I certainly apologize if anyone reading this believes I am going to talk about football. Baseball certainly, but never football. I was raised a Philadelphia boo-bird and I am proud of it. Even Santa Claus fears real boo-birds. Before I go any farther, I need to post one small link. It has been more than a year since my last commentary on Third Party Watch, and some may want an explanation of where I’ve been. Reading is not required. But back to Dallas vs Houston. Yes, that Dallas. The Dallas Accord. There are relatively few people still around who were in the Libertarian Party during or prior to the 1974 Dallas Convention. But it is legend in their party, and is often quoted as the treaty made between the classical liberals and the anarchists to hold the party together. With apologies to lpedia.org for the oversimplification: The party was growing. The number of classical liberals (aka minarchists) outnumbered the much smaller anarchist wing of the party. In order to prevent a split and with a goal of expanding the party, concessions were made and the statement of principles was changed. I wasn’t in the LP in 1974. In fact, I was still in high school. But if I had been in the party and at that convention, I would have advised against it. The cost, over the years, could be way too great. It allowed candidates some considered lunatics to run for office. The anarchist wing of the party slowly grew until eventually they were mostly just waving dildos around and calling themselves the radicals. Obviously, by definition, the entire party is radical — at least as far as the media, the “major” parties, and most of the public are concerned. Look up the word. The original party, far more oriented toward classical liberalism than anarchy, slowly disappeared. This isn’t to say that anarchists are bad people. Some of my best allies when I was in the LP were anarchists. (Hmmm…where have we heard that before?) The rubber bands holding the party together began to stretch. By the time I joined in 2005, the fractures were large enough to see, and large battles had begun to take place at conventions. The largest rift started in 2006, when the “Reform Caucus” tried to strip and cleanup the platform. All sides would agree that it was a badly botched job. Eventually, infiltrators came in, calling themselves “Mises” and we all know what happened next. Yes, some of the Mises caucus members are actually classical liberals who have been fooled. And they fooled some of the anarchists and classical liberals already in the party as well — for a while. So where am I going with this? Why should anyone care about the Dallas Accord’s failure? A few days ago there was a discussion on Third Party watch about the actions of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire and their violation of the ByLaws by endorsing the Republican candidate for President. These actions were preceeded by the equally suspect convention antics, where that same candidate, along with an “independent” candidate were both present and invited to speak. One was even nominated during the Presidential candidate election. I would mention their names, but I have no intention of risking an eventual violation of Godwin’s Law in this commentary. In this discussion, I recommended a few methods of holding out and purging the infiltrators. I suggested that the definition of libertarian was too vague and that they needed to correct it. A reply to the effect that the composition would be changing to “actual libertarians” was submitted. I suggested that they needed to get everyone to agree on what an “actual libertarian” is. The next reply was classic: “Oh that’s easy, that’s me.” And here we have it. Those replies could have been from anarchists, minarchists, socialists, or even the fascist controlled Mises caucus. All sides believe they are “actual libertarians”, so unless you know the players, you can’t tell them apart by that answer. Which takes us to Houston. Houston, Texas, in December of 2024. A convention of the recently formed Liberal Party USA. A party that understands that in order to keep your focus on the goal, you have to have a standard. Their’s is classical liberalism. Not communism, socialism, fascism or anarchy, but classical liberalism. Go search wikipedia. They have lots of great information on this. This is why a number of classical liberals who used to be in the Libertarian Party have joined this new movement. They understand that while the anarchists are “fellow travellers” toward freedom, their definitions of freedom in regard to the role of government differ. They understand that the Libertarian Party failed in part to the desire to appease everyone. So they decided to cut their losses and let others try to save what is left — if they can. This is your wakeup call. There is still time to get to Houston in December. I wanted to go, and even bought a ticket, but health prevents me from attending. So I’m challenging all classical liberals — you know who you are — to get off the couch or chair you are sitting in and join this new movement. We need to make sure that the Houston convention builds a party structure that won’t result in its own version of a Dallas Accord a few years from now.
Series: Case For A New Classical Liberal Party
Sticks and Stones
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.