A motion to appoint Jonathan McGee as Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee was terminated this week following McGee’s decision to withdraw his name from consideration.
Independent Political Report first mentioned last week that the Libertarian National Committee was voting on a motion to appoint McGee, the current Region 2 Representative, to fill the vacancy left by Mark Rutherford’s resignation. Rutherford, who was elected at last year’s Libertarian National Convention, stepped down last December, though a specific reason was never provided. In a related story following the resignation of LNC Chair Angela McArdle, IPR reported that McGee’s nomination had then garnered at least six votes in favor, with the majority of the committee still yet to vote.
However, as of Tuesday, the LNC’s motion tracker indicates that McGee has formally withdrawn from consideration. The specific reason for his withdrawal is unclear. However, a breakdown of the vote shows that support for McGee shifted, with only three members ultimately voting in favor, while six voted against. Another six had yet to cast a vote at the time of his withdrawal and one member abstained. Notably, some members who had initially co-sponsored the motion—Travis Bost, Otto Dassing, and Adam Haman—later voted against his appointment.
As of this article’s publication, there are no active motions to appoint a new Vice Chair. Following McGee’s withdrawal, the motion was marked moot on a list of active motions posted to the LNC’s Public Business List, with no indication of what steps the national party intends to take next.
Thanks to Nuña for notifying IPR of McGee’s withdrawal.
If the LNC can ever settle on who are the officers and members, they could turn their attention to the eradication of ballot access censorship laws with their replacement with a write-in only voter verifiable ballot with an encrypted secret ballot receipt as proposed by David Chaum. The emancipation of the voter requires the restoration of voter control of ballot content with a content neutral ballot. I will have a website up explaining this proposition ASAP.
The LP’s next convention delegates should also consider adding self-districting as proposed by Dr. Edward B. Foley to our platform to abolish partisan gerrymandering by the incumbent parties.
Then the next convention’s delegates should also consider adding to the platform increasing the size of the U. S. House of Representatives, as discussed at Thirtythousand.org.
Finally, the Convention delegates should rescind the Honorary Life Membership of Donald J. Trump.
Your co-founder of the LP
“I never endorsed or voted for Donald Trump.”
“I voted for Trump because Chase Oliver was so awful.”
Are we all doing our full-disclosure/penance/boasting/defying our right to secret ballot with regard to Trump? Because that’s one thing I’m not the least bit cagey about.
In 2016, I voted for Trump in the general. And I do not regret it, because I could not have known then that he would fail to walk his talk. In the primary, I ended up voting for Ben Carson after Rand Paul dropped out of the race. No regrets there.
In 2020, I voted for Trump in both the primary and the general. That I do regret, because by then – after his weak mishandling of the BLM insurrection and the kungflu plandemic – I should have known better. What a waste of my vote, when I could have voted for Don Blankenship instead.
In 2024, I voted for Ron DeSantis in the primary, and for Randall Terry in the general. And I have zero regrets about either.
Good luck finding a more libertarian voting record among LP members.
“And for the record, I never endorsed or voted for Donald Trump.” – Andy
Good for you!
I voted for Trump because Chase Oliver was so awful and none of the other candidates were viable alternatives. Trump is better than Harris, so there you go.
Michael Rectenwald, Michael Heise, Angela McArdle, Hannah Goodman and Jeremy Kaufman, are all MC members who either endorsed Trump, or voted for him, or both. Which of them supports eminent domain?
Rebuke them for their complicity in electing Trump, by all means. Question whether and to what degree each of them is libertarian, certainly. But let’s not pretend that they support the state stealing from the individual.
As private citizens they all have the individual liberty to endorse and vote for whomever they want. It wouldn’t be very libertarian to pretend otherwise and demand that they resign or be removed for exercising that liberty.
—
McArdle gifted Trump an honorary lifetime membership:
https://x.com/MLiamMcCollum/status/1885480628570734773
Gene Berkman, not everyone in the Mises Caucus voted for Donald Trump, and those who did vote for Trump voted for him because they considered him to be the lesser of two evils compared to Joe Biden. They did not vote for Chase Oliver because they did not like him or consider him to be a viable candidate for the Libertarian Party.
And for the record, I never endorsed or voted for Donald Trump.
“Misesian analysis would indicate that in supporting a politician that favors eminent domain […] indicates ‘revealed preference.'”
No, I don’t think it would. While I certainly understand and even agree with condemning MC members for supporting statist Trump, the fact that Trump used the state to steal property decades before his first first term, does not magically make those who supported his second and third terms (in preference to the likes of as bad or worse Biden and Harris, Jorgensen and Oliver) eminent domain supporters themselves. It’s not as if Trump ran a single-issue campaign on eminent domain or anything. Did he even posit a position on it at all during campaign?
As for “restrictions on trade”, I have already explained that there is a strong libertarian case to be made for replacing all taxes with tariffs. In fact, if we were to reduce the government to its constitutional size, we could fund the entire operation using only tariffs, abolish all taxes, and still lower many, perhaps most, tariffs from what the currently are. There is nothing inherently unlibertarian about protectionism, so long as the whole world isn’t in the same global anarchist boat.
Which brings me to your next claim: “police state approach to border security”. How is Trump’s border policy like that of a police state? Merely because he wants to enforce the border? That’s not what police state means. And again, there isn’t necessarily anything unlibertarian about closing borders. The libertarian idealist position that borders are merely lines on a map and nobody has a nationality or citizenship is contingent on global anarchy. So long as anarchy is only local, its borders must be protected against statists and totalitarians. And the US unfortunately is still far from an anarchy itself.
“they support Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine.”
You mean Putin’s defense of innocent lives against nazi “ukraine”‘s aggression. Nobody who does not support that can possibly be libertarian, by definition. We support those who uphold and defend the NAP. As you just said, “action speaks louder than words, and Putin’s actions honor him. His biggest mistake has been his reservation, waiting too long, turning the other cheek to often, going to easy, not cracking down against the nazis with full force. He should have immediately stepped in, no holds barred, during the Orange Revolution in 2004 already. That would have been the libertarian thing to do, the right thing to do.
They back him as in their view a lesser evil despite his positions on trade and eminent domain. If there was a viable presidential candidate who had Trump’s other views and attributes but differed on trade and eminent domain I’m sure they would be happy to switch their support.
What other approach do you think would secure the border?
“Supporting a politician doesn’t mean supporting every view he holds or every action he ever took.”
True. But supporting a politician is helping him get the power to take actions. Misesian analysis would indicate that in supporting a politician that favors eminent domain, rescrictions on trade, and a police state approach to border security indicates ‘”revealed preference.”
Or, in other words, “action speaks louder than words.”
Supporting a politician doesn’t mean supporting every view he holds or every action he ever took.
How are you seeing business list?
If I go to LP.org and click on business list, nothing comes up.
Any suggestions?
Members of the Mises Caucus supported Donald Trump in 2024, and many in 2020. Donald Trump used eminent domain in New York and New Jersey to take property from its rightful owners and use it for his own development projects.
So yes, many in the Caucus supported a beneficiary of eminent domain, just as they support Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine.
These people are losers that nobody should pay attention to.
“support for McGee shifted […] members who had initially co-sponsored the motion—Travis Bost, Otto Dassing, and Adam Haman—later voted against his appointment.”
This is indeed very interesting. I wonder what changed their mind.
It might be that McGee had second thoughts about the nomination and asked them to change their vote, then subsequently withdrew his name altogether to ensure that he wouldn’t be appointed, but that would seem like a rather convoluted way to go about it.
Very remarkable.
@Jordan
Wow! Thanks for the shout out. I wasn’t expecting that, nor do I deserve so much credit for merely keeping an eye on the motion’s progress. But thank you!
@Nolan’s Duty
Are you sure? I don’t think that’s how it works. The bylaws (article 6) indicate that if an office is vacant, the LNC votes to appoint a replacement for the remainder of the original term. So while that certainly could be Harlos, if they are crazy enough to vote her in, it could also be anyone else – I’m not even sure if it has to be another member of the LNC, for that matter.
@Rick
I wouldn’t be surprised. But even so, she and her clowns making dubious accusations of embezzlement against McArdle, does not justify returning such accusations beyond illustrating how flimsy and unconvincing they are – no matter how tempting it is. They maintain a double-standard where their false accusations can conveniently go forgotten on the turn of a dime, but any accusations mirrored back at them will forever be clung to as a means of discrediting their detractors.
@Greg C cc. Andy
Which ones would those be? If there are eminent domain supporters in the Mises Caucus, then they too are certainly statists and anti-libertarians – necessarily so. But I do not know of any – including even Harlos, though it would certainly fit the pattern of her behavior.
Anti-trade is less easy to judge, because it is ambiguous. For example, there is a stong libertarian case to be made for replacing all taxes with tariffs, but that could also be described as “anti-trade”.
I do not know of anyone in the Mises Caucus who supports Eminent Domain or who opposes trade.
Another one bites the dust.
If they are communists and fake libertarians, what do you call the eminent domain supporting, anti-trade Mises Caucus folks?
This was Harlos’s goal all along. Expect a massive increase of communists and fake libertarians in the Sarwark mold joining.
Has Harlos been embezzling money?
That leaves Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos as the pro tem Chair of the LNC as soon as the voting to accept the resignation of Angela McArdle finalizes.
Congratulations Chair Harlos! You did it!