Matt Loesby, Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Idaho and 2024 candidate for Idaho’s first congressional district, issued an open letter to the Libertarian National Committee on Monday urging the removal of Chase Oliver as the party’s 2024 presidential nominee.
In his letter, which was shared by Region 1 Representative Adam Haman with the LNC public list on Monday, Loesby cites Oliver’s positions on parental rights and medical decisions for minors, particularly regarding puberty blockers, as contradictory to Plank 1.5 of the Libertarian Party’s platform. He compares the use of puberty blockers to chemical castration, asserting that their effects are harmful to children’s natural development. Loesby believes this stance warrants the Libertarian National Committee’s intervention to suspend Oliver’s candidacy by a three-fourths vote, as allowed by party bylaws.
Loesby further points out that previous Libertarian presidential candidates, namely Gary Johnson and Jo Jorgensen, also held positions that he believes were contradictory to the party’s platform. He argues that their nominations were not challenged due to political calculations by the LNC at the time, which judged their campaigns as a net positive for the liberty movement. However, Loesby contends that Oliver’s stance on puberty blockers is uniquely egregious and harmful, potentially impacting the party’s future influence in a way unlike previous tickets.
Loesby additionally expresses concerns about that same impact on local candidates, contending that the party’s strength lies in local elections and that Oliver’s messaging could harm down-ballot campaigns. As a result, Loesby calls for the LNC to prioritize the party’s long-term interests by replacing Oliver with running mate Mike ter Maat as the presidential nominee.
While Loesby specifies that he’s writing as an individual and does not speak on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Idaho, he identifies himself as a party officer and one of the 300 delegates who voted to field no presidential candidate at the recent national convention. Idaho was one of several states that overwhelmingly voted to field no candidate after Michael Rectenwald was eliminated in the sixth round of convention voting, leaving the options between Chase Oliver and NOTA.
Editorial note: Since this article was published, Independent Political Report has learned that the letter was also posted on the Substack of the Libertarian Party of Idaho, as well as by its official X account.
Additionally, unlike similar criticisms of the Libertarian Party’s 2024 presidential ticket made in recent weeks, Loesby’s letter solely calls for the removal of Chase Oliver and not his running mate, Mike ter Maat, with the expectation that the Libertarian National Committee could simply select a new vice presidential candidate.
In response to Loesby’s open letter, Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle urged members to continue supporting the efforts of the Reconciliation Committee, which met earlier in the evening, and not “work backwards.”
Removing Chase Oliver is the correct move. I applaud affiliates who do not support him.
FWIW, vaccines are addressed in 2.13, not 1.5:
2.13 Health Care
We favor a free market health care system. Medical facilities, medical providers, and medical products (including drugs) must be freely available in the marketplace without government restrictions or licenses. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines. We oppose governments either mandating, or restricting voluntary access to, medical treatments or procedures including vaccines.
“Do the people who invoke Plank 1.5 intend to apply it to vaccines?”
Whether or not they do, they absolutely should.
“If so, which way? Force parents to make their children get vaccinated? Or prevent parents from allowing their children to get vaccinated?”
With regard to actual vaccines in the classical sense, which are most of them, let parents decide. With regard to “fauxines” like gene-therapy, and to untested vaccines or vaccines proven to be dangerous, prevent anyone from vaccinating children. Furthermore, since abortions are also against “Plank 1.5” that should mean completely ban vaccines developed from fetal tissue.
“What level of government should enforce child protections envisioned by the proponents of Plank 1.5.”
No level of government. Individuals should be able to prevent parents and doctors from violating the NAP towards children, without the government getting involved – or even existing
See https://ballot-access.org/2024/06/16/2024-libertarian-presidential-convention-was-first-in-twenty-years-not-to-nominate-the-candidate-who-placed-first-in-the-first-ballot/#comment-1229685
Do the people who invoke Plank 1.5 intend to apply it to vaccines? If so, which way? Force parents to make their children get vaccinated? Or prevent parents from allowing their children to get vaccinated?
What level of government should enforce child protections envisioned by the proponents of Plank 1.5.
I am not against protecting children. I just never heard Murray Rothbard detail what protection agency would protect children from their parents in a free society.
Ter Maat was not only willing but eager to throw in his lot with Oliver. Clearly he has no scruples about ignoring “Plank 1.5” and should therefore be removed as well.
The libertarian party’s inherent self contradiction has come home to roost. There’s a lot of disagreements between self described libertarians about what that means or how whatever it means should intersect with partisan politics, if at all.
They somehow managed to maintain one and only one party of any significant size or lasting power that claimed to be libertarian for half a century, and continuously managed to get on most state ballots most of the time continuously for most of that time.
That time has come to end, Regardless of whether you believe it or not, and regardless of what emotions that might cause you all if or when you accept it as true.
Personally, I’m not sad or angry about it, and not particularly thrilled. It’s going to go more or less the way it always does when a third party splinters, regardless of its ideological stand. There are any number of historical precedents.
The “reconciliation committee” is a farce, it’s just McArdle’s way to validate the attacks on Oliver and blame him when he doesn’t satisfy them (which is impossible because literally nothing he could say would satisfy them). But this is what you get when the convention does something so stupid as elect a pro-Trump LNC while pretending to also nominate somebody else to run against Trump.
So Mr Loesby wanted to support Michael Rectenwald, who promised to dismantle the federal government. So Mr Rectenwald would not use federal power – the only power a President can invoke – to “protect” children from hormone blockers. The President does not control state governments, so Mr Rectenwald could not promise to use state government to protect children.
Since Mr Rectenwald would not use federal power to stop hormone blockers, and Mr Oliver would not use federal power to stop hormone blockers, why did Mr Loesby support Michael Rectenwald?