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?

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

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?

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. 

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.

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.