Portland: Looking Back and Looking Forward

Here here… well said.
Now get your butt to New Hampshire. We need more like you.

Let’s put the internal bitching to rest until the next convention, or at least take it to a site that cares.

Heh! I’m with you on the rah-rah’s Stephen (see my earlier comment), but let’s be honest… this is a site that cares. :)

Two comments. First of all, I would not make a sweeping accusation that we “could not be bothered to attend.” In fact, I doubt this is true for either the reformers and the purists who are so vocal. There are other extinuating factors, money being the primary one for many of us who were unable to afford a plane ticket or gas, three nights of hotel and food, convention entry fee, etc. which could end up totaling over $1000, especially for those who live across the country. I wanted more than anything to come, but was unable to because of my finances. Please skip the condescension.

Secondly, the people “outside the room” are the people we need to win over in order to win elections, and the “vocal barbs” and libertarian litmus tests of the purists have helped keep the party small. This is worthy of criticism, and I would much prefer them leveling their crap at me than at some unsuspecting moderate trying to understand what libertarianism is and why they should believe in it. (cont’d).

Finally, I agree that political success comes from real candidates. The unfortunate issue at hand is that the LP is unable to attract real candidates and the reason for this is because few “real” candidates would 1.) attach their name to an anarchistic political party or 2.) run in a race they know they are 99% likely to lose because of party affiliation alone. This does not mean all the LP candidates have not done their best, but the fact of the matter is, when a political party expects to be taken seriously when running a computer programmer with no political experience whatsoever for US president, that’s when you know there is a real problem, you know you are going to be miserably defeated and thats why the LRC was formed. The discussion we are having is needed and relevant; right now is the time to have it, not in two years when we are trying to pick the next presidential candidate. Until the party can work out its own identity, it will continue go nowhere.

Ok, that was three comments.

My son introduced me to the Libertarian Party. He knew I could never be a Democrat (socialists) and I was dissatisfied with being a Republican because what they said they would do if in power and what they have done is not the same thing.

Since I have bumbled through the process, I have been called a Nazi, Fascist, Neo-con, Republican saboteur, and many more names including personal attacks. I am none of the labels. I am now a libertarian.

Where the hell do some of you think we will attract new members? Most must come from the Democratic Party and yes, even the Republican Party from whence I came.

I do believe it is time to put differences aside including my purist bashing and personal battles with those that wanted me off this blog and out of the LP. As long as we can meet on common ground and advance the cause of liberty and freedom (and my passion, the least government possible with the least taxes and full support for capitalism), I am on board.

I am sick of people telling me to ‘shut up’. I don’t think people make themselves look good by doing that. I don’t think such people are experts on ‘doing politics’.

This is my first impression of Mr. Sarwark, and it is not a good one.

Third, long-time libertarians who hold to libertarian principles that are rooted in ideas that existed well before the LP are not prone to just abandon these principles based on nothing more than the speculations, unscientific data, and amateurish theories of those who seek change based merely for strategic purposes.

Some of these libertarians labeled as purists by the reformers have spent decades fighting for their beliefs against nearly impossible odds. They have spent countless hours and stacks of cash trying to advance a cause that they believe in. When people come along who were wearing diapers (or fighting against libertarianism in the case of the older reformers) and start attacking these dedicated libertarians, how do you expect them to react?

By and large, I believe the “purists” have kept the gloves on long after the reformers took off their gloves.

Fourth, as Brian Doherty correctly points out in his Reason article, all of this is not just about the unprofessional method of changing the platform. All of this comes on the heels of actions at LPHQ.

While the reformers claim the purists have been in charge of the party, they refuse to admit that between the Boortz followers, the Iraq Exit Strategy (or slow motion Murtha plan), the Estate Tax initiative, the new slogan at LP.org, the talk radio outreach action alert, the CPAC outreach, and the failure to seriously address some very big issues, there has been a drift towards conservatism by the folks at LPHQ. These are not the actions of purists, I can assure you.

During this time, the number of contributing members has dropped. The pragmatist in me is saying that perhaps the LP is going in the wrong direction. I know many libertarians that left well before the convention because of the conservative drift and move away from libertarianism.

I’m in total agreement with Sarwark. I don’t think he was using divisive rhetoric or anything like that at all.

I’m not going to feed this thread. There’s a bit more than 100 days before an election where LP candidates need our help.

Go do something to help their prospects.

Tom B, double standards. By the way, I identify with the progressives more than conservatives – I think the LP should be the party of freedom and equality.

Also, I joined the party knowing full well that I agree with the direction and the principle but not the rigid unwillingness to change or the stubborn adherence to policies that are irrelevant to the electorate. This convention was a much needed housecleaning, and now it is time to give the LP a fresh face so we can start winning elections and change the tide of failure that has marked the LP for 35 years.

Whatever you may think of how we present ourselves, our point about the LP being a miserable failure is undeniable and the fact is that the old guard has failed at making the LP relevant party and thus have enabled the major parties to run the show without a real libertarian challenge. We need real

Furthermore the platform is one big issue among many for the LRC; we wanted to reform the LP’s failing direction, thus the name.

Radicals of the LP:

Please join the revived LP Radical Caucus:

http://www.lpradicals.org

Let’s discuss how to keep/restore the LP to its radical roots and move it forward into the public consciousness.

Con’t from #23.
I for one have faulted the LP for not doing enough to publicize our non-intervention stance and spell out the cost of keeping troops abroad. We are piss poor at it imho, but the the piece written by Mr. Wilson that suggest we need to keep troops abroad for years to come, but in “friendly” countries is one of a number of problems I see with his platform proposals. Simply put this is Republican Party stuff and is a no different from what they propose.
I am willing to listen, but to suggest that we have failed is to insult many who have worked hard to advance our issues.
And BTW I just waffled big this afternoon. Those of you who were in Portland may have ridden our transit system.
In writting a piece for a candidate I suggested we open the marketplace to competition, but I never suggested we sell off Trimet, the transit agency. I just won’t make it in any caucus I guess. Time for a bottle of Sam Adams.
M.H.W.

I’d be the first one to admit that the platform is outdated, poorly written, and somewhat out of date – it is so 70s. In some areas it is too detailed and perhaps not detailed enough in others.

I also have no problem with incrementalism, but I don’t think we need to change long-standing principles, which many have sought to do.

I also think there is a civil process available to change the platform. Much of the resistance met by the “reformers” is a result of their own rhetoric, tactics and general approach. Their approach has been quite uncivil and radical.

I never said the reformers are pro-conservative, although some are, but there is this element in the LP and they also have been a thorn in the side of the “old guard” as the brash Nick Wilson describes the libertarians he loves to hate.

We can disagree, but I don’t believe it is fair to say that just because I support keeping a limited number of troops abroad in friendly countries to be able to respond immediately in the event that we are attacked means that I share a foreign policy with the Republican Party. I think the neolibertarians are too hawkish, not to mention the Republicans! This is exactly the kind of “litmus test” I am talking about when I say that the LP will never stand a chance to win over moderates, much less win elections. The LP fails miserably whether or not we are on the ballot in all 50 states, and I feel like blaming ballot access for our failure misses the point that we push an elitist program with such limited appeal that we can not even meet 5% election percentages even when we do get on the ballot! The LP may advocate reforming failing government all they want, but when it comes to reforming our failing party? Untouchable!

I guess I’ll bite.

I’m looking at a open letter published by David Boaz in 1981 to the LP, written 25years ago. That’s over half my lifespan of 43 years. It might as well been written yesterday about Portland. A small excerpt:

Let me pose a question here. It is true that Clark waffled on some issues. It is also true that the campaign chose to put major emphasis on the immediate programs that a libertarian administration could implement, and I will agree that there is room for debate as to whether each transition of program was/the appropriate magnitude.

The attempt to present libertarian ideas in such a way as to make them appealing to the American people certainly carries with it a risk that we may not present a sufficiently principled argument in some cases. On the other hand, one could go before every audience and say, “I own my own life and the fruits of my labor.

(cont)

Therefore, taxation is theft and the state is evil. We must abolish the state, and if some people get hurt, that’s their problem.” That would be a morally correct approach, and in that case one would never run the risk of failing to present libertarian principles. One would also never convince anyone.

So let me ask this: Which is the greater betrayal of the noble cause of freedom in our time — to attempt to present a reasonable, radical, libertarian program that appeals to people and occasionally to err on the side of caution; or to self-righteously throw libertarian principles in people’s faces, thus ensuring that we will remain pure and unfree?

Keep in mind, this was written 25 years ago, and yet it might as well been posted about Portland yesterday.

I wanted to impress upon everyone how long this debate has gone on inside the LP. Does anyone else find it incredible that nothing has changed in the LP for 25 years to where a paper written 25 years ago could have been written a few hours ago?

I am becoming convinced that the very name libertarian is a hindrance to actually attaining anything of the sort.

“Simply put this is Republican Party stuff and is a no different from what they propose.”

’nuff said.

If you think I (and other reformers) have been hateful and brash towards purists, it is only a culmination of frustration over the years of trying to be very reasonable and very calm with purists and being attacked every way possible as being immoral

A good way to look at it is this, Tom… they way you feel about the State is similiar to how many libertarians have felt about the LP since the mid-80′s. I’m not defending personal attacks or boorish behavior… but asking reformers to take an incrementalist approach on platfrom change is JUST LIKE hardliners being asked to take an incrementalist approach to government change!

They are both wise arguments, but they both play against the frustrations that are important in driving people. The two sides have more in common in that regard than either has recognized. Rather than get defensive, we should reflect on that for a minute see if we can find a deal with that constructively without diminishing people’s drive.

By the way Timothy, I was trying to find an email address for you earlier but you’ve done a pretty good ninja-stealth job of concealing that thing. I’ve spent the past week doing just what you’re talking about, reasearching and cataloging a historical piece to provide context and spark conversation (http://steveperkins.net/blog/history-in-the-making).

Tom Kn@ppster’s given it a look-over from the “purist” side, and I was hoping to get you to check for any mischaracterizations or bad facts from the “reformer” side. I want to be sure I haven’t included any major factual blunders before I start linking to it from various places.

Err, of course I AM linking to it from HoT right now I suppose, so could you look fast? :)

“You are making the same mistake Boaz highlights – in reverse. And who is Boaz quoting? Sounds like Mr. Strawman.”

Boaz sets up a, strawman? What part of what he said, would be considered a strawman? That’s called an observation, and an educated one at that considering what his position was in the LP all those years ago. After seeing 100′s of Cato vids, and maybe 20 or so with Mr. Boaz…I assure you he doesn’t need to make up shit to win an argument.

“I own my own life and the fruits of my labor.Therefore, taxation is theft and the state is evil. We must abolish the state, and if some people get hurt, that’s their problem.”

The point is Boaz is quoting nobody. And because he is quoting nobody, this is somewhat of a strawman argument because this is not something that LP candidates routinely say.

I voted for Clark and I thought he was sufficiently principled. Boaz is defending Clark against accusations of being insufficeintly principled. He is asking his audience essentially, what would have had him (Clark) say? Then he rattles off what no candidate in his right mind would say (the quote above). The imaginary candidate he “quotes” is the strawman used to illustrate how absurd a statement such as that is.

The irony is that Clark would probably be considered too radical by the LRC. The LP was far more youthful and radical in 1980 than it is today. What is even more ironic is that it was also more successful.

What “tactics” are you referring to? Calling out the fact the purists tend towards condescension and self-righteousness in addressing moderates as morally inferior, socialistic and sheeplike? Calling out the fact the purists are unwilling to change the LP’s perpetually failing course? Pointing out that the LP wants to reform the failing government when it refuses to reform itself? Giving purists a taste of their own medicine? Growing balls for once and standing up for what we believe in instead of being weak-kneed? Positing that there are more principles besides just liberty? Calling for better candidates? Positing that the platform was a predominantly irrelevant document in modern politics? Shifting blame inward instead of continually scapegoating the media and major parties for our lack of success? Pointing out that our most successful presidential candidate was also the most moderate, or that purists have built barriers to a “big tent” libertarian party? Be more specific.

I can continue:

Pointing out that most purists admit being anarchists? Pointing out that most purists in my experience want change overnight and believe any sustinence of government is the sustinence of evil? Positing that if “government is force,” then any non-anarchist in the party is violating the pledge? Pointing out that the LP’s own platform violates the pledge repeatedly? Suggesting that different aspects of the platform contradict each other? Trying to pose better planks before they were distorted by the platform committee? Being “thicker skinned”? Suggesting that a political party is not the place to be uncompromising and expect purity?

I can promise there has been no intentional misrepresentation (at least on my part) of my beliefs or of anyone in the party. My thoughts are simply based upon own experiences in the party and its members. If I overgeneralize, I apologize, but it is not very hard for me to prove all of these points.

Ed Clark was the greatest Presidential candidate our Party has ever had

Absolutely right, Steve. And the LP platform was radical and by prevailing standards, so was Clark.

Let me digress. I was brought up in a Goldwater household with a mom who was a big GOP activist. We watched Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose series on PBS as a family. My dad was a hugh H.L. Mencken fan (me too). Even then, I didn’t like the GOP or the Dems. In 1978, when I was 21, I got my hands on some of Roger McBrides 1976 LP campaign stuff and was instantly transformed into a libertarian. This was the stuff for me.

I can’t tell you how excited I was in 1980 when I found out Clark was running. I cast my first LP vote and never looked back. Clark was reasonable and radical, hardly a “moderate” by mainstream standards. The LP platform was radical and I loved it. I was energized and ecstatic. Clark got almost a million votes.

Telling people ‘shut up’ is divisive. Don’t you feel divided from people who won’t listen to anything you have to say?

Telling people their discussions are ‘destructive’ is, of course, just another way to say ‘shut up’. (IMO these have been fairly constructive discussions, even if they’ve gotten ‘a little harsh’.)

‘I’m not a “purist.” I believe that it’s more important to make progress towards Liberty than continually rant about how great things would be in a mythical “pure Libertarian society.”’

Accusing ‘purists’ of being people who would rather ‘rant’ than ‘make progress’ is divisive and insulting.

‘If you care more about “winning control” of the Party than winning liberty for America, I’d like to ask you a favor: Please leave and join one of our enemies.’

Both sides want control of the party because they sincerely believe their way is the way to ‘winning liberty’. Mr. Sarwark declines to give his opponents the benefit of the doubt and accuses them of bad motives.

(Cont.)

Nick writes: What “tactics” are you referring to? Calling out the fact the purists tend towards condescension and self-righteousness in addressing moderates as morally inferior, socialistic and sheeplike?

Remove the word socialist. Then deny the same attitude doesn’t exist among the “reformers”.

Nick writes: Shifting blame inward instead of continually scapegoating the media and major parties for our lack of success?

To deny these things are a huge part of the problem is shortsighted. And where do you point the finger? It seems to me you point at everyone who doesn’t agree with you. Like Michael above (see #33).

You ask what tactics am I referring to. Don’t play coy (see #11 and #12 above).

Nick writes: I apologize, but it is not very hard for me to prove all of these points.

And it is not very hard for me to prove all of the points I make above either. Read these boards. Read the LRC website.

Neither the purists or the LRC has a monoply on truth – get real.

I am not uncompromising because I am willing to admit when I am wrong or when someone else brings a better point than me. I am willing to change directions if my direction is failing – after all, I planned to leave the party if our reform efforts failed. I am not always right, but I believe I am right in the points I have made regarding the LP, its history and the purists. Most objective viewers would agree with the points I am making. I have also invited you or anyone else to prove me wrong.

“Remove the word socialist. Then deny the same attitude doesn’t exist among the ‘reformers.’”

No, I’d say we refer to purists as stubborn, which they tend to agree with, and their proposals as unrealistic and ineffective. Maybe a bit cultish, but I would not say “morally inferior” or “sheeplike” because they are being true to themselves and refuse to follow anything different.

“To deny these things are a huge part of the problem is shortsighted.”

They are, but we have little control over them. To capitulate to them by making ourselves an easy target is something we can control.

“You ask what tactics am I referring to. Don’t play coy”

I was addressing your earlier points. I agree we may come off as angrily demanding immediate change to a moderate platform because we are sick of losing as government worsens, but we aren’t being dishonest or intentionally misrepresenting anyone or the platform, although we are interpreting it through our own lenses of experience.

Tonight, I have tried to get some reformers to reflect as well as some of the vitriolic purists. I am considered by some to be a purist because I believe in libertarian principles. But I also think these principles can be presented in reasonable ways that doesn’t turn people off. I know it can be done because I’ve done it. I also know you can never sell some people. I know that no matter what you do or say, political opponents will attack you.

We all will fight for what we believe is right, but everyone needs to be honest about what they say and realize that the name calling doesn’t help.

I had a thing with Tim on the LP blog where he misquoted what I said – I lit into his ass. He was dead wrong and wouldn’t admit it. Once he admitted he had read my statement wrong, then there was fair communication. Apology accepted and lets move on.

This debate needs to be honest and civil. The spin has got to stop. The acknowledgement that opinions aren’t facts would also be helpful. G’nite

If I say Yin, you say Yang. By reading some of the comments, I get the idea that if the Democrats or Republicans promote an idea or cause, it must be bad.

No way would a REAL libertarian support such a cause no matter how valid. Are we as libertarians the only political group that is worthy of a noble idea? Why not embrace that which is good (which is not much) regardless of the source.

Republicans and Democrats that read this site must be laughing their asses off believing they are safe in their rape and pillage of the Constitution and treasury. What a feel good day they must have knowing the only competition they have is one other party.

How do we get past the fighting? Do you old-timers want all the newcomers to leave? If so, can we leave gracefully or must we flee in the dark?

I think I’ll stay.

As to “could not be bothered to attend,” this is another “if the shoe fits” one. I know people who could have and should have attended who didn’t and I know people who wanted to who couldn’t. I’d prefer not to hear from either about what happened on the convention floor and why it sucked.

I agree with the rest of Nicholas’ comments (and original post), but can’t get behind this sentiment. Surely there has to be a better way to encourage attendance and participation, rather than arguing that the opinions of those who can’t attend convention are invalid for the next two years.

Speaking in practical terms, location IS important. I think we have to have conventions in diverse locations from time to time so that everyone feels included, but you have to count on attendance dropping the more remote you get. That’s not a “character flaw” on anyone’s part… not everyone has the background and resources of an east-coast law student.

I think you ALL have missed the primary point of the message, which was this:

The convention is over. The campaign isn’t. SHUT UP until November. Once the election is over we can fight each other all we want until November. I said it in the LRC discussions and I’ll say it here: it is irresponsible for a party member to bolt his or her party after convention and before election. If we want to justify seeking control the party- purist, moderate, anarchist, minarchist, whoever- we must demonstrate that we’re willing to support the party, win or lose.

I have only one comment, to Tom B.’s declaration of my campaign as a “wingnut” campaign: no one else would run, so I ran. I’m doing my part to keep the LP visible where I live. It is in no small part due to people like yourself that no more viable candidate than myself was willing to step forward here- and that’s why I joined the LRC.

What are -you- running for this year?

There. I’m shutting up now.

the LNC apparently fell short of the room nights it had committed to for the purpose of securing a group rate from the hotel. I’d feel bad about that if it wasn’t for the fact that the LNC should stop trying to be a central economic planning board

Ehh, come on now Tom… trying to negotiate a group discount rate for a convention isn’t communism, it’s just smart business. It would be wise to use a more conservative estimate of RSVP’s when having the convention in a remote location, but I can’t fault the LNC in this situation.

Tom B:

I agree that three of your four specific examples are not verbatim from the platform. However, they are advocated by many purists (I have heard them repeatedly) and can be easily interpreted to those meaning without much “skewing”. If we support the repeal of all taxes with no replacement (no specific timeframe) and we would rather default on our debts than raise taxes, does the party favor paying down the national debt as a priority over cutting taxes, or vice versa? I have heard several vocal purists say “China can screw themselves, let’s get rid of taxes,” and that’s one of the dumbest foreign policies we could make.

On private nukes, “we further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe.” It can be read between the lines.

The party DID advocate privatizing public roads. “We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads and the national highway system.” from the Transportation plank.

Nick, I stand corrected about the privatization of roads in the Transportation plank. See, it is not so hard to admit an error. Primarily I was addressing a claim made earlier by Kris that the LP platform called for turning the road at the end of his driveway into a toll road. I don’t think the national platform pertains to local issues and I’m not so sure that privatizing the interstate highway system is such a bad idea – but that is only my opinion.

Now, I know of one Libertarian involved with the LRC who lives in Virginia that has called for killing 100 million Muslims – the old turn the Mideast into a glass parking lot rhetoric. Thankfully, this is not in the LP platform nor does any LP candidate I know of advocate this. It would be wrong of me to attribute this position to the LRC.

By taking the most extreme views of people you label purists and somehow equating them to LP platform positions is exactly the type of hyperbole and intellectual dishonesty I am talking about.

One doesn’t have to be a purist to be disturbed about the manner in which the platform was “gutted” and the fact that there exists a somewhat incomplete document that will not be cleaned up until 2008.

What the “reformers” view as a big success just might be thought of as a rather unprofessional looking document by mainstream libertarians who would like the LP to present a coherent and complete document to the public and to the opinion makers that Tim West often refers to.

To regard pissing off a large number of libertarians that you do not agree with as “success” seems to be putting personal egos ahead of the LP as a whole and may be regarded by outsiders as just that – an immature pissing contest between two fringe groups within a fringe political party.

In the next few days, I intend to write something about the strategy of moderation and why it works for mainstream parties but will not and has not worked well for the LP – stay tuned.

Something to consider: one of the common arguments that I have heard repeatedly is that “platforms don’t matter.” I have heard this from people who have gone ballistic over the changes in the platform.

We have a bit of cognitive dissonance. Either:
1. Platforms don’t matter. Let us wacky LRC types have our fun.
OR
2. Platforms do matter. Other political types care as passionately about what is in a platform as you do.

Methinks #2 is correct. There are libertarians who care about what is in the platform just as much as those who defend the old platform. We hear them less because they had written off the LP years ago.

“We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons.” These are the only two sentences in the plank that refer to “weapons”. All others refer to firearms.

If you really want to be picky, this means the platform says that it is ok to ban individual ownership of nuclear weapons so long as they are not being banned because they are unsafe or risky. And if they are banned for some other reason, then the ban cannot be applied to those who conceal their nuclear weapons, especially if they carry them in their pocket.

I too have heard LP members claim the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to own a nuclear weapon. But it is REALLY stretching it to say that the old platform advocated this.

Carl:

Platforms do matter AND platforms don’t matter. To the vast majority of the general public, they don’t matter. Considering a large number of people have never heard of the LP and an even larger number have never read the platform, what our platform says or doesn’t say is not relevant.

Platforms matter to libertarians in as much it is read by opinion makers, as Tim has pointed out. However, considering that the vast majority of opinion makers are partisan Republicans or Democrats, they will spin the LP platform as negatively as possible regardless of what it says – much as the LRC does. This is why I have no objection to eliminating the platform entirely and replacing it with a more extensive statement of principles, assuming that they would be libertarian principles.

As an internal document for the LP, the platform should be coherent and complete. It serves as a reference based on long-standing principles – not on fleeting finger-in-the-wind public opinion.

Touche, Tom K.

To clarify my own personal feelings, Portland was a big success in the pragmatism vs. othodoxy debate because the tables have finally turned against those in the LP staunchly advocating anarchy as a political end, towards a more realistic and bigger tent approach to libertarianism. As of now, candidates theoretically no longer have to answer media questions over whether they support the repeal of all taxes, privatizing roads, etc.

However, it is a small success in the scheme of things because we were unable to get the pledge removed and to replace the defeated planks with a better platform. It IS a better platform, but is certainly incomplete. We didn’t get the abortion plank removed (one of our top priorities), and I would agree that the re-organization and rekindling of the purists may make 2008 such a contentious convention that neither side comes out ahead.

“I would agree that the re-organization and rekindling of the purists may make 2008 such a contentious convention that neither side comes out ahead.”

Our we get it worked out before hand and have one of the best conventions in decades. Real, substantial reform that makes the LP more viable can be had without the loss of principles.

One side need only realize that principle DOES matter, and the other side need realize that winning elections DOES matter.

Well, Chris most reformers would agree principles matter, but the fact is that liberty is not the only principle, even though it is the guiding one, and that is one primary point we are trying to make. Security, equality, community, protecting the environment, access to education and healthcare, etc. are all principles and every human gives his or her own weight to each of these principles. A libertarian is a person who weighs liberty as the most important principle, but that does not mean by advocating a more moderate policy and appealing to other principles besides just liberty that reformers don’t think being principled is important. It’s all about realizing that using libertarian solutions in manners that appeal to other principles will help us be more successful in reaching the electorate we need in order to win elections.

Con’t from 91.
Too many do just enough to get a newsletter out and pay for a phone.

I may agree on the pledge. If you violate it what are the consequences? There are none. So what value is it? Lie to your mom there’s a penalty. Cheat at school there is a penalty. Violate the pledge. People pat you on the back and give you more money for your next campaign.

But take a look at the reform website. Big government Libertarians saying universal healthcare is a good idea. The U.N. is okay and they like gov. funded art? Nick you have proposed some changes that I have to question. I don’t think you have a good grasp of the Libertarian philosophy and I get the impression people are coming to the discussion on you site with little idea of whatit is all about and no one is pointing them in the right direction. Because they’ll vote a particular way that is all that is required. They are being set up for disappointment and no one is take care to steer them right. (con’t)

Con’t from 92.
These people are being mislead and used. The public is well aware of the fact that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the major parties and in many cases they do not vote because of that. The first time I ran for office (1981) I was discussing taxes with a friend and Econ Prof sitting nearby overheard us and turned to me and said:”Michael you need to get a better understanding of the Libertarian philosophy.” Best advice I ever got.
I am disappointed in the LPs lack of success at the polls, but I will suggest that it stems from other sources; a lack of training, lack of funds, poor planning and preparations,
poor outreach to libertarians in general plus a number of other issues. There is one issue that is sorely ignored by us in the process of running for office. Regardless of what political stripe people may be they vote their pocketbooks.
Not always, but often enough. And the LP has not learned how to use that to our advantage.
M.H.W.

The 2004 platform addressed the matter of nukes directly in Article IV, Sec. B, Plank 1, title ‘Military Policy’.

‘The potential use of nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to all the peoples of the world, not only Americans. Thus, the objective should be to reduce the risk that a nuclear war might begin and its scope if it does. . . . We call on the U.S. government to continue negotiations toward multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security.’

For nukes to be ‘eliminated’ seems to imply a ban on private possession, though this is nowhere made explicit.

All the planks in Article IV have been dropped. The RKBA plank (I.6) has been kept. It still contains the ‘risky or unsafe’ language in the version posted here.

http://lpradicals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17

I still haven’t seen an ‘official’ verson of the new platform.

Who here believes that in doing so, I have turned the corner into a unprincipled libertarian?

I’m just curious. If one cannot use the best angle politically to assist LP candidates becuase it runs afoul of LP principle, whats more important, not doing the video, or having LP candidates not have the tools they nee to advance their campaigns?

Great comment Mr. Jim Allison, I second that.

I always chuckle when I hear a libertarian boast about the “World’s Smallest (and most overrrated) Political Quiz” results – 20% of respondants come up libertarian, yet less than 1% ever vote libertarian. How could this be?!? :rolleyes:

Stephen (or was it Stephen?) made that simple yet brilliant online commericial the other day (the one with Badnarik on CNBC or some news station) that summed up everything so perfectly. We’ll knock America on their asses with our brilliant ideas, then we’ll knock American on their asses with our “insane” ideas.

(cont…)

We currently in America have 8 month 30 day abortions, so there is one that was won for us by progressive liberals.

Similarly, the teacher’s unions hat No Child Left Behind, and are our natiural allies on this issue.

But the point is, indirectly supporting local governement control of education to remove federal control of same would not be considered by you to be a sell out? There are other angles a on other issues that could stand to benefit from this treatment.

From way upthread somewhere:

“Republicans and Democrats that read this site must be laughing their asses off believing they are safe in their rape and pillage of the Constitution and treasury. What a feel good day they must have knowing the only competition they have is one other party.”

As a lifelong Democrat, I agree with most of this statement. However, I am becoming increasingly disinterested in the effectively binary system we have today and am seeking out an attractive “third way”. Time and time again, whatever gains the LP might make with me are eroded and/or destroyed by the ambiguity and in-fighting that is prevalent in LP circles. And they call Democrats disorganized!

Despite the (apparent) sniping, I hope that the LP can find equilibrium and appeal to a wider audience. FWIW I voted for Libertarians in 2004 and the 2006 primary to do what I could to fan the flames of hope. I’d like to make a more informed choice next time, rather than ride the shock value. Fire away!

Hear, hear, sir.

“I don’t think that the LRC is a bunch of neo-con Republicans trying to infiltrate the LP to destroy it from the inside. ”

How can you say that? I think that’s terribly naive. I can’t see any way that that is NOT what is happening, and I’ve over-evaluated the situation, if anything.

Chris,

“Plus, ultimate control of education has always rested with local governments. You wouldn’t be giving them any more power. I’d argue you’d actually be giving them less.”

I don’t care to argue the various “school choice” options either way, but if most states are like Missouri, this is simply not true.

In Missouri, ultimate control of education lies with the state government, through a state board of education. Local boards exist on that state board’s sufferance (the state can assume control of a district any time it decides it has a reason to), and the operations and composition of local boards are controlled by that state board. For example, local board members are required to complete a state-board-approved set of classes to teach them how to sit up, roll over and play dead for the educrats — and no, I am not kidding, I’ve attended one of the classes — and if you don’t take the classes, you’re removed from office.

Here is the education plank I proposed to the LRC and to the Platform Committee. What do you think?

EDUCATION
Issues: The public school system is generally unaccountable, imbalanced and inefficient. Students are trapped in failing public schools. Our current system generally restricts students to only the public school in the specific tax district where they live. This system creates an imbalance where students are stuck in failing public schools and cannot opt out of them, thus reducing accountability for such schools. This also contributes to the disproportionately low educational quality in districts with higher populations of low income residents, further perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Education is where the cycle begins, but also provides a door for it to end. Ever since the Federal Government has gotten involved in education, we have seen our educational ratings crumble. Washington bureaucrats now control everything from the funding down to the course materials.

Solutions: We advocate:

1. Public school choice solutions. In making public schools compete for students, we encourage a formula for success and naturally hold failing schools accountable. In enabling the poor a way out of failing public schools, we can stop the cycle of poverty at its root.
2. The immediate repeal of No Child Left Behind and any attempts of the Federal government to interfere with the governance and curriculum of our schools.
3. Tax credits for child care, preschool and private schooled / home schooled students. Parents who choose to home school their children or to send their children to private schools should be able to receive tax credits for tuition and other expenditures related to their children�s education. We also support tax credits for the costs of childcare and preschool.
4. Freedom of expression and religion in schools. Non-coercive, student-initiated prayer must always be allowed. However, we oppose abusing public school power for the purpose of religious indoctrination.
5. The elimination of mandatory federal testing, which compromises the self-determinacy of schools and homogenizes our education into a �one-size-fits-all� mentality.

I think “public school choice” could be interpreted as a voucher program, which I would never support at the federal (or state) level. But I think tax credits are a good idea, along with any effort towards decentralizing education.

I think it could be re-worded, though, to intice an anrchist/purist crowd. Especially Solution 1, which reads like Bush’s and Kennedy’s argument FOR No Child Left Behind.

“Anyone for a platform loosely based around Cato Institute’s policy recommendations?”

I prefer the platform Tom has written for the BTP. But I will be working to promote a program based loosely around Cato’s recommendations, though.

An interesting compromise for platform reform in the LP: Turn the LP platform into more of a statement of principle for the various issues. Something even “purists” can get behind. Then adopt a program that changes every 2 years. Then we can slug it out over the program. :)

it had a nice name. Thats he only reaqson, just like the Patriot Act. Who could EVAR be against a patriot act? If you are, you’re not patriotic.