Evicting Libertarian Party Principles: the Portland Purge

[tracysaboe]

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/010895.html#more

Evicting Libertarian Party Principles: the Portland Purge

By L.K. Samuels

Portland, we have a problem. The July 1-2, 2006, Libertarian Party National Convention in Portland, Oregon, is over, but the repercussions will be felt for years. A small, well-organized group of pragmatists and conservatives -- the LP Reform Caucus -- attempted to oust the original heirs of the Libertarian Party.

First, the usurpers attempted to abolish the LP pledge, arguing that it is simply too shocking for the general public. They failed, but barely. Next, through a parliamentary procedure, the Reform Caucus successfully gutted the LP national platform from over 60 planks to about a dozen. Little remains, not even the venerable plank opposing foreign interventionism.

With typical political thinking, this small discordant group dismisses anyone favorable to the platform as ?anarchistic,? predisposed to stopping any ?Big Tent Libertarian? outreach ventures. Unable to abolish every plank in one full sweep, the reformers plan to recruit new LP members from the ranks of other political parties, specifically from the religious ?Constitution Party.? With these Bible-thumpers as card-carrying LP members, they hope to finish off the remaining platform and pledge at the 2008 convention.

So what do these reformers want? They desperately want to win elections. They believe that by watering down or abolishing the LP platform, the voting public will empower the Libertarian Party with greater vote totals. Whether this strategy would ever succeed is questionable. The Green Party has made their platform far more acceptable to the general public with little electoral success. Their 2004 Presidential candidate David Cobb received only 118,000 votes compared with Badnarik?s 400,000.

So what are some of the principles that must go? First and foremost is the non-aggression principle, which is considered the main threat to an election-oriented populism. If libertarians would simply throw away this ideal, explaining LP policies on taxation, the drug war, foreign policy and military intervention would no longer be a campaign embarrassment. The LP would be free to advocate all sorts of government programs and interventions since taxation would no longer be considered a violation of human rights. Voters would no longer fear that someone out there actually believes an individual?s property does not belong to the state.

The reformers even want to dumb down the drug issue. One member of the Reform Caucus suggested that if they could not get rid of the drug war plank, which survived the Portland purge, it could be watered down to ?drug laws can hurt minorities and low income citizens.? This would eliminate any suggestion that individuals have a right to drug use -- such an honest consistency would obviously frighten voters.

These reformers are attempting to make the LP more palatable to the vote-getting political mainstream. And yet, the founder of the Libertarian Party, David Noland, has repeatedly said that he and the early founders were more interested in the educational opportunities available through a campaign for office. To them, actually winning an election was secondary.

Should the Libertarian Party base its success solely on achieving political power? Should we seek political power as the end-all? One Reform Caucus leader echoed this sentiment by arguing that the LP must ?win elections at any cost,? which comes close to the Machiavellian notion that the ?ends justify the means.? To him libertarian principles were an impediment to greater LP election victories.

What will happen to the Libertarian Party if it attempts to fool voters about what libertarians really believe? Will voters reward our deceptive campaigning with more elected candidates? Will diluting and hiding our message increase membership? Or will it open the floodgates to more conservative, religious and pragmatic members who have little understanding of our philosophy? And what will happen if other reformers in later years pressure the LP to dilute our message again to gain an even a greater share of the popular vote? Where does this erosion of principles end?

It is troubling that the Reform Caucus wants the Libertarian Party to make a grab for more political power, as if libertarian politicians would impose libertarianism on the public. This has traditionally been unappealing to even moderate libertarians. Most libertarians run for office to decrease government power, not to increase it. They take a defensive posture. They do not run to gain power; they run to defend citizens from coercive powers, oppressive taxation and government interference in everyone?s lives. Of course, in the realm of the political elite, this is as popular as a mosquito in a nudist colony.

If libertarians discard or hide their principles, they will have no maps to take them where they had set out to go. They will be ideologically naked in a political world that has little regard for individual autonomy. Like clothes, principles provide a fabric with which to cover one?s vulnerable parts. Without them, most people would be susceptible to the seductive and corrupting influence of a political system only interested in its own survival at the expense of taxpayers. Any electoral victory by a non-principled ?Big Tent Libertarian? would be hollow and meaningless. He or she would simply become part of the systemic problem of overreaching government.

The Reform Caucus attempt to highjack the Libertarian Party is a sad tale of a post-911 retreat from core principles. Unfortunately, freedom-leaning conservatives have lost control of the Republican Party to the less principled neocons. These conservatives have been submerged in a Republican ideological drift when their party abandoned small-government ideals, quickly morphing into the party of big government spending, foreign nation-building and massive federal deficits. Ideologically, the cheerleaders of President Ronald Reagan are no longer members of the Republican clan.

Realizing this tragedy, many have abandoned the corrupt Republican Party, and in their search for a new home, they came upon the third largest party in America. Since they have failed to make the Republican Party libertarian, they are instead trying to make the Libertarian Party republican. Instead of knocking at the door, they decided to barge inside and evict the old owners. And in doing so, they have attempted to overrun the Libertarian Party with ?libertarian-lite? policies which cannot prevent ideological drift by politico-heavies interested only in winning elections at any cost.

True libertarians must retain unyielding principles. They can compromise on issues and policies to make government smaller, but they must not compromise on their core beliefs in free choice, non-aggression and self-ownership.

Without strong moral guidelines, the Libertarian Party might as well as change its name to the Conservative Party or the Reform Party. If the Libertarian Party wishes to remain the ?Party of Principle,? it must have some.

- - - - - - - -

Editor and contributing author of Facets of Liberty: A Libertarian Primer, L.K. Samuels is the Northern California Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party and Vice Chair of the Monterey County LP. He was a delegate to the 2006 LP Portland convention. Website: Freedom1776.com

[aries]

Another reason I chose to run as a republican - the LP has big problems. This isn't great news.

It's not the party that matters, its the candidate's personal philosophy.

[Kat Kanning]

Let the market deal with these guys....don't give the LP money anymore.

[Otosan]

So what do these reformers want? They desperately want to win elections. They believe that by watering down or abolishing the LP platform, the voting public will empower the Libertarian Party with greater vote totals.

If this was the main reason to gut the LP platform.....
simple solution...do not run as a LP .... run as a R or D or an I   

[Recumbent ReCycler]

Another reason I chose to run as a republican - the LP has big problems. This isn't great news.

It's not the party that matters, its the candidate's personal philosophy.

This is so true.  I often hear others talking about the importance of growing the Republican party, but I believe that any growth should not be at the expense of principles.  Unfortunately the Republican party is getting influenced more and more by RINOs.  I would rather have a smaller principled party than a large "big tent" party where anyone is welcome regardless of their lack of principles.  I joined the Republican party because of it's principles that for the most part promote liberty and freedom.  The NH Republican platform is still pretty good, but the federal Republican party has strayed away from it's initial core values. 
I also am running as a Republican, primarily because other than a short stint as a independent, I have always been a Republican.  Most of my core principles have changed very little, and the ones that have changed a lot have moved me toward a libertarian philosophy.  There are some principles where my personal values and my political philosophy are different.  For instance, there are a lot of things that I would not do because of religious beliefs, but I also believe that it is not my place to judge or punish someone because they participate in those activities.  I have not found a political platform with which I agree 100%, but the NH Republican platform and the Libertarian platforms are closest to my personal principles.

[dead_hobbit]

personally, i don't see what everyone's big fuss is

for the pledge, i'm in favor of changing it. i'm suprised a lot of people here aren't as well, with all the talk of succession.

as for the gutting, i don't see it as so much of a problem, after all:

"The current platform still commits the LP to ending all victimless crime and drug laws; any laws against porn or commercial speech; an end to the Federal Communications Commission; an end to all property taxes and all government property ownership not explicitly allowed by the Constitution; an end to all immigration quotas and laws punishing employees for hiring illegal immigrants, and an insistence that the government require only ?appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security? standards for allowing people in; that ?marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.? Finally the new platform demands an end to antitrust and all corporate welfare.

While technically no planks related to foreign policy remain, the preamble to the section that would have contained them still says, ?The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.? ""


maybe i'm being naive from reading too much from hammeroftruth.com , but i really don't see the changes as a big issue. maybe someone can care to elaborate why i should be concerned?

[srqrebel]

for the pledge, i'm in favor of changing it. i'm suprised a lot of people here aren't as well, with all the talk of succession.

Are you implying that secession would somehow violate the LP pledge of non-initiation of force?  If so, how?

[dead_hobbit]

for the pledge, i'm in favor of changing it. i'm suprised a lot of people here aren't as well, with all the talk of succession.

Are you implying that secession would somehow violate the LP pledge of non-initiation of force?  If so, how?

well unless you plan on letting the feds keep their army bases & buildings and stuff in NH, which wouldn't be wise tactically

[KBCraig]

well unless you plan on letting the feds keep their army bases & buildings and stuff in NH, which wouldn't be wise tactically

What army bases?

There is exactly one federal military installation in NH: Portsmouth Navy Yard.

[srqrebel]

for the pledge, i'm in favor of changing it. i'm suprised a lot of people here aren't as well, with all the talk of succession.

Are you implying that secession would somehow violate the LP pledge of non-initiation of force?  If so, how?

well unless you plan on letting the feds keep their army bases & buildings and stuff in NH, which wouldn't be wise tactically

You bring up an interesting point.  I still don't see how that violates the pledge, though.  1) If the Feds are willing to let NH secede without a struggle, there is no force involved at all, and  2) If they resist by force an attempt to secede, they would be the ones initiating force, not us.  In the unlikely event that they were to agree to secession, but fail to get their belongings out of the fledgling nation in a timely manner, there would be a number of non-violent means that could be employed to speed up the process.

[Incrementalist]

So what do these reformers want? They desperately want to win elections. They believe that by watering down or abolishing the LP platform, the voting public will empower the Libertarian Party with greater vote totals.

If this was the main reason to gut the LP platform.....
simple solution...do not run as a LP .... run as a R or D or an I   

Yes, PLEASE.  Anybody who believes the old LP platform is a viable platform that a candidate should push for - run as an R, D, or I.  PLEASE.

[Incrementalist]

This thread needs this article:

What is a Political Platform?
by Carl Milsted Jr.
Submitted Dec 22, 2004

What is a political platform? This looks like a dumb question. But it is not. The answer is not trivial, and it is an answer that many Libertarian Party members fail to grasp. There are important subtleties.

To answer this question, we have to answer the more basic question: what is a political party?
What is a Party?

A political party is a caucus taken from the whole of the voting population. That is, people of similar mind form an organization that agrees to run one candidate for a particular seat. By forming such a caucus, they concentrate their core concerns at the cost of having to compromise among themselves.

That is, consider if 2 fascists and 55 libertarians were on the ballot. Under such circumstances, a fascist is likely to win, even in a heavily libertarian district. For this reason it is in the interest of libertarians to get together and decide on just one candidate to support. And once the libertarians do so, the fascists need to do likewise in order to have a chance at winning.

Note that this process has a price. Each of those 55 libertarian candidates may well have been the favorite of some of the libertarians in the district. However, in order to have a libertarian, supporters of 54 of the candidates must surrender their favorite choice in order to ensure that a fascist does not win. (And the same goes for the other side.)

We could imagine more than one libertarian grouping. If the district is sufficiently libertarian, two such groupings might be viable, or even three. But the more groupings there are, the more likelihood of a non-libertarian winning. A smaller tent allows more purity at the price of less chance of winning.

In some parliamentary systems, smallish minorities can still win elections due to proportional representation. In the U.S. system, a party has to include enough factions so that it can be the majority somewhere. When I say "include enough" I mean both activists, fellow travellers, and swing voters.
It's the Consensus

So how do we define our parties? This is the job of the platforms of each party. Just as each party compromises within itself to produce a consensus candidate from within, each party also produces a consensus statement of its political values to help define the party.

Because this must be a consensus position, fuzziness is necessary. Strong positions taken on every issue can shrink the coalition. Activists can storm out and swing voters can look elsewhere.

But note that we do not need to have consensus on every issue to have a party. We just need enough positioning to define those of similar mind. Diversity must be tolerated for the coalition to be politically viable.
It's Now

People move between parties. Independent voters and ticket mixers move from one year to the next. As such, it makes sense for a political platform to reflect the consensus for what needs to be done now, vs. some excessively longterm vision. More importantly, this is the case for the mainstream parties in the U.S.

Even if you prefer that a platform talk of ultimate visions, this is a bad idea because this is not the popular semantic definition of a platform. To put in longterm visions into a platform is to cause confusion; many people will misinterpret forward looking statements as calls to implement such actions now. This shrinks the coalition!
Does the LP Have a Platform?

The Libertarian Party does not have a platform in the sense of the major parties; the LP has an ultimate vision of the ideal government. Yes, it has some statements of what should be done now, but it also has statements that are intended to be done later. By mixing the two, the LP causes confusion and loses votes.

Further, the LP Platform is not a realistic attempt to build a coalition of like-minded people that is big enough to actually win elections. There are few within the party who think that Americans are ready for what is in the platform. Instead, there are two "wishful" victory scenarios:

   1. The LP and related organization can educate the people where they will eventually fine pure libertarianism acceptable. This is to happen even though the government controls most of education and statists own most of the media.
   2. Statism will eventually cause economic and/or social collapse. At this point people will be desperate enough for change that they will try anything. Our job is to be there and be organized when this happens. (This is how the Bolsheviks took power.)

A real political party (in a democratic system) tries to win elections... now. This means balancing ideology with reality. This means polling and focus groups. This means "listening tours." "Party of Principle" is a contradiction in terms.

So how many real issue polls have libertarian commissioned? Sad to say, my polling at www.quiz2d.com is about as good as we have, and that ain't very. This is because too few Libertarian activists care about such things. This needs to be fixed.
Does the Platform Matter?

One of the main arguments that I have heard from those who want to keep the platform pure and visionary is that "no one reads political platforms." To this I point out:

    * The very political do read platforms. These are just the kind of people likely to become activists in a new political party.
    * The political press reads platforms, and their stories about our candidates reflect this.
    * The opposition reads our platform. When a moderate Libertarian threatens to win a significant number of votes, the major party opposition usually runs negative ads in the last weeks of the election quoting our platform.
    * The LP national staff reads the platform and strives to make all press releases and literature conform to the platform. They are legally required to do so by our bylaws. The results hurt our candidates and our recruitment efforts.

Having a real platform is important.

[Caleb]

Incrementalist, my friend, you're still basing your actions on pragmatism rather than moral ideals.  You need to understand that those of us who base our lives on moral ideals are NEVER going to agree with pragmatism.  I, for one, am hopeless.  You're wasting your breath.  I will NEVER be a pragmatist.  It's not in my worldview.  And I suspect that there are others here that will similarly never be convinced.

Caleb

[Caleb]

Just as a fun aside, I spoke with John Babiarz yesterday, and he said that the NHLP plans on sticking it to National.  They are planning to affirm the old platform, and possibly break with National.  Fun stuff. 

[Pat McCotter]

well unless you plan on letting the feds keep their army bases & buildings and stuff in NH, which wouldn't be wise tactically

What army bases?

There is exactly one federal military installation in NH: Portsmouth Navy Yard.

Nope. It's on Seavey Island which is still on the Maine side of the river.
http://www.mli.usm.maine.edu/news.htm

On May 29, [2001] The United States Supreme Court dismissed New Hampshire's claim against Maine regarding the ownership of Seavey Island in the Piscataqua River. The island, home to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and long considered part of the state of Maine, provides jobs to hundreds of workers in both states. New Hampshire residents working on the island have paid Maine state income taxes for decades and some believe New Hampshire brought the case to appease its residents working at the naval shipyard. However the Supreme Court dismissed New Hampshire's claim, deeming it judicially estopped, since decades ago New Hampshire agreed that the border between the two states along a different part of the river ran down the main navigation channel. The Court noted that that earlier acknowledgment by New Hampshire barred it from attempting to change the rules of the boundary line upstream.