has that their high leadership was terrible, but that their rank and file people were often fairly reasonable.
It’s been useful for me over the last year or two to have an idea of what people could mean when they’ve said they’re Mises. Some of it is good, and some of it is bad. Not all of it needs to be discarded as we move out of this particular era, but a significant amount needs to go. I hope this breakdown of it is useful to you, because it has been for me.
The Good
1. Probably the best part of the Mises influence on the Libertarian Party was their bias towards taking action. Put another way, if there was ever a choice between doing something and chilling out, they would do something. That basic energy would have been really positive if it had been directed in a better way, and we don’t need to totally jettison that as we move forward.
2. The second good thing about the Mises influence was their emphasis on finding and running winnable races. To be fair, Chuck Moulton did it first in Pennsylvania and others have tried similar things with varying degrees of success over the years, but making it central to what they were trying to do was likely a good move.
The Eh
3. Project Decentralized Revolution. As a student of Libertarian Party history, I can confidently tell you that being too centralized has never been a problem for us. It’s true that the Libertarian National Committee has been too large for basically its entire history, but as far as I know it’s never stifled state affiliates from getting work done.
To the extent that PDR was about running local candidates, it was probably good. To the extent that it was about getting rid of national volunteers and employees, it was probably bad. What’s left of it is a tarnished brand, and we can take it or leave it depending on whether it’s useful at any particular time.
4. Promote Austrian economics. That was, in theory, the reason the Mises Caucus got together in the first place – because the LP wasn’t promoting Ludwig and F.A. Hayek enough. That’s harmless enough, I guess. I don’t see it as being a great springboard to success, but whatever. If it’s what somebody is passionate about, go for it.
5. Deemphasize state legislative races. There’s good and bad in this, although mostly bad. On the one hand, in the run-up to the Mises takeover in 2022 we were probably too obsessed with running as many candidates as possible in as many races as possible. The balance had shifted too far in that direction.
On the other hand, state legislative races can be really useful, especially in ways that are hard to quantify. They’re the best bang for your low-effort buck if you’re running a paper campaign, because it gets the average voter repeatedly exposed to the Libertarian Party brand. For a $100 filing fee (or about that) you can get the LP mentioned a bunch of times, and every voter is going to see the option. Try getting that kind of exposure with $100 of online or newspaper ads.
And when we win one (rare but it happens) we are extremely effective in office.
The Bad
6. Profanity is fun. When we got our best Presidential result to date, in 2016 with Gary Johnson, what I kept on hearing people say was that we seemed like the adults in the room. Making use of profanity signals to voters that we’re immature, which is the opposite of what we want. It’s good to have a fun persona, but not a childish one.
7. Make the liberals mad to signal friendliness with the conservatives. Historically, the Libertarian Party has drawn about 50% of its members and volunteers from each side of the liberal/conservative divide, but that reality has never been reflected in most people’s perception of us. Trying to seem like we’re closer with the conservatives solves the opposite of one of our actual problems.
8. Caucus above party. 300 people voted NOTA instead of for Chase Oliver at the 2024 convention. That screams “If I can’t run it, I’m going to ruin it.” That’s not the energy we need.
The Dealbreaker
9. Bigotry is acceptable. That is the one legacy of the Mises Caucus we absolutely need to yeet out of our midst. I have a hard time arguing it because it seems so obvious. We reject bigotry as irrational and repugnant.
What became known as “The Moulton Manuever” was done in Pennsylvania in the 1990’s before Chuck Moulton was a member of the Libertarian Party. Pennsylvania has a lot of local government offices and there are some aspects of Pennsylvania election law which are favorable to minor party or independent candidates to have a better chance at winning some of these offices as compared to in a lot of states. This concept was known in the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania for a long time, or at least by some long time party members and the few people who pay attention to this type of stuff. The idea was talked about a bit since the last effort to really organize it, which waa back in the 1990’s, but nobody really put any effort into until Chuck Moulton did. So he did not originate the concept, nor was he the first to implement it, but he did popularize the idea in the more recent era.
I am by no means opposed to the idea, but keep in mind that with the shotgun approach to electing Libertarians to local offices we do not have enough Libertarians in any one local jurisdictions to elect enough people to take over the local government, which would be the ideal, but I suppose electing a few people to local offices even if they are spread out to different local jurisdictions is better than nothing.
I disagree with point 2. The Moulton Maneuver was mentioned, which allowed PA to put more Libertarians in office than every other state combined the last time it was executed. The MC controlled LPPA didn’t run it again, and when Dr Moulton went to national to ask for the 5k it would cost to implement, his request was voted down.
Single most successful project to win local offices. Cost point in reach of a single dedicated middle class member. Neither the state nor the national party, under MC leadership, could implement it. Then they scrubbed the ‘elected officials’ list from LP.org, showing that it’s not a metric worth tracking.
It’s hard to believe that winning local elections was an MC priority.
The Libertarian Party reached its peak in the number of elected Libertarians nationally , all to local offices, around 2005. It got as high as around 650. I recently watched an old video which said the LP had around 600 people elected to local offices in 2003.
To me – one of the “good” things they did initially was bring in a large number of young people who wanted to be activated & do something into the Party. They paid their initial dues. Attended trainings. Came to a convention to get their “leaders’ elected. Then…
The “bad” was these people were never activated. They were not put to work electing libertarians to office or getting LP candidates on the ballot. They were never engaged properly while their “leaders” went off to support R’s & fight their own party & affiliates. They were never encouraged to renew their members while former LP members let their own membership lapsed. They were essentially let down by their so called leadership.
I would think many of these young people were initially excited about the Party & the libertarian movement as a whole. They were given a sometimes free ticket to board the train – then the train left the station & headed the wrong direction. They were “sold” on certain libertarianish principles (watered down – but at least libertarian leaning). Then told to abandon these principles & start supporting R’s at their state level then eventually support 2 of the most un-libertarian people ever – Trump & RFK 2.0!
So not only are these young folks not returning to the LP – they remain politically homeless – but the former long time LP members have lost faith in the party.
I would encourage anyone who feels lost to consider finding a new home here: https://www.liberalpartyusa.org/
I don’t believe Liberal is a suitable substitute for Libertarian. In the classical sense perhaps but in the contemporary sense no way.
“The Good
1. Probably the best part of the Mises influence on the Libertarian Party was their bias towards taking action. Put another way, if there was ever a choice between doing something and chilling out, they would do something”
But invariably the actions they took were bad. Taking action isn’t good if the actions aren’t.
10. Backroom deals with Republicans (Colorado-specific).
Perhaps the most damaging legacy of the Hannah Goodman era, and one that deserves far more scrutiny, was the reported strategy of not running Libertarian candidates in races where Republicans claimed to have a “liberty candidate.” These deals, struck quietly and without meaningful input from the broader party membership, effectively reduced the Libertarian Party to a GOP auxiliary in key races. The principle of offering voters a distinct, principled libertarian alternative was sacrificed for backroom assurances and vague strategic “wins” that rarely materialized. Worse, this practice left Libertarian activists demoralized, shut out of ballot access efforts, and confused about who we were actually fighting for. If we are truly the party of liberty, we must not trade away our independence for the illusion of influence.
Something similar has been going on in other states for years.
Well said, Sheilah Davis. I agree with you.
I understand the logic of the category error. I’ll even grant that the statement would be an overreach if it told individuals what they should or should not do.
But that’s not exactly what the statement says. It’s not “Individuals ought to reject bigotry as irrational and repugnant.” It’s “We reject bigotry as irrational and repugnant.” The “We” is the Libertarian Party. It’s telling people who read it how the LP will behave.
Regardless of whether it’s in the platform (I strongly think it should be), it should definitely be part of our culture.
The line about rejecting bigotry was not in the Libertarian Party’s platform for most of the history of the party. The Libertarian Party formed in 1971. The anti-bigotry plank was added in 1976, but then it was removed in 1980. It did not return to the Libertarian Party’s platform again until 2008. It was then removed from the platform in 2022.
I do not think that this plank has anything to do with the libertarian philosophy, which is about an adherence to property rights and the non-aggression principle.
It should be pointed out that a platform plank was added at the 2022 Libertarian National Convention in 2022 which says something to the effect of that the party supports applying libertarian principles to all people, regardless of their race or ethnic group. I think that this is a better and more accurate to the philosophy plank.
It says this:
3.5 Rights and Discrimination
Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We uphold and defend the rights of every person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their identity. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts, and other free market solutions.
That’s completely in line with libertarianism.
“We reject bigotry as irrational and repugnant.”
Sure, as individuals, we can and should do that. Bigotry is collectivist nonsense, based on ignorant and fearful stereotypes applied to all members of a group because of a caricature of the group, in classic Bad Bushel Fallacy. Not every African-American is O.J. Simpson or Sean Diddy Combs, and not every Caucasian-American is Charles Manson or Jim Jones, either.
But that’s a judgment call on individual actions, and the LP is explicitly SILENT about that:
1.0 PERSONAL LIBERTY
Individuals are inherently free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
4.0 OMISSIONS
In every matter, we advocate the consistent application of the principle of the non-initiation of coercion, physical force, or fraud. Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
(emphases added)
Note the key point is that the Platform addresses government actions, not individual actions within the confines of “don’t harm others and don’t mess with their stuff.” Individual bigotry does fall within those confines, even if it may be considered to be distasteful or morally wrong.
At the end of the day, the Platform and the LP is about government and politics, not individual actions. The wording of 1.0 and 4.0 clearly point that out.
The reason it was taken out of the Platform (before I chaired the Platform Committee, and its removal was from the floor and had nothing to do with any Platform Committee!), whether one agrees it should have been or not, is because it was a statement about individual actions in a document that is statements about government actions, and so it didn’t belong.
Now, if the LP had a document that would explain individualist libertarian action instead of collectivist government action, then the rejection statement would fit right in there. Should the LP have that type of document? That’s a different question, although IMO yes, they should.
So it’s a really a function of a correct statement in the wrong place, but its absence does not mean the LP condones bigotry. Silence on bigotry, just like silence on abortion, is neither condemnation nor condonement–it’s just silence.
That’s not defending the Mises Caucus, either. But it is explaining the thinking behind the removal in a non-emotional way. People react to that “bigot” word with an immediate emotional response similar to other highly-charged pejoratives that I don’t use and won’t repeat here. That’s understandable. But it also needs to be peeled away and examined rationally.
(Also, an examination of the origin of the word produces some interesting food for thought, but people can do that themselves.)
Disclosure: I am not and never have been in the Mises Caucus.
“The reason it was taken out of the Platform … whether one agrees it should have been or not, is because it was a statement about individual actions in a document that is statements about government actions, and so it didn’t belong.”
Nope. That may be why YOU voted to remove it. But, the MC explanation was entirely different. And the MC controlled that convention.
From page 33 of the 2022 Mises Caucus Convention Plan:
“Platform Plank 3.5: Rights and Discrimination.
*THIS WILL NOT BE ON THE AGENDA AND WILL REQUIRE A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES TO HEAR*
Direction: “I move to suspend the rules to Amend Section 3.5 of the platform so as to delete the following sentence: “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant”
*This requires a 2/3 vote.
“Explanation: One of the major goals of the Mises Caucus is to make the LP appealing to the wider liberty movement that is largely not currently here with us. That movement strongly rejects wokism and the word games associated with it. This along with the deletion of the abortion plank will display that there are serious cultural changes in the party that are more representative of that movement.”
The MC removed the anti-bigotry plank because they believed that doing so would attract people to the party who currently would not join a party which condemned bigots. The only people who would decline to join a party which condemned bigots, the people who the MC desired to attract, are bigots themselves. Subsequent messaging from MC controlled parties in various states was directly supportive of that goal. All non-MC members who voted along with the MC to remove that plank, for whatever reason, were just being useful.
*I* didn’t vote for its removal. I was busy doing Teller work. I actually didn’t vote much at all during that convention.
And there was a movement to remove that sentence long before the Mises Caucus came along, as it was defeated in several Platform Committees beforehand and was only added in the first place in 2008 in spite of a minority report and opposition even then. I didn’t vote for its addition then, either, as I wasn’t on the floor when that happened. IOW, it’s always been controversial.