There's More to do Than Changing the Platform

by Myron Pauli

Posted July 3, 2005

First of all, I applaud the Libertarian Reform Caucus (LRC, web site: www.ReformTheLP.org), and I very much hope it succeeds. Sometimes I prefer to call myself a Grover Cleveland Democrat than a Libertarian because the latter seems to imply that I endorse personal ownership of nuclear weapons, abolition of all public roads, or whatever. I find that the anarcho-libertarian stands are interesting for a philosophical discussion but rather irrelevant to the average man or woman in America. In fact, having been in the Libertarian Party (LP) for years, I have watched it slowly decline and grow even more irrelevant. I ultimately decided to not renew my LP dues until I see the party showing signs of health rather than signs of decay.

I have no issue with LRC on making a better platform. On the other hand, there is a perfectly fine platform in existence—it is called the Constitution of the United States. Just think of the 10th Amendment - if one state wishes to legalize marijuana for medical use but not for general use while another state legalizes marijuana like alcohol and a third one keeps prohibition, this is all within the context of the 10th Amendment. General libertarian principles would agree with Jefferson's comment that "government is best which governs least." Nevertheless, I always find it amusing that most libertarians/Libertarians think there is one and only one way to do things. The 10th Amendment is a perfect example of the diversity of multiple states (think of states as small sovereign republics) having different governing structures, united by a common defense, a common currency, and free trade. Anyone who is sick of the brothels in Nevada can move to Utah. However, there is more that ails the Libertarian Party than the excess radicalism of the current platform.

First of all - almost no one ever reads a party platform. Secondly, ones political opponent can use accusations against a libertarian candidate whether or not they are true. In other words, call the libertarian opponent an advocate of Waco cults, kiddie porn, Islamic extremism, flag burning, or whatever hits below the belt. Even if the Libertarian Party adopted the Republican Platform of 1924, you could count on hyper-partisan people like Ann Coulter describing Libertarians as some sort of Satanic Cult. Truth has never limited politicians in the past and with enough money and so-called "independent" expenditures, one can now smear ones opponent without even getting dirty. The more effective that Libertarians become, the more dirt will be flung at us by the partisans of the Republican Right and the Democratic Left.

However, far more important than having a good platform is having good candidates. In America, people often vote for the man (or woman) and not just the rhetoric. People have heard enough hypocritical rhetoric and often look to someone whom they like and trust. This has been true since the time of George Washington. Washington was a poorly educated man who did not engage in the great strident ideological debates of the Jeffersons, Hamiltons, Adamses, and Franklins. Rather, he stood as the quintessential honest and trustworthy character.

The last election is a good example. The Libertarians nominated Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna for President and Vice President of the United States. In other words, these are the people who would be in charge of our 10,000 nuclear weapons, our border patrol, our 300 ship Navy, etc. "Vice President Campagna" had a mail order doctoral degree in metaphysics and proclaimed that he had received the endorsement of Mohandas Ghandi. "President Badnarik" did not own a drivers license and had not paid taxes in years. He promised to blow up the UN building and to carry a concealed weapon into the Capitol building for his inauguration. Keep in mind that in order to win elections, the LP must make favorable impressions upon the voters.

Basically, any time that I pointed out the flaws of our President and Vice Presidential candidates, I was accused of disloyalty. I was also reminded that Badnarik and Campagna were men of principle who were committed Libertarians and supported the Party Platform. To point out that most voters, the news media, and potential financial contributors would view these two as hopeless amateurs (or worse) was not relevant to the Party of Principle. If the Libertarians had selected two anarchistic winos or addicts from homeless shelters, that would be good enough and I should shut up and get behind the Party.

My view was that the Libertarian Party was so anti-government that it did not even take the executive offices of the United States seriously and that it was growing very difficult, in turn, for me to take the Libertarian Party seriously. Even with the disaster that is the War in Iraq and Bush's out-of-control domestic spending, the Libertarian Party could barely pull 0.3% of the vote. If one assumes based on the various "quizzes" that 10 to 20% of voters are in the small-l Libertarian quadrant; that says that 97% to 98.5% of libertarians did not even vote for the Libertarian Party. Before the LP can win elections, it should at least be able to win among quadrant libertarians. It cannot do that if it is prone to philosophical extremism, has not even a glimmer of financing, has no media attention, and does not even appear to take itself seriously.

9 Comments

Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page