A Pledge for Officers and Candidates
|
Perhaps a Pledge should be just for candidates and officers.
|
Posted July 3, 2005
The Pledge is probably the most discussed and cussed element of the
LP. I am on record for getting rid of the pledge, for 3 reasons:
- It is open to interpretation. When I signed it originally, I
thought FORCE referred to violence. Other people believe it means the
perfect example of a free society based on anarchist principles. The
problem with this is becuase of it’s interpretive nature large groups
of LP members will never agree on what it actually does mean, and
this becomes another divider within the LP.
- David Nolan, the founder of the LP, has made it plain that the
only reason the Pledge came about was the shield the LP from possibly
being considered a revolutionary body by Nixon’s government, such as
the Black Panthers. The meanings ascribed to the Pledge regarding non
use of force (meaning any sort of force at all, including force
required to have a police dept., etc.) were added after the fact.
- Having a pledge to swear before you can be a participant in the LP
is directly counter-intuitive to a political party that espouses
personal freedom and choices. It shows that we do not have the
courage of our convictions and that we are afraid of actual openness
and freedom within the party to choose how we express ourselves.
There is no reason to restrict LP members - becuase the simple act of
self identifying with the LP restricts you and The Pledge is too
vague and broad in scope to be of any real use as a litmus test. See
#1 above.
The Following is the current Pledge:
I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the
initiation of force to achieve social or political goals.
It seems to me that the compromise position on this would be a very
simple statement. The Libertarian Reform Caucus has the following on
it’s website:
The Libertarian Party will always stand for more liberty and
less government on every issue. As a member of the Libertarian Party,
I will NOT attempt to change this.
NAME___________________________________
That is OK, and a great improvement, but it does not address the real
issue: Should LP members be FORCED to sign a pledge? I dont believe
the LP can remain true to it’s principles and yet force prospective
members to sign something. It is a sign of weakness and a touch of
paranoia wrapped up into one. But trying to totally eliminate the
Pledge could tear the LP apart in the future. I don't want that.
There is a third alternative: Along with the Zero Dues Proposal as
may be adopted at the next LNC meeting (and it should be), The LNC
could offer a pledge for LP Officers and Candidates. If we are going
to have a pledge, I think those in positions of leadership and our
candidates that run under our banner make a much better target for
such an instrument than the rank and file. If this requires By-Law
and other changes, this can be a two part deal: Pass a binding
resolution under the LNC meeting and make it contingent on the needed
By-Law adjustments in 2006.
I offer the following Pledge for discussion:
I, _________________________________, agree with The Libertarian
Party that achieving greater personal individual choice and freedom,
to be obtained by engagement in the political process, is the
overriding goal of the Libertarian Party. As a Libertarian Party
Candidate or Officer, I will uphold this principle to the best of my
ability.
This pledge is a POSITIVE statement. It does the same thing as the
present pledge, but it does not contain multiple meanings according
to what the reader is pre-disposed to believe, and it targets those
who seek leadership in the party and those who seek to run for public
office under our banner. If we are to have a pledge, that is where
such a thing belongs.
I would think that this could be a good compromise between the
factions in the LP and serve as a uniting pledge, rather than a
dividing pledge such as the one we have now. I would like a LNC
member bring this to the table, if they agree with it. This is the
missing link to complete the makeover that the LP so sorely needs to
broaden it’s base of support.
10 Comments
Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page
|
