Posted to Free Virginia website.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
In the thirty years I’ve been involved in the LP, I have heard literally hundreds of “Libertarians” swear that there was “no constituency” for our “more radical” positions.
By the time these nervous nellies got finished listing all the things we shouldn’t talk about, there would be nothing left for us to say at all.
At one time or another, I’ve heard people who describe themselves as Libertarians say we should never, ever discuss:
•Abolishing public schools (or even school choice as an interim measure!)
•Abolishing the Income Tax
•Privatizing all public roads & other transportation infrastructure
•Repealing drug prohibition
•Repealing the prohibition on prostitution
•Abolishing marriage licensure
… and on an on.
Some Libertarians seem to be utterly terrified of anyone finding out about real libertarian solutions.
But why are we so afraid of our own shadow? What about being in politics makes us so hysterically worried that the general public will discover what we really want?
In many ways, the public is already light-years ahead of where we think they are. Carla Howell proved that a few years ago with the 2002 ballot initiative to repeal the Massachusetts state income tax .
Despite being out-spent and out-volunteered by a factor of hundreds to one — the main opposition consisted of government employees terrified the measure meant the cooking of their stolen golden goose — the initiative won 40% of the vote.
Forty percent!
Forty percent despite the fact that the campaign was hobbled by the fact that a large fraction of the half-million million government employees (250,000 local government, another 250,000 state government) actively campaigned against it, often while on taxpayer time (teachers, for instance, plastered public schools with posters urging a “no” vote; and sent children home every week with anti-repeal flyers).
Despite the Herculean efforts of the tax-funded opposition, 40% of Massachusetts voters pulled the “Yes” lever.
Had there been an equal amount of money & volunteers available to the repeal effort, there is a very real possibility that the measure would have passed.
Another issue some Libertarians have screamed for their colleagues to avoid mentioning is repealing drug prohibition. I know of people who were sitting officers of the LP, or already-endorsed candidates for public office, who were loudly and rudely dressed-down in front of *LIBERTARIAN* audiences for mentioning the repeal of marijuana prohibition . JUST marijuana — they mentioned no other drugs.
Yet here it is 2012, and a bunch of cracks in the wall of prohibition have suddenly appeared in Colorado and Washington. Certainly Libertarians were involved in the process — except for the nay-sayers in the back of the room at local LP meetings, screeching about how we should not talk about this issue because will promote the continuation of our image as “the Party of dope”.
Yes, I have directly heard a half-dozen Libertarians use exactly that phrase and admonition within the last five years. I can probably find a few emails in my email archive with that phrase in it.
Now let’s talk about one of those unspeakables in our idea set: Secession.
There were so many “Libertarians” who wet their pants over that long-standing libertarian priciple being in our platform, that in 2008 it was removed and replaced by a nebulous, “self determination” plank that doesn’t even mention the right to secede. But is secession one of those third rails we should never talk about?
Hardly.
In an article on LewRockwell.com, Kirkland Sale reviews some recent polling data at Public Policy Polling .
Among the more interesting finds: Secession is viewed positively/sympathetically by major fractions of various demographic groups. Here are a few examples:
By race: 46% (14 million) of Hispanics; 31% (49 million) of whites.
By ideology: 50% of conservatives (41 million); 19% (14 million) of liberals.
By sex: 35% of women and only 29% of men.
As Kirkpatrick Sale’s correspondent, Bill Regnery, said: “We should discard the notion that women cannot be recruited.”
By age: 50% of 18-29 year olds.
The point is this: Secession is not an idea that only extremist outliers like libertarians have entertained. As the above survey results show, there is a substantial cohort of Americans out there who not only feel secession is appropriate in some cases, but who are right now in favor of it.
Do we jump out in front of this parade, or tiptoe into the line behind everyone else once it becomes popular, as some “Libertarians” would have us believe?
Whenever there is a market for an idea we long since staked out as our own, we don’t need to hide from it and worry about whether Americans will find the idea palatable. All we have to do is speak to them like they are adults and like we believe they are capable of discussing “radical” ideas with a level head.
But we have to speak to them! We can’t speak to them if we’re cowering behind them in the parade.
Let’s speak loudly and clearly about the kind of free society we seek. In doing so, we will find these people. Once we find them, they can be invited to join our coalition!
There is NO limit to how large the Libertarian movement (and Party) can grow. As shown above, on just one issue, there are 50 to 60 million people who are receptive to the “extremist” idea of secession. There are millions more (with some amount of overlap) on every other issue in our toolbox.
Don’t be afraid to seek them out!
Thank you for reading!
Marc Montoni is a frequent writer and commenter here.
@47 Noticed that’ didn’t think it was bad enough to warrant action. But I’m glad you noticed, and hope you remember in the future.
SC@50 has honed in on the fundamental principle of morality that we must follow if we are not to be hypocrites.
@16-21 – The “zero dues experiment” was handled very badly. And viewing it as an “experiment” was part and parcel of the mistake. Arguably we were not ready to do it at all — being fully ready would have meant not only having an alternative fundraising plan to replace the money that might no longer be coming in (e.g. a crowdfunding website ready to go), but also a plan to create an ideological requirement for voting membership in the Libertarian Party beyond our Non-Aggression pledge. Both to maintain the idea that being entrusted with the power to help run our party is an honor and privilege, and to provide at least somewhat of a disincentive to people who don’t really share our ideas crashing the party (e.g. in order to influence who we nominate for president).
But if eliminating dues was to be done, there was clearly a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The Libertarian National Committee chose the wrong way.
Rather than eliminating dues as a matter of integrity, which would have given people a reason to be more enthused about supporting the party and continuing to donate money even with these donations no longer tied to membership, the LNC ignored the principle at stake and made their decision to eliminate dues in a naked (and as it turned out, poorly-conceived!) bid to actually help the party’s balance sheet by saving on membership administration costs.
From the perspective of LP members and prospective members, it was like the difference between how you’d perceive someone telling you the truth because they believe in honesty, versus how you’d perceive them telling you the truth because they’ve calculated it will help them get what they want. The person’s action may be the same in both cases, but your opinion of them will likely be much different in one case than in the other!
As I wrote in explanation of my recent vote on the Libertarian National Committee against raising the cost of life membership in the Libertarian Party, the principle at stake is this:
Voting membership in the Libertarian Party should not be sold on a pay-to-play basis. It should be strictly based on support for libertarianism.
Whenever we do something in order to get money, members, or votes, rather than doing it because we believe it’s the right thing to do, we fail to be worthy of the ideas we champion, and damage the Libertarian Party’s reputation in the process. In the long run — and sometimes even in the short run — it’s a losing approach that costs more than it gains.
Consider also NoGovNo’s comments @36. Secession is a cause that can win us the support of many impassioned peoples worldwide — Tibetans, Kurds, South Sudanese, Catalanians, Basques, East Timorese, Taiwanese, etc. Not everyone in those countries/ethnic groups of course, but many of them.
Robert @46 – Secession is the path that leads to self-determination. Talking about the latter without mentioning the former is like talking about small government without any mention of cutting spending.
And do you really want to be lumping “malcontents” in with “Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and … sociopathic elements” in society? I daresay anyone who’s not a political “malcontent” in the U.S. today is probably either politically apathetic/ignorant, or part of the problem.
While the PPP data may or may not be reliable (there’s always room for quibbling over estimates of the exact numbers), what’s clear is that the American public is becoming more dissatisfied and radicalized.
As Marc rightly notes, we have a choice — we can either be leaders and get out in front of this parade/trend, or we can meekly follow it and let others reap the support of the discontented. I know which approach I favor.
Paulie @6 – Damn, I forgot that rule again with the letter I posted about De-Vote.org, which I accompanied with some of my own comments. Sorry!
MM’s essay and the PPP report seem to be out-of-sync. Here’s the summary from PPP:
****“18% of respondents said they would support their state seceding from the union due to Obama’s reelection, to 68% who would oppose the measure. 27% of Hispanics would support secession, compared to 19% of white voters and 12% of African American voters. Young voters were also more likely to support succession. 29% of 18-29 year olds would support succession, while only 14% of voters age 46-65 and only 16% of voters age 65+ would support it.”****
Notice that “secession” is brought up ONLY in the context of Obama’s re-election. The overall 18% number is likely VERY high. I would note that PPP has a typo, using the word “succession” instead of “secession” a few times, casting further doubt on the reliability of this data. If the pollsters can’t get this right, I have to wonder whether there was confusion on the part of those sampled as well.
18% is a low number, and to the extent that there is THAT MUCH SUPPORT for “secession” generally, my guess is a very large piece of that subset of the population are what might be called the “hater” crowd — Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and other malcontents and sociopathic elements in the greater society. The message of “liberty for all” doesn’t resonate with this element, near as I can tell. Just because a person might, say, like guns, secession, and speaks in a non-PC manner, does NOT mean he or she is a L-leaner.
Some Ls may sincerely believe that the path to liberty is a secessionist one, but thankfully the LP is now for “self-determination,” not “secession.” That relic went away along with the “private nukes” clause and other extremist notions in ‘06.
Speaking of which, all those committees are going to be filled at the March meeting, so people should start applying now if they are interested. Let’s see if we can do better this term.
Tom B, I’d have to say that if Peter O felt targeted by my words, then perhaps I could have made my point better. I have known Peter since the late nineties and my impression of his is that he is fair and honest individual. He is not the kind of person I meant.
The word “exclusionist” is what I needed. I am glad someone introduced the word into this discussion, because it makes clearer what I mean.
Peter, my derision of certain “Libertarians” is directed mainly at the “exclusionist” mainstreamers — the kind of people who would a) insult and smear a Libertarian in front of other Libertarians (I gave an example or two above); and b) who will only nominate for internal positons people who demonstrate loyalty to the majority mainstreamer faction.
Here’s an example of where I differentiate: Chuck Moulton long ago said he supported the goals of the Reform Caucus. However, he has *never* spoken ill of any radical just because they were radical; and wherever he serves (such as when he was on the LNC), he goes out of his way to include radicals in the discussion.
Currently, the LNC is completely dominated by individuals who do *not* welcome radicals into any discussion. The LNC’s choices for the Platform, Bylaws, and Credentials committees in the past several terms is a case in point.
Shutting out the internal dissidents is just politics, of course. Only thing is — for us, it’s losing politics.
There are all kinds of different reasons different people support it.
Down here in Alabama, during the 1990s there was a revival of neo-confederate sentiment, but it waned after 9/11. For example, there are a couple of houses in my parents’ neighborhood that always flew Confederate flags but switched to US flags in late 2001, and I saw the same thing with a lot of the neo-confederates that turned neocon after 9/11.
There’s been a revival of secession talk here since the second Obama election…Alabama was among the first and strongest secession petition states in the last couple of months.
While the national LP may no longer have a Secession plank, the LP of California certainly still does:
We recognize the right to political secession. This includes the right of secession by political
entities, private groups, or individuals. Exercise of this right, like the exercise of all rights,
does not remove legal and moral obligations not to violate the rights of others. Those who
wish to secede should not have to obtain permission of those from whom they wish to
secede.
I started thinking about the idea of California secession after the 2004 election, when it was hard to believe GW Bush would be president for another 4 years. I know there is a Vermont secession movement. However, we don’t know why some people are supporting secession. Some may truly believe in freedom, like we do. Or, they may be upset that the “Kenyan Muslim commie” was re-elected president, or some other such disdain for Obama as an individual.
Slam In A Y-Trap doesn’t seem to understand the difference between libertarians and members of the LP.
The genesis of the argument was Marc’s use of the term “Libertarians,” intentionally capitalized to denote party membership as opposed to philosophy, in scare quotes.
Perhaps the LP could be fixed to Peter’s liking by making a rule that anyone deemed to be a radical absolutist who promotes the platform, or criticizes members that don’t, is automatically banished from the LP forever.
I didn’t see Peter advocate for exclusionism. I have seen other moderates who have, and if he does, I can address his arguments, but let’s not put words in his mouth.
Slam In A Y-Trap doesn’t seem to understand the difference between libertarians and members of the LP.
I can remember one particular LP member who was well-liked by many LP members. This man also claimed to be a libertarian. Many LP members believed him right up until he quit the LP to support Mitt Romney.
And poor Peter J. Orvetti. He is persecuted for his beliefs. A victim of those horrible “absolutists”. Let us weep for this man who hurls pejoratives as he deflects the attacks against his deeply held beliefs which are superior than those of others.
He feels so sorry for me because he imagines I will end up lonely and bitter for thinking he is a “real war-mongering fascist authoritarian”. But, I never called him that or suggested that I think he is one. I merely illustrated that his logic was faulty in that one does not necessarily become that which cashes his check. So, Peter, don’t worry too much about how I’ll end up.
Better to spend your time wondering why you pay dues to an organization when you don’t really believe the organization’s platform should be discussed in the presence of those who don’t belong to the organization.
I once paid dues to an organization that I was in agreement with, but I stopped paying dues and spending time on this organization after I came to believe that a majority of the members of this organization no longer supported its platform and no longer worked to achieve meaningful change in society.
Perhaps the LP could be fixed to Peter’s liking by making a rule that anyone deemed to be a radical absolutist who promotes the platform, or criticizes members that don’t, is automatically banished from the LP forever.
What is so radically libertarian about secession? Millions of people support secessions of various parts of the US for one reason or another. Some of them are libertarian, but most are not.
Right now the big secession push is by Republicans who are mad that Obama beat Romney.
There are many secession movements all over the world, and they don’t have a common ideology.
The US started in an act of secession and has supressed many secession attempts since then.
The North was considering seceding in the slavery era, but the South beat them to it.
Marc Montoni wrote:
> In the thirty years I’ve been involved in the LP, I have heard literally hundreds of “Libertarians” swear that there was “no constituency” for our “more radical” positions.
And then as examples he lists the following:
1. Abolishing public schools (or even school choice as an interim measure!)
2. Abolishing the Income Tax
3. Privatizing all public roads & other transportation infrastructure
4. Repealing drug prohibition
5. Repealing the prohibition on prostitution
6. Abolishing marriage licensure
“… and on an on.”
These 6 examples are simply NOT so radical as to be unacceptable to the majority of mainline libertarians. So what’s his point.
Clearly the above ‘strawmen” were placed in our paths so that his argument for
“Secession: Millions Like It–Let’s Go Find Them!
would SEEM to be more reasonable and less radical than it actually is.
I don’t see what is so terrible with keeping up with inflation. It’s been 20 years; money is not worth what it was then. What 25.00 bought then takes more like 50.00 to buy now. If prices go up 100x should we still charge 25 dollars, which will then buy what 25 cents buys now?
The membership should be $5 for any student under 22 yrs old. And DO NOT raise the basis dues over the current $25. We show a little uptick and some are calling for an increase in dues. Do we need to check you for your undercover credentials or what ?
Fundraise for specific reasons and keep the overhead/takeout at a minimum and you would see results. You need MORE members in which to hopefully have donate more later. Don’t run anyone off who you can agree with 80% of the time ! Include don’t exclude, especially by raising dues. Let people freely GIVE to something they can agree with. Don’t expect to use increased dues, because they might not be there to use!
There are many issues in which we are with the majority and we must definitely use this common ground to grow the LOCAL PARTY – The Truth is 73% of Americans Agree To END ALL FOREIGN AID: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sTAmISi6WP4
That’s one of the things we are working on improving.
The information needs to be updated, no question.
The LP national web site ( I assume you know how to get there) says this about the national defense budget,
Defend America: Cut Taxes
Military expenses are over $250 billion a year!.
The national defense budget is closer to 3 times that or $750 billion.
I have a difficult time contributing to any organization that cannot keep such information up to date. I cannot see why anyone would think others would contribute to such an organization either.
Agreed with @28.
National dues should probably be increased to about $40 right away.
The LNC should set up a handful of special project funds, in addition to the general fundraising.
P @28
“My solution towards having a larger amount of money go to where the members want it to go is to dramatically increase project based fundraising, as opposed to general fundraising.”
On that point I agree entirely … so much so that it is nearly our entire method of operations in Oregon. We do no general fundraising solicitations anymore and conduct everything as project based fund raising. Usually the random click on the website to donate money covers our overhead.
I’m just talking about raising basic dues to keep up with inflation.
That doesn’t sound like what you’re talking about.
My solution towards having a larger amount of money go to where the members want it to go is to dramatically increase project based fundraising, as opposed to general fundraising.
p@26
Well you would have my support for a bylaws amendment that fixes that problem. Since delegates to the national convention need only be members of their respective state parties, the value of membership is really more a token item anyway because what rights do you really have as a member of the LNC Inc. persay?
I am open minded as to how to correct the problem so that we are not using our time and resources unwisely and not commit ourselves to delivering a large swath of membership services that do not actual accomplish the real mission.
Average annual gift from new members is about $70 to national LP iirc. I tend to agree that the membership rate should keep up with inflation, but due to the zero dues experiment it is now a matter of bylaws, not LNC determination.
P @24
In the sense that you are asking people to send you money who have already sent you money, you will always see a very decided uptick. It is alot easier to get that second check than that first.
The benefit of a well managed donor list vs a well managed membership list is that a well managed donor list does not have liabilities associated with it.
A “member” in the LP sense is someone who donates a defined amount one time or annually (if they renew) — and for the LP that number is pretty small ($25). I side with people who think that the low dues rate is “leaving money on the table” … especially since it seems obvious that the dues don’t even pay for operations. 15,000 members * 25 is 375,000 … and national has about a $1M annual budget. Arguably absent all other programs, just the staff and facilities required due to FEC rules and to keep the LP News going, and mail all the renewal notices, etc etc, would exceed that income.
In Oregon our “first-time donor” sends an average of $55 instead of $25 … and we do not accrue liabilities associated with it.
Subsequently appeals to our list of donors have a good response rate. We have even better response rates to project based appeals (pay for the mail ballot, for example)
I suspect if someone really took an objective and hard look at the system, you would come up with “more trouble than it is worth” — not that anyone on staff would recommend it because that is their jobs 😉 … but there are more efficient ways of running a political organization.
Yes. Dramatically so, in our experience.
SIAYT @21
Has the question ever been asked is the collection of dues a net-benefit activity.
Sure you get revenue… but does the revenue cover the related expense?
Yes you get members and members can be turned into donors… but is the conversion rate really any better than doing solicitation from non paying members/interested inquiries?
Is the management overhead and the distraction of managing that membership base preventing us from performing other vital functions better (opportunity cost) ?
What I see when I look at the national party budge is about 92% spent on overhead and administration and 8% spent on ballot access, advertising, etc etc.
Arguable some of the activities staff does accomplish some level of political outreach… but I surmise that is a tiny part of their time compared to the management of the apparatus and just plain siting on their hands because the LNC board is distracted with their fights.
Notwithstanding all the esoteric philosophical reasons why it is wrong… it also seems to have not worked.
@19 If you are going to stick around the LP, regardless of whether you are a moderate or an extremist, left leaning or right leaning, you will from time to time hear some people inviting you to leave. It’s just what LP members do.
Free membership has continued to rise at about the same rate before, during and after zero dues.
In the meantime, during the six months or so that zero dues were in effect, about a third of the membership stopped paying the equivalent of annual dues and never came back.
I’d call that a disaster any way you look at it.
And I don’t believe it would work any other way no matter what you do.
SIAYT @18
Zero dues was s disaster because national is a giant money pit that absorbs 80-90% of what comes in the door as waste and overhead vs what many of us would regard as actual political activity.
Under those circumstances taking a sudden hit in your “taxation” revenues while still not knowing how to deliver value people would pay for voluntarily would be a “disaster” to those who misunderstand what type of enterprise it should be.
Zero dues was tried in 2006 and was a monumental disaster.
@8 is not an LP member, and @9 advises other LP members that they would be better off spending their money on banana slicers than donations to the LP.
PJO @15
One of my largest issues with the national party is the concept of dues … that once you pay said dues you are lawfully conferred an equal voice in a democratic system that uses force to determine the outcome of libertarian policy.
The hypocrisy of that is actually quite amazing at the end of the day, when you consider that membership in an organization that has the values that we claim to would be an informal affair based on mutual consent.
That being said, those of us who are not predisposed to such hypocrisy and see it for what it is out of the LNC Inc., still find the concept of purchasing membership offensive when it is uttered.
Sounds like two different ways of saying the same thing.
I don’t think anyone can deny that elections are popularity contests that rely heavily on advertising and marketing techniques to sway voters.
I can deny it.
Elections are about uninformed people voting for assholes they dislike because they fear and/or loathe the other candidate that was selected by the elite.
These elections depend heavily on lies and distortions aimed at those who bother to vote using billions of dollars worth of media paid for by those seeking influence, privilege and/or the ability to plunder.
The LP will win elections when a majority of those who vote (and who may not currently vote) adopt a libertarian viewpoint AND the LP nominates an actual libertarian who does not run as a mainstream Republicrat type of candidate.
I don’t think anyone can deny that nobody ever adopts ideas they don’t know about. So, if you want people to adopt an ideology, perhaps the best way for this to happen is to present it to them over and over again.
Marc, your good points are overshadowed by your sweeping generalizations about anyone who disagrees with any of your listed points. I fully support (and vocalize to potential recruits) ending marijuana and prostitution prohibition and ending all marriage licensing. I do not feel that it is good advertising for a candidate to support immediate abolishment of income taxes, pubic schools, funding for roads etc without detailed and plausible transition plans.
I believe the the first 3 can be ended immediately with no ‘transition’ needed and that we can convince a majority of voters the same. The latter 3 need a transition both for orderly transfer to private ownership and in order for us to effectively sell it to a majority of voters. I think we have to break the image of a ‘credibility’ gap that our political opponents and state-assisted/sponsored media created.
Now, I do not wish to impose a gag-order or ouster those who do not agree, but I simply think we will be more successful in the long run if we emphasize transition over abolishment in some cases. Libertarianism is a philosophy. The Libertarian Party is a political vehicle. Elections are winner-take-all contests decided by uninformed voters who rely mostly on emotion and how much they like a candidate or party.
Favoring a strategy I feel may increase electoral success in no way changes my personal philosophy. I can promote minarchism while simultaneously favoring an anarcho-capitalist system because I believe that I will never live to see an AC system. I also think the success of a minarchist type system would be the best evidence or moving towards an AC system.
I don’t think anyone can deny that elections are popularity contests that rely heavily on advertising and marketing techniques to sway voters. This isn’t a recent phenomenon, but rather one that has existed throughout the history of democratic/republican governance. To think we don’t have to play the game or can “rise-above” the fray and simply win with ideas that are better is to ignore the entirety of political and (truthfully) human history.
Basically, in a long-winded way, I am saying that we can disagree on electoral strategy without doubting each others’ dedication to libertarian principals.
Moderation in pursuit of extremism is no virtue and extremism in pursuit of moderation is no vice.
Ok Paulie.
TB @8
Thank you… I was going to respond to that but now I don’t have to.
“Please don’t put judgmental quotes around “Libertarians” to suggest we non-absolutists are not real libertarians. The LP hasn’t stopped cashing my monthly checks, so I’m just as much a member as the radicals.”
Peter, Peter, Peter…
The federal government probably hasn’t stopped cashing your checks either. Does that mean you are a real war-mongering fascist authoritarian?
There are some things money can’t buy.
Personally, I favor a 50-State Secession.
Next on the agenda would be secession for cities and counties followed by secession for neighborhoods and districts.
Then perhaps we could start working on minding our own business.
It is unfortunate that the radical moderate absolutists in the LP don’t realize that the more they try to mainstream the LP, the more irrelevant the LP becomes.
Statism is as out of style as Pat Boone singing Little Richard songs. Free your collectivist mainstream minds, and with any luck your statist-lite asses will follow.
We should discuss this in open thread for other stuff. Also, remember we are not supposed to publish our own editorials. I can still publish it and credit you as the article’s author but me or someone else other than you has to be the one who posts it to IPR. For what you already have as a draft I can switch the article author from the draft for publication, just let me know if or when it’s finished …on open thread please.
Guys, I’m posting 3 big articles later today!! stay tuned!
I agree 100%.
I ran for State House in 2009, and one of my regrets is that I didn’t position myself as radical enough. I basically just took the LP platform positions on most issues. On some issues our platform is great. Others….not so much.
I’ve seen over the last few years that most people are not scared by our more radical or extreme positions, rather they are often intrigued by them.
Put another way….though Bill O’Reilly may act as though an anti-prohibitionist is a quack, the general public will not do the same thing when they actually talk to the guy.
Good point, Marc.