Nolan Chart reports that George Phillies, one of the 10-15 Libertarians vying to win the Libertarian Party presidential nomination next month, "today issued an invitation to conservative supporters of Ron Paul" to support the LP (and presumably his candidacy). However, Phillies added an "important caveat": "Libertarians are not conservatives. It is an act of fraud to lure conservatives by lying to them. Claiming our party is conservative is dishonest." (1)
Phillies is right: libertarians are not conservatives, nor vice versa. We have many common goals - primarily on economics, and increasingly on civil liberties and foreign policy as well - and we can profitably work together to achieve those goals. But we should not forget our differences, or pretend that they do not exist.
Where I disagree with Phillies is where he draws the line. Since the beginning of Ron Paul's campaign, for example, Phillies has been trying to drum Paul and his Republican supportes out of the movement, denouncing them as not merely unlibertarian but even 'anti-libertarian.' As this Mar. 2007, article in the San Antonio Express reported: "'Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is lending credence to a party that is anti-libertarian,' said George Phillies of Massachusetts, who is seeking the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination." (2)
Phillies has attempted to portray his differences with Paul as mainly ideological. For instance, Last Free Voice claims that he has implied that Paul is a "homophobic bigot" (3) - and he has referred to himself as the candidate with "no bizarre conspiracy theories" (4) - both of which sound like references to the ongoing smear campaign, by The New Republic et al, over Ron Paul's old newsletters. (5)
Philles' response to that TNR smear was revealing. In Jan. of this year, when the newsletter story had just broken and Paul was under massive attack from many quarters, Phillies received an urgent e-mail from a Paul supporter. The sender, who claimed to have raised $50,000 for the Paul campaign, asked Phillies to issue a statement supporting Paul - he suggested, "Ron Paul is a champion of liberty and an essential part of the freedom movement" - and offeried to raise funds for his campaign in return.
Phillies rushed out a response, not as a private e-mail, but as a press release headlined "Phillies Rejects Massive Pay-Off." In that he quoted from the private email, and also quoted himself replying "I'm not for sale" and "I'm not open to bribery." He also scolded the Paulunteer who made the offer, telling him (without further explanation) to "look at your candidate's actual stands." (6)
Yet, for all this ideological rhetoric, it appears that fundraising is Phillies' biggest concern. The Express article quoted above has Phillies accusing Paul and his party of not just "anti-libertarianism" but something worse: "What's worse, Phillies said, Paul is siphoning off campaign funds that are critical to the Libertarian Party's nominee." (2)
Phillies has also attacked LNC National Committeeman, and Ron Paul supporter, Bob Barr (who is himself expected to jump into the LP nomination race this week (7)) on similar grounds:
Barr's real positions may also be seen from the candidates his PAC supports. In 2007, Barr's PAC supported conservatives Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and John Sununu (R-NH). This Fall, those men both have Libertarian opponents. Libertarians must ask: Whose side is Barr on? Suppose Barr were given our nomination and campaigned in Georgia or New Hampshire. Will he campaign with the candidate who carries our party's banner, or the candidate who cashed Barr's check? (3)
(I'm not familiar with Chambliss; however, Sununu is known to me as a) a fellow member, with Ron Paul, of the congressional Liberty Caucus, and b) the big-name pol whose pressure induced the state GOP to drop its sponsorship of the FOX News Forum from which Paul was excluded. For both reasons, I'd donate to his campaign myself.)
What really got Phillies steamed, though was the Dec. 2007 LNC pair of resolutions, authored by Barr, urging Paul to seek the LP nomination and offering to rent the party's NH database to his GOP nomination campaign. He threatened to challenge both resolutions before the party's Ethics Committee, declaring:
In December, 2007, the Libertarian National Committee voted without objection to support Ron Paul with the National Committee's Ballot Base' software program. In my opinion, using Libertarian party resources to help a Republican, in a race in which there will surely be a Libertarian opponent, was a gross breach of fiduciary responsibility by the Libertarian National Committee. Among those not objecting was Barr. (3)
Yes, there are differences between libertarians and conservatives. But those differences are not reducible to party affiliation: there are libertarians in the Republican Party, and conservatives in the Libertarian Party, and plenty of both in neither party. Unfortunately, there are not enough of either, in many cases, to make progress on their own.
If libertarians and conservatives are serious about reversing the alarming trend toward "the growth of government [and increasing] limitations on our individual liberty and freedom" (as Barr puts it) (7), they need to find ways to come together and make common cause around both issues and candidates. In that respect, Phillies' invitation of today was spot on. Unfortunately, as his record shows, Phillies is more interested in keeping us divided. .
----------------
(1) rtbohan, "George Phillies on Libertarians and Conservatives," Nolan Chart, Apr. 5, 2008.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3375.html
(2) "'Dr. No' may say yes to run for White House," San Antonio Express, Mar. 4, 2007.
http://phillies2008.org/dr_no_may_say_yes_to_run_for_white_house
(3) "Phillies speaks out against potential Barr campaign," Last Free Voice, Mar. 24, 2008.
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/phillies-speaks-out-against-potential-barr-presidential-campaign/
(4) Ben Miller, "Phillies Answers Questions," Conservative President 2008, Dec. 13, 2006.
http://conservativepresident2008.blogspot.com/2006/12/phillies-answers-questions.html
(5) George Dance, "The Newsletters FAQ, ver. 1.2," Nolan Chart, Feb. 4, 2008.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2435.html
(6) "Phllies rejects massive pay-off," George Philllies for Presdent news release, Jan. 9, 2008.
http://phillies2008.org/press/phillies_rejects_massive_pay_off
(7) George Dance, "Ron Paul supporter Bob Barr to declare for President," Nolan Chart, Apr. 3, 2008.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3354.html
-
©2008 George Dance, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, April 5, 2008
Last modified: Friday, April 18, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of George Dance only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by George Dance of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By George Dance |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: rtbohan
Date: 2008-04-05 16:39:39
Well done article, and informative. It gives good reasons to be suspicious of Dr. Philies. But it does not support the idea that Bob Barr is a good. choice.
Posted By: Josh Koch
Date: 2008-07-01 02:41:00
Maybe the time has come for Dr. Phillies to start his own party of one. It seems we're all just not worthy to be in the same party as our esteemed friend, George.
Good research on the article. It was informative and upsetting.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-07-02 19:24:59
Josh: "Maybe the time has come for Dr. Phillies to start his own party of one"
Or maybe he could get together with Christine Smith and have a Party of Two (with Shania Twain providing the theme song).
Nah, they`d probably schism.