Ron Paul: Symptom, Not Disease?

A few posts ago I mentioned how I'm coming to dislike people who blog anonymously for the purposes of cheap, empty slams on public figures- even when I agree with some of the slams being made.

Well, I recently found another anti-Ron Paul blog, quite possibly the same person as the creator of Ron Paul Revealed. This blog, The Ron Paul Survivors' Report, is credited to one "Ron Lawl," who has a hobby of making "LOLRons" every bit as unfunny as the "editorial cartoons" on the Ron Paul Revealed site.

However, one of his more recent posts does resonate with eight years of anger and frustration left in me from my Libertarian Party experience: this proposed flyer to be used in response to a Paulian propaganda distributor.

The specific point of resonance is the second paragraph, which I'll rewrite a bit to target it at one of the main sources of Ron Paul support- Libertarian Party leadership and anarchist activists therein.

You know what your problem is? You don't listen. You want to know why your party doesn't catch on? Try asking people. Maybe instead of telling voters that tax is theft and how we should all go back to private schools for the rich only, you should have paid more attention to what *the electorate* cared about. It's funny how you advocate the free market, but your own marketing skills are terrible. You have an elitist attitude where everyone else is a mindless sheep and all you have to do is "get the word out." Well, here's a thought: maybe you're wrong. Maybe the voters have already heard of the Libertarian Party... and they just don't like you.

Bear in mind, for the first half or so of my association with the LP I was one of those elitists. Thinking of everyone who disagrees with you as "sheeple" or outright evil gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of superiority. I got over myself and started listening to the doubts I had about Libertarian policy because I got tired of hitting my head into the same brick wall over and over- the resistance the public, even those eager for an alternative to the Republicrats, have to anarchism.

I then began hitting my head against a different brick wall- the purists and anarchists in the LP who wanted to keep their warm fuzzy feeling. I brought up my own disagreements with the extremes of Libertarian thought, gave examples of intelligent objections given me by those I'd discussed Libertarianism with. I was ignored, and when I couldn't be ignored I was attacked as a closet Republican, statist, Communist, etc. I kept on fighting, even when I was burned out and dreaded the very mention of the word "Libertarian," because I believed there was a party worth saving from itself, with people like me in it who were being driven out or silenced by the anarchists.

Then came first the state and then national LP endorsements of Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President... and I knew there wasn't anything worth fighting over in the Libertarian Party.

And the biggest reason why there's nothing worth fighting over in the Libertarian Party is that most of the old leadership, the long-time activists, and the loudest voices in the party have the same attitude that Ron Lawl attributes to Ron Paul activists. It is the attitude that the only reason people might disagree with LP positions is that the people are too stupid to understand them. Once people are "educated", they will have no choice but to acknowledge the intellectual (and moral) superiority of Libertarian thought, join the party, and work for eventual Libertarian victory.

With the Rondroids, you can just replace "Libertarian" with "Ron Paul."

It's a rotten attitude.

It's an attitude that will cost you friends and make you a pariah- as I discovered when I was trying to argue people into submission to Libertarianism.

It's the exact opposite attitude to that used by most successful political candidates.

It's the attitude Ron Lawl claims drives Ron Paul's supporters.

It's an attitude I know, for a fact, drives the core of the Libertarian Party.

And, to a great extent, they're the same people.

The Camel's Back is Broken.

Well, December 18 has come, the meeting is over, and now I can say what I decided weeks ago.

The following letter will go out on the morrow to various Libertarian officers in Texas:

I have, for the past few years, been a reluctant member of the Libertarian Party, seeking to reform the party from within to make it a viable mechanism for change in the American political system. Despite the active antipathy of many within the party, and despite serious concerns about the control exercised by anarchists within the party, I nonetheless felt the Libertarian Party represented my political beliefs better than any other option available to me.

Events of the past two weeks have changed my mind. First I received a letter from Wes Benedict asking for candidates to run as Libertarians… in part, the letter said, as a means to support Ron Paul in his Republican run for President. Then, on December 9, 2007, the national leadership of the Libertarian Party voted unanimously to ask Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party nomination for President. It then voted, again unanimously, to commit Libertarian Party resources to help Ron Paul win the New Hampshire Republican primary election.

These actions disturbed me greatly. First, Ron Paul differs significantly from Libertarian Party positions on several key issues, most notably on immigration. Second, Ron Paul has associated in the past with white supremacists and has pointedly refused to reject white supremacist support in his current campaign for President. Third, Ron Paul is a believer in conspiracy theory, including the notion that the United States government faked the September 11, 2001 attacks as a pretext for its attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fourth, and more important than any of the previous points, Ron Paul has worked since his return to Congress as a Republican to undermine the Libertarian Party and to convert its members into Republicans. He has used invitations to Libertarian Party events to try to persuade Libertarians that they belong in the Republican Party. He has repeatedly rejected the label “libertarian,” defining himself as a conservative. He has stated repeatedly in the press and in public events that he believes third-party efforts are doomed and without effect in our political system. The best that can be said about Ron Paul is that he cynically uses the Libertarian Party for his own purposes.

Finally, and most important of all, the actions by the Libertarian Party leadership to support a Republican candidate for President over and above loyal Libertarian Party candidates is a sign that the Libertarian Party has no interest in actually acting as an independent political party. Rather than act as a viable alternative to two hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy political parties, the Libertarian leadership has declared itself willing to marry itself to whichever major party parrots enough buzzwords or empty promises to give the illusion of support for Libertarian positions.

I joined the Libertarian Party in 1999 because I wanted something different from the Democratic and Republican Parties. I wanted to join an organization determined to support its own candidates for election against both Democrats and Republicans. If the Libertarian Party is not willing to do this, then in my opinion it has rejected its very meaning for existence. A political party which supports members of other parties for public office in preference to its own candidates for that same office can no longer be considered an independent political party.

Without the will to act as an independent political party, and without the loyalty to support the candidates within the party in preference to those without, the Libertarian Party can no longer be considered a viable force in American politics. Indeed, it is my belief that if the Libertarian Party nominates Ron Paul in 2008, or somehow manages to get Ron Paul nominated by the Republicans and withholds its nomination for President, the result will be a loss of support, of organization, and of ballot access as Libertarians bolt the party to join the Republican Party in support of Ron Paul. After this election cycle there will no longer be anything of value to reform… if there ever was.

For these reasons I hereby announce my resignation from the Libertarian Party. I hereby stand down from any and all positions of trust within the Libertarian Party. I have closed out all unfinished business I have with the party, including any official duties, debts, or pledges I have with the Party or its affiliates and subsidiaries.

If the Libertarian Party demonstrates that it can be a viable and independent political party, by electing a governor, a Congressman, or a substantial number of state legislators in multiple states, I may consider rejoining that party. Otherwise I shall be politically independent for the 2008 election season, and after that shall seek either to join or help build a new political party to fulfill the role that, in my opinion, the Libertarian Party has not only abandoned but emphatically rejected.

To my knowledge I speak for no one else but myself in this; however, I strongly encourage all who read this statement to reconsider whether or not the Libertarian Party, by supporting a candidate of a party that has worked to destroy freedom, can still be considered a means of preserving and expanding freedom. For my part it cannot—and for that reason I have chosen to withdraw my support.

I'm all but certain now that Ron Paul will get the Libertarian nomination, or else the Libertarians will not have a nominee at all in 2008 for President. Not only is there loud and substantial support from below, but there's absolute unanimous support from above. Even the purists in the party, who would run off anyone else who differed with the anarchist party line as Ron Paul does, have gone whole hog for him.

I just can't support a party- any party- so hypocritical as to proclaim itself the Party of Principle, to fight tooth and nail any attempt to moderate that principle, and then to throw all its support behind a candidate of ANOTHER PARTY who doesn't even believe in that principle. Just as I could not support the Democrats or Republicans in 1999, I cannot support the Libertarians now.

What this means in the short term is, for one thing, an end to Corn Flake Friday posts. I see no reason to embarrass Libertarians into facing reality when I'm no longer trying to reform that party. (Incidentally, "reform" is an anagram of "former," and vice versa.)

In the next couple days I'm going to take a very serious look at the Democratic candidates for President, and a reluctant look at the Republicans to be fair. I'm not going to bother with the Greens (Cynthia Anti-Semite McKinney or Ralph Untrue-at-Any-Speed Nader? No thanks) or the Constitution Party (the would-be Christian Taliban). Nor am I interested in Michael Bloomberg, should he run; having seen what he's done to civil liberties in New York City as mayor, I believe he'd be an even worse dictator than Bush should he come to power. But I have to support someone, because there's no None of the Above option.

After that, I'm going to start looking for a label for my kind of politics, and to see if there are any people like me. I think I've got a good name in mind, but I need to flesh out the ideas before I go further. In the meantime, keep watching this blog...

How Libertarians Should Campaign

This year 13 Libertarians won elective office... all in nonpartisan races.

However, I'm interested in two Libertarians in Virginia who, although they lost, performed much better than average.

First, Arin Sime, who polled over 7% in a three-way race for the Virginia State Senate. His campaign tax platform:

I have signed the American's for Tax Reform “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” promising voters I will not vote for tax increases.

. . .

A Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) would limit increases in the state spending across the whole budget to the rate of inflation plus population growth. If the tax rates or economic growth lead to a surplus of revenue for the state, then the state would be required to return that to taxpayers unless the public voted in support of allocating that surplus revenue to some other purpose.

. . .

That's why I support an amendment to Virginia's Constitution that would require all new tax increases passed by the General Assembly to incorporate a date that tax will end automatically on, also known as a "Sunset provision." If the tax is still necessary, the General Assembly can always renew it. But this will force our politicians to continue to justify the existence of any particular tax they impose on us.

. . .

Under a bill considered in the 2007 General Assembly (and killed by a Republican House of Delegates committee), your tax assessment would be limited to increases of 1% per year plus the rate of inflation. If your local government feels they need more money than that, they will have to be more open in their desire and raise your tax rate, instead of claiming they are cutting the tax rate even though your tax bill is going up.

. . .

Real leadership is not defined in terms of how much money a politician can take from the taxpayers, and then dole out to whoever asks the nicest. The hard part of real leadership is setting priorities on our spending, and the General Assembly has failed to do this for many years. We should fund the core responsibilities of government first, and only then look at the rest of the budget.

. . .

We do have a Transportation crisis. But we don't have a Transportation funding crisis. The problem is a lack of proper priorities. If we are experiencing such a true crisis in transportation funding, why not freeze spending on all other programs until our roads are fixed?

. . .

Please notice the utter lack of "Abolish taxation NOW" rhetoric, and the open door to those who believe government has legitimate functions.

The other candidate I'd like to look at is Donald Tabor, who got 28% of the vote against a Republican incumbent for the Virginia State Senate- better than I did, especially considering the larger district. His platform:

Taxes - Taxes should be simple, visible and no higher than required to fund the limited functions of government. But taxes and the growth of government are out of control in Virginia. Like many of you, I cheered when the Republicans gained control of the General assembly, but to my dismay, in their brief time in power, they have more than doubled spending, growing government even faster than the Democrats ever hoped to accomplish. With the assistance of two Democrat governors, the Virginia Senate has forced record tax increases on the House of Delegates and eroded our standard of living with tax increases that far exceed anyone's salary increases and impoverished our elderly on fixed incomes. Now, with the regional Transportation Authority, they have added yet another unaccountable government with taxing powers to further add to our burden. The RINO's in the Senate have betrayed our trust and must be sent home.

Transportation - The Regional Transportation Authority created by the passage of House Bill 3202 is unaccountable to the people and in many aspects, unethical and unfair. It should be rejected by the people and the General Assembly should return with an honest, straightforward and understandable plan. At the very least, the so called "Third Crossing," which is really little more than a glorified, 4.3 BILLION dollar driveway for the Port should be removed from the plan and financed separately by the port and trucking interests which will benefit from it. Further, the so called "Remedial Abuser Fees" are really taxes in disguise and are unfairly and unevenly applied. They are a disgrace and the next General Assembly should repeal HB 3202 in its entirety. The current plan will do little to actually improve traffic flow and will bankrupt Hampton Roads.

There are ways to relieve congestion that will work and are less expensive. The simplest and least expensive way to ease traffic congestion on the Southside of Hampton Roads would be to open the Southside Reversable Roadway to all traffic at all times.

Education - There is no more important purchase we make than the education of our children, and we should make use of the free market to assure we get the highest quality at the lowest cost, just as we do with every other important purchase we make. Competition can make our public schools grow stronger, or provide us with alternatives if they do not improve.

Property Rights - Eminent Domain should be used ONLY to obtain property for true public uses where precise placement is necessary, such as forts, roads and rights-of-way. Otherwise, government should purchase property at market prices from willing sellers, just like anyone else. Eminent Domain should never be used to take property from one citizen for the benefit of another.

Firearms and Self Defense - Honest interpretation of the Constitution establishes the right to bear arms as an individual right. We all have the right and the responsibility to defend ourselves.

Freedom - If we are to be truly free, that must include the rights to make bad choices so long as they do not harm or create burdens on others.

Donald Tabor is a former Republican, yes. He believes there are legitimate reasons for government, for taxes, and for eminent domain, among other things. But he also believes that government must be limited in its powers. His platform calls for a freeze on current tax rates- not abolition. He calls for better, more sensible highway and transportation policy- not for the privatization of all streets and roads. He calls for school choice- not public school abolition. He defense the right to bear arms as a self-defense measure, not an absolute and unlimited right to own any sort of weapon. And most fundamentally, he opposes victimless crimes- one of the cornerstones of Libertarian policy- but he does not propose immediate repeals of anti-drug or anti-prostitution laws, but rather a careful rethinking of current policy.

Both Sime and Tabor treat principle as it should be treated- a guideline to influence decisions rather than an ironclad rule never to be deviated from. They promoted their campaigns to the public as rational Libertarians- perhaps radical, but certainly not insanely anarchist. True, they didn't win... but they demonstrated yet again that moderate Libertarian candidates do better than anarchists or purists.

Sime and Tabor are examples our entire party should emulate.

Sime's website- read it while it lasts: http://www.arinsime.com/home.aspx

Ditto Tabor's website: http://taborvasenate.com/

Rapidly Approaching the Crossroads

Lately I've been telling my friends that I'm a Libertarian despite the party, rather than a Libertarian because of what the party stands for. It should be no surprise to people who read this blog that I'm both disgusted and disillusioned with the way the party has gone, and where it appears to be headed. Historically I've had a lot of company- the Libertarian Party has a lot of what marketers call "churn," i. e. turnover in members. Only a tiny number- usually the most radical and dysfunctional- remain with the party, working hard to ensure that nobody else can stand to work with them for long.

At the moment- emphasis on moment- I'm still a big-L Libertarian. Right now I'm deciding if I'm going to work to get Libertarians on the ballot and in office next year. It's a very big decision, because I personally believe it wrong to bail on a political party in mid-cycle. If you commit to a party in January, you ought to be with them come November- presuming, of course, that the party actually stands for something.

So before I commit to that long haul, I have to answer some very serious questions.

1. What do I expect out of a political party? I want a political party which best represents what I believe and is not merely the tool or a splinter of some other political party. That party must also make a good-faith effort to actually win elections: it should not be merely an "educational organization" or an elitist club.

2. Does the Libertarian Party represent me well enough to stay with it? I honestly don't know yet. That will depend entirely on the new platform that comes out of the national convention Memorial Day weekend. If the platform represents a turn away from anarchism and towards a small-government message that can be sold to the electorate, then I stay. If the anarchists regain control and go back to the old smash-the-state rhetoric, then I'm out.

3. Is the Libertarian Party independent, or is it just a faction of the Republican Party? That depends on the Ron Paul movement, and again on the national convention. Currently party rules forbid Libertarians nominating non-Libertarian candidates for office, but there's a major movement afoot to void that rule and nominate Ron Paul with or without his consent. If Ron Paul gets nominated by the LP, I won't even wait until November- I will resign the LP then and there, because it will no longer be anything more than an annex of the GOP- a goal Paul has worked towards since 1988.

4. Does the Libertarian Party actually work to win elections? Signs point to no at present; today I was called by the Texas LP's secretary and asked to run for office again. I said no- I could never do as well as I did last year, when I proved that the people here don't want me in office. The focus, as usual, is overwhelmingly on recruiting candidates, any kind of candidates, with no regard to the one thing needed for any candidate to accomplish anything: organization on the ground. We need to organize counties and precincts, build a network of events for our candidates to appear at... and we're not doing it. If I see no improvement in the LP's organization in Texas, or in general, then I'm out at the end of 2008.

Yes, right now my Libertarian affiliation is very conditional indeed. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if there's any way I can get the ball rolling towards a new party, a party that favors smaller, more accountable government while at the same time opposing anarchy and the unfettered power of corporations or the immensely wealthy.

It might be time to revive the old Whig name from history- not the Whigs of Henry Clay and Zachary Taylor, but the Whigs who opposed the Tories and led the American Revolution of long ago. I want the Whigs who opposed corruption, office-holding, gerrymandering and rotten boroughs. I want the Whigs who favored expanded freedom and sufferage and lower taxes.

But I don't want the anarchists who tarred and feathered tax collectors, or destroyed courthouses to prevent having their farms foreclosed on for debts. Freedom requires a law that is not enforced by the individual at his own whim, but is the same for all persons at all times. It requires a government strong enough to see that law enforced, yet limited enough that it cannot be bent to the will of the powerful. Our Whig forefathers understood this- learning it at times by hard experience- and tried their best to craft a system toward this end.

I think I could be a Whig.

I'm wondering if I can still be a Libertarian.

Your "Truth" is Not My Truth

One of the blogs I watch somewhat regularly is Bird Brains, formerly I Drew This, founded by a liberal cartoonist. He, and two other persons, post irregular political commentary and cartoons.

Normally I agree with what they post (since most of what they post is Bush-bashing and Democrat-bemoaning, pastimes I more than agree with). However, a recent post entitled Four Truths About Voting pissed me off no end. The four truths, paraphrased for brevity, are:

1. Voting for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican is a waste of time, so don't do it.

2. You can change one of the two big parties by working from within.

3. Nothing matters more than getting a supermajority in Congress.

4. You'll never get your ideal candidate on the ballot- you'll just have to settle for the least odious option.

Item #4 is correct, from a pragmatic point of view, but incomplete. Item #3 is taking a position I hold too far: you can't get what you want done without power, but you can't give up what you want done in order to get power.

The other two are not only false, but offensive.

Starting with item #1, quoting:

...two candidates with similar ideologies will split the vote, causing the remaining candidate to get a plurality and take the election... Voting for a third party as a protest vote is easy, and feels good. Since your candidate has no chance of winning, no matter what happens you get to disclaim any responsibility by saying, "don't blame me -- I voted for the other guy!" In the end, however, it really only helps the candidate that least reflects your views.

In other words, in a hypothetical election with three candidates- Republican, Democrat, and Independent/Libertarian/Green/Constitution/Roll Your Own Party- if you think the third-party man is the best candidate and vote for him, then you're actually ensuring that the Republican/Democrat gets elected. You MUST support the Democrat/Republican- in fact you OWE him your vote- because if you vote for the person you actually prefer, the worst possible option will get elected.

This is the kind of argument a wife-beater throws at his battered spouse to keep her from leaving. "Where else are you going to go? You HAVE to take what I give you, and be grateful for it- without me your life would be SO much worse!"

The same kind of mentality carries over to item #2. Quoting the operative points:

So if voting for third parties is ineffective, what can you do? Work within one of the existing parties... This is a lot more work than voting for a third party, but it can accomplish so much more.

The writer then goes on to refer to the immigration issue, which George W. Bush pushed forward only to receive a massive Republican-grassroots backlash. He omits the factor that a majority of Republican Congressmen already opposed Bush's immigration plan- he was trying to get it passed with Democratic support. The immigration issue was not an example of changing a major party from within. A better example would be Ron Paul, last of the Goldwater Republicans, who has actively undermined the Libertarian Party (and recently has begun working on the Constitution Party) in his attempts to reform the GOP. Result? The moneyed interests, entrenched leadership, and radical-religious base of the modern Republican Party have squeezed small-government Republicans out of all power within the party. In short, there's no way people from outside either of the big parties can change the course or agendas of those parties...

... which means there's no home in either party for small-government people such as, for example, myself.

But now we come back to the wife-beater argument this article delivers. Remember the line from the quote above: "This is a lot more work than voting for a third party, but it can accomplish so much more." This implies, again, that change is possible- if you work hard enough. This is our wife-beater shouting, "If I beat and abuse you, it's only because you didn't try HARD enough to CHANGE me! It's YOUR fault I'm so cruel and useless to you!"

"Liberal Seagull", your truth is not my truth. Here are my four truths, in counter to yours.

1. The only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don't want elected. Our voting system does not allow for "votes against," only votes in favor. By voting for a certain candidate, you are saying that that candidate is the best offered for the office in question... and you are endorsing that candidate, and all his or her actions, for the next term of office. You may claim otherwise, but that candidate, once elected, will point to the winning electoral results as such an endorsement.

2. The only way you'll get what you want is if you vote for it. In my case, Democrats and Republicans are pretty much alike- both favor larger government, less accountability for those in office, greater corruption, fewer freedoms for the citizens, and above all maintenance of the two-party status quo. Even on the Iraq war, the two parties are in agreement- they disagree only on how many American soldiers should participate at any one time. If this is what you want, fine. If you don't want what either of the two big parties is offering, though, voting for them will NOT get it. Voting for them only encourages them to keep on doing the noxious things they've been doing.

3. It is difficult, but not impossible, for third party candidates to win office. Unlike reforming the big two parties, working for a third party or independent campaign actually can produce results- although it requires intense commitment and hard work. The major difference here is that, unlike the big two parties, you actually get a chance to support someone for a purpose other than to prevent the election of someone else.

4. It isn't necessary to have a majority to wield power- only to hold the balance of power. In the Supreme Court, the final authority lies not with Chief Justice John Roberts but with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy- the person who holds the tie-breaking vote between four biased conservatives and four biased liberals. Kennedy has been in the majority in 70 out of 72 cases in 2006-7... and decided the majority in all of the 24 5-4 split rulings. The main reason why a marginally Democrat-controlled Senate can't do anything to stop the Iraq war is Joe Lieberman, who won re-election with the opposition of his former party- a man who caucuses with the Democrats but wholeheartedly supports George W. Bush's war effort. It only takes a few people in the right place to redirect public policy...

... and, by so doing, send the big two parties the message that what they have been doing is unacceptable.

Yes, it is worthwhile to vote third party. Think of it this way: if voting third party was always futile, why have the big two parties made it so hard to do?

But if you keep voting for the big two parties- if you go back to the wifebeater- nothing's going to change. Neither party will change anything so long as it can count on your vote by waving the spectre of the other party in your face. The only way you can make those parties change is to take you vote away from them... and give it to someone else.

And if there is no one else, then work to get someone else on the ballot. Otherwise- as we've witnessed this year, with the Democrats unwilling to undo anything the Republicans have done- things will only continue to get worse.

Political Education v. Political Advertising

No news story this go-round. Instead, a bit of essay writing which might end up in a book project, if I ever get time to write it.

Not too long ago, the executive director of the Libertarian Party of Texas, Wes Benedict, challenged my position opposing the Libertarian Party's role as an "educational institution." In particular he pointed to the radio ads from my 2006 campaign for the state legislature: "wasn't that education?"

From its very inception, many people in the Libertarian Party, including David Nolan, the man who is generally credited with founding the party, have considered the party's primary purpose as educating the public in libertarian thought through the use of the political process. A public, once exposed to and persuaded to the libertarian philosophy, will demand libertarian-minded candidates from the two establishment parties, leading to more libertarian government.

The theory makes two assumptions: first, it presumes that actually electing people to office is either unimportant or impossible; second, it presumes that the electorate actually take their ethical, moral, and philosophical tenets from the guidance of politicians. Both are, at best, flawed. The first point ignores the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are controlled by strong private interests that have a vested personal interest in expanding government and using its power for their own benefit- and thus neither party will ever truly favor liberty and small government. The second assumption flies in the face of all historic evidence: every time a candidate has tried to indoctrinate the voters into a believe they do not share, that candidate has failed and failed miserably.

It is worth noting that Abraham Lincoln was elected on a platform of tolerating slavery in the Southern states, merely banning it in the western territories- because even a majority of Northern voters, never mind Southerners, endorsed slavery in 1860. Lincoln wanted slavery abolished and believed it was inherently wrong- but he knew he could not get elected President on a hard-line abolitionist platform. In 1856 James Fremont, the first Republican Presidential candidate, tried it and lost several vital northern states- including Lincoln's home state of Illinois.

It's also worth noting that Eugene Debs ran four times (1900, 1904, 1912, 1920) for President, in generally good economic times, on a socialist platform and lost, whereas Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran four times- the first time twelve years after Debs' last run- on a platform quite similar to Debs' during bad economic times and won. What was the difference? In bad economic times voters are willing to risk new and drastic change, but in good times the voters would rather maintain the status quo and reject radical change. The Great Depression- not Debs' campaigns, and not the long-collapsed Socialist Party- had convinced enough voters that radical government intervention was necessary that Roosevelt's policies and promises were accepted and celebrated.

By comparison, look at some examples of Presidential campaigns which attempted to indoctrinate the voters. William Jennings Bryan famously campaigned on "free silver" in 1896; what's less remembered today is that he also campaigned as a moralist, a Biblical expert,and a Prohibitionist. His famous Cross of Gold speech was a rarity in a career built more on ideology than on actual political ability. His best performance was in 1896, during an economic depression in which "free silver" was already a popular position... and yet he lost. In 1900 and 1908, years of prosperity, he did far worse.

A more recent example is that idol of far too many Libertarian Party members- Barry Goldwater. Granted, Goldwater already had two strikes against him in 1964, with his campaign effectively running against the ghost of John F. Kennedy. He didn't help his own cause by campaigning mainly to promote the idea of conservatism. Rather than persuading the public that he would better fit their ideals, Goldwater challenged the voters to change their way of thinking and turn to what Goldwater felt were the true ideals of the founders- limited government, federalism, and free enterprise. Goldwater did not merely lose, he was hammered in the election- in no small part because Lyndon Baines Johnson successfully painted Goldwater as a radical ideologue willing to do anything to support his beliefs- up to and including the use of nuclear strikes to fight the Cold War.

But, Libertarian Party hard-liners will counter, the Socialists got their platform eventually, the Prohibtionists had their own political party- do these cases not prove the success of the tactic? In a word, no. Socialism gained power due to the apparent failure of capitalism- that is, that successful capitalists work to crush the free market in favor of an economic system that keeps the rich wealthy and the poor vulnerable to economic crisis. Prohibition gained traction not by the action of a political party but by the action of thousands of religious leaders on the local level. Neither political party achieved its goals by educating the public- and both political parties, in their prime, were much more powerful and influential than the Libertarian Party has ever been.

What about advertising, then- to get back to the start of this article? There's a difference between political advertising and political education. In my two radio ads, I presented a couple of quick mentions of my opponent's actions while in office and followed with three or four of my own campaign positions. These were educational only in that they informed voters of what my platform was, as contrasted with my opponent. I designed my platform and presented it to appeal to the people in my district- tailoring moderate Libertarian positions to appear identical to the fundamental beliefs of those who would elect me. At no point in my campaign did I ever tell the voters how they should feel about anything- I only told them that, if elected, I would best represent their feelings on the issues.

Since the dawn of American politics campaigns have focused on personalities, not issues. War heroes who appear as examples of courage, leadership and commonality have always proven popular, as witness Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Dwight Eisenhower and others. William Henry Harrison won election more as the Indian fighter of Tippecanoe than as the representative of the Whig platform. Harry Truman, despite political unpopularity, won election in his own right in 1948 primarily due to his personal popularity as an honest and upright individual. Even George W. Bush, possibly the worse President on civil liberties issues of them all, won election in 2000 not because of issues but because of perceived personality traits. All of these campaigns triumphed, among other reasons, because of this strategy: convince the electorate that you, as an individual, best represent what they already believe in.

This is the proper goal of political advertising. Campaigns that portray the candidate and the party as the champion of what the public already are the norm- they're what most campaigns outside the Libertarian Party do. Campaigns that attempt to teach the electorate how they should think, that exist primarily to educate people on the issues, fail almost universally- and fail hard.

Unfortunately, for over thirty-five years the Libertarian Party has focused its efforts on running campaigns to educate and indoctrinate- not to actually get people elected. In order for liberty to survive, either this tactic must change, or else a new political party must be formed to perform the task the Libertarian Party has so miserably failed to accomplish.

The Call for Reform, Loud and Clear

I pretty much agree with everything this guy says in this article.

NOTE: I don't agree with all of Carl Milsted's positions, not by a long shot. However, in his call for either radical reform or rejection of the Libertarian Party, I'm in complete accord.

A few highlights:

"The worst case scenario had happened. The reform forces had won enough to anger the old guard, but the reforms were insufficient to turn the LP into a real political party." This refers to the LP 2006 national convention, where reformers won only one clear-cut victory- the gutting of the national platform. The failure of reformers to make a stronger showing at Portland did little more than awaken the radical purists in the party to their peril. They've since organized in several groups, ranging from the Libertarian Radical Caucus to the splinter Boston Tea Party. Much work still remains to make the Libertarian Party a viable engine for political change.

"Thus, the waffling continues and the party withers. This must end. The pragmatic libertarians need to either finish the job in 2008 or get out and let the purists have their protest organization. The alternative is wasted time, effort and acrimony." - Fully agreed. Had nothing at all happened in Portland in 2006, I would have announced my resignation from the party immediately after the end of my campaign for the state legislature. As it stands, I'm hardly encouraged by what I see in the party: one-quarter on the reform side, one-quarter on the radical side, one-quarter in denial, and one-quarter abandoning politics out of disgust.

"For the past few years I have been lambasted by purists and called "unprincipled." Very well. I accept the label, nay, wield it as a badge of honor. I am unprincipled. I do not shoehorn all my ethical and legal thinking into a single axiom." - Amen. I've had people complain to me time and again that Libertarians trying to justify their views according to the "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" make the word force jump through hoops. The most common complaint: "According to Libertarians, nothing anybody does is force unless it's government doing it."

"Replacing an elected republic with warring "protection services" is woefully imprudent."

"Standing aside for genocide is contrary to the ideals of liberty."

"Defaulting on the national debt is a recipe of economic disaster."

"Defaulting on Social Security obligations is robbing the older generations."

"Selling the remaining wilderness to be raped by corporations is robbing future generations."

"Cutting government in random order without regard to other considerations is the height of incompetence."


Yes, all of these things have either been party positions or been advocated by prominent spokespersons for the Libertarian Party- privatizing the army and police, total military isolationism, defaulting the national debt, abolishing SS with no transition plan, liquidating all "public" property- including roadways- to private ownership, and of course radical and immediate government agency shutdowns.

Now, it's important for me to note here that on all these options I'm not totally opposed. Some functions of the military- especially logistical and rear-echelon support- should be privatized. I believe intervention in Darfur is just as dangerous as intervention in Iraq was, and for the same reasons. I believe we need to seek debt forgiveness on all levels of government- our current debt levels are unsustainable. I believe Social Security should either be an optional program of last resort or a simple government subsidy: the myth that people have individual accounts they pay into should be swept away once and for all. I believe the government owns a lot more land than it ought to. I believe a lot of government programs and agencies- including the entire Federal departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing, and Transportation- should either be abolished or severely reduced and folded into other existing departments. The difference between people like myself and the Libertarian party purists is that I do not take a good, ideal principle to its most extreme, absurd, and disastrous conclusions.

"The Good is a nonlinear multidimensional function. Deal with it!" - I think I'd like this on a bumper sticker.

"I am not a libertarian in order to promote a simplistic, impractical and inhumane philosophy. I am a libertarian because I love liberty, because the government has grown way too large, because too many people rot in jail without need, and too many others live in fear of unjust fines and lawsuits." - So am I. I joined the Libertarian Party because it was the only party which defended free speech at all. That's because the LP was, and for most purposes still is, the only party that gives any serious support to reducing the size, scope and power of government in any way, shape or form.

But if the LP isn't doing anything to make its goals reality, then something new must be created to replace it.

"A political party is either a diverse coalition of somewhat similar interests, or it is a joke. A party of principle is a joke, and it's the statists who are doing the laughing."

And this is the most important point of all. Those in charge of the Democratic and Republican Parties- despite glaring evidence that vast numbers of their followers are fed up with their leadership and do not support their agendas- can rely on these same dissatisfied and rebellious followers to return to the fold in November... because those same people look at parties like ours and reject them utterly. Even those who agree with us 50% of the time- such as, for example, Russ Feingold and Ron Paul- recognize that the Libertarian Party, as it currently stands, is hopelessly crippled from within.

We have to give disenfranchised voters a place they can come without holding their noses or checking their common sense at the door.

We have to give disenfranchised activists, party members, and yes even elected officials a place they can come and be competently supported in their efforts for election.

What we have now is what we have had for over three decades- a party that chooses moral superiority and smug self-righteousness over winning elections or making positive change.

Carl Milsted has issued his call for the silent majority of Libertarians- if it will be heard. Now we'll see which side that silent majority is on- or if it will simply remain silent.

Follow-Up: New Interview with Bob Barr

Bob Barr Speaks After Joining LP Leadership

Go, and read. Two things to note. First, Barr is continuing his defense of the Defense of Marriage Act by reframing it as a defense of liberty. View this as backpedaling- he may well be laying the groundwork here for a future reversal of position. Second, Barr utterly dodges the drug war issue, saying only that he will disagree with other Libertarians on some issues. View that as a line drawn: Bob Barr still supports drug prohibition, but is a savvy enough politician to know when to shut the hell up rather than injure himself to no good purpose.

Unfortunately Reason Magazine utterly failed to ask hard questions on doctrine- questions virtually every Libertarian is, or should be, asking. Here's my list:

1. In the past you were among the most aggressive drug warriors in Congress. Do you still uphold the principle that certain substances are so dangerous that no one should be allowed to use them under any circumstances?

2. Do you believe that the tactics used in the Drug War, such as asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, government-funded propaganda, and felony convictions for addicts comprise any danger to civil liberties? If so, is this danger outweighed by the danger of the substances used?

3. Alcohol Prohibition, from 1920 to 1933, was regarded as a colossal failure that encouraged alcohol abuse and strengthened the power of organized crime. Why should drug prohibition not be regarded in the same light?

4. You say that the Defense of Marriage Act protects the right of state governments to define marriage. Are you aware that that act forbids marriage benefits to federal employees based on sexuality regardless of the laws in the state where they reside?

5. Should married people, regardless of sexual orientation, get special treatment not available to unmarried people?

6. While in Congress you objected to the practice of Wicca by members of our armed forces. Do you believe that followers of Wicca, or indeed non-Christians in general, are entitled to equal treatment and respect by the laws and government of the United States?

7. Do you intend to change the policy positions of the Libertarian Party on the issues of drug prohibition, religion, or sexuality?

For my part, I think these positions- although extremely disagreeable to me- are outweighed by Bob Barr's positions on everything else. On these points, if he holds to them, I'll oppose him tooth and nail... but he can hold these views and still say that government should be smaller and freedom greater in the whole. He can still call for accountability in government, reduction of government power and intrusiveness, freedom of speech, property rights, gun rights, privacy rights, lower and more just taxation, and other libertarian issues... and I have no doubt he will.

Barr still needs to answer these questions, though. Libertarians deserve the answers- and we need these answers if we're to settle the ongoing dispute on Bob Barr's role in this party.

I Wouldn't Want My Daughter to Marry Him, Though

The hot news among online Libertarians, of course, is former GOP Congressman from Georgia Bob Barr joins the Libertarian Party and is elected to the national Executive Committee.

For more coverage, check the AP story here, the discussion at Third Party Watch here, and the story at Reason Magazine Online here.

This is especially interesting because, only four years ago, the Libertarian Party took credit for throwing Bob Barr out of office, a move celebrated by some and regretted by others on grounds of freedom.

During his eight years in office, Bob Barr remained more or less true to the Contract with America that brought him and a host of other Republicans into Congress. He fought with consistency for smaller government, balanced budgets, and restraint on the power of government. However, he did not do this from the position that smaller government is always better. Purist Libertarians point out- quite loudly, in the discussion on the above links- that Barr was a sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act. He voted for the USA-PATRIOT Act. Worst of all, he was an aggressive zero-tolerance drug warrior, even defending a ban on hemp rope because it might contain trace amounts of THC... and it was for this sin that the LP targeted him in 2002 with attack ads that may, or may not, have cost him the Republican nomination in the 2002 Georgia primary.

The purists and anarchists in the party are screaming that the election of Bob Barr to the committee that runs the national party is a sign that the "Party of Principle" has abandoned its principles. To the contrary, I say- Bob Barr's advent to the Libertarian Party is the best news this party has had all year.

First, let's look at Barr's positions, as shown in this December 2003 interview. Bob Barr has openly come out against USA-PATRIOT, saying he voted the wrong way on that issue. He hasn't changed his mind openly about gay marriage yet, but he defends his vote there as a state's-rights issue- he supported the bill only so that states would not be forced to recognize gay marriage, not to outlaw it completely. That's disingenuous, considering the Defense of Marriage Act comes as close as any federal law can to doing just that, but at the least his justification shows he's paying attention to the Libertarian position on the issue. As for the Drug War, rumors fly that Barr is preparing to do a one hundred eighty degree turnaround on that issue... but nothing's solid as yet.

But so what if he doesn't?

The fact is that civil liberty activists like Bob Barr- who has worked quite often with the ACLU to fight government overreach- are precisely the kind of people we need to persuade if the Libertarian Party is to build its own political base.

According to a recent Zogby poll, most self-described libertarians don't vote for Libertarian Party candidates. Here's the number crunch: according to Zogby, fifteen percent of people who vote have a political belief set that classifies them as libertarians. In 2006, these people voted 59% for Republican candidates for Congress, 36% for Democrats, and only 5% for everyone else combined- Libertarian, Green, Constitution, whatever. This means that at most the Libertarian has, among its core base, only 5% support maximum- which leads to a support in the overall electorate of less than 1%. Sound familiar?

There are four reasons for this. First and foremost is the perception that Libertarians cannot win election. There's next to nothing we can do about that directly. Second, there are massive obstacles to Libertarians even making it to the ballot- which might well artificially shrink the numbers in that poll I just mentioned. There's not much we can do there either, except lobby for lowering ballot access restrictions. Third, too many of our nominees are outright nutjobs. Although we could use None of the Above much more frequently, laws don't allow us to turn away candidates outright in most places, so we can't do too much there either.

The fourth reason, however, we must do something about. A lot of people who agree with us as much as 80% of the time won't support us because they disagree VERY strongly with that last 20%. People who want lower taxes, smaller government, and greater freedom may well take the choke at auctioning off all public roads to the highest bidder, declaring unilateral free trade with all nations, abolishing all government social programs, endorsing secession, defending the individual's right to own nukes and anthrax, etc. etc. etc. We need these people's support to get anything at all done... but the purists in the party cling to ideals and principles above all and demand that moderate libertarians either "become educated to the truth" or else keep the hell out of the party.

Now let's look at the other two parties. The Republican Party tolerated people such as Lincoln Chaffee and Olympia Snowe because, without them, conservative and neo-conservative goals could not be achieved. Without pro-choice Republicans in certain areas, the Republican Party would have no power at all; with them, Republicans can make advancements on other issues, such as war powers, tax policy, and social issues. Likewise, the Democratic Party embraced errant son Joe Lieberman and former Republicans Jim Webb and Bob Casey for the same purpose. Although Lieberman is pro-war, and both Web and Casey anti-abortion, without them Democrats would be unable to block anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court or to advance Democratic issues such as a higher minimum wage.

Long story short: you don't have to agree with everything to get things done. In fact, if you insist on total agreement on everything, you get nothing done.

Bob Barr doesn't necessarily agree with everything the LP has stood for in the past. He doesn't have to. If he fights for greater freedom, if he works to get Libertarians elected, that's all we need. Barr has experience in WINNING election campaigns and firsthand knowledge of what a political party does in support of its candidates. He'll make a very good Executive Committee member- and an even better public fact than we've had in the past.

And if we want to expand our political base from less than one percent to fifteen percent- and more, if we want to elect people- we need to moderate our positions. We need a platform that doesn't call for anarchist utopia. We need concrete proposals that strengthen liberty without bringing about chaos and panic. Finally, we need spokespersons who focus on practical solutions to popular issues, rather than people trying to convert people to the religion of anarchocapitalism.

Bob Barr is such a person. He almost certainly wouldn't win an election for us as a candidate- even if he were running, which he says he isn't. His expertise as a politician, a legislator, and a public speaker will be invaluable to getting other candidates elected, though. This is a vital opportunity for us... and no one dedicated to getting Libertarians elected should throw it away by either bolting the party or driving Bob away.