Topic: Third Party Strategies
Pillory the Purity Police Efforts to police intellectual foundations or rhetoric in the Libertarian Party are usually laughable, shameful, and counterproductive. David F. Nolan's latest is no exceptionby B. S. Kalafut
(Centrist Libertarian)
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
"It's nice that the kids go off to college, but why do they come back thinking they're entitled to ideas?", lament curmudgeons everywhere. Libertarianism , the modern revival of free-minds-and-free-markets classical liberalism, could be said to have went off to college, too. Scholars like Friedman and Nozick opened the way for many to follow; economic, legal, and philosophical liberalism have become credible and respected even by their detractors.
To complement the tremendous growth of modern classical liberal scholarship in the past few decades, popularizers--'bloggers, think-tank staff, journalists, and other opinion-makers--have brought libertarian ideas to the masses. Ideas that were radical not very long ago, such as school choice, free-market environmentalism, drug legalization have become mainstream. One cannot definitively say that modern libertarianism is winning the war of ideas, but it is clear that as ideas have replaced mere principles in the libertarian movement, its influence has grown, and the world is consequently a much groovier place.
The adoption of libertarian ideas as public policy could be accelerated were the ten to twenty percent of American voters with libertarian views to exert influence en bloc in the political process. One of the several ways to do that is through a libertarian political party. A libertarian political party could serve as a means for citizens who like what they read on the 'blogs of Wilkinson or Cowen or McArdle, or who get excited by Reason magazine or ideas in the latest Cato or Mercatus whitepapers to band together and effect policy change, by running like-minded candidates for public office. At the very least, these candidates, if they run serious, idea-based campaigns and get most of the political basics right, will make policy more libertarian by forcing their opponents to move in that direction to earn the marginal libertarian vote. So much the better if they win; even if they cannot secure majorities in city councils or legislatures, they introduce libertarian ideas to the room and their votes make policy more libertarian at the margin.
Perhaps there is a libertarian political party, the well-known Libertarian Party, of which I have been a member for thirteen years. Whether or not the LP is a libertarian political party is a function of time and place. It developed a sick internal culture years before I joined, having attracted members who believed that no libertarian should ever participate in politics and others who believe that libertarians ought only participate in politics if they deliberately fail. It would have made sense for these people to leave a political party in the same way it would make sense for someone who does not believe in God to stop going to mass, but they didn't leave.
Strangely, in many places the nonpolitical libertarians stuck around in greater numbers than those interested effecting libertarian policy change through the political process; those interested in effectiveness are more prone to frustration and burnout than those for whom the Libertarian Party is a hobby. (There are ugly details; see Radicals for Capitalism.) In some places the Libertarian Party remained a political party and in others it came to occupy a strange niche in the libertarian movement: a place to exhibit one's ideology without the implicit threat of people who disagree, a safe haven for those comforted by fake moral clarity, and a museum of obsolete 1970s folk-libertarianism wherein "principles" and slogans substituted for ideas.
This is a simplistic but useful narrative, as it provides context for my point: The Libertarian Party has made great strides back towards relevance and towards being an ecumenical political organization for the libertarian movement in the past four years, but, as it has served as the social-club and safe haven for the libertarian movement's anti-intellectual old codgers for so long, there remains in it a strong faction very interested in keeping people who have ideas outside the folk-libertarian comfort zone out and not at all interested in effecting policy change. They're not organized and they're not all elderly--young people, too, can fall into the trap of thinking questions of ethics, economics, and politics are simple and that libertarian policy and rhetoric are uniquely determined--but I'd like to think of them for the next few minutes as the Superannuated Ornery Bozo (SOB) Caucus.
The SOBs are not harmless. They draw people interested in constructive activity into fights over outreach documents such as the Party's Platform and waste their time by having them defend against bizarre accusations of "socialism" or secretly opposing liberalization, often by exaggerating differences in rhetoric and emphasis and quoting out of context. They chase bona fide libertarian newcomers--and veterans--out of the Party over disagreements on points of philosophy or policy. A case that immediately comes to mind is the purging of a prominent West Virginia activist because he didn't oppose childhood immunization. Their antics are incompatible with effective libertarian political success; witness the departure of (former Moreno Valley, CA mayor and current city councilwoman) Bonnie Flickinger in part due to insistence by the SOBs that the Libertarian Party platform be laden with simplistic hoke.
The LP has moved closer to being a libertarian political party in the past few years, welcoming politically defecting former Senator Mike Gravel, former Congressman Bob Barr and Indianapolis city councilman Ed Coleman, electing 200 members to public office in 2008, and replacing its old Murray Rothbard/Williamson Evers-penned Platform with something representative of the reforms mainstream libertarians actually advocate. Despite or perhaps because of this, the SOBs are on the warpath. The proximate provocation was the 23 February "Monday Message" from Libertarian Party communications director Donny Ferguson. Ferguson has been doing his job--selling the Libertarian Party and cheerleading libertarian success--very well. Like (2008 LP Presidential candidate) Bob Barr, Ferguson has made no conciliatory gestures to the SOBs nor any attempts to adhere to their prioritizations and rhetorical conventions, and like Barr, Ferguson has been the target of bizarre accusations. Barr demonstrated his bona fides prior to his nomination by, among other things, doing back-office work for the Party, yet he was accused of being an opportunist carpetbagger, and he used the word "libertarian" positively in most of his earned media yet was accused of hiding his political affiliation.
Ferguson, much as I did above, noted that a considerable fraction of the electorate are latent libertarians and that some libertarian ideas have even broader appeal. His suggestion, quoting verbatim: "...it is up to you and me to listen to those voters, learn what they want us to do and promote solutions voters agree on." In other words, to listen to the latent libertarian electorate and to those to whom libertarian solutions have appeal, and to earn their vote.
Dave Nolan, popularizer of what came to be called the Nolan Chart and co-founder of the Libertarian Party, however, seems to have took this is the last straw, and is now calling for the formation of a "December 11 Group" to reclaim the Libertarian Party. For whom it is to be reclaimed is unclear: Barr and Ferguson are mentioned in Nolan's call to action, and Ferguson receives most of Nolan's wrath.
To quote:
And just last week, someone named Donny Ferguson sent out a "Monday Message" from LP national HQ that stated "it is up to you and me to listen to [the] voters, learn what they want us to do and promote solutions voters agree on."
Wrong, Donny. The LP does not exist to pander to the media-manipulated voters and "learn what they want us to do." It exists to promote clear, principled policies that are consistent with the libertarian philosophy and explain why those policies will work better than the statist nostrums being pushed by Obama and the Republican "opposition.
Since Ferguson has been cheerleading LP political activity, one suspects that Nolan is attempting to rally the anti-political SOB Caucus and reclaim the LP for them. Non-ironic talk of "principled" anything is typical of the SOB Caucus, and the idea that there is such a thing as "the libertarian philosophy" is perhaps the characteristic intellectual quirk of the average libertarian SOB.
Nolan is dead wrong. Maybe he's wrong about Libertarian Party strategy--it's hard to tell if he's a small-party libertarian or just an incorrigible SOB-- but he's certainly wrong about what Ferguson is advocating. Earning the libertarian vote is quite different from "pandering" to "media-manipulated" anyone. But note the square-bracketed "[the]"; Nolan has changed Ferguson's statement--in meaning and not merely in syntax--into something more convenient for his rhetorical purposes.
I would like to be charitable to Nolan and say that he's merely blundered. Nolan does things rather valuable to the cause; at the local level, as the chairman of the Pima County Libertarian Party, Nolan's actions are consistent with those of someone working to build a political and ecumenical Libertarian Party, to the point where one would suspect him of being in the Reform Caucus. If they didn't have the same build, the same face, the same weird Jim Backus-like manner of speaking, and the same history, I'd say that the local and national Dave Nolans were different people.
But when you or I blunder, we don't register domains, write articles or send mass e-mails, moreover, there's really no honest way to replace "those" with "[the]" in a sentence.
Nolan leaves no room for charitable interpretation of his actions, and the time to pull punches is over, as the SOB Caucus has gotten away with this sort of conduct, reputations intact, for far too long. There's no way to put this gently without giving him a pass: we have caught Nolan in a shameful lie, perhaps made even worse by choice of target. As an LP staffer, Ferguson is enjoined by propriety against publicly rebuking such attacks.
We've had enough of these purity-police antics. They're silly, they hurt the common cause, and they often involve blatant dishonesty, as they do here. Too much time is wasted defending against them, time that could be spent promoting liberty. I'm a Big Tent Libertarian, and I don't believe in purges, but I do believe that people who aren't interested in advancing liberty through politics are in the wrong place if they're in a libertarian political party , that they and those who are interested in advancing liberty through politics would be better served if they went elsewhere, and that they ought to be asked to leave if they can't be constructive.
If they are interested in advancing liberty through politics, a little bit of shaming is in order. Do they think that a libertarian political party is made stronger by chasing libertarians out? How so? And why do libertarian and nonlibertarian economists and philosophers continue in their intellectual enterprise if the answers are so clear that one can insist on the purity-tester's standard of agreement? There's a good deal of intellectual hubris involved in demanding that libertarians all agree and all sound the same. We can't expect most people to be intellectual heavyweights on the order of e.g. Tom Palmer or Bryan Caplan, thus people shouldn't be criticized too harshly for silly pop-philosophical beliefs, but the purity policeman has set himself up as having a sort of monopoly on the truth. Take him down a few notches. "Gee, I own myself? What do you mean?"
As for Nolan, he can claim he didn't mean to replace "those" with "[the]" and completely change the meaning of Ferguson's statement. He can save face, he can apologize, or he can perhaps do both. If he opposes the truly political direction for the LP that Ferguson has been cheerleading, he can attempt to win the intellectual argument with the Reform Caucus libertarians over what the LP is and what political parties are good for honestly, without any more career-politician-like weasel tactics. (Does anyone else find the irony humorous?) Or perhaps if he's lost interest in advancing liberty through politics he can retire from participation in the national LP with the perception that he's an elder statesman of the movement still intact. If he doesn't use it to bring the LP down, Samson-style, this December 11 Group could even add to that perception; George Phillies wrote (scroll down) that Nolan perhaps intends it to be a nonpartisan grassroots networking group for activists, an unfilled niche in the libertarian movement.
Whatever he has in mind, I presume he doesn't want to be thought of or remembered as an SOB. He knows how to be constructive, and it would be better for all of us if he chooses that path.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of B. S. Kalafut only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. B. S. Kalafut 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.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-25 05:50:20
Why bother pushing for a united libertarian front when the agenda put forth gets watered down, undermined, and sold out? Thousands left the Libertarian Party because it refused to stand firm on principle, the very thing you claim to support but actually disparage by calling others "purists."
You claim the LP has grown over the past four years, but it actually has disintegrated during that time. You just haven't noticed yet. You might ask yourself how a prominent Republican former Congressman couldn't even get a million votes in a presidential election year (2008) when more people voted in this country than at any other time in the past. You treat his massive failure as a sign of hope instead of the gigantic warning sign it really is. How foolish!
The LP has been dysfunctional for decades. Aside from the slightly increased membership--which doesn't include registrations--and the uptick in elected libertarians, the only discernible categorical difference is the new positive outlook and the new platform.
But back to your first point. I'm not the sort to think that, because others disagree with me, something is being undermined, watered down, and sold out. And I don't have numbers--can't afford polling--but I know anecdotally why the mainstream of the libertarian movement doesn't touch the LP, and why serious people like Bonnie Flickinger or Carl Milsted leave.
A political party is, by nature and necessity, pluralist, as in the libertarian movement. If thousands left because they couldn't tolerate the pluralism, they don't belong in a political party to begin with. It's like going to the mosque and being let down because they talk of Allah or liking Florida but hating the sunshine. If you want a party to stand firm on "principle" you're looking for something less pluralist and and less dynamic than a political party. A libertarian political party is the home for collaboration between people who share the common penchant for liberalization and free-market solutions. What it in its day-to-day communications is standing firm on depends on who's doing the writing and who's in charge--and never confound a change in emphasis or style for taking a weak stand. The same position can be put to the voters two ways, equally strong; putting off the voters is not a show of strength. In the long run it's usually the opposite.
I guess you could consider me a purist, as I lean more that way than to the reformers. But I could have been quite happy with a Barr candidacy.
If his running mate had been in the radical caucus, giving us a unity ticket.
Face it, the reform caucus cut the purists out, not the other way around. By demanding everything and telling everyone else that their only job was to show up and vote, you the reformers told everyone else that they aren't wanted at all.
A Barr/Kubby ticket would have been a good thing. Now we have to deal with a 4 year campaign from Root as he attempts to get on the top of the ticket in 2012.
The Reform Caucus, for which I am not an official representative of any kind, did not endorse or support any particular candidate, let alone a Barr/Root ticket. The connection between the two is mere myth.
You may want to ask yourself why the LP, which would benefit greatly from the adoption of intelligent voting methods, keeps this tawdry procedure of multiple ballots, drops, and candidate addresses, leading to heat-of-the-moment changes of position and outcomes like Barr/Root. Blame the procedure, not the reformers.
If you want unity tickets in the future, support a bylaws change in 2010 as follows (but don't use this soppy wording): The Party's Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees shall be selected voting on a rank-order ballot, counted according to the minimax Condorcet method. The winner shall be the nominee for President and the second-place finisher shall be the nominee for Vice President
OR, better still
Do it separately, but on two Condorcet ballots and allow the Presidential nominee to express his preference(s) to the body before voting on the vice presidential nominee. Supposing everyone votes the same as they did and all the candidates were the same, it provides the same outcome as above, but allowing seekers of the Presidential nomination to *not* run for VP is a good thing.
The thing is this. While such "populist libertarianism" can and will win some elections, some of the time, it won't create the sort of political revolution that is needed to wrest this nation from statism. The only thing that can do that is to change the paradigm under which the vast majority of people think, and to do that, I feel we must be as openly radical as possible. Instead of trying to better align ourselves with what is, today, considered mainstream, we should be working to move the "mainstream" closer to true libertarian ideology so that libertarian politics can become as mainstream to the average person as statist politics.
Only once that revolution has occurred can we really begin to succeed in the mission of bringing libertarian ideas to electoral politics - and not just a few of them, every once in a while, as is the case now.
The error you make is in thinking that you can change the paradigm through preaching and not through demonstration.
Changes in public policy are, in free and peaceful society, made at the margin. Being "as radical as possible"--and I presume you don't think that all libertarians believe the same thing but just choose more or less radical postures--is a means to discredit one's self and to lose an audience. Search the Web for the term "Overton Window" for a good short discussion of that.
Ben Kalafut gets so much wrong here that it would take a good-length essay to properly address all of it.
But I will note the delicious irony of his comment comparing Libertarian objections to what he euphemistically calls "pluralism" (i.e. selling out libertarian principles) to "going to the mosque and being let down because they talk of Allah or liking Florida but hating the sunshine."
In truth he picked a couple apt similes for his own participation in the Libertarian Party, which he seems to think well enough of, except for the libertarian philosophy that comes with it!
It is tragic that the LP, which was launched to offer a decisive break from the establishment political parties and their politics as usual, is being held hostage by some who haven't figured out that copying the methods of the Republicans and Democrats in order to achieve power -- telling people what they want to hear, embracing the notion that "winning is the most important principle" (that quote being the most embarrassing part of Donny Ferguson's recent Monday message), etc. -- will in the end produce the same kind of results we get from those who have power now.
According to a remark made to me by Mr. Ferguson, he would not address the gun issue on the pages of the national LP because it would mean a "net loss" in votes for the LP. He further indicated an aversion to going after non-voters, even a reluctance to focus on independent voters, as a waste of time. Seems to me that those "voters" who have demonstrated a clear rejection of the Democrat and Republican parties might be a good market for the LP, but according to Mr Ferguson's lmathematical approach to politics, they don't show up clearly in poll numbers and "demographics" so they aren't worth the effort.
It has been my experience that there is no 20% of American voters who have libertarian views. Outside of our small "circle of friends", there may be a large number of people who support a non-interventionist foreign policy or a large number of people who support eliminating the federal Department of Education or a large number of people who oppose stimulus packages or a large number of people who oppose unwarranted wiretaps. Unfortunately they are not the same people. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking among the reformers in the LP about what "libertarian views" are; something along the lines of, "If we can get them to agree on one or two "libertarian" policies, we can ignore the rest of what they believe and support."
Courting anti-gun rights "voters" or, as Barr did, courting "voters" who would continue the drug war and suppression of GLBT rights does not seem to me to be the appropriate way to build support for "The Party of Principle", but, hey, that's just me. I understand that there are many "libertarians" in the LP who want to abandon the slogan "The Party of Principle", but until they do, it is what it is!
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-26 09:55:31
The adoption of libertarian ideas as public policy could be accelerated were the ten to twenty percent of American voters with libertarian views to exert influence en bloc in the political process. One of the several ways to do that is through a libertarian political party.
I absolutely think that a political party (and my preference is still strongly for the Libertarian Party) can be an effective way for people to speak 'en bloc' and to effect significant change. However, I think the premise of many folks - and I include Donny Ferguson here, based on his recent communications - that the LP can (and must) make that change solely or even largely by electoral means displays some perilous naivete about the American political process.
Look at the numbers. Your most optimistic estimate of "American voters with libertarian views" is twenty percent. I'd actually say it's higher, because I'm an optimist and think that everyone holds a 'libertarian view' about something. But I assume that you mean holding libertarian views to a greater extent than they hold non-libertarian views. If that's the case, I suspect that even ten percent is wildly optimistic at this point. But let us say that fifiteen percent of voters meet this criterion.
So let's look at a hypothetical case to see how this plays out in American two-party system. Best-case, wildly optimistic scenario:
We have a district that's 'uber-libertarian', say 20 percent.
There's no incumbent in the race.
The district is 20% registered Libertarian, 20%DP, 20%RP, and 40%Unaffiliated.
We have a district in an area where voters can register and vote Libertarian and candidates can run as Libertarian without any penalty or extra costs (such as petitioning).
We have a candidate who is deeply involved in his community and can attract voters who view themselves as nonpartisan.
We have a candidate who is well-funded and well-staffed, and lots of volunteers.
Even with this rosy scenario, voters will still take a 'hit' because their candidate will be deprived of committee assignments and other duopoly-held perks within any American legislative body. This is going to reduce the number of voters for the LP candidate - those who are libertarian-leaning but not dedicated to the Libertarian Party will (rationally) choose the major-party candidate who is most closely allied to their views.
Say there's a popular Republican in this race, and a less-popular Democrat.
If the candidate attempts to move into the issue space' of either the DP or RP candidate (in this case the DP candidate would make more sense), he will lose the votes of at least some LP stalwarts, without necessarily gaining the corresponding votes of the DP or RP opponent - because voters will know they can get the same 'commodity' in DP or RP package with all the perks of legislative alliance with a major power party (committee assignments, etc.).
Also, the LP will have a harder time attracting career politicians (or as they like to bill themselves, 'public servants'), and although that is certainly not a negative to someone who favors the citizen-leader model, it will mean that our candidates are, on average, not as schooled, not as slick, and not as marketable, as candidates from the two power parties. We're trying to play in the Big Leagues without having developed a really good Farm Team, yet.
We cannot count on overcoming these very real obstacles created by the two-Party system by simply saying that Libertarians are better people. We're not, really. We're simply regular (well, on average!) people with better ideas. We should not attempt to wholesale sell Libertarian office-seekers or holders as more ethical, brighter, nicer, etc. individuals than office-seekers of other parties - because it will only take a few counterexamples to show how silly that contention is - and I suspect we can all think of at least one counterexample if we are honest with ourselves.
So this all may sounds negative, but it's not meant to. I do think we can - and will - win elections. And I absolutely think that we should try to. But I also think our most profound effect may not be in the winning of elections - at least in the short term (next decade or two), but more in the creation and shaping of legislation, in the development of a group of citizen-activists who will think (cliche alert!) 'outside the box' when it comes to both policy and action, and (perhaps most profoundly) in the shift of power-party politicians to an adoption of more and more libertarian rhetoric and (with our vigilant watchdogging) action.
To simply take the actions and techniques that have made Democrats and Republican politicians successful in a system that was designed by them to work that way for them, and to expect those practices to make us successful in the same way, is at the least, naive. It'd be like putting simple gasoline in a two-stroke engine and expecting to get superlative results because the fuel works just dandy in your four-stroke engine. Different circumstances call for a different application of tactics.
Starchild seems to think there is something called "the libertarian philosophy". Tell me, where can I find this? Is it in the pages of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, or perhaps in something by Jerry Gaus, or in The Structure of Liberty? Or did Epstein pin it down in Skepticism and Freedom?--that would mean that I am an adherent of "the libertarian philosophy" more or less and Starchild is not!
If you will not acknowledge that there is no "the libertarian philosophy" and that libertarianism has been a pluralist movement from the start, we can't have an intelligent disucssion. And if you see no way to be pluralist without "selling out libertarian principles"--if "libertarian principles" means "you must all agree with me"--then we can't have a political party.
S. Hogarth is on to something here; Duverger's Law "plus X" makes things rough for third parties in a first-past-the-post single-vote system, especially if, like Ben Brandon, people face retribution for not being Dems or Reps.
It is one thing to say that libertarians need different strategy than Ds or Rs because of this, but it is another thing to say that this strategy is Small Party Libertarianism, or deliberately *not* appealing to the latent libertarian voter, not selling the message, and not taking the Public Choice stuff to which Hogarth makes implicit appeal into account.
If people want a Communist Party style organization, some vanguard party out to preach a libertarian ideology, they can do that. (Ironically, the people who desire this are usually adherents to downmarket libertarianisms.) Don't rob the rest of us of our sweat equity or destroy the LP to do so. Go start the Randist party or the Rothbard party or the Anarchist party or the No Policy Ideas, Just Principles Party, wherein the candidates are all supposed to sound the same and aren't supposed to get ideas from Cato whitepapers or modern libertarian thinkers and aren't supposed to talk about what they'd do if elected. Give it a different Statement of Principles, a different set of bylaws, a different Platform, and kindly leave the Party for Libertarians alone.
I wonder if Starchild realized that Ferguson wrote something like "winning is the most important principle" for a libertarian political party because winning actually advances libertarian policy and expands liberty.
If you read the message, that's the point.
If, on the other hand, you let spinal reflexes ("principles") take hold and don't read the rest of the message, don't put the statement into context, then you can say ZOMG teh Democrats and Republicans do that and therefore the Libertarians will stop being Libertarian!
Can you guys be polite enough to read Ferguson's messages before condemning them?
"The LP has moved closer to being a libertarian political party in the past few years, . . . "
The LP has done no such thing. In fact, it's become nearly irrelevant, thanks to efforts to "win" at all costs, especially the abandonment of principle. At least at the national level, the LP is now marked by trimming, "weathervane politics", compromise and concealment, and a muddled, unimpressive, watered-down message.
For evidence of the LP's downfall, just look at the huge drop in membership and funding.
Attacking the real libertarians, who courageously insist that the party actually abide by its stated principles, is misguided and cowardly.
Cute, Mr. Vassar. I'm not attacking "real libertarians" as a category, but rather a subset thereof. And "win at all costs" is clearly not something the LP has done. Think for a moment about costs that could fall into the set of "all" that weren't paid/taken/whatever the word is by the LP.
And I'd be surprised if you didn't know that the the LP falloff antedated the reform faction's ascendence and has well-accepted other explanations like: the "Optopia" scandal, Archimedes, and the transition away from being a membership organization. Figures and dates if you want to convince anyone otherwise.
I should have put money on how long I'd have to wait before Hornberger's kooky "c and c" meme popped up. To believe that libertarian ecumenicism is "compromise and concealment" is to believe that all libertarians really believe the same thing, just some choose to hide it. Ridiculous. And ridiculous to say that a party with more elected and appointed officials and more earned media than ever before has "become nearly irrelevant". LP is *still* nearly irrelevant nationally, but if you measure relevance in the usual way, things have improved. More of us in decision-making positions and more of us getting ideas out there to the public.
Of course, if you were somehow impressed by the "classic" Rothbard/Evers platform you'd find this one unimpressive. But if you thought the old one was an idea-free and ill-wrought joke, you'd see this one as a step in the right direction.
What I'm wondering is how you've been around the libertarian movement for long enough to speak of the time derivative of the LP, even if you get it wrong, and yet remain able to say things like "watered down" and "compromise and concealment" without shame. Has the LP been that isolated from the rest of libertarianism?
From my reading, the "Overton Window" appears to support, rather than disprove, the radical position. We're trying to move the center, rather than become the center.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-28 21:15:23
Ben writes
Strangely, in many places the nonpolitical libertarians stuck around in greater numbers than those interested effecting libertarian policy change through the political process; those interested in effectiveness are more prone to frustration and burnout than those for whom the Libertarian Party is a hobby.
Sigh. A few thoughts:
Your understanding of 'political' may be too narrow. Someone who is not particularly set on winning elections may bevery much 'political'.
What seems 'strange' to you doesn't at all seem strange to me. (or to many others, I'd venture) Libertarians who were focused on other uses of politics than quick electoral change are more apt to be comfortable with the slwo progress on the electoral front, less prone to giving up and walking away, and more apt to be in for the long haul.
I think you need to broaden your definition of 'effectiveness'.
You give longtime activists who have supported the LP for decades with money, time, missed opportunity cost, and other costs a real insult by calling the LP a 'hobby' for them. At least you are not a paid staffer, as is Ferguson, who delivered similar insults to longtime Libertarian Party members (calling them 'self-fulfilling defeatis[ts] and pompous critic[s] of electoral politics').
We've had enough of these purity-police antics. They're silly, they hurt the common cause, and they often involve blatant dishonesty, as they do here. Too much time is wasted defending against them, time that could be spent promoting liberty. I'm a Big Tent Libertarian, and I don't believe in purges, but
Irony alert!!
I do believe that people who aren't interested in advancing liberty through politics are in the wrong place if they're in a libertarian political party ,
Again, consider that your understanding of 'politics' may be simply not broad enough to encompass what other people mean by that term.
that they and those who are interested in advancing liberty through politics would be better served if they went elsewhere, and that they ought to be asked to leave if they can't be constructive.
Are you defining 'constructive' as 'interested primarily in winning elections'? Or as something else?
If they are interested in advancing liberty through politics, a little bit of shaming is in order. Do they think that a libertarian political party is made stronger by chasing libertarians out? How so?
Irony alert!
Ben, you've spoken of 'shaming' and 'ask[ing libertarians] to leave' - and yet you can straightfacedly ask these questions? Do YOU "think that a libertarian political party is made stronger by chasing libertarians out? How so?"
I wonder if Starchild realized that Ferguson wrote something like "winning is the most important principle" for a libertarian political party because winning actually advances libertarian policy and expands liberty.
Winning elections can help advance libertarianism. But it's not the only way libertariasm can advance, and it's not by any means the only way the Libertarian Party can advance liberty. And it's not neccessarily the most effective way that the Libertarian Party can advance liberty. That's important - I'll restate it:
Winning elections can help advance libertarianism. But winning elections is not neccessarily the most effective way that the Libertarian Party can advance liberty.
You might disagree. Obviously, Mr. Ferguson disagrees. The important point is this: no one is stopping you or Mr. Ferguson from working to win elections except yourselves. Howver, both you and Mr. F. have taken the time that you could be devoting to winning elections to gratuitously insult longtime hardworking Party members.
Remember, we are talking here only about differences in strategy!
By all means, make your case for the LP to focus tightly on electoral victory. I am very interested to hear your arguments about how this is possible on a large scale in any short timeframe given the two-party system, and how a changed platform or a de-emphasis on certian issues will achieve this quick victory (bonus points for describing how you think newly-elected Libertarian legislators will'effect change' on issues they avoided talking about during their campaigns). We have important differences in strategic thinking, and certainly you and Mr. F. have important ideas to contribute. Where you err, I think, is in the idea that your ideas on strategy ought to completely supplant the strategic ideas of those who have managed the truly astounding task of growing the LP through nearly four decades.
People who are sceptical about the LP's approach through previous decades should study the recent history of third parties inthe US. Perhaps then they would marvel less that the LP was not a 'major party', and more that is has been a going, and growing, concern for nearly forty years!
So, yes, please give us your best ideas. I want to hear them! But what I am not interested in hearing is the insults you (or Ferguson) have to direct toward longtime dedicated activists - especially when you have the nerve to claim yourself as a 'big tent libertarian' at the same time you suggest that longtime libertarians who disagree with you on matters of strategy should be 'shamed' and 'asked to leave'.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-28 21:43:03
Thanks to both Ben and Morey for the introduction to the "Overton Window" concept.
Ben, I think Morey's right on this. But I don't think he's wordy enough, so I'll try to correct that ;-)
If we want the center to become 'more libertarian', and we do not presently control policy-making, we have two choices (which to some degree are going to be exclusive of each other, thus the perpetual wrangling):
Gain control of policy-making by winning an electoral majority (or even a share in overt policy-making by winning a solid electoral minority).
Exert influence on the center from the 'libertarian edge' so that the policy-makers must become more libertarian to retain control.
In the present political reality of American politics, which strategy do you think is a more effective primary political approach for a political party that is not a member of established duopoly?
I think its clear that it is #2.I also think that for most of the LP's existence, we have followed such a strategy.
I think our current national staff, and many members of our National Committee, are working under the assumption that #1 is possible in the short term.
I think that this assumption will harm the Party in the short term, until we can regain a more long-term, rational focus on shifting the center of American political thought, rather than thinking that we can become a member of the duopoly without such a shift.
Remember that the LP has grown in membership and influence over nearly four decades, following esentially #2, above, while many other parties that have tried for #1 - most notably the Reform Party - have quickly vanished. Meanwhile the LP continues to grow and to spawn numerous thinktanks, publications, and other movement organizations. And make no mistake about it, as much as some movement folks grumble about the LP, most longtime movement libertarians have been involved with the Party and have learned essential activist tactics there. The LP is a powerful force within the movement, introducing many people to the coherent notions of self-ownership and political freedom who had only vague ideas of these concepts before (I include myself in this number).
Our staff should perhaps spend less time insulting longtime LPers and talking about how, now that they are on board, the LP will become less fringe and more respected, and instead concentrate on celebrating and expanding upon the things that have worked for the LP. And there are many such things!
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-28 21:49:14
Don't rob the rest of us of our sweat equity or destroy the LP to do so. Go start the Randist party or the Rothbard party or the Anarchist party or the No Policy Ideas, Just Principles Party, wherein the candidates are all supposed to sound the same and aren't supposed to get ideas from Cato whitepapers or modern libertarian thinkers and aren't supposed to talk about what they'd do if elected.
This takes nerve. "Sweat equity"? "No Policy Ideas, Just Principles"? "aren't supposed to talk about what they'd do if elected"?
I suggest that you try talking to some radical libertarians, rather than gratuitously insulting them. Hint: yo'll find many of them sweating at county fairs and gunshows, discussing policy and talking about what they'd do if eelcted.
Please discuss issues and strategy. Do not simply propogate baseless insults.
If we want the center to become 'more libertarian', and we do not presently control policy-making, we have two choices (which to some degree are going to be exclusive of each other, thus the perpetual wrangling):
Gain control of policy-making by winning an electoral majority (or even a share in overt policy-making by winning a solid electoral minority).
Exert influence on the center from the 'libertarian edge' so that the policy-makers must become more libertarian to retain control.
The trick is: how do you exert influence on the center from the "libertarian edge". You can't do it by picking a position that is an "extreme" ill-thought caricature and advocating it. You do it by picking a well-thought position and then framing it as an interpolation between the status quo and the extreme. That is the essence of the Overton Window concept.
Funny thing here is: Nolan runs his candidacies in an intelligent manner. But Galt forbid that the LP be so intelligent.
Meanwhile the LP continues to grow and to spawn numerous thinktanks, publications, and other movement organizations. And make no mistake about it, as much as some movement folks grumble about the LP, most longtime movement libertarians have been involved with the Party and have learned essential activist tactics there.
The LP spawned Cato when the ideologues took over. Reason antedates the LP and has only recently--after 2004--begun treating the LP as anything other than a movement sideshow. The Freeman, now way past its time of influence, antedates the LP. No other think-tank spawned by the LP comes to mind. Mercatus isn't LP, Goldwater isn't LP, Mackinac isn't LP. No publication taken seriously outside the LP spawned by the LP comes to mind.
The LP is a powerful force within the movement, introducing many people to the coherent notions of self-ownership and political freedom who had only vague ideas of these concepts before (I include myself in this number).
That's in total conflict with my experience in the LP. The LP is were you go if you want people to insult your intelligence with pop-philosophy and insist that some dumbed-down version of classical-liberalism is state of the art. It's where you go if you want to hear from people whose familiarity with philosophy begins and ends with pre-Nozick popular libertarianism. It's where you go if you want to hear from people who worry about being "consistent" as though there's such a thing as a closed system in moral or political philosophy.
>I suggest that you try talking to some radical libertarians, >rather than gratuitously insulting them. Hint: yo'll find many >of them sweating at county fairs and gunshows, discussing >policy and talking about what they'd do if eelcted.
Again, completely at odds with my experience with "radical libertarians." The radicals, for lack of a better word here, sure do sweat because the LP is the alpha and omega of their civic engagement. They sweat and gun shows. They sweat at county fairs. But they also sweat at flinging gratuitous insults at anyone who disagrees. Not an anarchist? Believe "self-ownership" is an attempt to derive normative information from quirks of language? You must be a socialist statist sonofabitch, one step from Stalin. And they sweat at telling people they're not libertarian. And they get fed up and leave.
But they don't sweat enough thinking "how can I convince people who don't already see it my way to see it my way?" And they don't sweat thinking "what would I support if I was elected?" Their ideal is it. Nothing for the now, nothing in between, and nothing responsible. And trying to hold an intelligent conversation about policy is a real chore when ideological reflexes get in the way. Worse still when people who are presumably "libertarian" haven't the slightest about what current libertarian thinkers--people who make their livings thinking about policy--have to say. Of the dozens of "radicals" I've known a small handful have struck me as thoughtful. Perhaps that's due to my having high standards, but people who aren't top-notch thinkers have no business saying who's in, who's out, and people who are top-notch thinkers usually know better than to do so.
But you missed the point and if I go on I'll cause you to miss it further. Let me spell it out clearly: Opposition to "libertarian ecumenicism"--belief that there is "a libertarian philosophy" and that the political party for libertarians must be reclaimed for people who believe this "a libertarian philosophy"--is ridiculous and ought to be unwelcome. Ferguson understands what a political party is for and is acting accordingly, without giving the purity testers their desired deference, and has drawn the ire of Nolan in the form of a slanderous and seemingly deliberate misquotation.
Your #1 is a ridiculous caricature. Staff understands that for a political party to move things in its direction it must be a threat. One who advocates a political LP need not assume that the LP will immediately take over a duopoly position. An LP cannot simultaneously be the intellectual safe zone for people who believe "a libertarian philosophy" and be a threat.
I'd clean this up a bit, but I don't have that kind of time to waste on comment boards. You're reasonably thoughtful--why not write your own article?
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: 2009-03-29 22:15:41
Ms Hogarth needs to tell us how the "radicals" or "purity police" or "SOB caucus" or whatever one can call them can both have what they want and not rob the rest of us of our sweat equity. It takes a lot of nerve to be a Small Party Libertarian.
"Yes, I'll take mainstream ecumenical libertarianism over extremist libertarianism even if you magically guaranteed me the same number of votes. Mainstream libertarianism is more representative of the LP membership, and solidifies the brand for future its future expansion into the 13% - 20% of Americans who want more personal and economic freedom. Mainstream libertarianism builds synergy with the policy prescriptions of libertarians in think tanks and academia -- who have far more impact on increasing liberty than the LP does. Mainstream libertarianism brings political attention to an agenda that (like the moderate Socialist Party platform of 1928) has a better chance of influencing public policy than does extremist libertarianism."
I think part of the problem is that the soi-disant radicals are so isolated from the rest of the libertarian movement as to not be aware of how out of step they are with libertarians in think tanks and academia.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-30 10:41:53
The trick is: how do you exert influence on the center from the "libertarian edge". You can't do it by picking a position that is an "extreme" ill-thought caricature and advocating it. You do it by picking a well-thought position and then framing it as an interpolation between the status quo and the extreme. That is the essence of the Overton Window concept.
I don't beleive that I, or any libertarian I've spoken to, has ever proposed advocating an "ill-thought caricature". Why do you have to continue insulting your ostensible allies?
As for 'extreme', that is a scare-word, appropriately enclosed in scare-quotes by you. There is nothing inherently wrong with extremism - as long as you present it well and act always with integrity and consideration.
In order to best exert influence from the edge, you need to be at the edge. Of course, you could also exert influence from slightly-away-from-center, but there are two dangers there that I can think of: (1) you risk branding yourself as 'rightist' or 'leftist' when in truth libertarianism is neither (or some would say has elements of both), and (2) it's just not as effective in a two-party political system to be too close to the center unless you are one of the two power parties.
I think we agree that we want the center to move libertarian-ward. Possibly we can agree that more than one approach can be effective at that. What I think is the sticking point is that within one particular organization,one approach often precludes (or hinders) the other. To theextent this happens 9or is percieved to happen), we have this perenniel quarrel).
The LP is were you go if you want people to insult your intelligence with pop-philosophy and insist that some dumbed-down version of classical-liberalism is state of the art. It's where you go if you want to hear from people whose familiarity with philosophy begins and ends with pre-Nozick popular libertarianism. It's where you go if you want to hear from people who worry about being "consistent" as though there's such a thing as a closed system in moral or political philosophy.
Wow. I know why I am active in the Libertarian Party. But given these words above, I have to wonder why you are.
Perhaps you think your insults, your pop-political science, and your desire for inconsistency will transform the LP into a powerful force for good in the world.
Good luck with that, then.
The radicals, for lack of a better word here, sure do sweat because the LP is the alpha and omega of their civic engagement. They sweat and gun shows. They sweat at county fairs. But they also sweat at flinging gratuitous insults at anyone who disagrees. Not an anarchist? Believe "self-ownership" is an attempt to derive normative information from quirks of language? You must be a socialist statist sonofabitch, one step from Stalin. And they sweat at telling people they're not libertarian. And they get fed up and leave.
My mistake. I was deceived by your tone and by my enthusiasm for real cooperation into thinking that you were open to learning about your allies in the movement, rather than simply swapping insults based on (at best) anecdotal and imperfect data, informed by personal predujices. I see now that you are not.
I am sure that somewhere, though, others exist who have not already closed their minds to communication with those in the movement (and the Party) who have strategic (and, often, philospohical) differences with them. Those I am happy to speak with at any time.
Let me spell it out clearly: Opposition to "libertarian ecumenicism"--belief that there is "a libertarian philosophy" and that the political party for libertarians must be reclaimed for people who believe this "a libertarian philosophy"--is ridiculous and ought to be unwelcome.
That is quite clear indeed. I only hope that you have done Donny Ferguson a grave disservice by associating him with your avowed hostility toward many of those people who have built the Libertarian Party and who will - despite the insults and abuse of you and a few others - continue to work in the best way they understand to make the LP the most powerful political voice possible for freedom.
Ms Hogarth needs to tell us how the "radicals" or "purity police" or "SOB caucus" or whatever one can call them
You should consider dropping the childish namecalling. It makes you look bad, and it does nothing for the LP's public image, either.
can both have what they want and not rob the rest of us of our sweat equity.
Oh, it's simple. We only need stouthearted, articulate, and intelligent candidates who can defend and engage people on libertarian positions without tripping over their own tongues. This takes some experience - being an effective candidate in any party takes a lot of experience, as Sarah Palin painfully demonstrated to her Republican colleagues.
It takes a lot of nerve to be a Small Party Libertarian.
Again you insult those who would be your allies by projecting onto them your misgivings about their strategic choices, and suggesting that those projections are their conscious desire. Tactics like this are the lowest (or near-lowest) form of debate and discussion, and display either disdain for your opposite number (who in this case is your ally, remember), or an ignorance of truly effective debate and discussion skills.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-30 10:46:43
Bew writes:
Funny thing here is: Nolan runs his candidacies in an intelligent manner. But Galt forbid that the LP be so intelligent.
I think you're missing an important point here.The national party (and the Platform) serves as (or should serve as, in the veiw of many) touchstones of libertarian policy and viewpoint. Individual candidates will frame their choice of issues and the way they discuss those issues according to their situation (which includes their own personality and inclination).
Again you insult those who would be your allies by projecting onto them your misgivings about their strategic choices, and suggesting that those projections are their conscious desire. Tactics like this are the lowest (or near-lowest) form of debate and discussion, and display either disdain for your opposite number (who in this case is your ally, remember), or an ignorance of truly effective debate and discussion skills.
This sort of tawdry psychoanalysis is the lowest form of debate and discussion, and an tremendous breach of basic courtesy.
As I see it, if you oppose libertarian ecumenicism you support many libertarians out of the LP because they do not adhere to your peculiar ideology. Hence "Small Party" libertarianism.
If you think opposition to libertarian ecumenicism will grow the party, then come out and explain it. Reserve this insulting pseudo-psychological playground tactic for the bar.
I was deceived by your tone and by my enthusiasm for real cooperation
I don't gather that you understand that "real cooperation" implies behaviors. You can't be for this "consistency" stuff you bring up again and at the same time be for cooperation. That is, unless it's the sort of cooperation where we all hold our noses and pretend we agree.
I was deceived by your tone and by my enthusiasm for real cooperationIf the LP were a place for libertarians to cooperate, there'd be a few ground rules:
(1) The Platform shall express commonality and not be set up as a touchstone or based on any peculiar libertarian ideology.
(2) The LP is a political party, wherein libertarians collaborate to move public policy in a more libertarian direction by electing (or attempting to elect) libertarians to public office. It is not a debate club, nor is it the catch-all for libertarian activism, nor is it a place to work out ideological disputes.
(3) Where these disputes are relevant they should be resolved openly and publicly, e.g. through primary elections.
Agreement on just these three things is a recipe for cooperation.
I think you're missing an important point here.The national party (and the Platform) serves as (or should serve as, in the veiw of many) touchstones of libertarian policy and viewpoint. Individual candidates will frame their choice of issues and the way they discuss those issues according to their situation (which includes their own personality and inclination).
To me, this is the real sticking point. How dare someone treat not a work of scholarship but a "pop" document written by people who at best know no better than I as the touchstone for my beliefs and actions? And how dare they put forth a Platform that leaves libertarian candidates vulnerable to the old "Platform Attack"?
Good riddance to the old platform which the ideologues used to beat everyone else over the head with!
Ben, what does "downmarket libertarianisms" mean?
Libertarianism intellectually disconnected from the sort of libertarian scholarship that is respected even outside the movement. Immodest and overreaching ideologies.
Oh, it's simple. We only need stouthearted, articulate, and intelligent candidates who can defend and engage people on libertarian positions without tripping over their own tongues. This takes some experience - being an effective candidate in any party takes a lot of experience, as Sarah Palin painfully demonstrated to her Republican colleagues.
Then why your opposition to libertarian ecumenicism and to cooperation. Why your desire for consistency? And why your defense of purity-policing behavior?
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: 2009-03-30 15:44:58
I don't beleive that I, or any libertarian I've spoken to, has ever proposed advocating an "ill-thought caricature". Why do you have to continue insulting your ostensible allies?
Ernest Hancock says that if you're not uncomfortable with your own positions, you've chosen them incorrectly.
But isn't that what "the edge" is, anyway? There is mainstream libertarianism, where Cato, Reason, and the movement's scholars sit, and then there are ideological things that make mainstream libertarianism look positively moderate.
As for 'extreme', that is a scare-word, appropriately enclosed in scare-quotes by you. There is nothing inherently wrong with extremism - as long as you present it well and act always with integrity and consideration.
Isn't extremism the deliberate choice of an irresponsible position? Perhaps you and I understand this differently.
In order to best exert influence from the edge, you need to be at the edge. Of course, you could also exert influence from slightly-away-from-center, but there are two dangers there that I can think of: (1) you risk branding yourself as 'rightist' or 'leftist' when in truth libertarianism is neither (or some would say has elements of both), and (2) it's just not as effective in a two-party political system to be too close to the center unless you are one of the two power parties.
But if you are not close enough to the center you alienate the audience.
I think we agree that we want the center to move libertarian-ward. Possibly we can agree that more than one approach can be effective at that.
Yes.
What I think is the sticking point is that within one particular organization,one approach often precludes (or hinders) the other. To theextent this happens 9or is percieved to happen), we have this perenniel quarrel).
The problem isn't unavoidable. Once we make up our mind that we both want to be in a libertarian political party, an extremist and a mainstreamer can run their candidacies the way they choose, in the same party. If the platform is about commonality, then neither the extremist nor the mainstreamer will see it as impediment. Activists can choose to allocate their time and donations as they see fit.
Trouble arises when one faction or the other--and historically in the LP it has always been the extremists--turns inwardly like an autoimmune disease and decides that the object is to push the other faction out. Yes, enshrinement of the extremist approach precludes the mainstremers' activity. But the attacks lately have been on libertarian ecumenicism per se. We can't have party staff saying "appeal to the libertarian vote", even though that's all about libertarian commonality. We can't have a Platform representative of libertarians in general. Hence Restore '04, hence the December 11th Group.
And then there are people like me who say "this is like an autoimmune disease, we shouldn't tolerate such behavior". And oh boy, aren't we the sowers of discord, because we're speaking out against our supposed allies!
Yeah, supposed allies. If they acted like it, there wouldn't be any trouble.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-30 17:26:38
As I see it, if you oppose libertarian ecumenicism...
I oppose libertarian jargonism.
Look, I'm delighted to have folks join the Party who do not agree with me. There's a good chance that in such a case either that person or I - or both of us - will learn something(s) new.
That doesn't mean I want the LP to start promoting taxes of any sort, or downplay opposition to the US government's wars overseas, or prohibition, or gun control.
I don't gather that you understand that "real cooperation" implies behaviors. You can't be for this "consistency" stuff you bring up again and at the same time be for cooperation.
Well, yes, I do, and I can.
I am willing - demonstrably willing - to work with people who have advocated for (1) taxes, (2) prohibition, and (3) wars of aggression, all of which I steadfastly oppose. The areas we do agree on are the areas where we work together.
I am not willing that the LP as an organization adopt a policy of advocating (or overtly countenancing, rather than merely tolerating) taxes of any kind, prohibition, or wars of aggression. I will work to convince others to continue the LP's long history of opposition to government aggression.
The Platform shall express commonality...
Commonality among who, exactly? Libertarians? Defined how, exactly? Commonality to what degree?
How dare someone treat not a work of scholarship but a "pop" document written by people who at best know no better than I as the touchstone for my beliefs and actions?
I suspect you have too much respect for scolarship, and too little for your fellow activists. Did you really just claim to be more knowledgeable than everyone on (at least) the Platform Committe, and (possibly) attending the Convention and ratifying the Platform?
At any rate, I wasn't suggesting the Platform as a touchstone for individuals, but for the Party itself.
And how dare they put forth a Platform that leaves libertarian candidates vulnerable to the old "Platform Attack"?
Any platform shy of 'We love puppies" will leave some candidates vulnerable to criticism. Scratch that - even a puppy-loving platform has its vulnerabilities. We need to concentrate more on developing quality candidates who are not shy of communicating libertarian thinking and who are comfortable with our fundamental positions.
A platform that is so milquetoast as to invite no rage or scorn will invite no interest. Our platform wording can always be improved, but the path to improvement isn't to make it so slippery that no one can hang a criticism on it.
Why your desire for consistency?
The desire isn't merely for consistency for its own sake, but to be always right/correct, and therefore most thriving. I don't jump off of building-tops merely for the sake of a bit of change from taking the stairs. Gravity appears to behave consistently in the world as I experience it, so I react to it accordingly.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-30 17:37:06
Two questions for S. Hogarth:
(1) Was Nolan out of line in changing Donny Ferguson's words?
Can you give me an instance where he changed the words? It looked to me as if he interpreted them.
Frankly, though, I am more concerned with staff who deliver gratuitous insults to the activist base and who isolate one part of a member-approved purpose statement and use their staff position to elevate it to the purpose of the LP than I am with longtime activists who find the behavior of that staff member objectionable.
I certianly hope that our representatives on the National Committee aremore concerned about the behavior of our hired staff than of our longtime activists.
Nevertheless, David is the best person to defend his own writing. I made my own response to the same commincation from Ferguson. it's here:
(2) What that Fergusonactually said, in context, justifies the purity-policing response that otherwise runs contra the cooperation you say you desire?
I reject your label of 'purity policing'. I have listed my concerns with Ferguson's writing in some detail, as I indicated above. But in short: a staff member looking to increase cooperation among Party members would do well to avoid insulting activists and rewriting the Party's Purpose contra the membership's explicit instruction per the Bylaws.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-30 17:54:36
Ernest Hancock says that if you're not uncomfortable with your own positions, you've chosen them incorrectly.
Saying that your beleifs should constantly be challenging you to greater thought and consideration is a far cry from advocating an "ill-thought caricature".
Isn't extremism the deliberate choice of an irresponsible position?
No. I don't see 'irresponsibile' implied in 'extreme' at all.
Perhaps you and I understand this differently.
Do we ever!!
But if you are not close enough to the center you alienate the audience.
Yes, that's true. This is not a trivial point. But it simply argues for better communication and implies that the more 'edgy' your position is, the more personally admirable you need to be to communicate it effectively. I actually think - and have done! - that youcan effectively communicate the idea that one person should not rule over another effectively. People may not always agree with the implications of such an idea,but they don't seem to find it shocking or horrific.
But don't neglect the other edge of this knife we're talking about - that if you're too close to the center, you are the audience.
I think what we will always need to review is just where we want to position the Libertarian Party with respect to the center and the edge.
And then there are people like me who say "this is like an autoimmune disease, we shouldn't tolerate such behavior".
Should we tolerate a staff member who speaks of longtime activists within the Party as "self-fulfilling defeat[ists] and pompous critic[s] of electoral politics"? Oh, and ego-feeding, liberty-starving "debat[ers of] arcane issues".
How can it be any wonder to you that people should bristle under such words? Why were they neccessary? what purpose did they serve? Who, exactly, was Ferguson talking about with such harsh criticism?
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-31 07:25:58
They chase bona fide libertarian newcomers--and veterans--out of the Party over disagreements on points of philosophy or policy. A case that immediately comes to mind is the purging of a prominent West Virginia activist because he didn't oppose childhood immunization.
Please define 'purge'. The post that you mention indicates that Tim West disagreed with his state Party chair on a particular issue (and I hope it was a discussion of whether vaccines should be mandatory - a libertarian/political issue - rather than whether they're a good idea, at all - not a libertarian/political issue) and that he quit because of that disagreement. How is that a 'purge', exactly?
I also find it amusing (or depressing, depending on my mood) how long some of these folks who whine about having been 'purged' will hang around the LP kvetching. I guess it gives them a handy excuse not to show up and table at a fair, or sit down and stuff envelopes at a county meeting.
Purge implies that your participation within the Party is ended against your will by someone else, not by you. You can't be 'purged' by someone 'inviting' you to leave, telling you to not let the door hit your ass on the way out, or even calling you a statist poopyhead.
Goodness, people, grow a freaking skin. Then we can work on adding a spine.
Goodness, people, grow a freaking skin. Then we can work on adding a spine.
How can it be any wonder to you that people should bristle under such words?
Enough said.
But here's the difference between Donny Ferguson and the Purity Police. Ferguson isn't getting in the way of you doing anything.
The purity-testers on the other hand swallow up activists' time with auto-immune attacks from behind, when they're not shutting non-ideologues out completely. It reaches a point where the LP becomes a waste of time because people who treat it as a hobby--the registered libertarians be damned--raise a fuss if the group wants e.g. to get an intern from the college to handle back-office work. Too much backbiting and slander from people with too much time on their hands--often because the LP is the alpha and omega of their civic participation--is functionally a purge.
Any platform shy of 'We love puppies" will leave some candidates vulnerable to criticism. Scratch that - even a puppy-loving platform has its vulnerabilities. We need to concentrate more on developing quality candidates who are not shy of communicating libertarian thinking and who are comfortable with our fundamental positions.
Yes, but neither the total end to all taxation, nor space colonization, nor child emancipation are "our fundamental positions". I expect a Libertarian candidate to be libertarian--to at least think about the issues using libertarian heuristics and bringing liberal values to bear. I don't expect him to drink the Rothbard/Evers Jonestown Kool-Aid nor do I elevate my own peculiar ideas to being libertarian "fundamental positions."
Commonality among who, exactly?
If you can't tell that the answer is "libertarians" from the context then this discussion is a waste of time.
I suspect you have too much respect for scolarship, and too little for your fellow activists. Did you really just claim to be more knowledgeable than everyone on (at least) the Platform Committe, and (possibly) attending the Convention and ratifying the Platform?
I suspect that many libertarians have too little respect for scholarship and for libertarian thinkers, too little modesty. I come at this from a position of modesty and I expect the same from others. Let me put it this way: certain libertarians know more than me or understand certain things better than I do, and likewise I know or understand certain things better than most libertarians, but the process isn't such that the Platform reflects something greater than individual understanding. The new Platform is good and modest, allowing the Libertarian candidate to be libertarian in his own way. The old one is not.
I question why you keep coming back here. We're straying from discussing my thesis--
Efforts to police intellectual foundations or rhetoric in the Libertarian Party are usually laughable, shameful, and counterproductive.
--to more general discussion between ourselves. Why don't you write an article making a counter-point and post the link here? These exchanges are more constructive when directed outwardly.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-31 13:43:08
Yes, but neither the total end to all taxation, nor space colonization, nor child emancipation are "our fundamental positions".
What do you think are our fundamental positions?
Do you think we have any?
"Commonality among who, exactly?"
If you can't tell that the answer is "libertarians" from the context then this discussion is a waste of time.
It may be true that this conversation is a waste of time :) But I did think it was clear that I was asking you what you understood 'libertarians' to mean.
The new Platform is good and modest, allowing the Libertarian candidate to be libertarian in his own way.
The new platfom says in one plank (in part):
We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever.
So, first: there's your hook for Libertarian-stalkers - they just have to point out that the LP is pro allowing old white dudes to exclude young black men from their lunch counters. Which, of course, we are - stupidity is its own reward, and such people are certainly free to reap that reward anytime they want. But your argument that the new platform will spare Libertarian candidates discomfort in defending libertarianism seems a bit weak in this light.
And, second: your "Libertarian candidate" surely can still campaign on a promise to support forced desegregation of private institutions, but he will be clearly doing so against the LP platform.
Do you support changing that part of that particular plank?
If so, in what way?
I'm just trying to get an idea of where it ends for you - this notion of (as I would call it) defanging the platform.
I question why you keep coming back here.
Because I am on optimist.
And you?
We're straying from discussing my thesis--
Sorry. Short attention span.
Efforts to police intellectual foundations or rhetoric in the Libertarian Party are usually laughable, shameful, and counterproductive.
I suggest you think a bit more about your use of the term 'police'.
--to more general discussion between ourselves.
Well, yes. Is there a problem?
Why don't you write an article making a counter-point and post the link here?
I don't care to at the moment. See 'short attention span', above. Also, I like the rapid point-counterpoint exchange we've been having. Is this exchange somehow offensive to you?
These exchanges are more constructive when directed outwardly.
Umm. This is 'directed outwardly'. If I wanted to have a private exchange with you, I'd email you.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-03-31 13:50:14
But here's the difference between Donny Ferguson and the Purity Police. Ferguson isn't getting in the way of you doing anything.
I'm not sure who-all is in your 'purity police' catch-all, but let's assume that David Nolan is there, since you directed your essay at him.
So I'll ask:
What exactly is David Nolan doing that is getting in the way of you (or anyone) running as a Libertarian Party candidate, or tabling at a Libertarian Party outreach booth, or getting new people to join the Party, or lobbying, or... whatever?
Do let us know, because if I'm also a member of this 'purity police' you're talking about (am I?), I'd sure like to know what it is Ithat you think I am doing to get in the way of fellow activists.
Sometimes I think there are two Dave Nolans, because locally he acts like a Big Tent type and doesn't talk like a purity-tester. But then there was the mis-characterization of the Reform Caucus as Republican infiltrators, and now this getting stirred up about the new communications director cheerleading libertarian electoral participation and victory, and the telephone number the national office has had as long as I can remember, etc.
Nolan and co. are doing nothing to impede or monkeywrench activism yet, but who knows what sort of mischief that "December 11" group entails. Singling out Ferguson like that isn't a good sign, and worse still that Nolan apparently deliberately altered words of a quotation so as to make it more offensive to the set he's trying to stir up.
I and others have had problems with mal fide attacks on character of the sort that necessitate defense and just plain waste time, from supposed libertarian allies, in the past. And problems with characters with too much time on their hands who want to make everything--basic political activity--a fight. I'll not name names or give too many specifics; it's water under the bridge. A good deal of it had to do wth characters who believe in the Randist notion of "sanction," and a good deal of it has to do with putting the cart before the horse.
Two example: there was strong opposition four years ago to hiring (free) interns from the local university to do back-office work. That's something that political parties simply do. To have to argue it--but but the University is tax-subsidized!--is like waking up and having an existential crisis about putting one's shoes on. And our State party tore itself apart a decade ago over whether or not it wanted to be a political party in a more fundamental sense. If you want ballot access in our state you have to follow state organizing law. The people on the pragmatist end of that won in court but basically washed their hands of the organization afterwards and have only slowly been coming back.
Making every little thing reason for a fight is functionally a purge; the faction interested in being productive will go elsewhere because it cannot be productive. There's more than one way to impede activity. Fortunately for liberty there are a lot of elsewheres in the movement and those elsewheres don't aggregate the toxic personalities.
I don't care to at the moment. See 'short attention span', above. Also, I like the rapid point-counterpoint exchange we've been having. Is this exchange somehow offensive to you?
No but the return on the time I'm putting in is low as nobody else is engaged in (or, I suspect, reading) the exchange. This is the equivalent of sending private e-mails and then flyposting them on a telephone pole.
Do you support changing that part of that particular plank?
If so, in what way?
I'm just trying to get an idea of where it ends for you - this notion of (as I would call it) defanging the platform.
I support a Platform that presents libertarians' common values and policy positions in the best light possible. Its primary uses are passive outreach (especially to college students--trust me, they read it!) and to give the press a sense of where we stand. If there's a part of the anatomy I associate with outreach, fangs isn't it. Too close to the "Libertarian Macho Flash" Michael Cloud talks about.
That second sentence is gratuitous, but it's not a big deal, especially compared to earlier incarnations of the platform. And any candidate worthy of his nomination in the primary ought to have a positive sounding answer to any trip-me-up question based on that plank, that clears up any question about whether he sympathizes with bigots. I can think of several ways to go with it right now.
I had to put up with the Platform Attack in my candidacy five years ago, but that was small potatoes. When people like Bonnie Flickinger base decisions to leave the party in part on it, it should be a sign something is wrong. To merely say "well, the platform is libertarianism, so the problem is with the candidate" is a a cop-out, and inaccurate to boot. The platform wasn't libertarianism broadly but rather some nearly self-parodious subset.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-04-01 07:08:34
Nolan and co. are doing nothing to impede or monkeywrench activism yet, but who knows what sort of mischief that "December 11" group entails.
Uh. Huh. So this whole hissy-fit is based on the fact that Nolan said something you consider insulting about Ferguson, and that he might be up to 'mischief'? After forty years of solid work?!
And then you get irked at me for getting off your topic and wanting to broaden the discussion?! I should think you'd be relieved!
I and others have had problems with mal fide attacks on character of the sort that necessitate defense and just plain waste time, from supposed libertarian allies, in the past.
Of course this is a problem. But it\s a problem that is not at all one-sided; surely you must recognize that? After all, Ferguson said some extremely provoking/insulting things about Libertarian activists in his communication - and he is staff! When some folks pointed out that including Hospers' old-but-incendiary essay against radicals (at his website, if you care to read it) in the LNC meeting binders a few meetings back was less-than-tactful, one defender indicated to me that the only reason people found his essay offensive was because it was true.(!!)
We have a bunch of passionate committed people, and despite your repeatedly trying to turn even that to insult (their very dedication is proof that they "treat it as a hobby" according to you), these passionate committed people (on all sides) are going to take very seriously any discussion about shifting/changing the ideological base of the Party. And they should! And, fact, some of them will be less than perfectly tactful 100% of the time. It's sheerly ridiculous to charge only one faction with rudeness and destructiveness, and really it's a waste of time to spend too much angst at all on it. Rather than hand-wringing essays about how activists aren't being supportive enough, why not just provide a shining example of support yourself? Why not write about the positive things you do for the Libertarian Party? I'd love to hear signs of progress!
This, incidentally, is the main reason I haven't written a counter as an essay to your comments here. I did spend some time on Ferguson's remarks, becausehe is staff and because I think what he wrote was materially wrong in several ways, but I'd like to focus less on personality and more on positive action. I don't mind a bit of back-and-forthing with you, though, because I do think there is some value in it.
Making every little thing reason for a fight is functionally a purge; the faction interested in being productive will go elsewhere because it cannot be productive.
When you see people about to do something you think is bad for the organization, do you speak up or do you stay silent in the interest of 'being productive'? I certainly hope it's the former. I agree that you don't need to lay down before the bulldozers, but we do have a responsibility to point out when we think a mistake is being made - otherwise we are poor stewards of the organizations. We have processes to let everyone's voice be heard and still move forward if consensus points that way. There's nothing inherently wrong is such a system. It's the way it's supposed to work. Naturally it's frustrating when people want to put the brakes on some project you think is especially important.
But...
Have you considered the possibility that your issues are not with factions, but with individuals? It has certainly been my experience that impedence-behavior can come from any direction. Example: I recently suggested our state executive committee issue a statement about reducing prison costs by freeing nonviolent offenders - and was mostly ignored, but did have one member say that she couldn't support any statement saying that we should open the doors to people who broke the law, no matter how wrong we thought the law. I found her arguments frustrating, but in the end they gave me a lot of room for thought and will make the eventual statement that much more powerful. We need internal checks. We should value people offering them, rather than complain that they are in our way.
No but the return on the time I'm putting in is low as nobody else is engaged in (or, I suspect, reading) the exchange.
You might be surprised.
This is the equivalent of sending private e-mails and then flyposting them on a telephone pole.
Well, then, I suppsoe I will have to prepare myself for the disappointment of not receiving answers to my questions.
And any candidate worthy of his nomination in the primary ought to have a positive sounding answer to any trip-me-up question based on that plank, that clears up any question about whether he sympathizes with bigots.
Well, yes. That's how many folks felt about the earlier platform. What dividing point makes that platform unacceptable and this one acceptable? That's really what we're trying to get to. I think everyone can agree that we want the platform to attract people to our cause rather than repel them - where we disagree is in what will give that result. What is rude and unproductive is for people (and people on all 'sides' do this, I understand) to accuse other Libertarians of wanting to 'drive away' or 'purge' folks because they have a different vision of what is attractive and what base we are trying to attract.
Do you hear me complaining that radicals are being driven away by changes to the platform, and that therefore non-radicals are out to ruin the Party?
My issue with your writing here is that you've spent a lot of time taking Nolan to task, and I think you are doing essentially the same thing you accuse him of - you've painted radicals as no-life obsessed philosophical bores who only want to impede the progress of the Party. How is that different than some thoughtless radical saying that non-radicals only want to destroy the Party for the benefit of the Republican Party?
When people like Bonnie Flickinger base decisions to leave the party in part on [the platform], it should be a sign something is wrong.
I don't think anyone ever imagined that the platform could not stand continuous improvement. But if I may be permitted to invoke Bastiat without being accused of philosphical sidetracking, Bonnie is what is seen - we have also to consider what is not seen - that is, the opportunity cost of any proposed changes to the platform. It's not so easy, but that's not an excuse to 'just do something!'.
The difference between this new platform and the old one is that the new platform is libertarian in the broad sense, it's an ecumenical platform, specific enough to convey the general direction of the libertarian movement but general enough as to not be ideological. And it doesn't contain silliness that really has to be explained away.
The old one was laden with ideological peculiarities, and contained a considerable deal of silliness on top of that. The old one is something one couldn't expect all candidates to be able to defend because it wasn't general enough to be, to borrow a construction from CS Lewis, "mere libertarianism". It was anarchist and voluntaryist whereas our serious candidates and the serious sources of libertarian policy ideas tend to be minarchist and liberal.
The coexistence between anarchist moralizers and the restuvus in a single party--and their general inclusion in what people refer to as the libertarian movement--is based on their sharing an immediate policy direction. The new platform represents that shared policy direction. The old one didn't.
A Libertarian Party platform based on this principle and current membership (sans radicals) might look something like this:
It's a start. Would need fleshing out with remarks on the issues of the day and ideas drawn from the libertarian academics and think-tanks.
Government is, for the most part, too big. and too powerful Libertarians support, for the most part, making it smaller and less powerful.
Libertarians per se think that the government is too big and too powerful because they perceive it to infringe to an unacceptable degree on the liberty of the individual. And I think there's agreement, too, that Big Government is both harmful to the general welfare both directly and due to its Public Choice implications.
People should have more freedom than they do now. Generally, Any specific instances should be studied carefully in terms of cost/benefit.
All depends on what one means by "freedom", of course. There are noses and fists, global warming and CO2, etc. The old "living peacefully with others" formulation is incomplete but something all libertarians seem to get behind. Anything beyond that is perhaps better left to philosophers than to political party platforms, which are best left to policy. Else we end up challenging a "cult of the omnipotent state" that's about as real as Santa Claus.
People should be allowed by government to have guns. Well, most people. Most of the time.
Right on the money.
Taxes should, in general, be lower. This is not to imply that any particular tax should be absolutely opposed (except - maybe - the income tax).
You've left out any mention here of markets, too, and preference of markets over voting and queueing is libertarian commonality. Or do the self-styled "radicals"--I'm thinking of the Friedman bashing that goes around--not care about that.
A platform representative of libertarian commonality could probably include planks supporting
School choice
Lower taxes
Some more-open borders, perhaps with wiggle room
Substantiative equal rights for homosexuals
Utilities "deregulation", replacement of monopolies with markets
Free market environmentalism
Free market health care reform
Fifty-state reciprocal concealed carry
Drug law liberalization, repeal of victimless crime laws in general
Repeal of Sarb-Ox, broad reform of corporate record-keeping laws to reduce compliance costs and lower barriers to entry
Doctrine of "partial takings"
Eliminate "corporate welfare", farm subsidies, National Endowment for the Arts, etc.
Reciprocal free trade
Social Security phaseout
Fifty-state "right to work"
Balanced budget amendment
But now I'm straying from topic--this would better be served by further discussion elsewhere and an article at some other time.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-04-08 05:48:11
"Trouble arises when one faction or the other--and historically in the LP it has always been the extremists--turns inwardly like an autoimmune disease and decides that the object is to push the other faction out."
If you removed the section between the dashes, that would be an interesting statement worth discussing.
With that section, it's a transparently ahistorical canard.
I don't recall any of the Committee for a Libertarian Majority nor the Libertarian Mainstream Caucus nor the LRC wanting to push others out, and the old timers say that the Rothbard crew pushed the Cato crowd out of the Party and not the other way around.
Of course, the Rothbard bunch got squeezed out of Cato, but that's not the Party.
Posted By: John Famularo
Date: 2009-04-12 08:29:48
All of this discussion as to what detail tactics the Libertarian Party should use and/or who should participate presupposes a strategy, which in turn presupposes a mission. I claim that the LP has no clearly defined mission.Every member “thinks” they know what that mission is, but can not articulate it in unambiguous, measureable terms. Whenever an official written mission statement is attempted, no consensus can be achieved, and further attempts are tabled.
None of the many factions which comprise the LP really want a clear, concise, unambiguous, focused, measurable and achievable mission statement. It would force some to face reality and that is the last thing they really want to do. Many gravitate to the LP precisely to escape from reality.
The lack of a mission statement allows participants in the LP to claim “success” whenever they want for whatever they are doing. Mere continued existence is a kind of success.Running candidates, getting some people elected, holding protests, issuing resolutions, engaging in debates, holding conventions, seem to some as indications of efficatious activity.
Unless and until the LP adopts a concise, unambiguous mission statement, any discussion of strategy and tactics is useless.
Looking at this over a month from your query--I got fed up with rolling around in the mud and missed something interesting--I can give you a short mission statement, right now:
To serve as the political party for libertarians--neoclassical liberals, supporters of limited government and a strong presumption of individual liberty--and hence to move public policy in a more libertarian direction by electing libertarians to public office.
There are several factual issues that need to be dealt with before one can understand the political issues involved.
You refer to the Cato crowd being pushed out of the LP by the Rothbard crowd. Close, but in reality the Cato crowd left the LP because they could not exert control over it. I admit I generally agreed with the Cato crowd on issues, and on strategy my only disagreement was with their obsession with Presidential campaigs, an obsession shared by radicals & reformers alike.
In any case, the positions that Cato takes now, and that the Cato crowd took in the LP would mark them as "radicals" - end the war on drugs, bring the troops home, end state persecution of gays, etc. Certainly on foreign policy Cato has been an outstanding champion of non-interventionism, while many LP reformers backed Bush's war in Iraq.
Your mention of Bonnie Flickinger indicates you are a stranger to Riverside County. I was active in the Riverside County LP for years before Bonnie Flickinger came to a meeting and announced she had recruited to run for Congress. We supported her, but her campaign was devoid of issues in 1988, and in 1990 she only took a stand on one issue - supporting Bush Srs war in Iraq.
Many Riverside County Libertarians worked to elect her to the MoVal City Council, but all of us have seen her record in office. She is not a "moderate" libertarian - her record has been generally in favor of more government, and she even opposed repeal of a local tax, then took credit after it was repealed.
Bonnie Flickinger quit the Libertarian Party in a financial dispute with the LNC that had nothing to do with "radical" versus "moderate." I challenge you to find a Libertarian in Riverside County who considers Bonnie Flickinger a defender of freedom, even in a moderate or conservative way.
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.
