It Takes Two to Compromise
Many people within the Libertarian Party claim that reformers and purists within the Party can work together towards electoral success. Unfortunately the purists and anarchists have no intention of working with us. Indeed, now that they know we reformers exist, they seek to drive us out of the Libertarian Party—by any means necessary.
|
Posted April 25, 2006
I personally find it interesting just how many members of the Libertarian Party have loudly mourned the death of Harry Browne. Not a year ago many of these same people used the term, "Brownians," and similar epithets along with "statist" and "Communist" and "closet Republican" to denegrate those who try to lead the Party towards practical, pragmatic politics.
This is nothing new. Figures such as Carol Moore and Jacob Hornberger have constantly attacked any figures within the Party, at any level, who are seen as less than totally pure. Moderate libertarians outside the party are treated as idiots, delusional people who deny the truth and rightness of total anarchy. Within the party, we are regarded as worse—plants by the establishment, traitors working in the cause of statism, impurities to be expunged by any means—even if it means violating the principles Libertarians are so proud of.
There are two general camps in the Party who oppose us, and who will rally together as time passes to block reforms. These two groups—the party purists and the hard-line anarchists—overlap so significantly that they could almost be considered a single group. Of the two, the purists are stronger in their resistance. Their goal is to retain control of the Libertarian Party, above all else. By comparison, anarchists who believe achieving anarchy is more important than a pure party may support incremental steps where radical change doesn't sell. The other difference is this: principled anarchists might keep their opposition principled, but purists, who value control of the party above political victory, will not—and have not.
On April 1, 2006 Jeff Daiell, until recently County Chair for Harris County, Texas, twice the Libertarian candidate for governor, currently a member of the Texas LP's executive committee and platform committee, made the following false claims about the Libertarian Reform Caucus:
"For those on the list not familiar with the so-called
"Reform Caucus", it proposes to delete from the LP
Platform -every- provision which calls upon the
Federal Government to refrain from -any- activity
authorized by the Federal Constitution.
"This would include borrowing money, and participation
in building endless miles of highways (because --
don't laugh—of Congress's power to 'build post
roads').
"The result, of course, is that we would no longer be a
libertarian party, but a clone of the Constitution
Party.
"The irony is that, as always, these self-described
'pragmatists' are blissfully unaware of (or unwilling
to admit to) political reality (such as the fact that
the Constitution Party doesn't do as well as we do at
the polls).
"Also, our call for an end to Federal borrowing means
we can appeal to fiscal conservatives by
contradistinguishing ourselves from the two
tax-subsidized parties; the so-called 'pragmatists'
would end that possibility.
"And advocating an end to Federal subsidies for highway
construction allows us to pitch to environmentalists
and property-rights advocates; the alleged 'realists'
would remove that potential.
"Those are just two examples. Check out their entire
proposal!"
This could be merely ignorance, or this could be deliberate lies. If the latter, it would not be the first time. The purists who currently control the party are willing to stoop at least that low to drive off potential threats—as they have done in the past. Furthermore, now that they are aware that the Caucus poses a threat, they have begun to move to block our efforts... and they are better organized and have more experience at intra-party fighting than we do.
Disclosure time: I've always been a moderate Libertarian, by intra-party standards. Today I re-took the Nolan Chart quiz and came up with 90-60- within the Libertarian quadrant but leaning liberal. In the seven years I've been in the Party I have been under nearly constant attack for my lack of faith in the gods Free Market and Rational Self-Interest. Despite efforts to defame me—most recently by our state executive director, who is rabidly anti-reform- I have remained active in the party despite my vocal opposition to anarchy because, for now, the Libertarian Party is the only game in town for small-government people. This is a fight I am all too familiar with... and now it is your fight, too.
Still doubt me? Recall the 2004 Presidential nomination. We were given three options: a latecomer with supposedly deep pockets but few credentials; a radio talk-show host with a credible moderate Libertarian message; and a man who refused to drive because he denied the government's authority to issue driver's licenses. Despite the obvious drawbacks of Michael Badnarik, he ended up winning the nomination... because the purists and anarchists would rather nominate an underfunded nobody than anyone who might deviate from the hardest party line.
This is what we are fighting against—not because we hate anarchism, but because the purists hate us. Some of us are anarchists who have left the purist camp—and there may be a few more ready to do so—but not many. To the hard-liners we are a greater enemy than the Democrats and Republicans—and since we seek to take control of the Libertarian Party, we are more to be feared than either.
Friends, we must organize now. We must forward and support candidates for party leadership now. We must organize to get our delegates to state and national conventions now. If we are ever to change the course of the Libertarian Party, it must be before the anarchists in the party rally together to prevent it. 2008 will be too late. We must achieve reform in this year, 2006... or never.
The purists will not allow us another chance.
15 Comments
Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page
|
