From the LP Colorado’s website:
History of the Libertarian Party
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States. Millions of Americans have voted for Libertarian Party candidates in past elections throughout the country, despite the fact that many state governments place every imaginable roadblock in our path in order to keep our candidates off the ballot and deprive voters of a real choice.
Libertarians believe the answer to America’s political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America’s founders.
What began with a small group of activists in Colorado has become America’s third largest political party. We are proud of our heritage and the progress we have made since 1971. And the best is yet to come!
Historical Overview
- The Libertarian Party is founded December 11th, in the home of David Nolan in Colorado. Disillusioned Republicans, Democrats and political newcomers hope to create an alternative to the old parties.
- First national convention held in June in Denver, Colorado. John Hospers, a philosophy professor at the University of Southern California, is nominated as presidential candidate. LP vice presidential candidate Tonie Nathan becomes the first woman in U.S. history to receive an electoral vote.
- National convention in New York City. Roger MacBride is nominated as the LP’s presidential candidate, David Bergland as his running mate.
- MacBride achieves ballot status in 32 states, and receives over 170,000 votes.
- Ed Clark receives 5% of the vote in his race for Governor of California.
Dick Randolph of Alaska becomes the first elected Libertarian state legislator. - Presidential nominating convention held in Los Angeles. Ed Clark and David Koch named as presidential and vice presidential candidates.
Permanent ballot status achieved in California as more than 80,000 voters register Libertarian. - Ed Clark appears on the ballot in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, and receives almost one million votes. His campaign runs extensive national television ads and offers many Americans their first look at what the LP has to offer. Many in the media recognize the LP for the first time as a serious political force.
Dick Randolph is re-elected to Alaska state legislature. Ken Fanning, also running as a Libertarian, is elected to Alaska legislature. - Louisiana congressional candidate James Agnew receives 23% of the vote. Alaska gubernatorial candidate Dick Randolph receives 15% of the vote. Arizona gubernatorial candidate Sam Steiger receives 5% of the vote.
- David Bergland is nominated in New York City as the LP’s presidential candidate. Jim Lewis is his running mate.
- On the ballot in 39 states, David Bergland and Jim Lewis come in third in the race for President for the first time in the LP’s history. Bergland publishes Libertarianism in One Lesson, a campaign book that eventually sells over 75,000 copies, and is still used by the LP today as an introductory text.
Andre Marrou becomes the third Libertarian elected to the Alaska legislature.
Libertarians are elected to 11 more local offices around the country. - More than 200 candidates across the United States receive 2.9 million votes. Ray Cullen, candidate for Treasurer in California, gets 570,000 votes, largest vote total ever for a third party candidate in California.
- Doug Anderson is elected Elections Commissioner in Denver. Libertarians are elected to every seat on the city council in Big Water, Utah.
Former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul resigns from the Republican Party and joins the LP.
Seattle convention nominates Ron Paul for President and Andre Marrou for Vice President. - Ron Paul, on the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia, comes in third, receiving more than 430,000 votes nationwide — almost twice the total of any other “third” party.
- Approximately two million people vote for LP candidates.
Election Day is “Double Digit Day,” as numerous LP candidates for U.S. Congress and state house draw percentage numbers in teens, twenties, and thirties.
New Mexico state legislature candidate Illa Mae Bolton gets 31% of the vote. California congressional candidate Joe Shea receives 27% of the vote.
A 5% vote for New Hampshire gubernatorial candidate Miriam Luce qualifies LP of New Hampshire as an official party with ballot status.
More than 440,000 Texans vote for Court of Criminal Appeals candidate Carol Caul.
More Libertarian candidates win election in local races — city council, school board, etc. - New Hampshire state legislators Calvin Warburton and Finlay Rothhaus resign from the Republican Party and join the LP.
Chicago nominating convention names Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord as presidential/vice presidential ticket. - In New Hampshire’s presidential primary election Andre Marrou beats incumbent President George Bush 11 votes to 9 in Dixville Notch, the town whose voters always vote first in the nation.
In the general election, four Libertarian state legislators are elected in New Hampshire, with Don Gorman and Andy Borsa joining Warburton and Rothhaus who were re-elected.
Once again the LP’s presidential ticket is on the ballot in all 50 states, D.C., and Guam, the only party other than the Democrats and Republicans to achieve this goal.
The more than 700 LP candidates nationwide receive more than 3,700,000 votes for state and federal offices alone. The 23 Libertarian candidates for U.S. Senate receive over 1,000,000 votes, the highest total for a nationally organized third party since 1914.
The LP retains ballot status in 16 states following the 1992 election, two more than it had after the 1988 election. - National Director Stuart Reges testifies before Congress, endorsing legislation to make it easier for third party candidates to participate in presidential debates.
In “off-year” elections, 15 Libertarians win public office, scoring victories in local and county races across the country from Alabama to New York, from Pennsylvania to Minnesota.
Miriam Luce is appointed to the New Hampshire State Liquor Commission, Bonnie Flickinger wins election as Mayor of Moreno Valley, California, and Dr. Jimmy Blake wins a seat on the City Council in Birmingham, Alabama. - In New Hampshire, Jim McClarin becomes the most recent Libertarian elected to a state legislative slot; incumbent Don Gorman is re-elected. Elsewhere, Libertarians are elected to city council positions and local boards. Montana Libertarian candidate receives more than 30% for a statewide office.
Libertarians win ballot status for 1996 in Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wyoming. Coming out of this election, the LP is now automatically qualified to nominate a presidential candidate in 23 states, the most ever. - Membership and voter registrations soar to record levels. The LP moves its national headquarters into the prestigious Watergate Office Building, which the Wall Street Journal dubs “a sign of the times” of the party’s growing stature.
In November, three more Libertarians are elected to city councils: Bruce Van Buren (Avondale Estates, Georgia), Dewayne Methaney (Auburn, Georgia), and Doug Carlsten (Brighton, Colorado.) - The Libertarian Party becomes the first third party in American history to earn ballot status in all 50 states two presidential elections in a row. At the nominating convention in Washington, DC, best-selling author Harry Browne gets the party’s nomination. He goes on to win 485,759 votes in the general election, the second-best showing in party history.
The party runs almost 800 candidates for office, and 10 of them break the 100,000-vote barrier. LP candidates for statewide and federal office alone win 5.4 million votes, and seven Libertarians are elected or re-elected to office. - Another record-setting “off-year” election for the Libertarian Party, with 39 Libertarians elected to office in November — including four city council winners: Fred Collins (Berkley, Michigan); Ron Wittig (New Meadows, Idaho); Bob DeBrosse (Piqua, Ohio); and John Gearhart (Palous, Washington). In all, 64 party members join the ranks of Libertarian office-holders during the course of the year.
- African-American civil rights leader Roy Innis and talk radio powerhouse Art Bell join the party. In California, Art Olivier becomes mayor of Bellflower, while in Georgia, Dewayne Metheny is elevated to acting mayor of Auburn.
In November, the party sets a new record by running 853 candidates in 44 states. Neil Randall wins election as a State Rep. in Vermont, while Zenneth Caudill and Mary Dufour win partisan office as Jefferson Township Trustees in Indiana. In all, 19 LP candidates are elected. - The party breaks new ground in political activism with its Internet-based campaign against the FDIC’s “Know Your Customer” bank spying regulation. After being flooded by 250,000 complaints, the FDIC withdraws the plan.
Party founder David Nolan is named one of the “2,000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century” by the International Biographical Centre in England. Fourteen Libertarians are elected to office in local Spring elections, and more than 200 Libertarian candidates are on the ballot in state and local elections in November. - A “Boycott Nosy Census Questions” campaign during the spring generates national newspaper, radio, and TV publicity for the party.
The number of registered Libertarian voters passes 224,000, a 10% increase in less than a year. Folksinger Melanie joins the party. A Rasmussen Research poll reveals that 16% of Americans are ideologically libertarian.
During the year, Libertarians win two Supreme Court cases: Striking down California’s “blanket primary” and ending Indiana’s random drug-search roadblocks.
The Anaheim, California convention nominates Harry Browne for president and former Bellflower, CA mayor Art Olivier for VP. They head a ticket of 1,436 LP candidates, including 256 candidates for U.S. House — the first time in 80 years a third party has contested a majority of Congressional seats.
In one of the closest elections in American history, the LP presidential ticket gets 382,892 votes. However, 34 Libertarians are elected to office, Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate Carla Howell wins a record 11.9% of the vote, and the LP’s candidates for U.S. House win 1.6 million votes — a new record for any third party. - It was the most successful year ever for Libertarians as they elected 96 people to public office. The number of Libertarians in elective office increased to 301, a jump of 45% in a single year; and the total number of Libertarians in public office rose to 522.
Newspapers and political websites published a whopping 141 Libertarian opinion pieces during the year — an increase of 200% over the previous year’s 46 publications.
On December 11 the Libertarian Party celebrated its 30th anniversary. The Party has grown from a handful of people meeting in David Nolan’s living room to hundreds of elected officials, thousands of candidates, tens of thousands of contributors, hundreds of thousands of registered voters — millions of Libertarian voters. - The Libertarian Party ran more than 1,642 candidates – the largest slate of candidates ever for the Libertarian Party and the largest for any third party since World War II. That’s almost twice as many as the 845 candidates the Party ran in 1998.
US House candidates polled over 1 million votes for the second time in two election cycles making the Libertarian Party the only other party in history to do so other than Democrats and Republicans.
The “Incumbent Killer” strategy was used to control elections the LP could not yet win. It led to the defeat of Republican Congressman Bob Barr and Democratic Senator Max Cleland. It was also credited with controlling the outcome of the governor’s races in Alabama, Wisconsin, and Oregon, and the US Senate race in South Dakota.
Massachusetts Libertarians gathered 101,000 signatures to put a measure eliminating the state income tax on the ballot. On Election Day voters sent shock waves through the media-political establishment when, even with heavy opposition from Democrats and Republicans, 45 percent of the electorate supported it. - The Libertarian Party clawed its way out of a $400,000 debt helped along by the recession and the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks and into financial solvency.
Even though it was an off-year election, the LP racked up 46 victories — over half of them coming in higher level offices such as city and county council, increasing the upward march of Libertarian office-holders. In Michigan, Libertarians were re-elected to city council seats and in 5 states Republican and Democrat incumbents were booted from theirs. As 2003 drew to a close, over 600 Libertarians were serving in public office nationwide.
The LP also saved taxpayers more than $2.1 billion in a single day, defeating: a $1.3 billion sales tax hike in Florida, a proposal to finance a light-rail system and other transportation boondoggles in Arizona, a grocery tax in Colorado, and a property tax hike in Santa Clara County, California. - The Libertarian Party nominates Constitutional Expert, Michael Badnarik to run as the Presidential candidate. Michael Badnarik and David Cobb (Green Party Presidential candidate) are arrested for breaking through a police line barricade in St. Louis attempting to enter the Presidential Debates event at Washington University. The candidates peacefully surrendered, protesting the exclusion of their opposing viewpoints and questioning the legality of the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).
- The Libertarian Party removes the membership fee for “officially” joining the party.
Source here.
At least he won’t call it libertarian, LOL.
Don’t worry. I’m sure those issues will be covered in Riley Hood’s next column.
I think we mostly agree. As did Rothbard in terms of the long term goal being separation of school and state. It’s the short term where we try to mitigate the problems of the still existing state where things get thorny. I don’t think it is possible to make an institution predicated on aggression truly free of aggression. I’d say government schools preaching religion is more egregious than government schools serving meat, but perhaps serving meat does subject vegetarian kids to conformist pressure. As for teaching evolution constituting taking sides in a religious dispute, that’s only slightly more true than teaching that pi is not exactly 3 is taking sides in a religious dispute. Apparently some people have interpreted the Bible as teaching that pi is exactly 3, and some state legislatures have passed declarations to that effect, etc.
But let’s look on the bright side: at least there weren’t any paleoconservatarian defenses put forth of the (some people claim) biblical doctrine of fathers deflowering their daughters at puberty. Or of the Old Testament idea that a man’s brother inherits his multiple child-wives and his slaves along with the rest of his property upon his death. At least, none that I remember reading, although admittedly I’ve only skimmed the surface of, say, Gary North’s voluminous writings.
It depends on whether they stem from state force. Social stigma that is intentionally created by government action (teacher led prayers showing state favor for one religion over others and over non-religion) is aggression and a vioation of libertarian principle, much in the same way as teacher led condemnation of a racial or ethnic minority group, or teacher-led homophobia, etc., in government schools.
I think that it is debatable whether these things would constitute aggression (although they would certainly constitute poor educational practices). It would depend on whether they were severe enough to create an environment that impaired the student’s ability to learn and/or threatened their safety. Those are questions that generally would have to be determined by a court on a case-by-case basis, much like the question of whether, for example, sexual harassment in the workplace would constitute aggression. Such a determination is almost impossible to make in the abstract, as it really depends on the specifics.
I agree, but I don’t think that evolution and prayer are fully analogous. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by evidence and reproducible results. Religion is by definition based on faith (belief regardless of evidence) and can not be proven or disproven with evidence. You either believe or not; evidence is irrelevant.
I don’t think the distinction is that clear cut. I think that most people who believe in evolution do so not because they have conducted a rigorous scientific investigation of the evidence, but rather because someone that they trust and respect has told them that it’s true, which is also the same reason most people hold their particular religious beliefs. Also, even if I grant your distinction, I don’t think it matters, since it is still a case of the government taking sides in a religious dispute. That’s certainly the way opponents of evolution see it.
It probably is, but given its nature, religion is probably a bigger button. At least that’s why I think school prayer, and not school lunch meat, has been a divisive public issue, and not just with libertarians.
Yes, but does a school serving meat violate libertarian principles? Does it constitute aggression?
We can disagree about whether they would violate libertarian principle, but I’m sure you would agree that many of the non-libertarian proponents of teacher led prayer in government schools would find such things to violate their principles, as would most likely some self styled libertarian proponents of it.
Oh, there’s no question that many advocates of teacher-led prayer are hypocrites, but that doesn’t mean that what they are calling for is aggression, just that it’s shortsighted and foolish. As for libertarian proponents of teacher-led prayer, I doubt there are actually many of them, as most libertarians understand that giving the state more power tends to backfire in the long-run. In fact, I doubt that Rothbard (a committed anarchist) sincerely desired to see such a thing. As you said earlier, it’s more likely that he was just trying to find common ground with the paleoconservatives he was courting at the time.
It depends on whether they stem from state force. Social stigma that is intentionally created by government action (teacher led prayers showing state favor for one religion over others and over non-religion) is aggression and a vioation of libertarian principle, much in the same way as teacher led condemnation of a racial or ethnic minority group, or teacher-led homophobia, etc., in government schools.
I agree, but I don’t think that evolution and prayer are fully analogous. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by evidence and reproducible results. Religion is by definition based on faith (belief regardless of evidence) and can not be proven or disproven with evidence. You either believe or not; evidence is irrelevant.
It probably is, but given its nature, religion is probably a bigger button. At least that’s why I think school prayer, and not school lunch meat, has been a divisive public issue, and not just with libertarians.
We can disagree about whether they would violate libertarian principle, but I’m sure you would agree that many of the non-libertarian proponents of teacher led prayer in government schools would find such things to violate their principles, as would most likely some self styled libertarian proponents of it.
No need to read his mind; read his writings that are on the record. He was on point in 1965 when he wrote http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty as was Rockwell with http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html in 2004 and Raimondo with http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2002/06/05/go-left-young-man/ in 2002 and especially Roderick Long in 2006 with http://mises.org/daily/2099 “Rothbard’s Left and Right: Forty Years Later”. In the meantime we had the paleo-reich-populist abomination which eventually spawned the Achilles Heel of Ron Paul’s later presidential runs. And long before that we had Rothbard supporting Strom Thurmond. But hey, give the man credit where he is due; he also wrote the best ever parody of Randroidism – http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html “Mozart was a Red”.
Teacher led prayer creates pressure to participate and social stigma for opting out, even if opting out is allowed.
“Social stigma” is not the same thing as aggression. Boycotts and ostracism also use pressure and stigmatizing tactics to influence behavior. Do those things violate libertarian principles?
The whole point of it is to be at the very least coercive if not purely compulosry and let the kids know in no uncertain terms that a certain religion has the official stamp of approval of government….and thus that other religions or lack of religion do not.
People could make (and actually have made) this exact same argument against teaching evolution, and thus giving that particular “theory” the government stamp of approval. In fact, these sorts of disputes are inevitable as long as we have “one size fits all” government schools. And it’s not limited to religion, either. For example, vegans could complain that serving meat in the cafeteria is “coercive”, even if individual students can choose not to eat it. After all, getting in a separate line (or bringing their own lunch) could be seen as stigmatizing. So are these things (teaching evolution or serving meat) violations of libertarian principles?
Yes, it wastes time, but it also does violate libertarian principles. Mixing government and religion to any degree is never a good idea. What if a teacher led the class Islamic or Satanic prayers or in an atheist affirmation of nonbelief?
Those things would also not violate libertarian principles (assuming, of course, that students could opt out). Of course, I wouldn’t support them for the same reason that I gave above, which is that they serve no educational purpose. But strictly speaking, they do not violate libertarian principles, except to the extent that public school inevitably violates such principles.
PF, yes, sounds like we agree. As for reading Rothbard’s mind, I pass. He did show signs of histrionic personality disorder. I met him and saw him speak, and he was amusing, but over the years he had a tendency to build alliances, then renounce his allies later.
Perhaps his close ass’n with Rockwell and the financial rewards may have blinded MNR to just off course he’d gotten with the “reich wingers.”
So I guess we agree and Rothbard disagreed, probably only in a misguided attempt to create an alliance with reich wing populist fascists.
pf, there are many, many forms of meditation, and I’d say prayer is one of them. Prayer is a form of group meditation, although some recite them without connecting to the concepts behind the words.
I’d say government-school prayers is pretty not cool. Some may benefit from it, but it is certainly not a best practice, in my estimation, because it’s inappropriate.
I don’t think prayer is a waste of time. Schools leading classes in prayer is.
I also don’t equate prayer and meditation.
A moment of silence is not necessarily a waste of class time.
Teacher led incantations to some religion’s deity in government schools are not only an abominable and discriminatory mixing of religion and state but most absolutely a waste of time.
pf: Yes, it (prayer) wastes time….
me: It may not be something YOU find valuable, but those who prayer/meditate often find it the BEST use of their time. Getting one’s conscience straight seems like a good idea for most, though not all.
Without a clear conscience, one has conflict, which seems like a poor basis for thought.
BTW — I find it useful to pause the video after each of Larry’s questions, try to articulate my own answer, and then listen to Andre’s response.
Michael,
Thanks for the thanks.
IMO, the pinnacle of Libertarian Earned Media was Andre on Larry King Live.
Have we managed anything better than this since then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMhWHxF_ko
Joe thanks for bringing up the piece on Marrou. His comments about the military are ones that Libertarians should be hammering on. Years ago when I lived in Boston I came up with this screwy idea that we were subsidizing our global competitors at the expense of American workers. I must have been mistaken because no American candidates or damn few of them have ever made that connection.
Nick thanks for mentioning William Lloyd Garrison. He has always been one of my favorites. Those words need to be posted where we can read them daily as a reminder.
Teacher led prayer creates pressure to participate and social stigma for opting out, even if opting out is allowed.
The whole point of it is to be at the very least coercive if not purely compulosry and let the kids know in no uncertain terms that a certain religion has the official stamp of approval of government….and thus that other religions or lack of religion do not.
Yes, it wastes time, but it also does violate libertarian principles. Mixing government and religion to any degree is never a good idea. What if a teacher led the class Islamic or Satanic prayers or in an atheist affirmation of nonbelief? I’m sure the suporters of Christian school prayer woudn’t like that, for the same reason non-Christian kids and parents don’t like teachers pushing Christian prayers in government schools. Some Christian, such as those who have read Matthew 6:5-6, don’t like it either.
Correct. Spontaneous prayer is not something government could stop even if it wanted to.
+1
I was in school, too, and there was no sign or mention of a student opt-out.
Actually, I remember those days quite well, as I was in school at the time. There were many people who advocated teacher-led prayer, but virtually no one opposed the right of individual students to opt out of it.
While it is true that such a system would not be “spontaneous”, neither would it be “compulsory” (at least not in any meaningful sense of the word).
Incidentally, I was opposed to the idea (and I remain so), not because it violates libertarian principles, but rather, because it does not serve any real educational purpose, and is thus a waste of time. If parents want their children to take part in organized prayers, they have plenty of opportunities to do so, at church and/or at home.
The school prayer in question — it helps to be able to remember those days — was compulsory. There was no debate about students who prayed spontaneously.
Very well said, Nick!
While some of Rothbard’s comments in that essay (particularly the attempts to portray David Duke as some sort of sympathetic figure) were pretty ridiculous, the section on school prayer seems perfectly consistent with libertarian principles. There is no reason why anyone should not be allowed to pray wherever or whenever they want (provided, of course, that no one else is forced to join them). However, I will admit that Rothbard’s pro-religious rhetoric is a bit ironic, given that he was a lifelong atheist.
Ah yes, the ugly “paleo” alliance of the 90s. I think the Rothbard-Rockwellians are at their best when trying to ally with the left instead, as in the Vietnam and Gulf War II eras.
The Rothbard-Rockwell attempts to create alliances with the likes of Pat Buchanan and David Duke were, IMO, nothing but counterproductive.
But not unprecedented – Rothbard was also possibly the only NYC Jew to support Strom Thurmond in 1948.
ns: We are the vanguard of freedom, the front lines, the shock troops, the Marines.
me: Wonderfully romantic notion, that. If you personally want to shock people, that’s certainly your prerogative. I would note that history is littered with lunatics whose purpose in life was to shock others. They were unsuccessful in moving the middle toward them, so I trust you agree that taking an extreme, unthinkable position is no guarantee of partial success.
Your definition of “freedom” may include the cavalcade of exteme implications of the NAP that I hold up for examination on a regular basis. It’s the case that if your definition of “freedom” includes toting machine guns in the subway, I’m out.
Soldier on, though, if that moves you….
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” – George Bernard Shaw
“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen;—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.” -William Lloyd Garrison
It is the duty of the Libertarian to advocate for freedom. We are the vanguard of freedom, the front lines, the shock troops, the Marines. The libertarian-leaners are free to join the movement and follow our lead, bringing up the rear. You can’t win a war without the rear-echelon forces, but you don’t need them at all until there is a successful invasion.
I’m going to keep moving the Overton window, you’re free to keep telling me whether I’m too extreme in doing so. I will continue to give your opinion the consideration it is due.
NS, re: moving goalposts, my point is that a lot of people are generally inclined to a pro-liberty, less government, generally across the board. L candidates could be in the “acceptable” range in this cycle, using Overton’s term.
Many Ls — esp those still under the sway of Rothbard, some Randroids — disguise their unthinkable positions with easily seen through ruse language. They tend to critique incremental change by offering the “solution” of abolition, which is not taken seriously by the vast preponderance of the population.
While there are probably more L leaners than ever, the truth is the State and those running it are more-archists. Lessarchists rooted in reality would-I’d think – stop the growth first, then reversing it.
But you have to walk before you run, and then maybe consider intergallactic transport somewhere down the road!
Another favorite:
Andre Marrou won Dixville Notch, N.H., where 31 voters were first in the nation to express a 1992 presidential preference at the polls.
Here’s the tally:
Andre Marrou (Libertarian) 11
George Bush (Republican) 9
Pat Buchanan (Republican) 3
Ralph Nader (write-in) 3
Bill Clinton (Democrat) 3
Paul Tsongas (Democrat) 2
A bit tangential, but found this while digging through old records, a transcript of one of Andre’s stump speeches.
ANDRE MARROU (LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT): These 10 issues were based not only on the Libertarian platform, but they’re based upon the Constitution of the United States. What are they? Well, number one, with regard to taxes, repeal the personal income tax and abolish the IRS.
(APPLA– USE)
MARROU: Thank you. And when we do that, the average American worker will have $300 to $500 a month more to spend that’s left in their pocket. That money would be spent in Santa Monica instead of going to Washington to support the ruling class. We do have a de facto ruling class which was supposed to be prevented by the Constitution. The ruling class is in Washington. They write rules and regulations for the rest of us to live by and they enforce those regulations. And they tax us to pay their salaries. Not only that, they get paid more than the rest of us. The average federal bureaucrat gets $26,000 a year. The average American worker in the private industry gets paid $22,000 a year.
Number two, regarding the economy, we can expand free enterprise and create jobs by simply rescinding excessive regulation. The reason why American companies go overseas or into other countries such as Mexico to set up businesses there has little if anything to do with cheap labor. By the time you train these people in these other countries to speak a little English, to learn the job and to break some other bad habits like taking siestas after every meal, then they cost as much as American workers. The reason companies go into other countries is because of excessive regulation and excessive taxation.
Number three, regarding guns. Increase personal protection by restoring full gun ownership rights. Now the reason… APPLA– USE
MARROU: Thank you. The reason the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is in the Constitution has nothing to do with hunting, with gun collecting or with target shooting. It’s in there so that we can defend ourselves against foreign invaders, defend ourselves against criminals and rioters. Ask the people in LA what they think about that. And mainly, if need be, heaven forbid, we can defend ourselves against our own government. Now does this mean that you have the right to own a fully automatic weapons? That is to say a machine gun? Well, let me ask you this. If we have to fight our own government, you’re going to have to be fighting government troops. Are they going to have machine guns? Indeed they are, so therefore you have a right to have a machine gun. In particular, one of my pet things, I should say, is that a woman in particular has a right to carry a concealable handgun in her purse. She, more than men, need that protection. And…
(APPLA– USE)
MARROU: And we are the only people of the four national tickets who stand full–four square behind the woman’s right to carry a concealable handgun.
Number four, regarding Congress. We can limit corruption, arrogance and bad checks by limiting congressional terms.
(APPLA– USE)
MARROU: Number five, regarding defense. We can provide a better defense, save money and increase competitiveness by bringing our troops back home to defend the USA.
(APPLA– USE)
MARROU: Are you aware that we have more troops in Japan than the Japanese do? Are you aware that we pay more for the defense of Japan than the Japanese do? They spend 1 percent of their gross national product on military defense, we spend 7. What do they do with the money they save? Well, they put it into industrial subsidies, which is why you can often buy a Toyota car over here cheaper than you can buy a Plymouth. Now this is crazy. This is taking jobs away from American workers, whom we then tax to support our troops in Japan. Now there is a word for this. It starts with an I–that word is insanity. We shouldn’t be doing this. This not only is stupid, it’s against the Constitution.
Number six, juries. Restore the power of juries to try laws as well as defendants by enacting the fully informed jury amendment.
(APPLA– USE)
MARROU: Number seven, regarding tax subsidies. End all tax- financed subsidies, especially for tobacco that hurt everybody and for milk and sugar that hurt poor parents. Now what is the true extent of the drug death problem? Well, four years ago the surgeon general put out a report on this. He pointed out that one drug accounts for 71 percent of all drug deaths; 400,000 Americans a year die from this drug. That’s over 1,000 Americans a day. This drug kills about as many Americans per year as died from combat in all of World War II. In four years of World War II we lost about 450,000 Americans. This drug kills 400,000 Americans a year. That drug is tobacco.
Now what are the Democrats and Republicans doing about this scourge of our society? Well, they’re taxing you and me to pay the tobacco farmers a billion dollars a year to grow tobacco, while at the same time they’re taxing you and me millions of dollars a year to pay the surgeon general’s office to try to convince us not to use this drug that they’re taxing us a billion dollars a year to subsidize. Now there’s a word for this. It starts with an I–that word is insanity.
Number eight, bureaucracy. We can cut the bureaucracy 7 to 10 percent per year by simply not replacing federal bureaucrats who retire, resign or die. We do not–once we take office, we do not have to go through the halls of the bureaucracy and fire every other bureaucrat. I’ll admit there’s a certain appeal to the idea, but we don’t have to do it. Just stop replacing them. Just pat them on the back and say, `OK, good to see you. Bye.’ And we don’t have to fire anybody. And in four years we can get rid of 28 percent to 40 percent of the federal bureaucracy. It is that easy, but that requires a little bit of courage and a little bit of intelligence, and I guarantee you’re not going to see that from Bush, Clinton or Perot.
(APPLA– USE)
MARROU: Number nine, foreign aid. Stop penalizing American workers by taxing them to send money overseas. Now let me ask you. When was the last time that the Japanese Peace Corps was in Santa Monica helping out the poor folks? That’s a silly question. There is no such thing as a Japanese Peace Corps. Oh, I know, Germany, Deutschland, is the biggest country in Western Europe and the richest. Surely somewhere along the way they’ve sent over truckloads of food and clothing and–and medical supplies to help out the poor folks of Santa Monica, right? Nope, hasn’t happened. Not going to happen. Only Americans are dumb enough to tax themselves and send money overseas, sometimes to countries that have a higher standard of living than we do.
But the worst type of foreign aid is military. We armed the Greeks, we armed the Turks–they’ve already had two wars over Cyprus since World War II. We armed the Indians, we armed the Pakistanis– they’ve had three wars over Kashmir and Bangladesh. We armed the Israelis, we armed the Arabs, and of course, they have a war every 12.3 years whether they need it or not. But the worst of the worst was written up by Reader’s Digest, January 1991, a little over a year and a half ago. They pointed out that during the preceding 12 years the United States government had sent billions of dollars’ worth of guns, ammunition, rockets, grenades–you name it–to this foreign dictator. Guess what his name is? Saddam Hussein. After arming this homicidal maniac for 12 years, then we go to war against him. Now there’s a word for this. It starts with an I–that word is insanity. This is crazy, nutso, screwball, off the wall, weird and it’s unconstitutional.
Number 10, regarding personal matters. We can have higher quality, lower-cost education by privatizing it. We can have better care of poor and sick people by charitizing welfare. There’s a new word, charitizing. And a more positive life by allowing choice in all matters.
(APPLA– USE)
MARROU: Thank you.
Move the goalposts and we score a touchdown…right now!
Someone needs to read up on Overton windows and how they are shifted. You’re exactly backwards, or at best, technically correct. Which, as we all know, is the best kind of correct.
Rothbard:
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
Second paragraph from the bottom.
Yes, he does claim that these positions are ‘libertarian’.
gp: Rand was a declared opponent of the Libertarian Party.
me: True. And yet my understanding is all the founders were Randroids. Hospers — author of the CotOS language — was a Randroid.
Despite her take, Rand’s ideas are infused in the foundation and continues to poison the LM. I don’t question her or MNR’s desire for liberty, btw, but I find their premises and methodology unserviceable and often false.
pf: As for being more effective, which alt parties have, in any sustained fashion, been more effective in the era of modern campaign budgets, modern ballot access restrictions, and modern mass media reach and costs?
me: Modern era? None. I think the LP and LM have been SOMEWHAT effective in shifting the national conversation. Heck, even Colbert mocked the LP the other day.
This is good, but not good enough, particularly since with some fixes in the foundation, liberty is primed for an inflection point upward. Unfortunately, the wacky implications of the NAP (read literally) make it easy to dismiss an L approach to social maladies.
Take away the extremism, and L-ism IS mainstream…right now!
Keep the extremism, and L-ism stays on the fringe in perpetuity…
I’d be curious to know how and where Rothbard said that and whether it can be found online to see the context.
BTW how would you stop people from praying in school voluntarily? Regardless of whether there is a cult of the omnipotent state, the state is not that omnipotent in reality, at least yet.
Rothbard was such a fine Libertarian that he claimed that libertarians should support prayer in the public schools.
This is a silly straw man argument. I’m not sure what exactly Phillies is referring to, but I can virtually guarantee you that Rothbard never advocated anyone being forced to pray, in school or anywhere else. He may very well have argued that people should be allowed to pray in school, but that view is perfectly compatible with any reasonable interpretation of libertarian principles (well, aside from the very existence of public schools being incompatible with such an interpretation, but that’s really a separate matter).
Steve M: I think Robert agrees with you, and I agree that Rand and Rothbard should certainly not be the end all be all for LP; but on the other hand I don’t believe that changing the SoP would do much of anything, since few people notice it now, much less care.
George: I’m pretty sure Rothbard was for the separation of school and state. At various times in his life he may have expressed some rather odd views of what should be done in the meantime, which he often did in various attempts to create alliances with the left or right. I’m not aware of that particular one, or have forgotten it, but it seems like a plausible example of that strategy.
“George Phillies December 19, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Rand was a declared opponent of the Libertarian Party. Rothbard was such a fine Libertarian that he claimed that libertarians should support prayer in the public schools.”
I’m not sure what Murray Rothard actually said in regard to the issue of prayer in public schools, but I believe that people do have the right to pray in public schools if they so desire, but I also believe that it should not be forced by a teacher or administrator. So in other words, prayer should not be prohibited, but it should not be forced either.
I also believe that public schools should be abolished.
Rand was a declared opponent of the Libertarian Party. Rothbard was such a fine Libertarian that he claimed that libertarians should support prayer in the public schools.
oh here I go thinking again…….
Sure Robert the activists in the Liberty Movement might be tied Rand and Rothbard, but not necessarily the voters.
I tend to put a very loose definition on libertarian.
Libertarian is anyone who would rather that the government lean towards more individual freedom rather then to toward more government control.
So those people who are irritated by the police, by high taxes, by heavy regulation in how they make improvements on their house and or their business…. and seek to have less rules telling them what to do…..
They might not know who Rand was or anything about Rothbard and wouldn’t begin to ask about John Gault. But still want less money taken from them, more say in how their kids are educated and less restrictions on whether they can add an extra room onto the back of their house.
You can have all the fancy philosophers and authors and statements of principles that you want…. but in the end we need the votes of voters.
I’m aware of your view, but don’t think changing the language would help fix what you consider a problem, nor does not changing it meaningfully hinder such efforts.
As for being more effective, which alt parties have, in any sustained fashion, been more effective in the era of modern campaign budgets, modern ballot access restrictions, and modern mass media reach and costs?
pf: The total number that ever bring up the SoP as the reason why they are not in the LP is zero, or perhaps one if that is the only reason Robert Capozzi is not in the LP.
me: Thanks for the opportunity to explain my point…yet again. It’s not the SoP PER SE that explains why the LP’s influence in modern politics is so insignificant. The SoP is EMBLEMATIC of what I believe in a dysfunction in the underlying thought system that holds the cause of liberty back BECA– USE the LP and much of the LM subscribe to the deontological absolutism of Rand and Rothbard. That thought manifests in kooky language like “CotOS” and “governments, when instituted.”
Such kookiness hamstrings the LP’s efforts, both in party building and electorally.
I trust that clarifies my view.
The answer is the same. Whether you benchmark is voting, membership, registering to vote as or simply self-identifying as LP … I can’t recall anyone besides RC for whom it is a major stumbling block that they have identified.
A number of people bring up the pledge. Some bring up various issues in the platform, or lack thereof. Many name issues wiith various past LP candidates.
More often it is a general perception of how the party markets itself, or more likely still a recation to how it is covered by others (and often unrelated to the party itself – say, Rand Paul or Glenn Beck).
Many people don’t like the nasty infighting.
The biggest stumbling block is the (lack of) bandwagon effect – we haven’t won enough already and don’t have enough momentum for them to join (in any of the senses above – I don’t just mean sign the pledge and/or donate money).
And I get the same kinds of answers from people who did join (in one sense or another):
Some like the LP platform, some liked some candidate or candidates we have run in the past, some attended a meeting or speech, or have/had friends in the LP, or got fed up with the big two parties, or took the quiz, or received direct mail asking them to join, etc.
Neither group – those who have joined/voted/registered/self-identified as LP and those who haven’t – ever brings up the SoP as to why or why not. It simply does not come up as a blip on the radar screen.
Paul, the LP’s goal is not to get members, it’s to get votes. So the question you should be asking is not who didn’t join the LP because of the odd, Cult of the Omnipotent State line, but who didn’t vote for the LP because of it.
Your results will probably be the same, but that’s the biggest “fringe” element in the LP structure that really doesn’t serve a positive purpose.
Differentiation is good, but common sense prevails. I’d like to see it changed but the LP has much bigger problems to deal with first.
That’s why I brought up that I also regularly communicate with libertarians who are not in the LP for one reason or another as well as non-lbertarians. The total number that ever bring up the SoP as the reason why they are not in the LP is zero, or perhaps one if that is the only reason Robert Capozzi is not in the LP.
I meant “Pick up a broom…”
andy: I don’t think that I’d label what Cappozzi does as activism.
me: Nor would I! That’d be silly.
As Paulie reminds us, “Put up a broom and look busy” may pass for some as “activism” and “productive.”
In my experience, going to meetings is an energy drain, especially when one is lectured about what the “correct” L position is on this or that, often with a crypo-anarchist perspective. Or one sees hours spent in parliamentary contortions that go nowhere.
That’s futile, counterproductive behavior as I see it. It’s why I share my assessment of the fundamental failure of Randian/Rothbardianism.
I hope some find it helpful. Kool Aid drinkers might, although I share mostly for the open minded.
The way to get out of Plato’s Cave is to recognize that one’s shackles are unlocked!
Robert Cappozzi said: Listen to your line of approach: If a person is a L but they object to specific language in the founding documents false, they have to go elsewhere to express themselves politically.
Does that really make sense?”
It does not make any sense, because nobody is stopping individuals such as yourself from forming a new political party.
“Mike Kane December 18, 2013 at 10:46 pm
Robert Cappozzi was living in Virginia when an affiliate sprang up, yet I don’t recall ever seeing him at a meeting ever for over 4 years.
Perhaps someone’s simply using his name to troll IPR users. Or perhaps he’s just a keyboard activist.”
I don’t think that I’d label what Cappozzi does as activism. I’d call sitting on the sidelines and criticizing those who are engaging in activism.
Robert Cappozzi was living in Virginia when an affiliate sprang up, yet I don’t recall ever seeing him at a meeting ever for over 4 years.
Perhaps someone’s simply using his name to troll IPR users. Or perhaps he’s just a keyboard activist.
pf: Either get 7/8 or go elsewhere. yes.
me: Thanks for your candor. Apparently you don’t find that to be a dysfunctional setup that this my-way-or-the-highway statement by a dozen 20 somethings. Certainly it doesn’t appear that THEY thought it was over-the-top arrogance on their part. But we know better, don’t we?
Of course, my word quibbles are less about the specific extremism,and more to help illustrate something deeper went off the rails on Day One of the LP.
ns: There is no serious move afoot to change the Statement of Principles, nor do I think anyone currently in the LP is eager to start one
me: Laugh of the month. Thank you.
You are in a 1% political party, yet you make a majoritarian argument!!!! Rich!!!
Did you heave a breath of relief when the 13/16ths vote in Portland to stop the madness failed? 😉
I understand there are LP archives at a few other universities also. I think Nolan’s files went to a univ library in AZ; and I heard many years ago that U/Wisconsin also has an extensive archive.
While I agree that the rest of the founders should be remembered, not all of the other founders were present “ever since” like Nolan certainly was — right up until the day of his death decades later.
I am very shocked to learn that batches of LP archives has been destroyed. If we’re talking about financial records that’s probably OK, but I hope that the purge did not include old foundational documents. There are public repositories for LP archival material, that would perhaps have wanted to add the HQ archives to their collection. For example, the Alderman Library in Charlottesville VA has an extensive file of early LP documents. Here are a couple of the references to it (search for the character string “libertarian”) but these lead to only a small portion of what the library now has available.
It would also be nice if the archival material now scattered among various online archives (such as the documents Holtz keeps on his site) could be gathered under LPedia or something. Problem with LPedia is it’s been allowed to turn into a spam dump.
As an aside, Mark Frazier was at the founding meeting of the national Libertarian Party. He now attends LP events in the Harrisonburg VA area. In fact he is the fellow on the right side of the header photo on our Rocktown Libertarians page.
Please don’t feed the troll, guys.
There is no serious move afoot to change the Statement of Principles, nor do I think anyone currently in the LP is eager to start one. Alas, the LP will have to soldier on without Mr. Capozzi’s membership or participation, barring of course his IPR comments.
Either get 7/8 or go elsewhere. yes. That is the set-up. It could have been made perpetual with no 7/8 escape clause.
You are literally the only one I ever see bring it up as an issue.
People who are in the LP, people who oppose libertarianism, people who like libertarianism but not the LP – I communicate with all of these regularly. None of them has the SoP among their top objections or their top likes about the LP.
PF, sure, I advocate clearing it.
But, Andy doesn’t seem to get the point. Would the SoP be UN-principled if it didn’t contain CotOS “poetry,” for example? Assuming that Andy’d find that just as principled, I’d then submit that the setters of the bar exercised poor judgment. And if THAT’S the case, we can see that they may’ve made additional mistakes in judgment (as do we all).
Listen to your line of approach: If a person is a L but they object to specific language in the founding documents false, they have to go elsewhere to express themselves politically.
Does that really make sense?
Whatever the bar set – either clear it or start a diferent organization.
andy: What you call arrogance, others call a commitment to principles. There is a solution for those who do not like this, and that is don’t get involved with the Libertarian Party. Those who do not like it are free to start their own political party.
me: Right. I’m sure they THOUGHT they were “principled.”
I suspect that the Framers thought so, too. They just didn’t have such a high bar for adjusting their work.
The LP’s founders apparently thought they nailed it better than the Framers, then, yes?
Probably Nolan. He published the “case for a Libertarian Party” and organized most of the meetings leading up to the founding, as well as hosting them. But Id have to look that up too, and I’m not motivated enough at the moment.
Please explain.
I think the party name was pretty much a done deal before then; Nolan’s article from that previous summer used it, at least. Not sure about the rest.
I agree on both points.
I agree.
IIRC Geoff Neale recently had a lot of it destroyed/shredded. I wish better efforts to preserve it hd been made before things degenerated so much.
Calling it a hole is putting a bit of a positive spin on it. Dungeon is a better word.
When we went down there in 2011 to look for records, several of the boxes were covered with spiders and other nasty looking things. The spiders weren’t dead. 🙂
George, that’s what I’d like to see. We recognize the founding date, Dec. 11. I think it does matter as it offers a definitive history that we can preserve — and I agree with Andy in regard to interest in the history of an organization. It always interested me and I had the opportunity to spend afternoons in that hole under the Watergate rummaging through the printed history of the LP.
Back to the founding date, end of year fundraising is a great opportunity. When you couple that with the “birthday of the LP,” it’s a winner for a fundraising campaign that we should never pass up.
Is the foundation to be recognized as the organizing committee, or the party. Was the United States founded with the Articles of Confederation or the current Constitution? Does it matter? The living room date and the meeting in the home of Mr Zell need perhaps to be both honored.
The effort here might better have been invested in biographies of the dozen founders.
“Robert Capozzi December 18, 2013 at 9:10 am
For the life of me, I’ve never understood the fascination with the founding of the LP. A few alienated 20 somethings gathering in someone’s LR…OK, and so…?”
Maybe because some people are interested in the history of an organization of which they are a part, and of which they dedicate a lot of their time, money, and effort.
“I HAVE long been interested in the arrogance that they acted with. What made them think they were so wise that the SoP they drafted was SO good that it’d take a 7/8ths vote to change it?”
What you call arrogance, others call a commitment to principles. There is a solution for those who do not like this, and that is don’t get involved with the Libertarian Party. Those who do not like it are free to start their own political party.
Agreed, Robert. My issue is with furthering a false story and glorifying one guy over a group that took action.
I’ve always had issue with naming the national office after one guy. Too many activists have given as much if not more.
For the life of me, I’ve never understood the fascination with the founding of the LP. A few alienated 20 somethings gathering in someone’s LR…OK, and so…?
I HAVE long been interested in the arrogance that they acted with. What made them think they were so wise that the SoP they drafted was SO good that it’d take a 7/8ths vote to change it?
If that’s NOT arrogance, what is it?
That’s the problem with history: reports change, and leaders become even more glorious (historically speaking) than they were or ever even intended to be.
I heard Mr Nolan say similar things about the first official meeting not being in his house. I also never heard him claim he was the only founder and heard him say several times when that was mentioned that he was “A” founder, not “THE” founder.
Regardless, his involvement was critical and he certainly deserves to be honored for it, and others should be honored as well.
Lol, Jill. I’m in VA and have a thing for old houses — and there are plenty to pick from around here. I moved into this one in July and am still adjusting — especially with the winter. Keeping two wood stoves going on opposite wings of the house has been an experience.
Still researching the place. So far only one death (Model T incident in the drive) and one fire (upset servant filled a fireplace with pinecones), and lots of interesting folks.
Shane said: “My home was built in 1770”.
Wow, that’s amazing! We have a few homes here in CA that are a hundred years old, but I don’t think we had anything but native American homes here that long ago. I can imagine there has been a lot of life in the house over the past two and a half centuries.
Good find on that link BTW. I think that article by Winter is also inaccurate. The party name, slogan and logo (Libersign) were all nailed down at the formation meeting on 12/11/1971. That’s all in the founding document that we uncovered in the basement of the Watergate.
Okay, so the LP should correct the site. It was founded in the home of Zell. The meetings were called from ads placed in Reason. Who placed the ads?
Anyway.
To say something was founded at a certain place because early discussions took place there is a stretch. My home was built in 1770. If discussions on independence took place here by influential folks, I can’t claim the nation was founded in my living room.
Technically, we should say “the LP was formed on December 11, 1971 in Colorado by [insert those present].”
To continue the Nolan home myth does not give credit to several others who dedicated their time and effort to founding the LP. Nolan was 12.5% of a founder (ironically about the same percentage of an office space that is being named after him).
Nolan should be honored for his activism, but let’s be factually correct.
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/cp3/conversations/topics/9701
I looked it up. Luke Zell’s meeting voted to go ahead with creating the LP. Nolan hosted the meetings leading up to this.
By the way, David would let the comment slide about where the LP was founded. When another founder contacted me and told me the story, I called up Nolan and asked him he clarified that it was not his home and he was one of many founders.
Nolan told me that it was not in his home. I believe the Wiki page is correct in that it was Luke Zell’s home. That document I framed from 1971 should still be at National and has more detail there.
Tonie Nathan can tell you (although I can’t remember if she was there). Also, all of the founders, not just Nolan, are listed on that document.
They all responded to the Reason Magazine ad that was placed to form the LP.
I’ve heard for many years and multiple sources that the first meeting was in his living room. If that is not true, where was it, and how can we confirm that?
I’ve also read that there were some state LPs in existence earlier, but have not been able to substantiate it.
This is factually incorrect. The LP was not founded in Nolan’s home, and Nolan is A founder, not THE founder. There is a document in the national office from the founding day that lists all of the founders of the party. It’s a good document that should be posted and preserved.
The Colorado version seems to cut off in 2006, while national’s is updated through 2010. Also for some odd reason Colorado cut off the years. Otherwise they seem to be the same.
@paulie
Oh. I thought this one was different, hence why I posted it.
It’s at http://www.lp.org/our-history with the years, and I’m pretty sure we have posted it at IPR before too, although it was a long time ago.
This is super!