Previously I discussed how parties currently mock and censure dissent instead of debating differences. I posed the position that the Libertarian Party’s tent is just like the Republicans’ and Democrats’ tents: a circus big top with too many rings. Perhaps we need a Tent City rather than one single big top. A large tent easily blows down in a storm. People who join the Libertarian Party are bombarded with caucuses trying to find out if the new people are their type of libertarian. Smaller tents can have stronger supports and withstand more issues. People entering to try to subvert things are easier to spot and have a harder time taking over. Am I saying that anarchist capitalists are not libertarian? No. Libertarian socialist? No. You can find many very good references that define the terms classical liberal, anarchist capitalist and many others and how they have changed over the years. Many of these groups, while disagreeing with others on some issues, consider themselves “fellow travelers”. They are all open to debate. But by having a tent that is too large, people who should never be calling themselves libertarian sneak in and in this case some of them have taken over. And they have purged. Purges have happened in the past, but not to this extent and level of damage. Seeing people use the term “pure libertarian” is a very visible symptom of the problem. Anarchists deserve their own space, where they are free from invasion by the fascists. Invaders will look so out of place that they will find it difficult to hide and take over. The same is true for classical liberals. Does this mean that anarchists would be purged from a classical liberal party? No, but it means they would only be able to exist in it if they espoused and supported the ideals of the classical liberals. They would be unlikely to be put in leadership positions, or run as candidates. Can you imagine what the internal party response would be to a classical liberal seeking to run as a candidate in an anarchist party if he or she answered a question about roads or the need for common defense? The same SHOULD be true in the Democratic, Republican, Socialist and other parties. If they cleaned up their own circuses, voters would have a clear view of their real intentions. This is why a new classical liberal party is a necessity. The classical liberals who decide that rescuing the Libertarian Party is the better choice should be respected for their bravery. We need to offer another option either for those not yet invested in that battle or that offers them an alternative if they decide they’ve had enough of that fight. We need a home for the weary and tattered – one where they will quickly find new energy and political clothing. And it must be organized better. The lessons learned from how the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties have been taken over and diverted from their original purpose must be carefully reviewed and learned from. Remember, the Democratic Party was originally the Democratic-Republican Party, and the Republicans were originally a “liberal” party. I have been on the politically retired list for nearly three years. Unlike other classical liberals, I found it no longer in my best interest to fight for the salvation of the Libertarian Party. Others have found that leaving is necessary because of limitations imposed on their activism by changes to the platform. If you are reading this and are sitting on the sidelines as I was, have hope. You may be able to find a new home soon.
Month: May 2023
The Question of Political Purity
(Written in response to comments posted on IndependentPoliticalReport.com) Saturday night I read a comment on Third Party Watch’s sister site that made my blood boil. Yes, my blood pressure went through the roof, but for me these days that means 114/68 and not some number others normally consider high. I thought about a quick and snappy response, but then thought better of it – knowing it needed to be neither quick or necessarily snappy. But I thought about what was said and in what context. The phrase “pure libertarian” was used in a comment regarding a caucus report internal to the Libertarian Party that Independent Political Report had reported on. While I am no longer in that party, I consider their classical liberal caucus in general to be “fellow travelers”. They published their position of the truth of the state of their party. The comment made about the leadership that was the prime target of their report used the phrase “pure libertarian”, directly implying that classical liberals are not. My initial reaction was to post a comment using a phrase in German, or perhaps referencing a person or cause we tend not to name, but I did not want to fall into the trap of Godwin’s law and don’t intend to here. But why is this an important issue? Is there such a thing as a “pure libertarian”? A friend of mine reminded me that a “pure libertarian” is one who is always open to debate. I think I repeated that correctly. Debate. Not dictate, not order, not censure, but debate. But is debate still possible within the framework of most political parties? Forty years ago, I was a member of the Republican Party. My political beliefs were what they are now, and I recall openly disagreeing with the actions of the candidate we had just elected President over his failure to honor his campaign promise of dismantling the Department of Education. I and others were mocked for not being “Real Republicans”. But the Democrats were worse and other parties were so small that it didn’t seem worth the effort at the time to not stay and fight the internal battles. I stayed, being labeled everything from a Goldwater Republican to RINO, to the day a very famous local politician (one HATED by Libertarians) shouted at me during a convention to leave the party. Eventually I did. Today, anyone opposed to the former President they hope to anoint again is mocked, ridiculed and where possible banned. The Democrats have similar issues with their current resident of the White House. So where am I going with this? The Libertarian Party and the liberty movement face the same issues. Many years ago there was a river in Cleveland that caught fire. The Cuyahoga River had been polluted for a hundred years, burning at times and causing damage and loss of life. But no one did anything about it. A small fire in 1969 led to the event we know as Earth Day. Unfortunately it also led to Federal regulation – some you might consider necessary and some not – and to endless arguments today over whether the environment is even a problem. Unfortunately the river, while significantly less polluted than it was in 1969, is still a hazardous place and will probably be forever. Some types of pollution just can’t be removed. The Libertarian Party has had a similar path. Nearly every convention and election cycle erupts in arguments and internal battles. Small fires. There have been many solutions attempted, such as the Dallas Accord, but that merely pushed issues aside and did not eliminate the root cause of the problem: the Libertarian Party’s tent has become a five ring circus. Even Ringling Brothers shrank their tent to a single ring. Next: Tent City
Forming a New Party
All good advice. But I believe there is an important issue that you did not directly address. What about the old national committee that is likely to still exist — and may still have fangs and claws to attack with? A new national party has to be built correctly. You covered many of the major issues. But hot button is ballot access. So this has to be a clean break. I noticed during the Vermin Supreme interview with the LNC’s current chair her comment – and I am loosely paraphrasing to cover her intent not necessarily her exact wording – about affiliates who break from the LP needing to leave behind ballot access. That of course is false. Ballot access would stay with the affiliate. They are recognized by their state under its election laws. They own ballot access. National parties do not. If people leave a party they of course leave ballot access behind, but if an affiliate leaves their national party they take it with them. They own it. It also counters the LNC’s own plank about succession. Think of it this way: There is a baseball game in the park. Some players decide to leave the game. They go, taking the gloves they own with them. The LNC Chair says they don’t own them and have to leave their property for someone new to use, even though state laws say they are the owners. Hypocritical? Of course in any such event there would be suits and counter suits tying up people and money for years. That could be compounded many times over if they then joined a new group. That is why it is better to just let existing LP affiliates alone and not solicit any of them to break from the old party. So existing affiliates “defecting” would be a nasty mess to deal with. Better to start over. In my state, we have not even communicated with the old party. We are building a new one. To be polite, I probably should call some of my old friends, and I’m sure I will before we launch, but not just yet. Maybe some will call me if they read this. And perhaps saying old party would be inaccurate because this will not be exactly what the LP currently is. Nor should it. Classical Liberal. Not socialists. Not fascists. No mises caucus, radical caucus, pragmatic, minarchist or even voodoo caucus! But I can understand the need for an ad-hoc pizza caucus during meetings and certainly an opposing cheesesteak caucus – very likely multiple types of cheesesteaks caucuses! In fact, if this were an opinion piece instead of a comment I would call it “What about the cheesesteak caucuses?” to attract attention. But I’m sure an editor would pick a better name. The editors here could be more likely to support lobsters or clam chowder. But I think I made the point. Start over. Avoid the fangs and claws. I am sure that at some time I or other members of the team in our state will run into old colleagues from the LP either in the real world or in cyber space. Any of them who want to discuss joining us are welcome to, but we are not going to try to get their state affiliate to leave the LP and join us. So thank you George for listing many of the important tasks for people to think about. There is a lot to do. I am glad I only have South Carolina to organize and not the entire party.
Is “retaking” the LP really the best solution?
I understand that TPW is intended as more of a commentary and opinion site as IPR evolves into primarily news, so here is an opinion starting with a question: Is “retaking” the LP really the best solution? I have been thinking about this a lot over the past half year or so, and in my opinion it is not. I attended every national convention from 2006 until 2018, as well as the virtual sessions in 2020, opting to not risk exposure to government cooties (covid) for the in-person portion. There were skirmishes between internal factions at every one, but the antics at 2016 (a certain presidential candidate no longer with us bragged to me that he paid to get Meeks to strip), followed by dildo waving freaks in 2018, leading to a party ripe for takeover. And it happened. I left the LP in the summer of 2020, so I did not directly witness the execution, but I have heard many times over about the convention in 2022. I would have probably walked out. Political executions were swift, and the damage and destruction has continued, with only the attornies profiting. The media consider the LP to be a joke. That has not changed. But with the loss of so many valuable party members, the only thing left appear to be the invaders. Sure, there are still a number of holdout states still under the control of actual libertarians, but that number is eroding as the political terrorists in charge of the LNC execute their plan. Yes, a concerted effort could take back the party in 2024, but is the damage already fatal? What is the cost, both in hard dollars and recruitment of new members – not to mention the reconstruction of a lost reputation, and is it worth it? And what of the state affiliates damaged or destroyed? How many election cycles will it take to turn them around? My own state appears to have avoided takeover, but that may not last. I have made my own personal decision in this matter, which is why I am now coming out of my self-imposed political retirement. It is time to start over.