I’ve spent some time over the last couple of days reading web sites and blogs that are dedicated to reforming the Libertarian party. I am not entirely sure yet which side of the fence I fall on, so I want to discuss the advantages and disadvantages that I see with each approach.
The Libertarian party currently has the reputation of being extreme and non-compromising. If a moderate Democrat or Republican looks at the Libertarian platform, which states that all drugs should be legal and Social Security should be terminated, they would consider the word “extreme” to be a major understatement. There is also a perception, which I don’t feel is entirely accurate, that party members are not willing to accept any compromised solution that results in more government than the goals set forth in platform would allow.
The reformers believe that the party is too radical, and would like to bring it more into the mainstream. They would accomplish this by basically taking the “smaller government” side of current political issues, reducing the size of government over time in small steps. For example, they would campaign for medical marijuana, private accounts for Social Security, and eliminating pork spending.
In theory, this would expand the party’s base, making room for new members and politicians who would be willing to cut spending and legalize marijuana, but perhaps would not be ready to repeal the income tax and eliminate the FDA.
The biggest advantage that I see for what I’m calling the “Current LP”, or the “purists” approach, is principals. Some say that to take these principals literally would make the LP in favor of anarchy, but I couldn’t disagree more. Although there certainly are anarchists in the party, the LP has always drawn the line at the Constitution.
A purist Libertarian can argue that almost everything they stand for is directly in line with the Constitution, and 95% of the things the federal government does today would be illegal if the Constitution were interpreted as it were intended.
This is a huge advantage that currently unites us as Libertarians, and it clearly separates us from other political parties who have blatantly thrown the Constitution out the window. We can currently use the Constitutional argument to logically justify most of those radical views, and, given enough time, our message will actually start to make sense and sink in with some people.
Unfortunately, I also see principals as the biggest disadvantage for the purists approach. Everyone agrees with us that the government is too big, but it’s tough to get people to agree on what to cut. It’s very rare to find people who agree with us that everything should be cut. Someone adamantly opposed to the drug war may balk at joining the party when he finds out it is also for ending Social Security. The Libertarian party has to be losing tons of potential members to scenarios like this.
On the other hand, if we adopt the reform approach, what separates us from the Republicans and Democrats? If we have candidates running for office that support the drug war, haven’t we thrown away the Constitution as well? Once you start swaying from those principals, I fear that it could all go downhill from there.
Take the two mainstream parties, for example. Wasn’t each of them more “Libertarian-like” years ago? Over time, they continue to accept bigger and bigger government. If we allow politicians to run for office under the Libertarian label, knowing they are not in favor of returning the government to its Constitutional limits, we would certainly get more votes and members, but would that set us on a path to eventually become indistinguishable from the Republicrats?
That being said, it seems like we have to do something. The LP is over 30 years old and we run more candidates than any other 3rd party, yet membership is down, and we have very few elected officials. If we could be certain that reform would bring in considerably more members, it might be worth it. I feel like there are a lot of voters out there who want more personal freedom and less government, but aren’t ready to return to the Constitution.
If a more, dare I say, moderate message would result in more elected officials, it could give us considerably more influence. Wouldn’t that be better than the political insignificance that we have today?
I’m going to put some more thought into this over the next few days, and hopefully pick a side. Maybe I want too much. I am in favor of any compromise that makes government smaller, but I don’t want to stop until we hit the Constitutional limits. In the meantime I would love it if lots of moderates would join with me to make those compromises happen. I just have to decide if I’m willing to potentially sacrifice my end-goal and party for what could turn out to be just a series of compromises.
Speaking only for myself, I want to return government to it’s Constitutional roots and obey the Bill of Rights. Sucha national government would de facto be a small government. The rub comes where a person within the LP calls me a sell out becuase because I do not advocate NO government, becuase such the thing has never existed in this country, nor in any developed society in the wordl that I know of.
I want the LP to become THE third party in America, instead of A third party. I believe this can be done in my lifetime, either by election of libertarians or by forcing other parties to adopt our small government policies, like the Socialist USA did in the early part of the last century. As long as greater liberty and personal freedom in obtained in actual practice, there cannot be a “un-libertarian” bent to our party or the people who make it up.
We wont “sell out” our principles until the day the LP endorses more taxes and less freedom. The methods we use to obtain more of these things cannot be un libertarian as long as it results in more for what we desire.
Hope this gives you some insight on the role of the reform movement as I see it. I think anyone who wants more freedom belongs in the LP, no matter how fast or slow they want it, provided they dont block or stop the chances of the party being able to gain election of it’s candidates by undermining the conditions needed to make it happen.
Comment by Tim West — July 4, 2005 @ 11:12 pm
Tim,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you, as long as the party is advocating smaller government and more freedom I will support it with my wallet and my vote. Advocating smaller changes that have more public support certainly seems like the best way to get more support/votes for the party.
I just hope that, if reform succeeds, the LP will still advocate a return of government to its Constitutional limits as the eventual goal. I also hope that it will also discourage, or forbid, politicians from running for office under the Libertarian label if they do not agree with this as the eventual goal. My biggest overall concern is that, if we start to succeed, the party will eventually be hijacked by power hungry politicians that could care less about the ideals.
Regarding the Constitutional government/No government argument, to paraphrase Harry Browne, I think anyone arguing that is just wasting their breath. It just seems insane to me for the Constitutionalist and the Anarchist to argue. They both want government to move in the same direction!! We should be on the same team until the time comes that the government reaches the Constitution, and then we can argue about what else we can cut.
Comment by Danny — July 5, 2005 @ 12:39 am
Yes, that is the goal.
The anarchist should come along for the ride as the Constitutionalist achieves real reductions. At some point, when the Fed is 80% smaller than it is now, I’ll jump off, having gotten what I wanted, and the Anarchists can take it from there.
But all libs ever wanna do is fight.
Comment by Tim West — July 7, 2005 @ 5:33 am
Maybe I’m just being a little paranoid but I think there is danger in reforming and becoming more mainstream. I think “Libertarian party” is somewhat of an oxymoron anyways and I don’t really see how a three party system is any more effective or just than a two party one.
I think there is power in being consistent and unrelenting in one’s convictions. When it comes to liberty, radical is a good, not a bad thing. Our form of government moved from being minimalist and largely free to the super-state we know now mainly because we were sold on “compromise” and “practicality” rather than standing our ground and consistently defending our convictions.
If there’s one thing the State is good at, it’s absorbing and incorporating enemies and dissidents into itself and dilluting and sterilizing their resistance. This does not mean that small steps and half-measures shouldn’t be accepted, but they should never become the goal we are aiming for. I would highly recommend reading this article by Rothbard. -
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html
I think it applies to freedom lovers of all stripes and is very thought provoking.
Comment by Aaron SIngleton — July 16, 2005 @ 7:42 pm
I think the sales analogy used by the reform movement is an excellent analogy. We want to sell them a constitutionally limited government. They may well benefit by it, but they are afraid that the cost will be too high. Now, when a salesman has a product that he really thinks is good enough it can sell itself, he gives out either a free sample, or offers a test drive.
So it is with what some libertarians might call “half-measures.” Take medicinal marajuanna. Some libertarians might say that doesn’t go far enough, and fear that if we go for that, many for whom that’s “far enough” will jump ship, and then we’re stuck with medicinal marajuanna, and don’t have total freedom where drugs are concerned. The belief is that if we get a compromise solution, the pressure the real world facts give for legalization will be allieviated, and people will no longer be looking for a solution.
Good theory, but its obvious that strategy simply does not work. Government itself is like a drug. While some can quit cold turkey, many, if not most, need a more gradual cutoff. What I think more likely is that, if we support, and successfuly implement medicinal marajuanna policies, there will be two effects.
First off, there will NOT be that amazing increase in crime and delinquincy that the hardcore anti-drug crowd predict. While they will try to say that’s because of the medical restrictions, most people will know better. The second effect is that, because of our involvement, others in the medicinal movement who were not previously libertarians will be exposed to our thinking on it in a friendly setting. They may consider that there are benefits beyond the medical uses of marajuanna to ending prohibition outright.
The statists have been nickeling and diming us to death for years. This was a natural phenomenon, since the big government people were split between the two major parties. Most who were involved in that practice really did believe they were doing the right thing (whether it be big-military Republicans or big-welfare Democrats), and though they opposed one another, because it is easier to create a law than it is to roll it back they took turns increasing every aspect of the government. Bi-partisan legislation also always seems to be aimed at increasing the power of government.
We need to nickel and dime them back. Extreme measures will never catch on. But if we manage to roll back the power of government a little bit, in an area that will benefit the largest number of voters, they’ll say, “Hmm… I like that. A little more, please?” The generation that reaches its age of influence under a smaller government will support smaller government still, so long as we’re not stupid about it.
Comment by Daryl Sawyer — July 22, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&edition=us&q=Libertarian++Pinellas&filter=0
Pinellas Libertarians lead Coalitions in Florida
Best Syndication, CA -
… It must be so, as several community groups met to look at common issues in a meeting co-facilitated by the Libertarian Party of Pinellas (http://www.LPPinellas …
FLORIDA LIBERTARIAN RADIO SHOW HAS INTERNATIONAL FOLLOWING
PHXNews, AZ - Aug 3, 2005
… Molloy and Libertarian figure Michael Gilson-De Lemos (known familiarly as “MG”), it broadcasts in a guest/call-in format from the Pinellas County, Florida …
Action Taken to Improve Elections in Florida
Best Syndication, CA - Jul 15, 2005
St Petersburg, FL–An unusual coalition founded by local Libertarian, Democratic and … The Election Reform Coalition of Pinellas, a Florida county which includes …
Also cheer up with http://www.libertarian-international.org
Comment by M. Davis — August 5, 2005 @ 2:43 am