David Nolan shares his thoughts on the present and future of the Libertarian Party with its current leadership in an open letter posted at Nolan Chart.
A few selections from the letter:
I hope that you will proceed in a spirit of amity, and urge you to use your time productively. Do not waste it on internal bickering, attempts to censure or expel other Libertarians, and other such trivia. Our country is in deep trouble. Now, more than ever before, the Libertarian Party must offer a coherent and compelling alternative to the stale policies of statism. People are ready to hear our message — if that message is stated clearly and boldly.
…
As I see it, the Libertarian Party has gone far astray from its original mission. Somewhere along the way, our commitment to being The Party of Principle was replaced by a shallow, opportunistic goal of “winning elections now” — any election, anywhere.
…
[T]he most important principle, for libertarians, is the principle of self-ownership, as set forth in the Preamble to our Platform, and our Statement of Principles. These are the standards by which every policy statement and every campaign must be judged.
…
My fellow Libertarians, our party is at a crossroads. Either we stand up boldly for liberty, or we lose all relevance.
Robert I can pretty much agree on those items. And here’s my point. People should find issues of agreement and work on those. Forget what we disagree on for the moment. Set that aside.
What we do need is for national to develop some interest in providing us a helping hand. I’m more than willing to work on literature. Fact is I have roughed out four or five piece that I could use at upcoming events. We do need national to assist on this so that we are getting out the same message across the nation. That is where we are falling down
If we were all using the same playbook that would be nice and national is responsible for designing that playbook .
Just my opinion.
MW
Mhw, hmm, what’s important to me? Peace and liberty. There’s a lot of ways to achieve those abstract ideas.
Let me reframe your question: If I were campaign strategist for the 2012 LP Prez candidate, what would his/her 5 key issues be…how’s that? Off the top of my head, it might be this:
1) Bottom up tax cuts
2) Across the board Federal spending cuts in discretionary program
3) 4 year plan to exit Nato
4) Expansion of IRAs for medical and education spending
5) Bill of Rights restoration review and implementation
Mr. Capozzi what issues are important to you? Can you give us five and maybe in order of importance?
Let’s start there.
MW
pc, yes, “problems” such as this aren’t solved like math equations.
Whether lessarchism allows the LP to move forward (and even passed) socialists and statists, I can’t say for certain.
I’m all ears for another way.
Neither is without problems.
A narrow ideological definition does not portend well for having enough numbers to do much, while a pluralistic approach suffers from a porous border: at what point does it cease being even close to libertarian?
Obviously, there is some such point, with everyone from George Bush to Bill Clinton to Adolf Giuliani to David Duke to Noam Chomsky calling themselves some kind of libertarian at least some of the time or being called one by others.
So, I don’t think you have necessarily solved that problem, but to be fair neither have I.
jf, yes, exactly! That leaves us with 2 choices:
1 Accept a pluralistic approach to what the LP is all about.
2 Battle over a precise ideological definition of L-ism.
Surveys that identify groups as “libertarian” or “libertarian leaning” don’t predict anything about the Libertarian Party because there is no agreement as to what “libertarian” means. There certainly is no agreement within the LP. Even the “founder” of the LP can not be any more specific today than what he wrote promoting the formation of the LP fourty years ago.
Corporations change their positioning over time. Grocery chains would be the exception, in that they run rotating specials. Even there, I’ve noticed the big chains are emphasizing organics and building mega stores, etc.
My take is the LP is paralyzed by having headstrong camps that each tend to think THEIR approach is best. More dysfunctionally, they tend to define L-ism very narrowly. Perhaps emblematic is the founder of the Radical Caucus refuses to define a Cato L as L. The camps want to control the very resource-constrained national apparatus to control messaging.
It should be no surprise that such an environment leads to paralysis and drift. Hence, the Rodney King Caucus was created.
@61 RP Writes: – “In short, why would be want to model ourselves and our tactics after the failed Socialists?”
Robert not everyone seems to think they failed. And my point is more that we need a consistent message. Year after year. That is a good part of what advertising is all about. Keep it simple and be consistent.
Look at your grocery ads in the paper. For the most part they are the same products, ones most likely to be used by households with a few other tossed in. Every week you get an ad and every week it is pretty much the same stuff being advertised.
Whether, or not Socialist failed is beside the point, but they were consistent in their messgae for much of twenty years.
The LP Has been poor at getting its point across. Our literature is inadequate and our website is a mess. The issues should be up front, but instead they are buried and out of date.
Agreed.
If we take socialism to mean worker-controlled social order, it has little to no actual overlap. Corporate-statist fascism is actually in essence and practice elitist control of social mobility, but justifies itself to the masses through cynical manipulation of bottom up class warfare, middle-bidirectional class warfare, and even some misdirected top-down compassion.
Correct again; but not so far out of the range of LP performance that we could not reach it without significantly altering our ideology or the general public mindset. SP level performance of that era can plausibly be reachable by intelligent and persistent organizing and outreach. Getting further than that may be possible only given some major crisis, change in the public mindset, or most likely combination of both. Of course, persistent organizing can contribute to a change in the public mindset in ways both big and small, direct and indirect.
That depends on when. The socialist movement of the late 19th to mid 20th century was so far out of the mainstream that at times its adherents were jailed, deported, and even lynched solely for holding their out of the mainstream beliefs.
I take it you mean than the LP is now? If Henry Wallace can be taken to be socialist (enough) for this purpose, they were still fairly strong as late as 1948. Their influence
waned with a combination of the red scare and the adoption of many of their policies through the New Deal and Great Society (and the supposedly temporary truce with those policies that Republicans made supposedly in the greater interest of the cold war, since then made permanent).
Socialist ideas saw a revival with the 1960s counterculture, but did not channel themselves into much in the way of sustained alternative political party activity – rather, some small militant
sects, the Democratic Socialists of America and other activism within the Democratic Party, and as you say,
And for libertarianism to succeed as socialism has, libertarians need to do the same (creative arts are also vitally important). As I said, left-oriented libertarianism is much more attractive to academics, journalists and artists – they often find themselves “on the left” primarily due to civil liberties and peace issues, and many (especially the younger ones) are open minded towards a bottom-up perspective on free market economics.
Think of artists, musicians and educators as a lever in reaching far greater numbers of people; after all, communication is what they do.
Interpersonal communication and outreach also happens to be what those people the LP has typically attracted so far do most poorly; not a good formula for party or movement growth.
As for group – no. It’s all individual.
In my experience, many students, professors, artists etc. oppose the military-industrial complex, the socially reactionary agenda of the religious right, and corporate-government collusion. They want a healthy environment, and equal opportunities for people of all racial and economic backgrounds, and for women and sexual minorities to be treated fairly. Many are persuadable that laissez faire economic policies are the best way to achieve goals such as a healthy environment, equal opportunities, etc, and logically and historically intertwined with opposition to big government on social issues and foreign policy/military spending. However, that persuasion largely fails to take place, because we do very little outreach, and also because we present our ideas in a right-leaning fashion when we even bother to present them at all. Thus, all they ever hear as a solution for their economic concerns are big government solutions, and naturally they accept them as part of a package deal with opposition to coercive imposition of patriarchal/traditionalist social mores and military expansionism.
Aside from narrowcasting, I think my point was more that presenting libertarianism in left-friendly ways would naturally draw more of these elements.
Who’s conceding them? We can run off sheer inertia on that front for quite some time, if nothing else.
The problem is that this is essentially the only libertarian-leaning segment we are not conceding, which is basically suicidal (see my previous comment that you are apparently responding to as to why).
Virtually every position they took in the 1920s and 30s is now law, with most of it a solid part of the bipartisan agenda.
I’ll take “failure” like that any day.
a few observations and alternative takes:
* Technically, my view is that hte US is drifting toward corporatist fascism/statism, which has some overlap with socialism, but is different.
* If recall correctly, the Socialist Party ran far more competitively in races in roughly the 1920-40 period than the LP has been. The SP was more mainstream in that sense. They were allied with the labor movement, but labor ultimately switched their alignment to the Ds. Since the 40s, the Socialist parties hve become LESS effective than the LP.
Socialist INTELLECTUALS switched their activities to academe, journalism, and the public sector. The influence of socialism as an ideology shifted away from the Socialist Party and its splinters LONG AGO.
– While attractive to me personally, the notion of narrowcasting to such micro demographics as “artists and musicians” seems prohitibitively expensive, since that subset is TINY. I see NO evidence that “educators” are L leaning or inclined as a group.
– Conceding right-leaners seems highly contra-inidicated. Economic conservatives who are socially liberal is a VERY large percentage of the pop. This is especially true among the more affluent and educated quintiles.
– In short, why would be want to model ourselves and our tactics after the failed Socialists?
It depends on timing, but in general, we need to stress peace and civil liberties issues and bottom-up ways of explaining our economic positions that appeal to people coming from the left, especially young people.
*Left-center-libertarian is THE largest single cluster in the 18-30 age group. 90% of voters never change parties after age 30.
*Every demographic factor which tends to make people more conservative also tends to make them less likely to change parties.
*Continuous right-packaging of our message and right-outreach (mostly passive) means that:
….the low hanging fruit on the right has already been picked.
….we’re making it harder for people from the left/demographically diverse to feel at home.
*Cato survey: African-Americans are more prone to be broad-spectrum libertarian than European-Americans.
*Ron Paul campaign was able to successfully recruit from the left and was much better demographically balanced than LP, despite right-deviation on several social issues.
*Key groups for increasing outreach potential – artists, musicians, educators, etc – have left/libertarian leanings.
@57 I got a similar response a couple days ago when I told a friend to look at lp.org. They came back telling me we look/sound just like Republicans.
We can be right on the issues all day long, but we’ll get nowhere if we don’t successfully reach, persuade and mobilize large numbers of people.
At my first “Candidate Training Seminar” in ’82 run by Michael Emerling (of all people), he said that candidates cannot expect people to just hear about our candidacy and overwhelmingly vote for us. Several candidates expressed surprise at this notion!
This tactic has somewhat worked for just one libertarian candidate, Ron Paul in the last election cycle.
I have never believed that our message was wrong. The only thing we have done wrong is not getting our message out to the voter(s). No amount of “moderating” our message is going to bring victory.
The only tactic that will work is actually getting our message out. Some of us still have a problem with this.
PEACE
I was doing an out reach booth some years ago and an older woman came up to get some literature. We didn’t have much ’cause there ain’t much.
Her partner said, “They’re just littel Republicans”. And they walked away.
We gotta define the difference.
Bob,
No, I don’t know of any ideal “velocity from center” measurement, nor can I identify the “single galvanizing issue” that might work for us.
There probably aren’t any silver bullets, and we do face a more difficult set of barriers than either of the two existing “major” parties did in their day.
And please, please, PLEASE understand that I am NOT positing adoption of a radical ideological orientation as a SUBSTITUTE for doing real political work.
We can be right on the issues all day long, but we’ll get nowhere if we don’t successfully reach, persuade and mobilize large numbers of people.
We can do outreach, persuasion and mobilization work all day long, but we’ll get nowhere if we aren’t offering a distinct alternative to, a real departure from, the Big Two (i.e. small differences aren’t going to be enough to put a dent in the major brands).
Even if we get both parts right, we may fail anyway. But we have to get both parts right to have any chance of long-term persistent success.
@ 51 RP writes: “srl, great ex.s of SINGLE ISSUE groups. It’ s not a compelling case for a political party, one with candidates for office.”
Robert what’s the matter you, huh?
One issue may not make a party to you, but a number of parties have focused on a single issue and seen some degree of success. Whether they leverage that success into something else is another story.
In the back of Milton Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” is a list of the Socialist Party’s program of which most have been inacted into law in some form or another.
Should we try something like that? Maybe, but in recent years we have become vague on almost everything. We’re like putty. Hey! what shape do you want me to be?
Personally I would put some effort on ending our foreign deployment of U.S. troops and explain to the public how this has run up the national debt, debased the currency and added to our international problems, but I’m just a shmuck. Wadda I know?
tk, “away from the center” makes sense on every level I can think of. Can you expand on your thinking here? Is there an optimal rate of speed away from the center with which the LP should position itself to be successful?
And, you cite single issues that galvanized the Rs and Ds respectively WAY back in the day. Assuming a single issue can galvanize success for the LP, which issue would you venture to say would be a good one for us? Or, do you think that a new model can be created that involves multiple issues?
“This is exactly backwards. That mindset has produced success for two political parties.”
I’m not sure which two political parties you’re talking about, but it sure as hell isn’t the Democrats and the Republicans.
Both of those parties became successful by moving AWAY from the center, getting at least somewhat radical (the Democrats on the issue of the national bank, the Republicans on the issue of the extension of slavery into new territories and states).
Those two parties have SINCE substantially sewn up the system to make it harder on new parties (Australian ballot with access restrictions, etc.) … but I’ve seen no evidence that his has produced a situation in which a new party can succeed by positioning itself as moderately reformist.
In my opinion, a radical party has only a very slim chance of a success — and a moderate party has no chance whatsoever.
Not true. If the LP would act like a political party with a succinct defined mission of reducing the size and scope of government, it would quickly realize that it needs to begin at the base. Local elected and appointed offices are the easiest to win
I said the LP needs to win elections to become relevant so it sounds like you actually agree with me. I’m talking about elections on all levels.
And while local politics may be “easier” to get elected, they still are not easy.
Minor parties do not need to win elections to influence policy.
No, they do not. On that I agree. However, simply influencing a few policy decisions here and there isn’t what I consider relevant or successful.
srl, great ex.s of SINGLE ISSUE groups. It’ s not a compelling case for a political party, one with candidates for office.
Minor parties do not need to win elections to influence policy.
Richard is exactly right.
It would also be good to remember that the last anti-tax movement was started by the surprise success of Proposition 13 in CA in ’78 was started and instigated by Libertarians. Conservatives quickly came on board and overwhelmed the Libertarian presence, but the results were stunning, and quickly spread across the country, culminating in the election of Reagan.
The “term limits” movement ten years later was also largely a Libertarian movement (even though there was a large number of libertarians opposed) that quickly spread across the country, and was co-opted by the republicans to regain power in ’94.
And of course Proposition 215 in CA was largely a Libertarian instigated movement that led to Medical Marijuana legalization in several states.
Today, it is the “Tea Parties” that are jolting the republicans out of their complacency. The “Tea Parties” have been started largely by the fine folks over at “R3voLution” (Libertarian and Constitution).
Also today, you will find literally no democrats or republicans involved in any antiwar activity. It is ONLY a few Christians and assorted Greens, Libertarians and Socialists that will eventually give the democrats or republicans the needed cajones to take a stand.
PEACE
tk, I’ d suggest the analogy is off. The LP is a single, maybe double, A. If we want to make the majors, we’d need to play like the majors.
Some in the LP are agorists in denial, more like.
@ 45 Mik writes: “It seems many in the LP would rather be on a street corner holding a sign (or more often electronically communicating with someone who is very close to their own view but must be convinced of the last few details) than work to build coalitions or provide compromise alternatives to proposed legislation.”
True to some extent. I am others whom I know have testified and proposed legislation. We just didn’t get in the news.
There is no reason for us not to build coalitions, but again I’ll stress that national needs to set the example. For every conservative group they have a booth at they should also have one with a liberal group.
There is no harm in testifying at Congressional hearings and talking to members of Congress and that doesn’t mean just those we get along with and then writing about that in the national news letter.
Again set the example.
I just hope someone who gives a rat’s ass reads this stuff.
@46 “That mindset has never produced success for any political party, and it’s never going to start producing success for the LP. It’s the equivalent of asserting that a little league team has a shot at MLB’s National League if only they’ll get serious about their public tobacco chewing and sac-scratching technique.”
This is exactly backwards. That mindset has produced success for two political parties. Unfortunately they have used the laws and money they attracted to wall themselves off to try and keep others from the political process.
To say we shouldn’t emulate some of the techniques that have caused over a hundred million citizens of the United States to support those parties would be foolish. Of course we should develop our own style, and there are techniques that the two parties use that are not worth emulating, and should in fact be criminally prosecuted.
Unless the little league player practices the skills of hitting, throwing, and catching, skills fundamental to the game, it is unlikely he or she will ever play in the major league. In politics the fundamentals are engagement, cooperation, negotiation, and compromise. The trick is to do those things and still advance your goal.
It is when the LP focuses on the tobacco chewing of elimination of government or the sac-scratching of the right of children to engage in pornography, that all hope of influencing the game is lost.
Bob Capozzi:
“I’d still suggest, though, that if we want to be relevant, we’d need to calibrate our issues and positioning in such a way that we appear credible. Otherwise, we’re a sideshow, one that few hear, much less support.”
And Mik Robertson:
“Sometimes what the LP doesn’t do says more about it that what it does. What it doesn’t do is work well with those in power to affect change.”
These two statements reflect the mindset which has substantially controlled the direction of the LP over the last few years.
That mindset has never produced success for any political party, and it’s never going to start producing success for the LP. It’s the equivalent of asserting that a little league team has a shot at MLB’s National League if only they’ll get serious about their public tobacco chewing and sac-scratching technique.
@41 “If any thing the LP was been inconsistent in getting the message out. We’ve been rather wishy-washy on many things and swung from one end to another on others.
Just taking a look at the website and the lack of literature is evidence enough for me. ”
Sometimes what the LP doesn’t do says more about it that what it does. What it doesn’t do is work well with those in power to affect change.
It seems many in the LP would rather be on a street corner holding a sign (or more often electronically communicating with someone who is very close to their own view but must be convinced of the last few details) than work to build coalitions or provide compromise alternatives to proposed legislation.
The LP is not alone with this problem among alternative parties, and of course there are exceptions. The problem is that the general message most people get from the alternative parties is “If you don’t agree with us, we want nothing to do with you”.
While we don’t need to necessarily win election to influence policy through the electoral process, at least alternative party candidates have to be credible enough to be spoilers. That doesn’t happen very often, and the more radical a party is perceived to be , the less likely it will be to happen.
Read about the LP’s great BS artist:
http://tinyurl.com/ntgkq7
rw, yes, agreed. That strategy seems more likely on a single-issue focused party like the Prohibitionists.
Ls don’t really have a single issue — we’re for liberty in all its manifestations.
It does seem to me that we shouldn’t kid ourselves that becoming a majority party will be easy, or even plausible. I’d still suggest, though, that if we want to be relevant, we’d need to calibrate our issues and positioning in such a way that we appear credible. Otherwise, we’re a sideshow, one that few hear, much less support.
Minor parties do not need to win elections to influence policy. The Prohibition amendment languished in Congress in every session 1875 through 1917. Then, even though it had never made any headway at all, in 1917 it passed. Why? Because Republicans supported it. The two-thirds was then obtained because southern Democrats also supported it. Why did the Republicans support it? Because the Republican Party had just lost the second presidential election because of the Prohibition Party spoiler. Both in 1884 and 1916 the Prohibition Party ran an ex-Republican governor for president. It was consensus that people who voted for the Prohibition Party in New York and California were people who otherwise would have voted Republican. The Prohibition vote tipped New York in 1884 and California in 1916, and those states changed the national outcome.
@ 13 Mik writes: “The LP put forth its radical, bold message for over over thirty years …”.
May I respectfully disagree.
If any thing the LP was been inconsistent in getting the message out. We’ve been rather wishy-washy on many things and swung from one end to another on others.
Just taking a look at the website and the lack of literature is evidence enough for me.
The foreign policy category under issues on the website is old and out of date and only deals with a small part of foreign policy. Just one example.
With thirty years behind us we have just a few brochures to hand out and nothing new, or on issues such as healthcare, history of inflation, the national debt, overseas military deployment, licensing laws, education, housing, higher education, or urban transportation.
We should not expect LP Stuff to do our work. That work is up to us to do and ways of accomplishing these things have been suggested over the years and ignored.
The relevance of the LP is proven by the extremes to which the Beltway parties go to stymie or damage us.
Jeff Daiell
http://www.JeffDaiell.com
rw: Income tax rates are lower now than in 1972.
me: Not quite. The highest marginal income tax rate is lower, yes. Government’s much bigger now, so the tax rate is higher, as I see it.
John @ 23:
Jim Babka was the LPOH chair before he moved to DC to take over the DownsizeDC office.
While he was here, we butted heads frequently. No doubt if he hears my name today, he will respond with either a snarl or a sneer.
His method of running the LPOH was very spiteful. He was far more interested in building his faction of the party, his “machine”. Indeed, he is probably as responsible as anyone for causing me to swear off any involvement in state and national politics.
But I also believe in giving credit where it is due. IMHO, DownsizeDC has done a pretty fair job in either advancing liberty or slowing the advance of statism. In his own way, Babka is very effective.
Will I ever give his organization money? Not on your life. Babka is far too vindictive for me to reward him that way.
He now has his little fiefdom that he can control. But let’s remember that even little fiefdoms can be effective in advancing liberty.
PEACE
Tab wrote,
“To win elections you need to compromise “.
Not true. If the LP would act like a political party with a succinct defined mission of reducing the size and scope of government, it would quickly realize that it needs to begin at the base. Local elected and appointed offices are the easiest to win. Some go begging for applicants. Most only require a few signatures for ballot access. National or international political philosophy play no part in the election.
tab: I don’t mean you give up on everything you stand for, but picking and choosing which issues to compromise.
me: Nolan, if I recall correctly, claims something to the effect that an L “must” call for a 50% cut in spending if he or she is a “real” L. I’d like to know how he arrives at that number. Why not 55%, or 45%? Is 50% itself not a “compromise”….why not 99% or 100%?
It’s a “compromise” to a specific construct, a specific idea about the “ideal” state of affairs. Having a specific construct is a set-up for failure.
The more fluid, serviceable approach is the “maximize liberty/minimize coercion” one. It does not involve “compromise,” but rather it recognizes opportunities and challenges, and allows an advocate to make realistic assessments of what is possible in the near term. It’s politics vs. abstract theory.
DRL: Have you confused Sinclair Lewis with Upton Sinclair?
Btw, ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is a stellar work of fiction, and Richard hit it right on the head about Huey Long. FDR changed dramatically because of Long – just ask Jack Garner.
Been one of those daze:
In the 1920s [Upton] Sinclair [The Jungle] moved to Monrovia [California] where he founded the state’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He moved to Southern California with an interest in politics, running unsuccessfully for Congress twice on the Socialist ticket – in 1920, for the House of Representatives, and in 1922, for the Senate. After a brief retirement from politics, Sinclair ran in the 1934 California gubernatorial election as a Democrat.
Peter, no problem. Just concerned that my word choice was not clear. Preemptive defensiveness 🙂
More Sinclare Lewis, he also ran for California governor in the 1930s …….
Also, at this point it might be more important than ever to compromise with those who favor some degree of smaller government (maybe not the libertarian idea) to swing the pendulum back in the other direction. Right now, winning elections is the only thing that is going to accomplish this. Although, it is probably too late anyways.
I don’t think the Socialist Party influenced the New Deal so much as the Progressive Movement, which had some base in the Socialists. So the socialists were only a contributory force, among others.
I only wish the party WERE relevant! In a practical sense it has never been relevant.
Agreed. The LP hasn’t been actually relevant in politics since it was founded. So I think it would be hard to maintain that relevance.
Somewhere along the way, our commitment to being The Party of Principle was replaced by a shallow, opportunistic goal of “winning elections now” — any election, anywhere.
It has? That goal hasn’t even come close to being accomplished so I don’t see how the party sacrificed anything to win elections.
The fact is, you need to win elections to become relevant. To win elections you need to compromise (if you want to call it sacrificing your principles whatever) to win elections. It is all nice and good to keep the same core group of members and debate each other, but winning elections is what politics is about. I don’t mean you give up on everything you stand for, but picking and choosing which issues to compromise. Politics isn’t all or nothing. Especially when more than 99% of the country aren’t registered libertarians.
Peter,
You write:
“Just out of curiosity, how come Nolan (who I respect immensely) is referred to as THE founder of the LP? There were seven people at that first meeting, if I recall. Is it just because it was at his house?”
Actually, I believe it was an apartment.
I’d say the best justification for calling him “the” founder is that that meeting occurred when people responded to his article calling for formation of a libertarian political party.
Peter, where do you see a reference to Nolan as *the* founder? I considered that when writing the header; always want to keep them short and thought that adding ‘a’ or ‘one of the’ was superfluous…
Steven R Linnabary wrote,
“There is no way of knowing if the LP has not had an effect.”
Then your support of the LP is emotional and not based on reason.
“… groups such as …. DownsizeDC have had a profound effect.”
Measured how? Raising money from the gullible?
DownsizeDC is a fund raising scam run by Willis and Babka. If you have given them any money you have been duped.
A well written letter.
@ 19 “Some aspects of liberty are much better now than they were in 1972, especially liberty concerning sex, pornography, reproductive choice, freedom for gay people. Also gambling laws are much freer, and to some extent marijuana laws are less restrictive. Women are freer to enter certain occupations than they were in 1972, and also to wear pants (the first woman to argue in front of the US Supreme Court without wearing a skirt did so in late 1973, although she was warned against it).”
This is true, but how big of a role did the LP, as an organization, (or any other minor political party) play in any of those changes?
Most of the changes in the sex and pornography laws came about because of other things, like the farce of a trial of Lenny Bruce or the actions of Larry Flynt. Even much of the changes to ballot access came from the efforts of individual candidates, not the least of which was the Barr campaign last year.
Occasionally a minor party will make some changes as a result of a legal challenge through the courts, and hopefully we can do that in the near future in Pennsylvania. Only now are we really getting some traction working through the political and legislative processes.
We have some legislation on ballot access written by minor parties in the legislature in Pennsylvania, and West Virginia recently had some success with Matt Harris and Bill Redpath contributing to some ballot access reform there. If we had elected office holders, it would be much easier to work through this process.
In the mean time, our liberty and free markets have lost a lot of ground on other fronts. Governments can now take your property and give it to someone else, some large businesses are subsidized while others are regulated out of existence, health care choices are becoming more scarce, overall drug laws have gotten worse, etc.
If in 35 years we gain 10% fewer signatures to get candidates on the ballot nationally, but government is still more intrusive and more powerful, can we really afford another 35 years of the same approach?
pc: Can you say the Socialists of 100 years ago failed?
me: Yes, handily electorally. Ideologically, yes, too. I’d say corporatist fascists seem to have the upper hand for the past 100 years or so.
pc: To answer that I would have to know, effectiveness at what? Are we making our views more popular? Gathering and organizing those who agree with us? How else does an unorganized and unpopular ideology win? And if our brand name wins without our ideology, what have we won?
me: My example simply shows that — in theory — we should be less concerned about message and more concerned with results. There is nothing “wrong” with electoral “failure” and there is nothing “wrong” with the idea of taking a long-term view about affecting the ideological climate. If, however, there are no results, I would ask the question: why bother?
By my estimation, the LP is useful, and potentially greatly useful, in maximizing liberty and minimizing coercion. So was the Paul for prez campaign.
Using metrics to track progress seems wise to me. In my far-fetched example, I’d say that would be a walk-off grand slam to win the World Series. Some Ls might reserve that description for the end of all monopolistic government. Some Ls might reserve that description for a more NAMBLA-friendly legal environment.
In my case, my eyes are on prize #1. Perhaps your is on prize #2. Prize #3 I do not support for a host of reasons. All 3 prizes may be “principled,” but not all principles are created equal, and some principles stand a WAY better chance of being realized than others.
Some aspects of liberty are much better now than they were in 1972, especially liberty concerning sex, pornography, reproductive choice, freedom for gay people. Also gambling laws are much freer, and to some extent marijuana laws are less restrictive. Women are freer to enter certain occupations than they were in 1972, and also to wear pants (the first woman to argue in front of the US Supreme Court without wearing a skirt did so in late 1973, although she was warned against it).
Certain kinds of political activism enjoy more freedom than in 1972. Ballot access is better than it was in 1972. In 1972 a minor party or independent presidential candidate needed 686,968 signatures nationwide, but in 2004 it was down to 634,727. The Libertarian Party has had a lot on impact on that.
Individuals may own gold now, and they couldn’t in 1972. Income tax rates are lower now than in 1972.
@ 11 “3. Both (with some acceptions) tend to have an appalling lack of reverence for religious institutions.”
I think there are some exceptions, but generally I think this observation is correct.
@17 “There is no way of knowing if the LP has not had an effect. It is quite possible that the LP, along with groups such as CATO and DownsizeDC have had a profound effect.”
Some small effect may have occurred. What we do know is that liberty continued to be eroded in that timeframe, so the effects of all efforts combined are not reversing the trend.
While slowing the drift to the waterfall is a good thing, unless we do something different we will go over the waterfall.
The LP put forth its radical, bold message for over over thirty years with virtually no effect on the political process or the erosion of liberty…
There is no way of knowing if the LP has not had an effect. It is quite possible that the LP, along with groups such as CATO and DownsizeDC have had a profound effect.
Further, the first LP campaign netted about 200 votes, nationwide. My FIRST campaign netted ten times that number in my hometown. That’s progress. Maybe not winning, but progress still.
PEACE
Franklin Roosevelt put in the New Deal 1933-1935, not so much because he was afraid of the Socialist Party, but because he was afraid of Louisiana Governor and then U.S. Senator Huey Long (“Every man a king”) who was gearing up to run for president in 1936, except he was shot in 1935. The Huey Long threat was so real that it caused Sinclair Lewis to write, “It Can’t Happen Here.”
The irony here is that when Dave Nolan was starting The Libertarian Party, many people warned him about problems that may develop, including people who want to win so badly they jettison the principles.
I am not saying it was wrong to start the party, but little thought was given to making a principled party sustainable in the long run, or providing an exit strategy if the party itself became unsustainable.
That’s a nice fantasy. But we are not anywhere near the stage where anything like that is plausible. And suppose we did reach a stage where the LP was viably running some celebrity and/or billionaire who utters nothing but inane slogans and has no track record in office, or one as a non-libertarian politician. How do we know what they will actually do in office?
To answer that I would have to know, effectiveness at what? Are we making our views more popular? Gathering and organizing those who agree with us? How else does an unorganized and unpopular ideology win? And if our brand name wins without our ideology, what have we won?
You can likewise say that the LP has failed.
Can you say the Socialists of 100 years ago failed?
I think it is pertinent that the most important principle is identified as self-ownership, not non-aggression or non-initiation of force.
I certainly agree we need to keep our eyes on our overall goal; increasing liberty. I think, however, that Mr. Nolan is mis-characterizing what many people are advocating for the LP to do.
Despite what that unfortunate Monday Message said, I don’t believe I have ever heard any LP members seriously propose the Party abandon its principles. If we want to advance our mission to increase liberty, a good way for a political party to do that is to contest and win elections.
That doesn’t mean the public education component of our mission is thrown out the window. In fact, campaigns for elected office are often a very good way to reach a lot of people who otherwise would not be reached. Clearly having libertarian people in decision-making elected offices would help our mission.
Taking reasonable policy positions that both increase liberty and the likelihood of short-term implementation, or of winning an election, is not the same as abandoning principles.
The LP put forth its radical, bold message for over over thirty years with virtually no effect on the political process or the erosion of liberty. It should be noted also that the Ron Paul C4L is not a political party, and that the Ron Paul Revolution is named after an individual.
It is one thing to call for the elimination of the income tax. It is another to comprehensively address the scope and authority of government. We cannot be a one-issue political party and accomplish our mission.
It is a little disheartening to once again hear someone so intimately involved with the LP invite those who would like to take an other-than-completely-radical approach to leave the Party.
Just to clarify, Dave Nolan does not oppose winning. He just says that “winning elections is not a principle, and if it is, it is not our principle.”
As for Ron Paul failing, he did receive nearly 1.2 million votes, at least a quarter million more than the highest LP vote-getter running for President.
Paulie:the effect of the Socialist Party vote convincing Democrats to push socialism is much overstated. The Socialists were not just for big governement; they also opposed wars, militarism and conscription.
FDR expanded government because that is what politicians do. He did not do it because Norman Thomas won 900,000 votes in 1932. Nor did FDR listen to the Socialist Party when he pushed Congress to authorize conscription, which the socialists opposed.
Of course, Libertarians are for less government, so off the bat it is counter-intuitive to expect politicians to be influenced by us.
Libertarians and socialists have a lot in common.
1. Both are convinced that nothing in the mainstream is worth anything because the entire mainstream is contributing to the downfall of the country, and 99% of the population is stupid for following the mainstream.
2. Because 99% of the population is stupid, they can bicker all they want, because what’s the difference if actually 99.9% of the population is stupid? The US Libertarians are lucky that they can stay one party most of the time, while the socialists have hundreds of parties on the United States, only about 5 of which run candidates and are covered by this website.
3. Both (with some acceptions) tend to have an appalling lack of reverence for religious institutions.
David Nolan seems like a good guy.
So-called bickering is always a organizational hinderance. Even so some internal discipline for misdeeds is necessary in any organization that hopes to be worthy of public support. If staff and officers of a political party take actions that they shouldn’t would I respect that party if nothing was done to note that?
Even so there is a law of diminishing returns but where that point lies is hard to determine from the Arizona.
I am sure that I will learn more from IPR and the Knappster.
pc, OK, let’s break it down. Let’s say there was an L prez candidate who didn’t advocate “liberty,” but who uttered things like Yes, We Can and Change. He or she won. He or she then proceeded to cut spending and taxes, bring troops home from Europe, ended the DEA and DOMA and DADT.
Me? Given the choice between “advocacy” and “effectiveness,” I choose effectiveness every time. You?
Advocacy ain’t necessarily such a great thing. When an LP congressional candidate advocated the right to private nukes, I’d suggest that such advocacy was counter productve on every level I can think of. Advocacy MIGHT be a means to an end, depending on HOW and WHAT one advocates, yes?
The Paul campaign failed because he was not nominated. Whether the Campaign for Liberty becomes effective, time will tell.
Politics is not religion. In (some) religions, it’s all about publicly expressing devotion to God or Christ, and the pay-off is eternal life in Heaven, or some such. In politics, expressing devotion to liberty may or may not pay off. Thus far, the experiment has failed. I do, however, remain cautiously optimistic.
Well, since Caprozzi isn’t lucid, nor has he taken Trosper’s advice, let me expand on paulie’s reply to #3:
The goal of the LP is to move public policy in a libertarian direction, right? Well, you do that by advocacy and winning elections.
The Nolan advocates both.
Instead we get more shenanigans by the idiots in charge that we have to fight off instead of actually doing something productive.
The relevance is not always readily apparent. See Socialist Party 100 years ago.
“Either we stand up boldly for liberty, or we lose all relevance.”
I only wish the party WERE relevant! In a practical sense it has never been relevant.
3….I think that is a misinterpretation. Nolan is saying that winning is not paramount over advocating liberty. In other words, if we win, what have we won?
4. Failed, compared to what?
The opening sentiments align well with the RKC.
The rest seems to suffer from a leap of logic:
1 Nation’s in trouble
2 Nation needs to move in L direction
3 Why do some in LP want to actually *win* elections?
4 We need to be “bold” like the failed Paul campaign.
Can someone connect these dots lucidly?
I love that man.
Well said!