I remember years ago hearing children, myself included, reciting an old rhyme that began “Sticks and stones may break my bones”. There are numerous variations of the next line, from “But words shall never hurt me” to “But names will never hurt me” and many more. But the common theme was always that words, unlike physical weapons, cannot hurt you. That of course has always been untrue. What you are called, or what you call yourself, can cause damage. It can also cause confusion. And the meaing of words can change, even if you try to prevent it. I have used the words classic liberal a number of times over the past few years to describe a needed political movement that has been somewhat dormant and cast aside by most of the current political parties in our country. If you search Wikipedia, you will find what they consider the definition of the word. You can also find definitions of libertarian, democrat, republican, and even green in relation to political movements and parties. According to the Internet acolytes who worship at the alter of the Wiki and feed it content, both libertarianism and classic liberalism are forms of the larger movement commonly called liberalism. They are frequently considered synonymous, but they really aren’t. Progressive liberals are another form of liberal. In the US, general use of the word liberal has tended over recent years to mean the progressives (or to us classic liberals the BAD liberals), thus slapping the word liberal on something is in some circles akin to drawing a scarlet letter on it. Libertarians have a similar problem as the right and the media try to change the meaning of the word into a radical branch of the Republican Party. The current leadership of their party is helping. At one point in recent history, the word classic was added to identify one of the older strains of liberalism, one closer to the beliefs of the founders of our nation. But classic liberal still has the word liberal in it. And people don’t just instantly understand it. It has to be explained as being different from the progressives. Several organizations, including Project Liberal are trying to reclaim the word liberal. And others are writing about reclaiming the word as well. In the October 25 issue of The Colebrook Chronicle there is a letter (page 5 middle column) from Kevin Craig, in which he gives an excellent account of what has happened to the word liberal and what it really means, ending in his statement that he is reclaiming the word. I strongly recommend reading it. While it is a difficult task, Mr Craig is correct. The word needs to be reclaimed. Liberal Party USA is one political party trying to do just that. Some of the autonomous state parties that came together to form this organization have the word freedom in their names. Others have liberal, classic liberal or classical liberal in their names. One still has the word libertarian in their name, having disaffiliated from the LP and joined this new party. Personally, I find this confusing, but that’s their choice. In some states, liberal works. In others, such as my state of South Carolina, liberal isn’t just a scarlet letter, it is a white hot brand on your face and potential loss of job and income in a state that mostly bleeds bright orange/red for their demi-god president elect. But to names and words. Almost everyone has suggested what they believe are better names for a new party than the word liberal. Are they right? Is liberal a word permanently lost, much as the simple phrase hail victory, spoken in German, has become permanently associated with a murderous dictator who caused the deaths of millions during World War II? I hope not. So if you are a classic liberal and not afraid of names, don’t be afraid to shout to the world: I am a liberal! If enough of us do it, maybe we can reclaim the word.
Category: Party Politics
Liberal Party USA Convention sees signifiant affiliate growth
Liberal Party USA held their inaugural convention in Houston this weekend. While this author had hoped to attend, circumstances prevented travel. As most readers here know, I am clearly in support of the argument for a classic liberal party. So while this is intended to be as unbiased as possible, please excuse any on my part that may filter in. The party entered the weekend with ten state affiliates. They left with twelve and about ten new states “under construction”. The New Hampshire Classic Liberal Party was accepted as an affiliate before the start of the convention, and the Montana Liberal Party was accepted Saturday evening. I have not seen anything on Montana, but a brief review of New Hampshire shows a very clean and professional website. Information and links to these and other affiliates can be found on https://liberalpartyusa.org. The identities of the states currently forming affiliates can be found on https://theliberalparty.org. This information was provided through delegates at the convention and is not any official listing or announcement of the party that I am aware of. It shows significant growth and could be considered a sign that Liberal Party USA may quickly beome the Bitcoin of American Politics. On Sunday, election of the party chair took place. By a margin of two votes, interim chair Trisha Butler was elected to a two year term as the first permanent chair. Late Saturday evening she had responded to my request for comments about the convention with the following statement: “It’s been awesome. Totally chill, lots of great conversations and ideas. I[t] was a relaxing weekend filled with learning and hope!” She then mentioned that they had added Montana as an affiliate that evening, which I have verified. Reports from the Pennsylvania delegation were that the keynote address by John Dougall, Utah Auditor General, was very well received. I was unable to get many detailed responses from others during the event, but what I did observe was that everyone was very interested in the presentations and discussions going on. Robert Kraus, interim executive director, informed me that attendance was around fifty, which is what they had planned for and expected. The most notable comment came from one party member who was unable to attend. He simply said “I am incredibly jealous.”
On the Road: Libertarian Presidential Debate
On November 11, the South Carolina Libertarian Party held their 2023 State Convention to elect new officers and select delegates to the 2024 Libertarian Party National Convention. Following the convention, a debate was held between six candidates seeking their nomination next May in Washington DC. The candidates present in the debate were (as placed left to right at the podiums) Jacob Hornberger, Lars Mapstead, Chase Oliver, Michael Recktenwald, Joshua Smith and Mike ter Maat. The debate was moderated by Antony Davies and James Harrigan, the hosts of the Words & Numbers podcast. IPR was present to cover the debate, and was able to get sit-down interviews with each of the candidates during the day. These interviews totalled nearly three hours of discussion, covering questions selected by the author and included some submitted by our readers. While the interviews will take time tomorrow to prepare for publication, the debate was live streamed by the SCLP and is available for viewing on their official channel located here: https://www.youtube.com/@sclibertarianparty/streams In this author’s opinion, the debate was civil for the most part, however it did look slightly like a Republican debate at one point, with candidates speaking over each other a bit and challenging each other on the validity of their message and ability to win the nomination. The moderators sliced, diced and washed some of them down the drain on the issue of Social Security, and as one audience member said afterward, it all depends on who recovers from it. But overall, they all made good presentations of their message. Some of the same questions were covered in the IPR interviews, where we will give you the opportunity to read their responses made without the required short limits of the broadcast medium. Although there were a few minor audio issues, the production quality of the debate was far more professional and organized than many others in the past, and in this author’s opinion is clearly worth watching to help delegates and the general public form (or solidify) their opinion of the candidates. I do have my personal opinion of how the candidates did, but that will be reserved for post-interview analysis after the interviews are published over the next few days. The timing of interviews prevented any observation of the actual convention, although it appeared to be well organized and civil. South Carolina is not a recommended convention to watch if you want to see political food fights. Details on the convention will be reported later by another person in attendance.
Libertarian Presidential Candidate Interviews and Debate
Last Updated on Sunday November 12, 2023 12:49pm EST The 2023 South Carolina Libertarian Party Convention was held the weekend of November 10-12, 2023 in North Charleston, SC. The convention featured a debate between some of the (qualifying) presidential candidates. Interviews were scheduled with all of the candidates listed as attending as of October 22, 2023, and one of the two others since listed as attending. The interviews will be published on Independent Political Report and referenced on this page. It will be a ten question format, with several in multiple parts. I hope to conclude each interview in ten minutes or less of each candidate’s time. Followup political analysis of the candidates and the evening’s debate will be published on Third Party Watch. The best-laid plans of mice and men… As noted when this was first posted the day before the convention, I planned to interview five candidates. All six announced candidates appeared at the convention and I was able to get solid sit-down interviews with each of them. 160 minutes of recordings. Yup! Nearly three hours. Add in the analysis of the debate, and we (my ten fingers) are looking at possibly a day or two to sort all this out and produce a good article (or articles) covering each of the interviews. Fortunately as of this update it is Sunday and I hate football. To start, the following was published on IPR Saturday evening about 11pm. On the Road: Libertarian Presidential Debate Publication Order The anticipated publication order is: An Interview with Lars Mapstead Interview with Mike ter Maat Interview with Chase Oliver Interview with Joshua Smith Interview with Michael Recktenwald Interview with Jacob Hornberger
A case for a new Classical Liberal Party
Last Updated on Saturday November 9, 2024 04:23pm EST This series began near the end of May 2023, when I felt the need to start writing about how I felt the Libertarian Party had failed, and a new Classical Liberal party – not the same as the current Libertarian Party – was needed. The series stalled in early July, with The Hunt for Red October having been written in July, but not actually sent for publication until October, after Leave the Party, take the Canolli. I recommend reading based on the order of the articles on this page. May 2023 Is “retaking” the LP really the best solution? Forming a New Party The Question of Political Purity Tent City June 2023 MacArthur Versus Hooverville How the West was Lost Robert’s, the Political Weapon of Mass Destruction October 2023 Leave the Party, take the Cannoli The Hunt for Red October November 2024 Dallas vs Houston December 2024 Sticks and Stones
The Hunt for Red October
SPOILER ALERT: Love it or hate it, if you never watched this movie then go watch it before reading this! What can I say? I had to find a way to bring one of my favorite movies into this. The premise of the movie is quite simple: The USSR builds a super sub, designed to silently approach, attack and destroy the US swiftly and cleanly, ending the cold war. The Captain does not like what they are planning to have the October do and decides to defect. He assembles a hand picked crew of officers he believes will follow his lead and the sub makes its exit from port. Russia tells the US the captain is a rogue madman to get them to help destroy the sub. The hero (of course!) figures out the captain is not mad, opens his big mouth, and ends up chasing the sub part way around the world. Classic Sean Connery, along with some young actor who clearly demonstrated that he actually does know how to use a prop gun, contrary to his recent statements made after causing the death…well…we don’t need to go there. So what’s the point? Spies, intrigue, escape! And in the end, the “good guys” appear to have won. The liberty movement is in the middle of its own Hunt for Red October. The bad guys, who I will identify shortly, built a weapon. It escaped from them, and for decades they have fought to chase it down and destroy it. But who are the bad guys and were they always bad? In the movie, one could argue that some of the concepts that became the USSR and led to the Russian revolution might have had good intent. They were, after all, living under harsh conditions and the rule of a series of nasty hereditary rulers – the Russian Czars. But the leadership after the revolution in Russia was quickly overtaken and devolved into a corrupt and evil regime, often suppressing their people worse than the government they overthrew. Sound familiar? Our bad guy for the sake of this discussion is the political system of the United States. It was not always bad, but this is not 1787. The government is run by the power brokers within the political system, so I believe they are the real “bad guys”. Our country built a weapon called freedom. It has gotten away, and the political system has been attempting to capture and destroy it for years. Oppressive election laws and cooperation from the media in their attempt to silence all of us who call ourselves “Third Parties” are one of their main weapons. Just the fact that our government was originally designed to not have political parties – certainly not just two – disputes the claim, by both the left and right media, that we have a “two party system”. Obviously many of us involved in partisan politics don’t agree with each other’s ideas and proposed solutions. There are parties that I think are full of absolute lunatics. Their ideas are insane – at least in my opinion. I am sure they think the same of me, along with others who have the same beliefs I have. A few of them are clearly enemies of the liberty movement, and support increased suppression by the government. But this discussion is not about people opposing liberty. It is about the stupidity and ignorance within the liberty movement itself at this point in time. Ignorance on the part of party leaders who don’t shoot at the enemy but at their own allies. Stupidity on the part of people who blindly follow them. Is that harsh enough? Some of this is on one side, some of this is on the other — or I should say others. Everyone in the liberty movement should be an ally. We should all be fighting to find the submarine called Freedom to rescue it. Instead, some of us are chasing after it underwater, where we should be, while others sit on the surface flying their party sanctioned flags and shooting at anything that surfaces or even moves. Just as they were not all in one vessel attempting rescue in the movie, we do not all need to be in the same party. Different arguments are needed. Did the “good guys” just send out one ship? No. So why do we have one 50 year old party that attempts to deal with every aspect and every question of liberty? It is the ship on the surface, flying flags and shooting at its own people. The bottom is covered in barnacles and rust, and its wake is full of leaking oil and people jumping overboard. The Libertarian party needs to go into dry dock and either be scrapped or rebuild itself. Some seem to want to rebuild. Some of us who jumped want a newer vessel. A party built to show the public a message they might listen to. One running candidates who do not look and act insane in the public’s eyes. Red October is still out there, and we need to rescue it. But how do we build a better party?
Leave the Party, take the Cannoli
A word of advice to anyone trying to write in the modern world: don’t ever take a weekend vacation where they don’t let you talk politics or religion. It throws you off pace. But while I was on this weekend retreat at the end of June, I did manage to sneak in a few minutes on my iPad catching the news. I quickly switched back to baseball when someone came into the living room. It was one of the countless Saturday morning political commentary shows. The hosts all have unpronounceable names, so while I channel surf a lot, I tend to listen to the one with the Philadelphia accent. It brings back memories. On this particular Saturday morning, there was a story about a “secret” meeting between Washington insiders in the Democratic and Republican parties having met earlier that week to discuss ways to stop “no labels” from running a candidate and somehow allowing Trump to be re-elected. The discussion centered around whether this was the election cycle where a strong, third-party or independent candidate could finally have impact. The guest vehemently denied this possibility. More recent events, some covered on Independent Political Report, center around fears of the Green Party’s candidate, as well as this group they call “no labels“. Interestingly, there was no mention of fear of Libertarians or other “third-parties”. Why not? Unfortunately, we all know the answer to that question. Agree or disagree with the current state of their party, no one disputes the fact that regardless of the candidate, the LP never seems to get anywhere. Neither do the Greens, although one could argue that both parties have had candidates in recent cycles that helped tip the scale one way or the other between donkeys and elephants. But is tipping the scale the goal? We never talk about the squeaky voiced, short guy with the funny ears, who ran twice in the 90s. What made him different — besides money of course? He had a message. Something about a conspiracy by the then current president to mess up his daughter’s wedding or something crazy like that. A precursor of the craziness the country went through the last two election cycles when someone even nuttier actually managed to get elected. So does this mean that for a “third-party” to make a difference it has to run a complete whack job? I hope not. Of course “insiders“ will tell you that the presidential campaign is meaningless. That all it does is get you ballot access in certain states. That the really important races are at the local level. Of course, that is true. But eventually presidential elections will mean something if a smaller party begins to succeed. Until then, parties just have to continue running politically credible candidates, who all “die on the sword” to try to advance their message. To their credit, all the presidential candidates I have worked with believed their mission was extending ballot access and helping downstream candidates. Most of the others I interacted with had similar goals. That is why antics at the national level, such as candidates for president wearing masks, Civil War uniforms, or boots on their head, only do damage to whatever that party is trying to accomplish. Flamboyant party leaders also distract from a credible appearance. All of this adds to a continuing decrease in coverage of parties and their candidates by the media. When I joined the libertarian party in 2005, I started going to national conventions. At the 2006 convention, I met several people who stated they were running in 2008, including Dr Phillies. They were all respectable looking, with rational issues. My recollection is that almost everyone at the 2008 convention made solid presentations. By 2020, the tables were turned. There were several credible candidates, but the whack jobs were in abundance. Those of us around the country who believe that local elections are what you win first would’ve been embarrassed, and lost credibility at the local level, by several of the potential national candidates. As we all know, a lot of the good dedicated leadership of the LP has either left, is being forced out, or in some cases is plotting taking the party back over from the usurpers. Look at what the Libertarian Party of Colorado recently did. I have no idea about election laws in their state, but if a party did that in South Carolina, state law enforcement would probably be raiding their meetings, and making arrests due to violation of state law regarding parties colluding together. Usurpers acting completely mad. But regardless of whether it is legal or not, openly colluding – or suggesting collusion – with another party is disgusting. At some point you have to decide whether the ethical infrastructure of the organization has crossed the line of corruption to a point where it is no longer salvageable. So where am I going with this? And why, after pretty much “retiring“ and just sitting back, and observing for the past nearly 3 years, am I making noise again? I have watched two parties fail that I have been involved in. First, the Republican Party in the 1990s. And now the Libertarian Party. Both abandoned their mission. Both abandoned their ethics. Not everyone. But enough of the leadership to cause the direction to change. So I decided to get back in the game. There is a lot of work to do. Fortunately, I found a group of ethical and dedicated people, and there will be a new national classical liberal party. From what I have heard rumors of, there may actually be several groups that end up launching. And the next week, I was even told by someone that she had heard on a podcast that I and the editor of 3PW were working together to create a national party. That one shocked me so much that I almost fell over laughing. Are they that scared? Would a secret cabal led by Dr Phillies and myself be their
How the West was Lost
No, that’s not a typo. I said lost not won. Of course most people currently living in the US would call it a victory. The winners get to write the history books. However, if you were someone who lived on this continent before the relentless swarm of invaders headed inward from the eastern shore, you would say lost. The same is true of political parties. New parties are not always built these days. Most people posting comments on Third Party Watch speak of it as a horrible and unthinkable option. I agree that in most states the system has been rigged to make it difficult, but it is not impossible. Historically, internal political movements tend to just take over the old ones and change them. Not always, but it happens frequently in our country. If you are old enough to have followed politics in any of the “big two” parties before their most recent philosophical changes, you probably would say they were lost. Look at what is called the Democratic party. Is it a liberal party? Conservative? Has it been a driving force in the civil rights movement, or an entity controlled and run primarily in defense of slavery? The answer, of course, is all of the above — at various times in history. If members of the Democratic party from the 1860s had been alive during the 1960s, they would have insisted it had lost its direction. I can only imagine what the founders of the Republican party would think of it today. I don’t think anyone actually knows what it stands for. I don’t think that anyone who was a member of it as recently as 20 years ago knows what it stands for today. I live in a state that has brought Strom Thurmond, Lindsey Graham, and now Tim Scott to national prominence. Tim is the most hated politician in The Community, yet “loved” in DC. We were talking about him in the barbershop Saturday morning. Technically, it is close enough to where he lives to be his barber shop as well, but over the years I have rarely seen him there. Certainly not since he became political royalty in DC. A far cry from serving on Charleston County Council. Scott scares me politically. He is not really what you are seeing on TV. But back to losing the west. The Libertarian party is changing as well. The “party of Nolan” is no longer his. I can’t claim to have known him as well as many others did, but I learned a lot about his thinking in the time we both served on the national committee. I don’t think anyone would say he could possibly be happy with what is going on today. Dr Feldman certainly would not. Why do the good die too young? The Mises are in charge, long live the Mises! What the heck is a “Mises” anyway? It doesn’t appear to me to be anything like an anarchist or minarchist. Even the actual Mises Institute seems to have disavowed them. But who they are doesn’t matter. They won, and for now at least they are in charge. They call it a win. The original Libertarians would not. How did they get to be in charge? The management and seating of delegates at party conventions is flawed. You could even call it corrupt. States can send more delegates than they are actually allowed to seat, and they can get seated in other states. Personally, I think that is a violation of the intent of a political convention in representation by state. It should be illegal. Oh, wait! It actually is in some states! By allowing overflow delegates to be seated in other delegations, states that are not able to send their own excess delegates become smaller in proportion to states where carpet baggers are seated. All it takes is controlling a few states and bringing lots and lots of extra people and you take over. This flaw has been present for many years, and has been used by a number of factions to a certain extent at various times. It is a dirty little secret of libertarian party conventions. But the system is not all bad. Allocating delegates based upon a percentage of the most recent vote for president is actually a rather brilliant idea. It promotes getting out the vote. I have thought of improvements, but they will come later. However, allocating other delegates based upon the number of dues paying national members is, of course, pay to play. It is corrupt and another dirty little secret of libertarian party conventions. Everyone tries to take advantage of it. State parties have competing membership drives to try to increase the size of their delegation faster than each other. The only winner is the bank balance of the national party. A brilliant fundraising idea, but easily corrupted. Some state parties also allow people who do not even live in their state to join, vote at their state convention, and be delegates to the national convention. The dirtiest of the dirty secrets. Even the Democrats don’t allow this (although they have “super delegates” which is one of their dirty little secrets!) I was not present, but I’ve been told that all of these tactics were deployed successfully by Mises. When you store open cans of gasoline in your living room next to the fireplace, well… You get the picture! There is no perfect system of allocating delegates. But there are certainly better ways. A Classical Liberal Party must avoid the mistakes of the old parties. And how do you avoid takeover and subversion of your message? How do you avoid a future “Mises Event” either by that or some other faction? How do you avoid becoming pigeon-holed as Starchild calls it?
MacArthur Versus Hooverville
You may or may not remember reading about the Hoovervilles. Ad-hoc camps in several cities, most notable outside of the District of Columbia, put together by former servicemen who came – peacefully – to demand their back pay from World War I that the government had deferred and held hostage. There was a depression ongoing in our country, and these were desperate people. But they were peaceful. They built a temporary town, complete with roads. They marched peacefully and hoped the government would react. It did. MacArthur, Patton and a few tanks, and even some minor underling named Eisenhower (who history now records as being opposed) went in and mowed them down. Fortunately, only a few people were killed, but they were disbanded and sent home. Hoover got rid of Hooverville. The Libertarian Party has its own Hoover, and they have sent in the troops. Guns have been replaced by lawyers and lawsuits, but the effect is the same. Rebellion has been quashed – for now. While I commend those with the courage to stand their ground, the political tanks are rolling right at them. No candidates last year in California in their largest county? Someone mentioned that a few days ago in a comment. Wow. Political tanks have been rolling. I’ve said this before, and I certainly mean it, when I wish activists like Starchild luck in rescuing their party. The sad history of political organizations in this country would indicate that the LP is in the middle of a shift in philosophy – not a good one – and it is not going to be easy to fix. As was very correctly pointed out by another former party member, the real goal of a political party is to run candidates for office. To influence the political process. A huge part of that is getting out into the public and talking about your message. I agree. However, when that message keeps changing – seriously they wiped out the abortion plank? – and the leadership fiddles while Rome burns, how do you even get people willing to run? Well you don’t seem to in California and some other states. Patton has been there. The technical arguments that Starchild put forth about why people aren’t getting involved and left vs right is not the whole story. While he credits the caucus in power as being a factor, I believe he overlooked the most crucial point: their leadership is in it not just for the sake of power, but also with the mission of destroying a party that opposes their demi-god – a certain former president. I have talked to some of these caucus members. They use the phrase MAGA. They love tRump (please do not change how I spell his name!). They are not what Libertarians would consider sane people. In 2023, a party that has always been factional has become even more so. As Starchild said, left vs right. The biggest damage caused by this internal fighting is what some would call the “brain drain”. A lot of good people around the country have been forced out. Institutional knowledge is not just going through age attrition, but through the loss of dedicated and honorable people. To quote Dr Feldman, “…that no pain, no gain, get those petitions signed in rain, libertarian…”. Those are who you are losing. Just so no one thinks this is sour grapes on my part, I do not feel I was forced out of the party. I left three years ago for reasons completely unrelated to this takeover. In my opinion, the party was still strong. It was still focused on the core beliefs.
Tent City
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.