The 2002 Solution

The solution was not adopted. What was it?

What about the rest of the Party leadership?

The Libertarian Party prides itself on being The Party of Principle. That Principle came from Party founder David Nolan. Working in an era when anti-war activists used explosives and incendiaries to present their views, Nolan crafted a Libertarian Pledge foreswearing first use of force and fraud in politics. Browne’s Campaigns raise serious questions about the utility of the Pledge.

It should not be surprising that the Pledge does not keep de facto advocates of fraud out of the Party. To the de facto advocates of fraud, the Pledge is yet another scrap of paper. What about the Party’s Establishment? In 2000 they were confronted with a test, a test in the form of a candidate who resorted to systematic deceptions to advance his campaign. The Party establishment responded to that test. They supported Browne. There has been little progress since then, as witness the general lack of protest when the National Director and his staff used Harry Browne and David Bergland as premium speakers at the 2002 National Convention. James Lark, the man whom Browne and Bergland installed as National Chair, docilely approved that decision.

To paraphrase from a distinguished African-American leader, the Party Establishment that was unshakably for Browne in July 2000 is irretrievably part of the problem. They are not and in the short term cannot become part of the solution. It does not matter whether Browne’s 2000 establishment leaders stayed with him because they never noticed the evidence, because they refused to believe the evidence, because they supported Browne after accepting the evidence, or because they benefited from insider deals. They are part of the problem.

At the top, the Libertarian Party needs a new Establishment. The Libertarian Party needs an Establishment that supports ethics, that opposes fraud, and that can tell the difference. At the next level down, the people who trusted their State Chairs or long-time activist friends and therefore supported Browne, there is a need for a wake-up call.

How can this new establishment be found? The Democratic Party faced this challenge in 1970, when they were separated between pro- and anti-war Democrats, and pro-war Democrats began switching sides for protective coloration. The question then was: How do Democrats separate Peace Democrats from politicians who will say anything to keep power? After a time, the Democrats found the solution: They started asking ‘In which month did you first oppose the War in Vietnam?’ That question sorted the fish from the fowl. The same style of question solves the Libertarian dilemma. Our question is ‘In which month did you first oppose Harry Browne’s Presidential Campaign?’

The leadership figures who opposed Browne on June 1, 2000 are part of the solution.

The leadership establishment that on July 1, 2000 still supported Browne, Bergland, and Dasbach needs to be given alternative ways to help the Libertarian party. We need local organizers. We need a strong Speaker’s Bureau. We need candidates for Keeper of the Checklist, Trustee of the Trust Funds, and Cemetery Commissioner. Party activists who on July 1, 2000 still supported Browne, Bergland, and Dasbach can be those people. They’re people who are fine Libertarians. They’re devoted to the cause of freedom. It’s just that they have proven beyond any doubt:

They are not suited to lead a national political party.

It’s time for a change. The Libertarian Party needs new leadership.