Is the Libertarian Party Worth Fighting For?

by Craig Ashley

Posted January 21, 2007

The more I read the hard-core purist blogs and responses to the 2006 convention or “Portland Purge” as they call it, the more I wonder if we can ever work alongside these people. There is no room for compromise between the purist and reform camps of the libertarian movement. One group wants ideological purity at all costs. The other group wants a broad, coalition style party that can start winning elections and changing the system, even if in small increments. Purists, it seems, would rather win the battle of philosophical purity even if it means losing the war for increased liberty. Furthermore, the party’s bylaws make it very difficult to implement a new policy or stance.

I’ve heard the 2006 convention touted as a major victory for the reform movement, and in a way it was. We were able to tear down a lot of the old platform and remove a great deal of the “crazy” elements of that platform. However, we were not able to implement our own vision. The LRC was a wrecking crew in ’06, but we were not able to construct anything to take the place of what we demolished. This is largely due to the bylaws that make it quite difficult to add or revise planks of the platform. Of course, this is by design to help maintain the ideological purity of the party.

What we have now is a party with sharply drawn lines between the two camps. We can expect the purist elements to redouble their efforts to maintain control of the party. So now we face a determined foe. What sort of party will emerge out of this conflict, even if we win? I’d imagine a lot of the old guard will leave in protest. In fact, we should do everything we can to encourage the hardliners who refuse to compromise to pack their bags and go. Their continued presence will only serve as a distraction and a drag on the party. So the question is what sort of party will we be taking over? One with a 35 year history of electoral failure. One with a reputation for fringe politics and whacko positions. One with a depleted membership. The only upside is that we don’t have to go through the process of building certain party structures from scratch. Is it worth the baggage?

Another thought to consider is the unique political situation we face today. The Democratic Party has long been in decline and their recent electoral victories were more a measure of public disgust with the Republicans than a groundswell of support for Democratic policies. The Republicans, the traditional home of moderate libertarians, are an absolute mess. Many people see a power struggle coming between neocons, the religious right, and the libertarian wings of the party. Both parties are held in very low regard by the public at large. The current environment is very welcoming for a third party to emerge. That’s not to say it will happen, but it’s more likely now than it was ten years ago.

Yet, these conditions will not last forever. The political winds will change. Do we want to invest the next two years or more in fighting against a dedicated group of extremists for control of a minor party with no track record of real success? If we do, we risk missing this historic opportunity for the emergence of a major third party in America.

Portland was a start, but we need to finish the job and quickly. The 2008 convention is our next big target. We need to start organizing and recruiting now. Our goals for the ’08 convention should be big, namely altering the bylaws of the party that encourage the status quo of anarchism ideology, eliminating the pledge that enforces anarchist beliefs, and implementing a platform of our design.

How do we do this? First off, reach a final consensus on the platform internally. Secondly, make a major effort at recruiting new members to the caucus. This can be done face to face, via the Internet, or any other method we care to try. There is an active if limited debate on the net over the so called “Portland Purge” and we need to be on the front lines pushing our point of view. The other side is doing it, and we can’t let them monopolize the Internet buzz.

Lastly, we need to put major effort towards establishing local caucus organizations where ever feasible. Face to face meetings or mini-conventions are very helpful in cementing relationships and spawning new ideas, and they provide a training ground for organizational leaders and candidates. If we do achieve victory in ’08, we’ll need to be able to step in and take the lead at all levels. Having strong local organizations will help us do that. Of course, local can be a relative term and the scale of these local chapters would be determined by our own demographics. Some areas may call for looser, regional chapters, where others areas could have state or even smaller chapters.

A potential secondary advantage of forming local chapters is it creates in essence a “shadow party” we can utilize if we decide to ever break away from the LP. We’ll have at least some degree of local organization in place if we ever decide to start a party from fresh. If we stay in the LP, then we have some structural organization in place to assume the reigns of leadership.

If 2008 does not give us a strong victory in the fight for the party, I would strongly advocate forming our own party. We can’t afford to waste time and resources in a partisan squabble over what is a minor party in the grand scheme of things. The LP has a bit of name recognition (with good and bad baggage attached to that name) and some structure in place, but it’s not worth a drawn out fight.

24 Comments

Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page