This is an original introduction piece sent to this IPR editor by Scott Lieberman:
My name is Scott Lieberman. As a former Libertarian National Committee Alternate representing California and a few other states for 20 consecutive years, I have seen it all. In that time period we had a Presidential Nominee who could not even crack 0.33 percent of the vote, but we also had State Legislators in 5 states and dozens of Libertarians win seats on City Councils.
The Libertarian Party delegates who voted for Johnson and Weld got their wish. In their opinion, they have a dream ticket that has more far more executive experience in state government than the two major-party-nominee-designates put together.
In the opinion of the delegates who voted for McAfee, Petersen, Perry, or one of the other candidates for the LP Presidential Nomination, we have at best a Libertarian-Light ticket, or, at worst, a stalking-horse for the Republican Nominee. I did not write “Trump” because it is not entirely inconceivable that a “palace coup” might occur at the Republican National Convention with a person not named Trump ending up as the Nominee.
Regardless of whether the “Never Trump” forces defeat him in Cleveland, the GOP seems to be in the worst shape it has been in many, many years. Combine that with a Democratic Nominee with all of the baggage of a Bill Clinton but with none of the charm, and you have a Golden Opportunity for the Libertarian Party.
I was very proud of the Radicals at the Libertarian National Convention who were able to temporarily put aside their differences with the “Pragmatists”. Together, we voted for Larry Sharpe in such numbers that we almost denied William Weld the VP Nomination. Can we extend the lifespan of that “coalition” for a few more months?
The article linked to below suggests a way for the Libertarian Party to become “relevant” in this election cycle.
Instead of bashing Johnson/Weld for being too Republican, too “liberal”, or just too inarticulate, I ask you instead to look at the Party itself. How can the Libertarian Party benefit from the high likelihood that our 2016 Pres/VP ticket will receive more scrutiny than any previous Libertarian ticket?
1. Getting 5% of the vote in many states will get the Libertarian Party ballot access for the next 2 to 4 years. Find out the exact requirements in your state for the LP to pass the vote test in November, and then do the activism necessary to achieve that percentage. You will probably need to do number 2 in order to achieve this.
2. The National LP will obviously be funneling all those new contacts to your state party. Don’t just ask those new contacts to attend a meeting – ask them to go door to door for the Johnson/Weld ticket. Unlike in past years, it won’t be that hard a sell – there is enough media about them such that many voters have probably at least heard about the LP or Gary Johnson in the past month. I suggest reading some articles on going door to door, and watching a webinar or two on this subject. Google is your friend to find such webinars.
Ten seconds of Googling yielded this link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/7/254733/-
I am a right-libertarian, but if the Daily Kos wants to teach me how to canvass, I will gladly let them do that!
3. My final thought is to recruit old and new LP members to run for local, winnable offices, and to apply for local Boards and Commissions. It is too late this year to implement that strategy on a widespread basis, but the new recruits in number 2 above can help us with that in the 2016-18 election cycle.
I thank Caryn Ann Harlos for posting this on IPR.
Oh – you want the actual link that I am referring to?
http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/10/how-libertarians-can-capitalize-on-the-gops-implosion/
There are purists who look and dress like “normal” people.
That’s sweet. I am glad I got a ton of camera appearances this convention to give the respectability police a good case of hives.
“Purists” are fine for the philosophical wing of libertarianism, but they are simply atrocious for the political wing, because they simply do NOT meet the expectation of professionalism that the public demands of candidates. That’s why their appearance on camera is an embarrassment to the LP and reinforces the general perception of libertarians as fruits and nuts and the LP as amateur hour.
==I’ve never met anyone who claims to be a “plumbline libertarian” (one of Capozzi’s favorite terms) or “purist.” It seems mostly to be used as a smear.==
You have now.
Illinois is a challenge state, which means the state does not check the signatures unless somebody challenges them, and unlike the other few challenge states, you can get on the ballot in Illinois without submitting the minimum required number of signatures, which is 25,000 (if you get challenged, you need 25,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot). Back in 2008, Constitution Party candidate for President, Chuck Baldwin, qualified for the Illinois ballot by submitting only 300 signatures. They made with only 300 signatures because nobody bothered to challenge them. So if the Constitution Party turns in some signatures in Illinois this year, they could make the ballot IF nobody challenges them, but that is the only way they will make it.
RTAA,you’ve never met Walter Block, then. Are you familiar with him? He popularized plumblinery.
I consider myself the most radical L I know. I attribute that to the influence of Lao Tzu.
I don’t find NAPSTERS to be nearly as radical.
I’ve never met anyone who claims to be a “plumbline libertarian” (one of Capozzi’s favorite terms) or “purist.” It seems mostly to be used as a smear.
Curiously, some libertarian alternate between accusing others of both “purism” and “statism,” depending on whether they themselves agree with the issue being discussed, and how closely they adhere to the perceived libertarian position on that issue.
I myself have been accused of both purism and statism, at one time or another.
I prefer to call myself a radical, which implies being pretty libertarian, but includes minarchists, which I am. (Minarchism, by definition, acknowledges the need for some state authority.)
I do know that the CP is actively gathering signatures here. I’m sure you’re right though; if the Green Party and to a possibly lesser extent the LP are having trouble getting on the ballot, there’s no way the CP will get on.
If you are a registered voter in Illinois, Darrell Castle is not likely to appear on your ballot. I suppose that you could cast a write in vote for him.
I really doubt the LP will get anywhere near 5%. Call me a pessimist, but it seems that every presidential election has the LP polling in the high single digits or even low double digits; then, as the election nears, the numbers drop to 1 or 2%, with the end result amounting to 0.3% -.99%. Yes, Johnson/ Weld is definitively receiving healthy media attention, the CNN town hall of course being a major media coup, and this will undoubtedly help increase the eventual vote totals, but will it matter enough?
I’ve heard that the LP is having trouble with ballot access in my state (Illinois) and Ohio. Should the LP fail to get the coveted 50 ballots, this can surely not help with the national GOTV effort. Remember, in 2012 Johnson kept repeating over and over again that he was the only third party candidate on all 50 state ballots, and what did it end up being, 48? I think there will be people who will pass over the LP ticket upon learning that they are not on the ballot in every jurisdiction in the union.
Johnson also likes to talk about the importance of getting into the presidential debates. Ross Perot had the financial capital, to use for media and advertising, which I bet helped him get into the debates. Is CFR globalist Weld talking to his fellow NWO buddies about an infusion of cash? The Kochs seemingly flatly denied that they were going to fund the Johnson campaign. And even if they should significantly out-raise the 2012 totals by debate time, is there any evidence that the funds will go towards media efforts and advertising, rather than lining the pockets of political consultants to the tune of a ridiculous $325 an hour? Do heart/neurosurgeons even make that much?
It’s important to take note just how poor of a public speaker/debater Johnson is. I dare say that the 16-17 years old kids I saw saw spar in the one debate tournament I participated in in high school would tear him to shreds. Johnson doesn’t just lack charisma, he lacks the ability to formulate an original thought and comes across as woefully ignorant on major policy issues. Keep in mind, the CPD debate is just not going to cater to basic one-liners for a sympathetic crowd. As it stands now, I believe that Trump and Clinton would tear him to shreds. To his credit, the one thing Johnson has going for him is that he at least seems to be sincere about what he believes in. He would very likely seem much more genuine than Clinton. Viewers should be able to easily discern that. But I just don’t think it’ll make up for his weaknesses.
I don’t know what a libertarian purist is. Is it someone who lives completely off the grid, in the, say, forested foothills of northern Idaho, refusing to pay taxes, use electricity, adhere to gun laws, drive without a license plate, practices maximal self-sufficiency in terms of food and everything else, or vaccinate his/her children and them send them to public schools? Or are purists the folks over at the Mises Insitute, disciples of Rothbard, many of whom unapologetic-ally support closed borders, see valid points in some aspects of Historical Revisionism, are socially conservative, and even appear at Confederate conferences, such as those organized by the League of the South? Is a libertarian purist someone who avidly reads Hans Herman Hoppe, opposing the very idea of a so-called democracy, celebrating the fact the libertarinism by and large appears almost exclusively to white males (even if you don’t believe in McAfee’s little tirade as it pertains to the US LP, check out the demographics of right-libertarian groups in European countries such as Poland) and cheering for a principle of physical removal of democrats and communists from a proposed libertarian social order? Or is a purist a left-wing libertarian who was outraged by the Ron Paul newsletter “controversy”, considers every “conspiracy theory” under the sun from government involvement in 9/11, the Bilderberg Group to vaccines causing autism to be the product of the imagination of mentally unbalanced tin foil hat/ Fedora wearing Asperbergers sufferers, stands hand in hand with militant feminists/Social Justice Warriors, wants to do away with all traditional gender norms, rages against the supposed “tyranny” of the patriarchy, rails against God and religion, proudly attends a polyamory panel at PorcFest, believes that “that true statement is racist” (Mark Edge quote) and considers hardcore drug use to be the pinnacle of individual liberty (i.e. Adam Kokesh?) Or is libertarian purist someone who simply engages in aggressive keyboard warrior-ism on behalf of anarchy, without applying theoretical ideas to “real word” practice?
I don’t know.
What I do know is that I’ll looking back into paleoconservatism. Paleolibertarianism seems to be dying if not completely dead in the U.S. (I think, and I’m extremely biased in this regard, that the last bastion of paleolibetarian political activity is Poland, where the hard-right libertarian Partia KORWiN, led by the eccentric millionare Janusz Korwin-Mikke, European public enemy number one of the EU, very narrowly missed the 5% vote threshold to enter parliament in the last election, amassing 722,999 votes in a country of 36 million people). Regardless, despite what I’ve said at various times in the past, I’ve never felt truly comfortable with the libertarian label, with or without the “paleo” prefix.
If I get past some moral qualms I have about voting, I’ll vote for the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle, a man of principle and character.
PS: If you believe that I came across as unbelievably snarky in this comment, don’t worry – you’re in good company; I was told the same thing by my student editor critiquing the longest and most exhaustively researched article I wrote for my high school freshman journalism class. Old habits die-hard.
I’m a purist. Playing a sneaky dirty reverse-psychology Jedi mind trick by posting this. Bwahahaha.
No, just that Scott knew I am interested in hearing things discussed.
Too bad the first comment was a troll misrepresentation.
I’ve always been accused of being a “purist”, although I’ve never considered myself to be that way. Johnson was my second choice for President (after Perry), and Weld would never have been my choice, but since I couldn’t make the convention that doesn’t matter. I’m willing to do what I can to help our ticket makes its upmost impact.
I remember saying in 2012 that the GOP wouldn’t emerge from that rule-changing, cheating convention intact, and it appears I was right. The schism between two or more factions in the Republican Party is on parade for all of us to see. I will admit it’s a bit enjoyable to watch.
We have a good opportunity this weekend at Politicon to get some attention. Johnson/Weld will be giving the keynote speech. We’re trying to get as many Libertarians there as possible to make a loud and enthusiastic impact at their speech. There will also be a booth well-stocked by activists and literature.
States in which the vote test was not met in the last election, but which would give the LP qualified status after the 2016 election if Johnson got 5% in every state, are: Arkansas, Connecticut, DC, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Washington. If we can just get the party label on the ballot in Tennessee and Ohio, then those two stats would also be on this list. Maine and Pennsylvania would also be on this list if certain changes are made in the laws of those states, which is very likely because of court decisions we have already won this year.
This is well written and realistic, but I don’t think it will sway the purists. They are content to be a party that barely cracks 1%. Faring any better or growing the party would destroy their reason to be! They want to remain a disgruntled minority.
Utopia is not an option . . . . the purists want the world to be as pure as ivory snow soap libertarian, but it doesn’t work that way.