Topic: Libertarianism
Libertarian politics in Ontario, Canada Libertarian politics in Ontario, Canada, are certainly unique -- or are they?by George Dance
(libertarian)
Monday, November 10, 2008
Libertarian politics in Ontario, Canada, are certainly unique. Imagine, for instance, having only twenty people show up for your leadership convention.
Not that there are that few Libertarians in the province. After all, Ontario's "Party of Choice" ran more candidates than that -- twenty-five -- in the last (2007) provincial election, and convinced almost 10,000 Ontarians to vote for them (far below 1990's record 24,000 votes, but a marked improvement from the 1,991 won in 2003).
No, it's the conventions themselves: low-key, frugal, one-day meetings usually at a modest hotel in the Toronto suburbs. No jazz, no glitter, no big expense. Ontario Libertarians don't mind: they contribute, volunteer, and in the main spend convention day at home with their families.
Why hold such conventions? To understand that, one needs to know a bit about the Ontario Libertarian Party's history...
The party's record-setting 1990 campaign was a huge success (by historical standards), in terms of votes and new members, but came with an equally huge cost: a crippling $10,000 debt, which the party struggled for two years to pay off. Nevertheless, party movers and shakers deemed the event a success, and did exactly the same thing in the next election five years later.
By then, though, the political landscape had changed. The Progressive Conservatives, who had governed the province for most of the previous 50 years, had fallen to third place in 1990, and had ever since been trying to re-invent themselves. New leader Mike Harris imported Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," renamed it the "Common Sense Revolution," and used it to ride to a crushing majority win over Bob Rae's socialist NDP administration.
The effect on the Ontario Libertarian Party was disastrous. Before and through the campaign, members and donors deserted to the "Common Sense" banner in (small) droves. The candidate count fell from 45 to seven. Votes plummeted to 6,000. All that remained constant was the debt -- once more in excess of $10,000. Recriminations flew, and one day after the election the movers and shakers -- the Party Leader, Chairman, and Campaign Director -- all resigned.
Deputy (now suddenly interim) Leader George Dance, left in the wreckage, found himself in a dilemma. On one hand, the rump of party faithful were angry, resentful, in no way receptive to another two years of constantly being hit up for money. On the other, the Commission on Election Finances (the bureaucracy that ruled Ontario's parties from its tony Yorkville digs before being phased out by Harris) ruled that the debt was illegal. Either the party paid it all off, at once, or its permanent ballot status (painfully won through a 10,000-signature petition drive back in 1976, under then-Chairman Marilee Haylock) would be forfeit.
That meant making serious economies over the next couple of years. One was to close the party office, and move most party business on-line, onto its website and (closed) discussion groups. Another was to cancel the planned gala 1996 convention, replacing it with a no-frills one-day meeting (at which Dance was elected Chairman) at the soon-to-be-vacated office.
In time, all things pass. The "Party of Choice" has long since pulled out of debt, and today enjoys a five-digit bank balance. But the tradition of low-budget, one-day leadership conventions that almost no one attends continues.
The November 8, 2008, Ontario Libertarian Party leadership convention was no exception. Once again, the venue was a suburban Toronto hotel. Once again the speakers were old party stalwarts, who of course spoke for free: Professor Glenn Fox of Guelph and retired Professor Jan Narveson of Waterloo. Of course both were well worth hearing again. Fox is arguably Canada's top expert in the admittedly small field of free-market environmentalism. Narveson is a world-famous libertarian philosopher, best-known as the author of The Libertarian Idea (though this year he was promoting his newest book, You and the State [Rowan & Littlefield, 2008]).
After lunch, the Marilee Haylock Award was presented. The Haylock, the party's most prestigious trophy, is given for "long-term commitment to the Ontario Libertarian Party and the cause of freedom" every three years, at each convention. This time it was awarded posthumously to party co-founder, and International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) founder, Vince Miller.
Former party Chairman Mary-Lou Gutscher, a long-time friend and associate of Miller's who had organized ISIL's 2000 World Conference in London, Ontario, gave a eulogy that was perfect right to the end (when she teared up and said she couldn't continue).
The next two hours had been set aside for the most contentious item of business: the party's Statement of Principles (SoP). The SoP had been adopted back in 1974 when the party was founded by members of the Objectivist group Radicals for Capitalism, and reflects that origin; while there have been a few amendments since, it still reads as if cribbed from Ayn Rand's non-fiction works:
Ontario Libertarian Party Statement of Principles
Principle 1 - Each individual has the right to his or her own life, and this right is the source of all other rights.
Principle 2 - Property rights are essential to the maintenance of those rights.
Principle 3 - In order that these rights be respected, it is essential that no individual or group initiate the use of force or fraud against any other.
Principle 4 - In order to bar the use of force or fraud from social relationships and to place the use of retaliatory force under objective control, human society requires an institution charged with the task of protecting individual rights under an objective code of rules. This is the basic task, and the only moral justification for, government.
Principle 5 - The only proper functions of government, whose powers must be constitutionally limited are:
settling, according to objective laws, disputes among individuals, where private, voluntary arbitration has failed
providing protection from criminals
providing protection from foreign invaders
Principle 6 - As a consequence of all the above, every individual -- as long as he or she respects the rights of others -- has the right to live as he or she alone sees fit, as a free trader on a free market
Chairman Dance had been tasked in 2006 by the party Executive Committee (ExCom) with having the document amended at this convention, and had done a rewrite that omitted most of the Randian rhetoric while leaving the principles. However, he knew that the Randian framers had made the SoP well-nigh unamendable: 7/8 of all delegates (including proxies) were needed to pass any change.
So Dance pursued a second track, amending the party membership oath (which required all members to sign, "I support the principles of the Ontario Libertarian Party"), which would need only a two-thirds floor vote to pass. Dance decided to replace the oath with something nonbinding but meaningful, and finally settled on the phrase, "I'm for individual liberty."
Dance announced the proposed changes in the summer 2008 party newsletter, and in the followup fall issue explained the rationale behind them:
My argument is that our membership criteria should be in line with our membership goals. We seek to become a larger, more effective party; we do that by attracting the 15-20% of Ontarians who are basically libertarian in their thinking. Growing the party means building a coalition of everyone traveling the road to liberty, irrespective of how far they want to proceed on it.
That's the "big tent" argument. Opposed to it is the "purist" argument, that admitting less-than-100% libertarians as members could pave the way to a takeover by complete non-libertarians, and the end of the LP as a libertarian party. I have tried to respect that concern by not only retaining, but strengthening, the oath for Party Officers, Ethics Committee members, and candidates.
Whether we opt for a "big tent" or a "purist" approach will drastically determine our prospects for the future. I hope you can come out on November 8 and help us reach the right decision. [George Dance, Chairman's Report, Libertarian Bulletin, 29:1 (Fall, 2008)]
This shameless attempt to boost attendance by inciting party purists to storm the convention to save their principles did not work, alas. It did, though spark the anticipated backlash. Purists wrote Dance comments such as:
"When we became members, we signed the Statement of Principles. We were proud to do so. We firmly believe in these principles and are glad to be members of the only party which has them. To remove the Membership Oath is ill-advised."
"What is the point of our party without these principles? We will simply become more and more like all of the others."
"this will be a retrograde step. If people are primarily interested in more quickly aquiring political influence, then another party might better serve them."
"Please let us remain what we were founded as -- the Party of Principle. In our view, it is better to be a small party with integrity, than a large one without."
[from private correspondence]
Because of the controversy, at the convention Dance tabled the membership oath amendment rather than lead with it. Instead, he began by introducting the new ExCom and Ethics Committee oath of office ("I support and promise to uphold the Ontario Libertarian Party SoP") and the new candidates' pledge ("I will not advocate anything inconsistent with the Ontario Libertarian Party SoP"), both of which were speedily passed by large margins. That left 90 minutes for the delegates to chew over the amendments to the SoP itself.
And chew they did -- first suggesting and debating some good (and some less good) amendments, then debating whether they could adopt their amendments, and deciding that, by the party constitution, they could not. Finally a hand vote and then a ballot vote was taken on adopting Dance's amendments as one package, with 19 votes in favor and five against -- meaning that it failed by two votes. (Although Dance had been asked to prepare the amendments by the ExCom, and had presented them to the ExCom four months earlier to no objections whatever, at least three hand votes against them were cast by ExCom members on the convention floor.)
A dramatic moment, to be sure, but what followed was even more so: the leadership vote. Twelve-year Leader Sam Apelbaum was being challenged for his job by Jean-Serge Brisson, who had just stepped down after ten years as Libertarian Party of Canada Leader in May. The two men had sharp differences; the five minutes' speaking time each was allowed before the vote for speeches and questions turned into a spontaneous 30-minute debate.
On the first ballot, Brisson had 13 votes, Apelbaum 12, None of the Above 3. As no candidate had a majority, a second ballot was required. Dance ruled that Apelbaum be dropped from the ballot.
Supporters of both candidates urged Dance to have None of the Above dropped instead. Dance re-affirmed his original ruling and asked the members to overrule him by a two-thirds vote, which they did. Apelbaum then won on the second ballot, with a one-vote majority.
The balance of the elections were anticlimactic. Brisson was elected Deputy Leader by a large margin. Dance having previously announced his retirement, Vice Chairman Heath Thomas moved up to Chairman. Campaign Director Paolo Fabrizio moved to Vice Chairman. New members were elected to several posts. Jim McIntosh was re-elected as Treasurer, a job he has filled since 1991. Narveson was returned to the Ethics Committee.
Then it was back to the battle of the membership oath. For another half-hour, familiar arguments were thrashed out. Finally Dance was given a last minute to respond and seized the opportunity:
This year I, like many of you here today, was tremendously impressed with the Ron Paul rEVOLution. Never have I seen so many people working so hard, so passionately, for the message and the cause of liberty. Never have I seen that message gain such a response, in votes, funds, and endorsements. As I observed it, and tried to help it in my own small way, the thought kept coming back to me: this is exactly what our party needs.
Yet another thought kept nagging at me: would the rEVOLution be welcome in our party? Would Ron Paul himself be welcome? For as much as I admired Paul, honesty made me admit the inconsistencies between his message of liberty, and that allowed by our Statement of Principles. I had to seriously ask myself: would our party allow a man like Ron Paul to join us and run for us? Could such a man even consider joining us? Not without some serious mental gymnastics.
If we can't allow Ron Paul into our party, how could we ever hope to attract the rEVOLution?
Not just Ron Paul's rEVOLution, either. How about the millions who voted for Mike Harris and his "Common Sense Revolution"? Do we want any of them to vote for us? Do we want any of them to donate for us? Do we want them to volunteer for us? Well, why would they do that, if we would not let them join us?
It is not just quasi-libertarians or part-way libertarians that the Statement of Principles excludes, either. It also keeps out consistent, 100% libertarians: the anarchists. Reread Principle 4: "Government is morally required." How can an anarcho-capitalist sign that he believes that, without his or her own serious mental gymnastics?
The present Statement of Principles is not a Statement of Libertarian Principles. It is a Statement of Objectivist Principles. And I do not want to be part of an Objectivist Party. I want to be part of a Libertarian party.
Later, too late, Dance thought of the perfect ending: "I am not criticizing Objectivism. I have nothing against Objectivism. But I'm not for Objectivism. I'm for individual liberty."
Be that as it may, Dance's appeal to the radicals and Ron Paul supporters in the room appeared to be sufficient, and the purist opposition was overwhelmed. As of today, anyone who has signed the statement, "I'm for individual liberty" (and has paid current membership dues) may be a member of the party.
Commenting wryly, "This is my legacy," Dance called for a motion to adjourn, which was quickly moved, seconded, and carried. And twenty friends of liberty lingered to chat, enjoying each other's company for a while more before wending their way into the early Ontario dark.
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.
Sam is more a theorist -- I'd call him an Educationist. He writes things like, "An avowed libertarian cannot be elected today because libertarian ideas are only fully understood and accepted by a tiny number of people." He sees the party as a vehicle to educate or propagandize, with tax credits for its supporters.
Serge is more into practical politics. He has been elected (municipally, in a non-partisan race; as an alderman, he turned the mayor into a Libertarian). He's also engaged in a lot of personal politics -- he's been in and out of court and jail for not collecting PST or GST, and not wearing a seat belt.
Sam made it a bit personal, when he said that Serge "gets wrapped up in causes, and doesn't see the big picture." But that's a real, if one-sided, description of the difference.
George, I am a bit embarrassed to focus on the trivial details of that day but why did you rule out Sam Apelbaum at the end of the first round? I am curious.
Otherwise, I would say that statements of principles and other constitutions are irrelevant. What really matters are positions by leaders and members on specific issues such as support or opposition to military operations in Afghanistan, support or opposition to Nafta, support or opposition to vouchers, yes or no to the referedum on electoral reforms in Ontario, support or opposition to the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms... As important is how they argue; which arguments they favor... A record has so much more value that a set of principles.
Would you say, for instance, that many members of the Libertarian Party of Ontario or of Canada have supported at one point Canada's intervention in Afghanistan?
I don't care if it's trivial; it involves me, so I enjoy talking about it. The first time I ruled Sam off, is because that's how it's traditionally been done - NOTA always stays on the ballot. (But that's just tradition, it's not in the Constitution, Bylaws, or Roberts Rules.) The only time I've seen NOTA removed, there's been a motion to do so.
The reason I repeated my ruling, when the delegates asked me to change it, was because I didn't want anything we did in the elections open to challenge. I explained to the delegates that they could still take NOTA off by overruling my decision by a 2/3 vote, and in that case the fact we did it couldn't be used to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the elections, as the supporters of both candidates voted for it.
You're right about principles, of course; if they're general enough to attract wide acceptance, they're vague enought for different people to interpret them different ways. They're only a rough guide to beliefs. One good thing about them, of course, is that they give us common premises: if libertarians disagree on an issue, both sides have to show that their stance is at least (1) not inconsistent with the principles and if possible (2) more compatible with the principles than the other side. If we start with a common frame of agreement, then we can use reason to overcome our differences; and shared principles (even if it's just a two-word principle like "individual liberty") give us that common frame of agreement.
Afghanistan ... I'm not sure. From when the LPC was founded, and all through until the fall of communism, it was pro-NATO. I don't remember any meaningful debate; it's not somethng that candidates for Leader disagreed on, for example. Even as late as Gulf War I, the leadership supported the intervention.
Now it's different, of course. At the LPC convention in May, both leadership candidates -- Alan Mercer and Dennis Young -- turned out to be non-interventionists.
So things have changed. But there's been no debate; there's nothing one can point to and say, this is when things changed. I think it's been more a matter of changing demographics; newer members coming in have been younger Canadians, who came of age after the fall of Communism, who tend to be more non-interventionist; while the older members haven't changed their beliefs, and are just as hawkish as ever, just less influential now because they're a smaller percentage of the membership.
George, from what I read, you did the right thing to rule out Sam and remind everybody that they could still overrule you by a 2/3 vote. That's chairmanship!
I don't think I would join a political party with a statement of principles. Sounds like the first "frame" of a government inside the party. A god-like layer that confuses everything. Of all the arguments for an opinion, the one that it is constitutional or consistent with the principles is really the weakest. I also simply don't believe such a "big tent" text can be written. I would however seriously consider a party with frequent statements by its leaders and members on specific issues. I would say the elected party leaders should act as moderators and they should voice their own opinions as official press releases for the public at large. Those members who don't like the official releases can either wait for the next election and offer an alternative or leave the party and start another one closer to their views. So much healthier than the current situation where leaders are dead silent most probably because they don't want to hurt anyone. What I like in Bob Barr's campaign was his website that gave a very good idea of where he stands on concrete issues. All those press releases were really appropriate. And that's the right thing to do when you start nearly from scratch. Well, I deeply disliked the content of those releases but that's another, and probably dead, debate. Of course, this approach is best for a small political start-up not interested in buying votes, selling political influences, growing government... We are no conservative, liberal, ndp, green fascist...
Any way, I really appreciate your articles and what you did to help the Ontario Libertarian Party go through though times.
Same tactics, same arguments, same lies they're using in the US LP and here by non-libertarians such as Dance.
And once he has enough people in, they'll rip up the SOP on the argument it's too restrictive to liberty. Next thing you know, they'll be running anti-abortion, pro-government regulation flat taxing immigration racists like some LP's I could mention.
If all else fails, one might wonder if Dance's cronies could bankrupt the party and get it into legal complications as was done before. Miller's turning in his grave.
Meanwhile, successful examples of Libertarian parties such as Costa Rica or Florida go unstudied as Dance and his pragmatists theorize.
Ken, don't forget that Libertarians in Canada believe in absolute silence to bring about the cultural revolution that will change the statist mindset of their fellow Canadians. I therefore seriously doubt they will support pro-government regulations since they are not going to utter one word on any topic.
Actually, thinking twice, you might very well be right since silence against the crimes and swindles of government is what enable the government crooks to control us and lead us towards complete dictatorship.
"Same tactics, same arguments, same lies they're using in the US LP and here by non-libertarians such as Dance."
Ho, hum; so an unknown person (who may be a libertarian, or may not, may be a liar or may not) has decided to start calling me a "liar" and a "non-libertarian." Kindly tell the readers what I said that you consider a "lie," and what I've said that you consider "non-libertarian", and (don't forget) why you consider those comments "lies" or "non-libertarian".
"And once he has enough people in, they'll rip up the SOP on the argument it's too restrictive to liberty."
First off: if I'd had some secret plan to bring in these hordes of (presumably) lying non-libertarians, don't you think I would have done something to accomplish just that in the dozen years I'd been chairman?
Second, of course the SoP is too restrictive of liberty. It isn't necessary, to be a libertarian, to believe that governments are required; or that they have to have three and only three "proper functions." That's why I've tried to have it rewritten, on more than one occasion.
"Next thing you know, they'll be running anti-abortion, pro-government regulation flat taxing immigration racists like some LP's I could mention."
"If all else fails, one might wonder if Dance's cronies could bankrupt the party and get it into legal complications as was done before."
Whatever LP's you know something about, if any, the Libertarian Party of Canada and Ontario Libertarian Party obviously are not two. Otherwise you'd know that we've run plenty of anti-abortion candidates in the past (abortion is not in our platform); that both the flat tax and anti-immigration rhetoric have been in the platform; and that both parties have been effectively bankrupted twice.
All of that happened with the old membership oath in place, and all parties responsible having signed it. So it's clearly false that the old membership oath would have prevented any of it (since it didn't); and by the same token, should any of that happen in the future, there would be no reason to think that changing the membership oath had anything to do with it.
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.
