FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Joseph Lehman Calls for Immediate Resignation of Libertarian Party of Oregon Chair and Vice Chair, Announces Campaign for Party Chair
OREGON — July 27, 2026 — Former Libertarian congressional candidate Joseph Lehman is calling for the immediate resignation of Libertarian Party of Oregon Chair Sonja Feintech and Vice Chair Richard Burke, alleging they abandoned one of the Libertarian movement’s most fundamental principles by casting the deciding votes to nominate an openly pro-war Republican candidate for Congress at the party’s 2026 nominating convention.
According to Lehman, the Republican nominee has publicly supported U.S. military intervention, including the war in Iran and the overthrow of the Venezuelan government. Lehman argues that supporting a candidate with those positions is incompatible with the Libertarian Party’s longstanding commitment to non-interventionism.
“In a time when voters are looking for an alternative to both major parties, our leadership sent the worst message possible. Non-interventionism is not a secondary priority within the Libertarian Party, it is one of our defining principles,” Lehman said. “When the Chair and Vice Chair use their positions to help nominate a candidate who openly supports foreign wars and intervention overseas, they have failed to uphold the very values they were elected to defend. For that reason, I am calling on Chair Sonja Feintech and Vice Chair Richard Burke to resign immediately.”
Lehman also announced that he is officially running for Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in the party’s March 2027 officer elections.
Lehman currently serves as Chair of the Libertarian Party of Linn County, the only currently chartered Libertarian county affiliate in Oregon, which he organized and chartered. He also serves as Secretary of the Independent Candidate Network (ICN), a national organization dedicated to advancing independent candidates and political reform. Lehman says these leadership roles have given him firsthand experience building organizations rooted in principle and accountability.
“After watching the current leadership cast the deciding votes to nominate a Republican over a Libertarian candidate, I have concluded that our party needs a new direction,” Lehman said. “Too many Oregon Libertarians have watched our party drift closer to the Republican Party. That must end.”
Lehman says his campaign will focus on restoring the party’s commitment to principle over political expediency.
“There is no room in the Libertarian movement for supporting either of the two major parties that have repeatedly chosen war, corruption, and authoritarianism over liberty,” Lehman said. “Our members deserve leadership that will defend Libertarian principles without compromise.”
If elected Chair, Lehman has pledged to:
• Restore confidence in the Libertarian Party of Oregon through transparent, principled leadership.
• Defend the party’s commitment to non-interventionism and individual liberty.
• Ensure the party remains independent from both major political parties and looks after its own.
• Rebuild trust among Libertarians who believe the party has lost its direction.
“This campaign is about restoring integrity, rebuilding trust, and returning the Libertarian Party of Oregon to the values that inspired so many of us to join in the first place,” Lehman said. “I believe Oregon Libertarians are ready to reclaim our party and once again make it a principled voice for liberty.”
Supporters and interested Libertarians can learn more or get involved by visiting JosephForLPOChair.com.
I would like the LP to be more rigorously anti-war, but historically it has sometimes chickened out (pun intended) on that, especially at the LNC level.
I was an alternate on the LNC when it passed a weak-kneed “well, maybe” resolution on the then-pending US invasion of Afghanistan. When I asked why they were trying to have it both ways, then-Treasurer Steve Givot pointed out that 80% of the American public supported it. My reply: So, 40 times as many people as typically vote for our presidential candidate oppose it, then? Why aren’t we going after them instead of the 80% who support the major party positions?
“Many LP candidates including, for example, Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Bill Weld,”
…all of whom were Libertarian for about three weeks until they failed at their grandiose schemes at being a big fish in the LP small pond.
I’ve been voting LP since 1984 (just missed being able to vote for Ed Clark by a few weeks, but it was Clark who inspired me to join the party) and the LP has always been anti-war and anti-intervention. There might have been a hawkish minority, but as Barr, et al proved, they were Republican defectors who defect right back because we’re not to their hawkish likings.
Wayne was a Libertarian for considerably longer than that, unlike Barr.
RPB has a decades-long history of cozying up to the R’s in the name of “fusion”, but the only person who has ever benefited is himself, as if payment for supporting R’s, they’ll appoint him to some committee or another.
So true.
Mr. Lehman’s opinion is factually erroneous. There have always been pro-interventionism foreign/military policy individuals and groups prominent within the Libertarian Party since the time of its founding and outside of the party in the more broadly defined “libertarian movement.”
The LP at its founding included many followers of Ayn Rand, who held those views herself, although she didn’t approve of the LP and did not consider herself or her followers to be libertarians.
In the 1970s (iirc) and 1980s there was a prominent Adequate Defense Caucus in the LP. The 1980 l.p. Presidential ticket, the 1984 expected ticket which didn’t materialize, and the narrowly losing 1984 presidential nomination campaign (leading to a split where about half the delegates and many other party supporters left the convention and/or party) was in large part criticized / split over these issues.
A large subset of self declared libertarians and those frequently described as libertarians by others held hawkish views throughout the cold war and “war on (jihadist) terror”
Many LP candidates including, for example, Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Bill Weld, and many for all kinds of lower office have supported various US military operations / interventions at various times throughout the party’s 55 years. That also includes the 1972 presidential candidate , the party’s first.
Much of the Reform Caucus of the 2000s-2010s decade was characterized by it’s intra party opposition as interventionist.
If one defines US Government military aid to a foreign government that’s at war with another foreign government, and/or humanitarian aid to such a government which then allows it to concentrate more of its own available resources on military operations as a direct result, as interventionist, we could describe this blog’s owner and many of it’s frequent commenters as interventionist, for example via a vis Ukraine and Russia.
If you allow the foregoing to be published, one might expect responses along the lines of “people who disagree with me on (issue or issue set) x, y and or z are not real libertarians” and “some interventions are not like others because those are the good guys.”
Frequent long time LP candidate for (and holder of) internal and external offices, activist, donor, delegate, message forum debater etc Brian Holtz has said many times that abortion, immigration, military/foreign policy and maybe one other issue or issue category have been the most divisive within the Libertarian party and libertarian movement over the decades, and despite whatever disagreement I have with him I think that’s been historically correct as an objective fact.
You can define “real libertarian” how you wish. I’m not interested in that question. But the objective history of the party, movement, it’s candidates, caucuses, organizations and so on is factually on my side here. And I have always been very anti-interventionist myself, probably more so than many who may read this if it’s more than one person.
I likewise oppose conservative/libertarian fusionism and always have, and always opposed LP-GOP fusionism, cross endorsement, etc back when I supported the LP (I don’t support any party anymore). But to deny that those views, campaigns, strategies etc have played a huge role in the l.p. and movement all throughout their history is objectively inaccurate.
It might be dishonesty, myopia, wishful thinking, ignorance, etc, or some combination, on the part of various people. What it can never be is a knowledgeable and accurate assessment of historical reality.
Libertarians for pro-interventionism and pro-war?
I’ve been voting LP since Harry Browne in 2000. LP has always been anti-interventionism and anti-war.
Always.
Job well done ignoring the numerous specific counterexamples in the comment you replied to.
Ex-LP’s statement “there have always been pro-interventionism foreign/military policy individuals and groups PROMINENT within the Libertarian Party” is just wrong.
I am sorry you’re also ignorant to that fact.
A small majority who don’t understand libertarianism and may believe in foreign intervention, war, nation building and spreading democracy throughout the world, doesn’t mean those beliefs were ever prominent in the LP.
They weren’t.
The LP has always been anti-war and anti-government intervention in both domestic and foreign affairs.
Period.
Lesson over.
Your refusal to believe that certain factions existed, or were prominent enough to meet your personal threshold of prominence, is your thing. But Ex-LP did use the “P” word in saying that “In the 1970s (iirc) and 1980s there was a prominent Adequate Defense Caucus in the LP.” As for me, I think citing people on the P/VP ticket with such views clearly meets the threshold of “prominent.”
1. Self defense is not “not Libertarian”.
Our platform calls for a “sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression”.
Defense is synonymous with interventionism.
We oppose aggression, not self defense or even defensive violence.
2. Running former Republicans on the LP presidential ticket, such as Bill Weld, who once supported minimum sentences for drug possession, restrictions on the 2A, the Iraq war, etc. doesn’t mean those views were ever prominent in the LP.
They weren’t.
Bill Weld was a horrible candidate. I think most Libertarians would agree on that.
*not synonymous
“The LP at its founding included many followers of Ayn Rand, who held those views herself”
I guess it depends on what you mean by “held those views.” While she THEORETICALLY did think it was OK for a “free society” to “liberate” a “non-free” society, she also opposed the ACTUAL major US military interventions. She opposed US intervention in WW2. She opposed the Korean War. She opposed the Vietnam War.
More details are needed as to what actually happened.
Here we go again…!