Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle became the latest political figure to invest in the culture war after publicly introducing her own cosmetics company in response to “wokeness” and “pandering inclusivity” on Thursday afternoon.
“I don’t spend a lot of time shopping for or putting on makeup. But I found myself spending more and more time shopping for makeup recently as I tried to find a brand that didn’t use wokeness or inclusiveness pandering as a marketing tactic,” McArdle says in her first company advertisement. “So many cosmetics companies out there use male models for women’s products now. It’s ridiculous. When I’m shopping for a product, I wanna know how makeup will look on me—a woman.”
Bona Dea, the name of McArdle’s new business, is an online cosmetics company supported through Shopify that sells blush, bronzer, and eye shadow palettes in peach and pink. All items are not yet available and are preorder only, with Bona Dea anticipating a May release date. While Bona Dea reads like a typical cosmetics company of its size, what separates it from similar businesses is that the site consistently takes firm stances regarding the product’s intended audience.
“We believe that women’s spaces have rapidly begun to disappear and that cosmetics are becoming less about the beauty of women and more about inclusive marketing tactics,” the Bona Dea website reads under its “Frequently Asked Questions” section. “We’re courageous enough to take a stand for biological women and we believe the free market is the best place to take that stand.”
“We celebrate women as life givers, nurturers, and cultivators of beauty. […] For women. By women. (Actual women.),” Bona Dea additionally reads on its “About” page.
While numerous self-identified Libertarians supported McArdle’s announcement on social media, others expressed concern over her priorities. “While Libertarian Party membership and finances sink like the Titanic, LP chair Angela McArdle is introducing a new “anti-woke” makeup line that’s marketed to “biological women,” wrote Fakertarians, a group regularly critical of LNC leadership. “I swear I am not making this up.”
https://twitter.com/fakertarians/status/1646539699387875332
The Libertarian Party Wild Caucus, a group marketing itself as the Libertarian Party’s “green caucus,” expressed concern with the optical implications of McArdle’s announcement. “This almost feels like satire, she has to know how this looks. Giving her the benefit of the doubt and putting the brand aside, It’s natural that people will assume she’s using her position to profit off of a side business (While her primary attention should go to the LP),” they wrote on social media.
McArdle additionally received criticism for using her official Libertarian Party title in relation to the Bona Dea launch. “Angela McArdle, current Chair of the national Libertarian Party, has launched a cosmetics line,” opens a version of the press release posted on her LinkedIn account.
However, McArdle’s sudden pivot into marketing and business ownership during the ongoing national culture war is not unheard of behavior. Over the last few years, several notable social and political organizations and individuals have released product lines competing against companies accused of “wokeness”—expressly, those that support or affirm transgender individuals.
In 2022, Jeremy Boreing, co-CEO of conservative media company The Daily Wire, released a line of anti-woke razors called Jeremy’s in response to razor manufacturer Harry’s pulling their ads from The Michaels Knowles Show after a “values misalignment.” The episode in question featured Knowles interviewing Joseph Nicolosi Jr., a leading proponent of reintegrative therapy—also sometimes called conversion therapy. The following year, Jeremy’s would release a chocolate bar directly in response to chocolate manufacturing company the Hershey Corporation featuring a trans woman as part of its International Women’s Day campaign in Canada.
In a more recent example, Republican Seth Warners, founder of the conservative lifestyle brand Freedom Speaks Up, introduced a beer company aimed exclusively at conservatives disgruntled with Bud Light. Named “Ultra Right,” Warners’ beer is marketed as “100% woke-free American beer” and is attempting to appeal to conservative backlash against brewing giant Anheuser-Busch for Bud Light’s partnering with TikTok star and trans woman Dylan Mulvaney.
She also outperformed the 1980 ticket which was much closer in financial parity to the big two than any l.p. ticket before or since and aided by the youthful energy of the LP back then paired with Ed Clark making literally hundreds of college appearances during his campaign alongside the tv advertising afforded by his megawealthy VP candidate .
“But the performance of a ticket with two little known LP activists four years later is in some ways more remarkable…”
I do agree. Coincide with it she got zero attention from the press compared to 2016 and that she outperformed Gary Johnson’s 2012 run when former Governor Gary Johnson 2012 was way higher in prestige than former LP VP nominee Jo Jorgensen 2020.
Also, Sarwark was Chair through the early part of 2020, during which time much of the party organization for the 2020 election was set in place.
Sometimes said as “Some people want to be. Other people want to do. These reasons for wanting a title are not the same.
Sarwark should probably get at least some credit for the performance of the two presidential tickets during his chairmanship. It should perhaps be unsurprising that a ticket with two former governors performed much better than prior LP nominees. But the performance of a ticket with two little known LP activists four years later is in some ways more remarkable, vis a vis other past LP nominees who were not crossover politicians from the big two, or even some that were such as Barr 2008 or Paul 1988. Sarwark should also probably get at least some credit for two presidential cycles in a row with 50 states plus DC ballot access, again something not previously achieved since the 1990s .
Exactly. Wanting control and wanting to be the figurehead are different things, and only sometimes coincide.
So this group that wanted to take control of the party away from the Sarwark-affiliated group, none of them actually wanted control of the party? I get that politics is about winning elections, and actually governing is the hard part, but that’s also a lot of what is wrong with American politics in this era. Gotta have a leader to govern. Pretty big design flaw if you don’t…but I just don’t think she was the only person in the Mises Caucus that had interest in being the national chair and was then vetted.
She feels at the moment feels like a surrogate representing someone else instead of being the party leader. She’s also a convenient scapegoat for this group to blame all the problems on in a year’s time when the party next gets back together.
Andy shifted grounds from Mr. Sarwark to Mr. Johnson. Notable achievements of Sarwark as national chair (2014-20) were getting the first and to date only LP US congressman, the first LP state legislators in about two decades, and others I have not thought of yet, aside from anything more accurately the work of any presidential ticket, although the national office does work in tandem.
As for why Ms. McArdle was the preferred national chair candidate of the Heise PAC, the answer may have been as simple as she stepped up to run and everyone else there said “not it ” . Mr. Smith was too busy (he was unable or unwilling to complete his term as Vice Chair) and probably not eager to deal with ad hominem campaign tactics from the tempest in a teapot section, Mr. Heise prefers to work more behind the scenes at this juncture, Mr. Woods was to new to the party and has better things to do, and so on.
“According to Angela, she is, “Doing rigorous quality control and sourcing hypoallergenic ingredients, right now, as I work with my manufacturers and products team to provide the very best possible quality product.” Angela just relocated to Texas, had a baby, has no income, and is so broke she is living off a Go-Fund-Me account. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t care. But Angela is the chair of a national political party. Some investors may be more motivated than others to be part of this venture. Maybe this reporter should do a little more digging to find out how Angela was able to afford a manufacturing facility and a quality control team. She has a lot of resources for someone who has never worked in this industry.”
To echo Root’s Teeth are Awesome, she just found a shop that produces cosmetics and will sell it under a brand label, no different than hundreds of other brands. So her base costs are just what she pays them to produce it and slap on a label, she’ll do the marketing and the logistics of moving product. There’s even a good chance that the actual product Angela is hawking may be the exact same product as another brand that uses male models to market women’s cosmetics.
Yeah, but considering the national party is involved in about half a dozen civil wars at the moment, it’d be nice to see some leadership to resolving those that don’t involve paying lawyers.
But back to my question: why was Angela McArdle deemed the best most qualified person out of everyone in the Mises Caucus to be their choice to run the national party? This question better have an answer before Memorial Day weekend 2024.
“Nicholas Sarwark being Chair had almost NOTHING to do with the presidential vote totals when he was Chair, and keep in mind that those vote totals did not lead to sustained party growth. Party membership in 2017 crashed to lower than it is right now, and this was right after the 2016 Johnson/Weld campaign.”
Provide your metric for overall party health then. The one guy responding to you said it’s membership, and CiviCRM is having issues being well-maintained at the moment. You could pick monetary donations although not sure that’d be better. I’d rather donate to my state party and its figures running for office than the national party at the moment because I’m not wasting my political campaign donation funds which are limited by my choice to go to pay for lawyers for national party vs. state affiliate feuds. I picked election results because that’s how success in politics is perceived by almost everyon2 in this countrye.
Andy – I have explained this to you several times over the years: an appropriate measurement is one year prior to a presidential campaign to one year after. In between will be the effect of the campaign. The difference between one year prior and one year after is the sustained growth from the presidential campaign. All of the people who were donating to the party at the end of the year, one year after the conclusion of a Presidential campaign are the donors who stuck around. They had to have donated at least one time after the campaign was over. And few LP presidential candidates, especially in recent years, have had the nomination in the year before the election.
So, once again, using total donors:
11,693 December 2015
14,998 December 2017
+3,305 is the difference
And compared to Jorgensen:
16,132 December 2019
17,807 December 2021
+1,675
And other recent campaigns:
14,327 December 2011
14,637 December 2013
+310
15,105 December 2007
14,663 December 2009
-442
1996, 2000, and 2004 had an extreme amount of interference from the Unified Membership Program and Project Archimedes, so they aren’t comparable.
9,162 December 1991
9,539 December 1993
+377
5,125 December 1987
7,841 December 1989
+2,716
You are wrong. Stop repeating that misinformation. The Johnson/Weld campaign straight up provided the largest growth in the party, ever. That fact is also supported by the growth in Signature Memberships and voter registrations during the Johnson/Weld campaign. New Signature Memberships in 2016 were literally more than what they had been in 2008 and 2012 combined. Voter registrations increased by more than 100,000 in 2016, which was one of only two times we have reached that mark (the other being 2020). No one had to become a Signature Member or change their voter registration in order to vote for Johnson. They did that because they wanted to become members of the party. And while there are lots of reasons not to continue donating (some of which have nothing at all to do with the LP), and there are few revocations of Signature Memberships, voter registrations are easy to change. They did not decline even by the end of 2018.
Nicholas Sarwark being Chair had almost NOTHING to do with the presidential vote totals when he was Chair, and keep in mind that those vote totals did not lead to sustained party growth. Party membership in 2017 crashed to lower than it is right now, and this was right after the 2016 Johnson/Weld campaign.
I also doubt that Angela is living off the Go Fund Me. It didn’t bring in very much money. I assume her partner is providing some support while she is adapting to motherhood, and she may have some income from the Rage Against The War Machine group that she is part-owner of.
“Maybe this reporter should do a little more digging to find out how Angela was able to afford a manufacturing facility and a quality control team.”
Does she claim to own the manufacturing facility? Does she claim to employ the quality control team?
Lots of factories take orders from many clients. It doesn’t mean the client owns the factory or employs the workers.
Angela might be referring to “her” quality control team in the same way that I refer to “my” dentist. He services me as the need arises. It doesn’t mean he’s my full-time employee.
I support Angela. She is a fantastic chair.
According to Angela, she is, “Doing rigorous quality control and sourcing hypoallergenic ingredients, right now, as I work with my manufacturers and products team to provide the very best possible quality product.” Angela just relocated to Texas, had a baby, has no income, and is so broke she is living off a Go-Fund-Me account. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t care. But Angela is the chair of a national political party. Some investors may be more motivated than others to be part of this venture. Maybe this reporter should do a little more digging to find out how Angela was able to afford a manufacturing facility and a quality control team. She has a lot of resources for someone who has never worked in this industry.
Given the lofty goals and successes the Party aspires to, the job of National Chair has long required a daily full time job type performer. And that of an LNC member and State Chairs a daily part time performance. Success will never be achieved with hobby politicians or less than fully devoted leadership. All of which, unfortunately, will be extremely hard to find or sustain with volunteers.
Can we also think back and picture the private meeting that took place many months before Reno where this caucus or its Executive/Inner Circle/Politboro got together and decided “among our many great activists, organizers, fundraisers, etc. inside our caucus, we have decided the best person we can select to run the national party and grow our movement is Angela McArdle.” There are many great Libertarians inside this caucus or connected to them with similar beliefs, so how or why did they decide on her as the best choice among all those people?
This is politics, it is a results-based business. Hate Nicholas Sarwark all you want, but the best and 2nd-best performances for a Libertarian presidential candidate in its history occurred when he was national chair. Results will reflect on your group’s leadership in the end and how you’re perceived. If Dave Smith gets the presidential nod, what share of vote is he getting right now? He’s not getting close to the worst of Gary Johnson’s 2 runs without 50 state ballot access (maybe even with it) and we have too many civil wars going on at the moment inside the party for that to be true. Are we going down to Michael Badnarik? Andre Marrou? David Bergland? Even Ron Paul’s vote share in 1988 (a sleepy presidential election everyone before Election Day knew Bush would win) was pretty poor compared to Clark 8 years prior, both Johnson runs, and Jorgensen.
Who else is running for National Party Chair next year? Anyone public yet?
The grift got weird.
Irony bonus: Bona Dea was the Roman goddess credited with protecting the state.
McArdle make Joe Exotic look like the dictionary definition of “stable genius.”
But in her defense, she doesn’t know what “bigot” even means, so …
I would much prefer that Ms McArdle devote her time to business – this or any other business – and leave The Libertarian Party to people who actually believe in Liberty.