Most political parties have left their constituents with no represention of their views. The Libertarian party has come back to represent my opinions. by Bruce West
(libertarian)
Sunday, August 24, 2008
In this day and age when political parties forget who they represent, we hear many people say "My party has left me." This year, the Libertarian party did quite the opposite, they came back to me by choosing Bob Barr as their national candidate and representing the more moderate of their party. Now the party is free to represent me and other like minded moderate libertarians. Nominating Bob Barr was not done without a fight and some anger, resentment and departure of some of the most extreme, purist of pure libertarians, but now, the party is able to represent those of us who were not represented in the past.
Below is a Nolan chart with a representation of how the current parties represent their like minded political constituents. As you can see from the chart, the Libertarian party had become a voice and representation of only the most extreme of our purist members. A large portion of moderate libertarians has been ignored or under represented by the party. By making the party more inclusive, the Libertarian party is now capable of represent larger numbers of moderates and attracting their votes. Also, the party may be able to shake off some of the image that it is actually a party of anarchists and extremists.
You may have noticed that many of the Libertarian authors on NolanCharts have as their icon, the star at the very top apex of the chart. If their tested results and feelings really do place them at the top of the chart, they may not be libertarians, but actually anarchist. They also believe that they are the only ones who are pure libertarians, but this is not true, they are in fact on the edge of what the vast majority of libertarian minded people feel. There are more people looking for some form of freedom and liberty that was not being represented by the party.
Another chart below shows us that there are more libertarian minded people than right or left wing, but these people were not being represented by the vote tally because of the candidates and policies of the Libertarian Party chose not to represent the majority.
Since these libertarians were not being represented by their own like minded party, they were being forced to vote Democrat or Republican in the elections. This was not a favorable result either because as you can see in the chart below, the 2006 House of Representatives was not even voting in line with the people they were supposed to represent. They were not even close to the Libertarian point of view.
The Libertarian party has had a split and now, some of the "pure" libertarians have moved on to the Boston Tea Party. This is not necesarily a bad thing for the Libertarian Party. While the party would love to have everyone in its party, it may not be the best for the party to take the most anarchist minded extremist back into the party. Based on the simplest principle of the libertarians, these people are more than welcome to leave. They have already shown that they cannot live by rules or be open minded to other ideas. So, they are also welcome to stay gone also. Bringing these guys back may affect my personal liberty of having a party that represents me? One must respect their opinions and their right to have those opinions only until they use those opinions to influence my chances of having a candidate for whom one can vote.
Hopefully, this is a new beginning for the Libertarian party. A party of principle that can finally act to represent the masses. The party's purpose is to get elected officials into office to make laws which promote the Libertarian principles. The most pure of party members must make some concessions to allow its message to reach the masses and to get officials elected. Below are the people that we have representation that never had it.
In closing, I for one am proud of the party for going moderate and nomination Bob Barr. I feel that I can vote this election without the remorse that I had last election when I voted for a candidate that was actually too far out there for me to feel great about about my vote.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 19
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Bruce West only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Bruce West 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.
The libertarian moderate is the majority of people and with you I think that the Libertarian Party needs to be able to include the masses of people who do not go 100-100 on the Nolan chart. On the other, and not mutually exclusive hand, I am someone who scores at the tip-top. I do not picture myself as an extremist.
I score 100-100 because I am no longer scared of my neighbors despite of the brain rotting fear the boob-tube projects at me. Those "maybe" answers on the questions no longer need equivocating in my mind... But, I am not a typical freedom loving american. Too many of them were brought up on poisonous perceptions of their fellow man. They cannot give the trust I afford, not without exposure.
I know what an ideal is, and why it is important. Libertarian principals are a bright and shining example of correctness for government philosophy.
When I find myself trying to find pragmatic answers to problems the philosophy of self ownership, in it pure form gives me something "true" to hold the problem up to. That pure light shining through the problem does a very good job at illuminating answers that allow... no encourage healthy political coalitions.
If you ask me, the problem is not in the party "leaving" the purists, or leaving the pragmatists. It is both "factions", forgetting that the philosophy is geared specificly at giving everyone their own elbow room. I find "extremism" from each camp. Extremism for a libertarian is going so far down one path that we forget that tolerance is the key principle for making it all work.
So I am caught in a conumdrum with these warring factions. I am, in my heart, fully into the philosophy. I am also a very practical person. With this feuding, I am stuck in between and I am not much of one for sitting on a fence.
As a Libertarian, I find the fence philosophically and pragmatically counter-productive.
Our party is the COMMONS. None of us has the authority to impose our will on fellow party members. The organization succeeds when fences are not allowed in the common area. Partitioning, purgings, and other political tactics of intolerance is precisely what we need to put away. Let the donkeys and the elephants eat each other fighhting over their piles of corruption and flith. We have a mission and neither "faction" should forget that.
Pragmatists, we will never have liberty if we do not have those kooky philosophers constantly pulling us towards the ideal and keeping us on track. We cannot forget the payoff while making the sale.
Philosophers, we will never have liberty if we do not have that imperfect sales force howking our wares to the big audiences: the disinfranchised and scared. We have to be able to tolerate silver tongued devils and welcome half-warm converts.
Our party wins on education, outreach, building bridges with allies and winning elections. We all have jobs to do. We all have roles to play. We all need to get to work and stop criticising the next guy... as if we had the authority to do so in the first place...
What was the famous quote about "extremism in support of Liberty?" I found this entire article disgusting. You can be sure that when some idiot starts talking about 'moderation" or "compromise" on Liberty, it's not HIS liberty he's willing to compromise, it's MINE.
As far as the Libertarian Party is concerned, it's dead but not yet buried, so it lies on the roadside, stinking.
AFH. I respect your opinion, and don't get me wrong, I have nothing against a 100/100 liberterian, but it seems that most of those who are most vocal about the party feel that this is the only portion the party should represent. I don't have a problem with them being the maximum libertarian, but I do have a problem when they tell me I have no place to call myself a libertarian.
As a prime example, read the second response from Rocky. These are the folks which have no sense of compromise in themselves to allow anybody that does not feel the same in the party.
I've never made a blog before, so this was my first attempt. I do not want to criticize the more extreme believers, but I wanted to point out that this is not a party of only fringe believers. A party that can be inclusive without insulting and treading on those who do not feel exactly the same way.
I hope what Rocko said is true. I hope the Libertarian party in its old form of exclusion and extremes is now willing to accept others in and pick up some of the more centrist, left, right players which could make an impact.
The party with only members who will not allow any "compromise" on their principles will never garner enough support to make a change. I, for one, would be happy with a candidate that represents the bare minimum of my thoughts and gets elected or noticed to begin getting policies changed. It has to beat the alternative which the Libertarians have been using for the past 30 years with no success. A little liberty gained is better than losing even more liberties!
So, let's get together allow both of us into the party and lets get some laws changed and earn ourselves some of the liberty that has up until now only been words. The pupose of the libertarian party is to get elected officials to make changes in laws to give us more freedom and liberty. It is not to spread ideas and "promote" liberty.
I love your charts and your premise. You are correct in that our party must be inclusive, not exclusive to succeed. They illustrate that need well.
I disagree on a few absolutist lines you draw. Its really a matterof style. It is also just the detail of approach. For instance in your reply above you say "have been using for the past 30 years with no success". No success is not true. If you cast your mind and memories back to the days of Kent State and the fascism of the cold war you will find that a LOT has changed for liberty, and much of it for the better. No insignificant amount of that has been Libertarian grassroots activity.
Libertarians have been winning a lot of battles. Just not wars... YET!
Understand that we have litterally had to reeducate an entire country on what liberty and self-ownership means. In the 20th century, evil philosophies took hold on all of the western world including the US and our children have had generations of indoctrination in public schools that have systematically removed the idea of freedom from public consciousness. We cannot win elections without >>also<< winning hearts and minds.
If you ask me, what has held us back has been the factional fighting. The pragmatists seem to believe that the game is zero sum. If "everybody" is not working on "project x" then we will lose. In my mind, if "project x" was such a good idea, everyone would be behind it without having bylaws changes try to force them into it.
Within our party is a marketplace of ideas for promotion and winning. We are hampered more by people trying to focus people that dont want to be focused. They spend their time attacking the other persons project, the other person spends their time on the defensive, and in the mean time, neither do anything constructive.
You want to be inclusive? Excellent, me too... (you should see my county party BTW). But, brother don\'t blame the extremists for being extreme, nor should another blame the pragmatists for their amibition. Blame the tactics they are both using to try and purge the other. It is shrinking our party and destroying our diversity.
In my county we have been working hard at developing an open, tolerant, and empowering culture. As a result, we work well as a team and our numbers are growing and accelerating. Inclusion means letting go of the reins and letting organic natural growth happen.
I am a little shocked that the author has gone so far over to the Barr moderate faction but he does make some good points. What needs to be addressed is a way to keep the party from becoming the "I didn't win the nomination of the Demo/Repub ticket so I'm going to run as a Libertarian instead. We need to establish some firewalls to prevent for example Hilliary Clinton or Mitt Romney from running as the Libertarian candidate in 2012 if she or he doesn't get their parties nomination.
AJH. I agree with you that we should quit fighting each other and use that energy to advance the party as a whole inclusive bunch.
When I set out to write the article, I was so frustrated by all of the columns that I was reading which were to me devisive and insulting to my political opinions. I was disappointed that of any representatives for a political party, some of the Libertarians were the loudest and most abusive with anybody who claimed to be libertarian minded without being a full scale Libertarian.
I was just frustrated with all of the Libertarians complaining that their thoughts and ideas were being abandoned because the party was expanding its base and nominating a candidate that would be more appealing to the majority of voters. I don't think they are being abandoned and I respect their opinions on liberty. I even want to be in the same party but not if the party is only to promote ideas without any progress.
As the title states, I hope the party is really moving toward including the more mainstream libertarians, but I don't want it to abandon the founders and those on the outer or inner edges either.
I understand exactly how you feel. Like I touched on above, I feel that most "moderates" feel like they can't go 100-100 in answering the Nolan Chart questions because of fear.
On immigration, people are afraid of what would happen to our economy with all the welfare.
On drugs, its fear that their neighborhoods would be overrun by "crackheads", and their son and daughters corrupted.
On pornography it is the fear of perverts raping and murdering.
On and on it goes, and everywhere around us the establishment feeds the beast with more and more fear. Lock your doors! Amber alerts. Night after night of CNN and FOX devoting hours to talking heads blathering about the latest horrible child abduction or murder in some place most all of has never heard of much less been within 200 miles of.
How can we possibly expect that derision and insult would combat that evil paradigm? It is hope, progress, faith, and prosperity that Libertarian principles offer! That is what I think we should be marketing and that is what we should be using to pull people more towards a cohesive philosophy and a more inclusive party.
ALIVE * FREE * HAPPY
Libertarian
BTW Rocketman: There is no one I would turn away as an ally in the fight for liberty. I'd take a Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat if she really wanted to join. She'd have to sign the pledge though. :)
Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2008-08-26 01:55:22
Bruce: Where did you find the chart showing the positions of the various Congress critters? I assume the lone red dot nearest the apex of the diamond represents Ron Paul, but I'd really like to know who the others in or near the Libertarian sector are!
A compromise on principle means a compromise on rights. it's YOUR rights the writer is asking to compromise..
The argument on the standard legislative activism platform is particularly hypocritical. It carefully separated 'pure' libertarian solutions from 'transition' projects approved by the pragmatists. they voted unanimously for it in 2004. Then they began to complain it was too 'extreme' when people began usuing it successfully, and purging people from the LP with late noght phone calls, 'losing' memberships, neglecting to let people know of meetings, and worse.
And it is a deliberate lie to claim that the 100's have banned others from the LP. the reverse is the truth; the LRC has been carrying out a purge for 2 years, as witness the battle royals in Oregon and Florida as they steal resources and kick people out (or try to), and this guy is papering it over.. but why be surprised? The LRC leaders have claimed the only problem with the LP is people aren't liars like them.
These people aren't libertarians at all; they're thieves hiding behind ideology with various agendas . and a lot of readers may feel only a thief is in favor of compromising rights like this writer. Period..
Bruce, I have run across the same kind of stubborness from libertarian purists, so I know exactly where you're coming from on this. I score 100% on the Nolan myself, so perhaps I'm one of the people you think are against you. That's absolutely not the case. There are many of us '100s' who are pragmatic enough to realize we must have an inclusive party that welcomes a variety of viewpoints if we are to have a successful party that wins elections. I value the non-100s in our party and hope there will be more--many more--who come in in the future.
And I frankly don't care what the purists think of that.
Florida and Oregon are not the only states to have felt the hand of intolerance and incompetence shrink membership through heavy factional maneuvering. California recently went through that fight as did Arizona and I am sure others too.
The problem I see is that the factional fighting has been going on so long that both sides are fighting a wholely intolerant game with the other. I will not put the blame wholely on the pragmatists... to do so is to engage in the very problematic behavior we are talking about. I see the intolerant games going on on both sides and old timers I talk to relate that the games have been going on for a long time with long term devistating effect.
I am guessing that niether side is fully cogniscient of their effects for being blinded by their motives. For instance you, yourself, made a purging statement: If you find yourself EVER saying "that person is not a Libertarian" you are engaging in intolerant behavior with a call to action for purging.
Bigotry is VERY difficult to see in one's self. It is a natural human tribal reaction, one that takes exposure to sensitize especially when the topic and focus is something as important as our very freedoms! As you pointed out, Bruce in his blog belied bigotry against the 100-100 crowd, and didn't realize it at all. It's clear in his responses that that was not his intention, and he formed very inclusive responses when he reconsidered some of his tone and tenor. (BTW I have to say that since he stated that this was his first blogging attempt, he did a GREAT job). You didn't mean to suggest purging either. When tribal fight or flight instincts are envoked, this is exactly the behavior that manifests. We are all human.
I think that the winning script we should be reading from is one in which stops the madness. The actions that facilitate purging or actively purge need to be obviated.
Major structural changes to membership, affiliation or finance are disasterous and needs to be avoided like the plague. Whether you liked UMP or not... it's ending so abruptly was deadly throwing states into fits financially and administratively.
Talk that isolates a person, calling them a Kookatarian or "not a Libertarian" needs to be discouraged with constructive defense of the injured party and building bridges betewen both antagonist and protaganist.
The real secret is that no one has the authority to purge and therefore no one should feel isolated. We cannot allow ourselves to feel hopeless when our "current good idea" is not adopted and decry, "the party has failed (left, wronged, or disappointed) me." It is simply narcissistic and a little sociopathic to think that any one of us is going to get their way. Heck, its the Libertarian Philosophy that everyone has their own way.
When you want to try a good idea, recruit people to join you. If you don't get enough support, it is not the party that failed. That is the market in action.
Posted By: George Donnelly
Date: 2008-08-28 14:23:57
Your creative use of Nolan chart graphics is interesting and useful.
Grow the party, yes. Sacrifice principles, no.
"the most extreme, purist of pure libertarians"
This kind of language is definitely appropriate for a "rant". But it does not help your credibility or assist in building a political party.
"You may have noticed that many of the Libertarian authors on NolanCharts have as their icon, the star at the very top apex of the chart. If their tested results and feelings really do place them at the top of the chart, they may not be libertarians, but actually anarchist"
This is nonsense. There is a difference between the belief in strictly limited government and anarchy. This is disingenuous.
"While the party would love to have everyone in its party, it may not be the best for the party to take the most anarchist minded extremist back into the party. Based on the simplest principle of the libertarians, these people are more than welcome to leave."
Trading someone else's perceived exclusivity for your own is not productive. More of the same, no thank you.
"Bringing these guys back may affect my personal liberty of having a party that represents me? One must respect their opinions and their right to have those opinions only until they use those opinions to influence my chances of having a candidate for whom one can vote."
This is characteristic of the low intellectual quality of reformer discourse I generally find. You have no liberty or right to a party that represents you.
Your second sentence puts you in the authoritarian quadrant and is entirely out of bounds.
"The party's purpose is to get elected officials into office to make laws which promote the Libertarian principles."
The purpose is to reduce the size and scope of government.
George Donnelly, I appreciate your comments and views. Thanks for sharing. I will admit that with my first column, I may not have done so well.
Your thoughts have brought a few questions up in my mind, and if you don't mind, I would like input on these questions also.
If someone scores 0/0 on the chart are they communist?
How would someone who scored 100/100 feel about a crack house or a whore house moving in next door? Would they want a porn shop located across the street from their children's school? Would they appreciate the adult bookstore advertising with graphic nudity on the signs for this store?
How would they feel about their neighbor using his freedom to own any weapon to start building a nuclear bomb or creating antrhax in his garage? Would this 100/100 feel good about a nuclear reactor being built in his/her neighborhood or even a business that decides to bury their toxic waste in their backyard?
If Japan attacked Pearl Harbor again, would we not retaliate? A defensive posture would be to build defenses around the base and wait for the next attack.
Aren't all of these situations where a 100/100 would believe the business and people are acting fine? They aren't using force to intrude on anyone else's personal freedom
I personally feel that the Nolan chart has a few missing elements. If the nolan chart is to represent all spectrums of political philosphy shouldn't it also represent the communist, nazis and anarchist? If someone is an anarchist, where do they fall on this chart? If I do believe in anarchy, how do I get my score above 100/100 so show my true representation on the political spectrum?
I never said anyone should compromise their personal principles. I believe they should be tolerant to other points of view.
I political party does nothing without elected officials who can change laws. In my own personal opinion, I believe the National Libertarian Party has continually failed the people of the United States by not giving us any political victories. While it has had big talk and conversations on how it wants the country to be, they have done nothing to get it done.
Ron Paul has been one of the greatest voices for the libertarian beliefs, but the Libertarian party bylaws stated that the members of Libertarian Party are not to endorse, vote for, or make contributions to his campaign. And speaking of Ron Paul, the 100/100's do not mention anything about his compromise of joining the Republican Party so he could be elected. If Ron had not joined the republican party, he would have never been in office and he would not have been able to make any changes in the laws or defend our liberties.
Again, I don't think anyone should be told, forced, or expected to sacrafice their principles at any time, place or situation. I do believe that person can vote for a candidate that represents 10% of thier beliefs without sacraficing their morals or principles. I did it everytime I voted Libertarian in the past. The libertarian candidates in the past have not represented my feeling 100%, but I voted for them because of the ideas they held were still closer to my beliefs than the other candidate. In my opinion, I would rather vote for a candidate that represents 10% of my values than not vote because this candidate is not enough like me. Nobody out there is like me, and nobody is ever going to agree with me 100% of the time.
In closing, I agree with some of what you said, but I do not feel the same on the rest. This is fine. I will take your critics into consideration when I write future articles. Thanks for your feedback.
Posted By: George Donnelly
Date: 2008-08-29 07:16:00
You have a lot of questions about the chart. I didn't make the chart and I think it's only good for a certain purpose and most likely not for the ones you want to apply it to.
And you clearly have not done enough research on what libertarianism is. I encourage you to read up on that.
The LP has "done nothing"?! Again, if your goal is to build, then your language is not demonstrative of that.
If I may be so bold I would like to answer some of the questions you pose to George in my own fashion.
"If someone scores 0/0 on the chart are they communist?"
No. Communism is not equivalent to statism. Communism as a governmental philosophy is not acheivable without statism. However, look at Linux, and Wikipedia. Those "social environments" proove that communism works and is just and good when there is no gun involved. Thus is illustrated the difference between statism and communism. The evils of communism come from the statists want for control though force not the "all for one, one for all" doctrine.
###
"... Aren't all of these situations where a 100/100 would believe the business and people are acting fine? "
All the situations you listed are hyperbole. It is a typical straw man attack on Libertarian principle to take extreme situations and demand that the principles do not apply and use the "emergency" nature of the argument to riposte attempts to examine the issues. Some Libertarians might attempt to illustrate how priciples can be applied in your extreme and unreasonable scenarios. They are simply unwary of the trick you are playing on their good intentions.
Many of those examples would be very serious concerns for people... if they were real. I reject the world view where I have to be primarily concerned about my neighbors making nuclear weapons. I utterly reject having to shape my "standards" on exceptions or to even discuss what is really a very unfair argument.
Also, I am not afraid of my neighbors.
###
The label "anarchist" has unfair and unrealistic implications. Communism and fascism are economic paradigms not governmental philosophy. Your nolan chart questions fall under the same category as above. I feel that you are arguing to win, using fallacy. Extremes are not standards nor are they smart to concentrate on when formulating strategy nor is it effective when one is examining general social effect.
###
"In my own personal opinion, I believe the National Libertarian Party has continually failed the people of the United States by not giving us any political victories."
I agree. Then again, I do not have the expectation that a libertarian organization can be effective run from the top down. I do not expect wins at the national level nor do I see value in national endeavors without strong local organizations that build strong state organizations. The work that national does is very important and needs support, but placing expectations for wins there is unreasonable and placing blame for "failure" is inappropriate projection. It is a recipe for disappointment.
We move forward every year. If we could improve the resonability of our individual expectations, and tolerance for the smaller wins, I think we would move farther faster.
###
"Nobody out there is like me, and nobody is ever going to agree with me 100% of the time."
This is where we agree 100%. None of us can reaasonably expect others to fall in line with us all the time. Its a bit sociopathic to have that expectation. We are also at a bit of a disadvantage as Libertarians. We are the only political philosophy that will not put guns to peoples heads to see it our way.
I understand your frustrations. I submit however that your positions seem to be rooted more in that negative emotional response to philosophicly minded people than looking for the formula of winning within a truely just and american framework of libertarian priciple.
We can win this war. We can win our battles. The only way that is going to happen is if we individuals learn team building skills. We must communicate positive messages and paradigms and put away petty bickering and extremism in our arguments.
All that we want requires scale in numbers of people. It requires that those people have a basic commitment to a unified foundation. For us, because that foundation involves tolerance and liberty, we must engender tolerance and liberty amongst ourselves to perpetuate it into larger action.
And I think that on that point... all of us agree.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
![[link edited for length]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pollster.com/3NJSen06.png&imgrefurl=http://www.pollster.com/blogs/national_journal_2006_liberalc.php&h=400&w=400&sz=72&hl=en&start=336&um=1&usg=__5pko_mXWJYL9kG9kjkXfPnGYrHc=&tbnid=KWVZAhzcxFSp7M:&tbnh=124&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drepublican%2Bvoting%2Bnolan%2Bchart%2Byear%26start%3D320%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN){kind=link}