Live Free, Grow........ Or Die?

by Tim Crowley

Posted January 21, 2007

The LP arrived at a crossroads in Portand, where delegates made bold changes in the National Platform, throwing out numerous planks in the process. This essay explores some of the internal and external ramifications of becoming more of a "big tent" party.

Presently, there are both Purists and Pragmatists within the LP. In an earlier essay, I relabeled these two factions Innovators and Early Adopters in an attempt to show that the LP, like all 'products' has inevitably moved to the next stage of its product life cycle. This cycle has been demonstrated in biology and in marketing, and in my view, thoroughly describes the LP's current situation. Libertarian society is organic—and it will continue to grow and evolve. Eventually the institutions of Libertarian society, including the LP and its platform, will grow to accommodate the changes.

But where does the Libertarian Reform Caucus go from here? How do we broaden the LP's tent in a way that best serves the nation's and the party's interest? How can the LP come to an internal political solution? How can this experience better enable the LP to influence the political solutions of the nation as a whole?

First, let's examine the current relationship between purists and pragmatists. Presently, purists have been at the top of the hierarchy since the days of the smoke-filled Ayn Rand / Mike Wallace interview. In the name of internal consistency, they have dominated the doctrinal aspects of the party. They have created a hothouse flower environment for themselves at the expense of the Pragmatists and the nation. Purists trivialize the notion of compromise, even though that is the essence of politics.

Pragmatists in my view, have gotten the short end of the stick. They may now comprise a majority within the party. Purists assume the moral high ground, although their track record in the real world is not perfect. How many state and county parties could achieve a quorum at the next meeting, let alone function, if all the Pragmatists threw up their hands and left? In fact, before the 2006 National Convention, I doubt that many Purists were even aware that this might be a problem!

Perhaps the Purists needs a validation tool more than they need a functional political party? If this were a Philosophical Dinner Club, then it could draw up any restrictive set of rules that it wants. But the LP is a political party, and American Political Parties are by their very nature more 'open' than the dinner clubs of a narrow interest group. The Pragmatists are a legitimate Libertarian cohort which is underserved by the LP.

Many pragmatists have to listen to condescending statements such as, "Let him in as a member even though he doesn't agree on one or two issues. As time goes on, maybe he will grow through exposure to our wisdom and someday score 100% on the World's Smallest Political Quiz." Wow, what an honor! Pragmatists must support Purist interests, but Purists are reluctant to support Pragmatist interests. Pragmatists, without a neat formulation (read: "crutch") to lean on, must be twice as competent within the party since an inquisition is always an email away. Purists hide behind a self-consistent doctrinal formulation, but how have they fared against the Barbara Boxers and Newt Gingriches of the world?

But all libertarians believe in individual rights and consent. Perhaps the Libertarian Pragmatists have stopped giving their consent to this 'social contract'? There are many responsible Pragmatist voices within the LP, and Pragmatists do not wholly reject Libertarian principles, nor are we cowed by slippery slope arguments. These principles are robust enough to work even if they are partially or imperfectly applied. Perhaps these concepts can be reinterpreted in ways that do not necessitate the immediate restructuring of our entire society? Are we political theorists or are we political actors?

Perhaps too many libertarians fancy themselves as theorists and not politicians. Look around at your county or state meeting or gathering. Count the Purists. Count the Pragmatists. Next, count the theorists and then the political actors. See what kind of numbers you get. There is left wing brainwashing. There is right wing brainwashing. So there has been no libertarian brain washing at all? Sure. Some of you are a bit too gleeful when a prospective member answers "no" to a question or two on the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Why is that, exactly?

The Democrats were in charge for 40 years and they have only partially adopted their agenda. The GOP was in charge for about 12 years and the Contract With America lies in tatters. Surely, the LP lacks the resources to ever have a Purist Agenda adopted by Congress.

Even if the LP recruited twenty times its current membership with only Purists, they would still have to compromise on Capitol Hill, since Americans can think whatever they want and minority rights are respected, at least outside of the LP. Therefore, slippery slope arguments are a phantom in the minds of Purists. In exchange for a neat, internally-consistent doctrine which serves as a validation tool for many of its members, the LP has made itself unable to fulfill its external purpose.

Liberty is a constructive force, but it must be deployed effectively. What changes could an elected Libertarian advocate that would make life better for Non-Libertarians? MAYBE THERE IS NO ONE 'RIGHT' ANSWER. But many answers would both bring new members into the party while tangibly improving daily life for all Americans.

Libertarian Pragmatism grew out of the successes and failures of the LP. Pragmatists generally want to enact reforms which will allow the American people to continue to be relatively free; to enact reforms which will lead more people to adopt Libertarian Ideals; and to enact reforms that will be recognizable to the average American. Utopias are better tools of critique than they are tools of construction. Pragmatists want to move beyond critique and towards construction.

Rand's influence on the LP is immense, much like Freud's influence has been on psychology. But over the years, new psychologists such as Adler, Jung and yes, even Dr. Phil, have added their voices to Freud's. Today Freud's theories, though groundbreaking at the time, have gradually been supplanted since his Vienna days in the 1800's. The LP is now 35 years old. It has been through several election cycles. Perhaps Rand's voice is now regarded as more of a tool of critique than a tool of construction.

Clearly, we have to break away from the 'Libertarianism—Love It Or Leave It" mindset. How can we do that? There are several ways, both within the party and within the larger electorate. First of all, Libertarians basically support Austrian Economics. The key animating feature behind all economics is the concept of scarcity. The LP has limited resources such as money, members, organization and so on. Given this scarcity, why not focus on issues that are likely to lead to further Libertarian victories? Why not focus on issues that are within the 'zone of believability" for a Challenger Party Candidate (more on that later) who somehow gets elected? Why not focus on issues that unite, rather than divide the party? Which issues are supported by most Libertarian factions and not just a few? What is the common nucleus of a broader-based "Liberty Party"?

I can't list all of these here. But here is one idea. We could cut welfare before opening the borders, not at the same time. We could explicitly link these two ideas, and prioritize one over the other. If political capital only exists to do one of these, then cut welfare first. The voters are not that interested in our epistemological distinctions. They just want their taxes cut and their families to be secure. We could also cut welfare before decriminalizing drug use, not after. Perhaps the Welfare State and Public Education are the two lynchpins that have to go first.

Another timely question is: Given the Libertarian rules of engagement in war (the nonaggression principle), how would an enemy go about defeating a Libertarian society? Are we leaving ourselves open to disaster in this terroristic nuclear age? Also, if a Libertarian society were unambiguously attacked by a foreign power, would it have the maturity and wherewithal to prosecute a war to victory? Or would they intellectualize, hide their heads in the sand, then capitulate? Do we really want to give southern California back to Mexico on principle?

Also, there may be essential differences between what I call National Libertarianism, State Libertarianism and Local Libertarianism. Earlier I developed a Keystone Quiz, Pennsylvania's version of the World's Smallest Political Quiz. The issues covered are state issues—national issues such as immigration and war are left out. There may be more potential State Libertarians than National Libertarians out there. Does a "Libertarian" have to be both a National and a State Libertarian? What if they like one but not the other?

Perhaps Minor Parties should get together and come up with a more flattering product category name than "Minor" or "Third" parties. These labels were stuck on us by the "Major Parties" the Democrats and Republicans. Why do we accept their demeaning labels? Why don't the Libertarian, Green, Socialist, and Constitution Parties etc start calling themselves something like "Challenger Parties"? This is a much better product category name than 'Third or Minor' Parties. Additionally, we should all start calling the Ds and Rs the "old parties" or the Old, Corrupt Parties" instead of the Major Parties. Let's paint them with an unflattering brush for a while. Lawyers are Attorneys. Garbagemen are Sanitation Workers. New Zealand is "the two most beautiful islands in the world. So, why can't minor parties become Challenger Parties? We would at least show the world that we have developed a little marketing savvy.

Perhaps a wider Libertarian tent suggests a new name for the Libertarian Party. I suggest "Liberty Party". The new name could be changed state by state. Or they could keep the old name Libertarian Party. The National LP could change its bylaws to accept either name. The Democratic Party of Minnesota is called the Independent Farmer's Democratic Party of Minnesota, or something like that. The web site lp.org would still be appropriate for either name.

A broader "Liberty Party" could attract new demographics to the LP. Purists, Pragmatists, Lapsed Members, Gun Owners, Small Business Owners, Pot Smokers, members of other grassroots organizations, people who think "libertarian" is too long a party name, members of other 'Challenger Parties" and so on could join, as well as Ds and Rs.

That's all well and good. But what does the LRC have to do now? Well, keep doing what you have been doing. But if I were a Purist who wanted to stop the LRC, I would do the following: I would downplay the LRC's success and hope that it fades away, or gets lost in the excitement of the 2008 Presidential Race. Also, I would get as many Purists to the next convention as secretly as possible. I would get as many Purists on the Platform Committee as I could. I would dissuade Pragmatists from participating in party activities. At the convention, I would propose cosmetic changes in the platform planks. I would stonewall wherever I could. I wouldn't let the other side know how organized I am. I would presumptively act as though I were in the majority. Finally, I would make a lot of 'slippery slope' arguments, which tend to scare computer programmers.

The LRC should be on guard against these tactics, and perhaps use a few of them ourselves. I could see the LRC continuing to develop ideas on this web site. I would post excerpts from these essays on local discussion groups. I would answer every Purist on the LP.org's blog. I would also start some sort of mentoring process for Pragmatists, since many Purists discourage Pragmatists from taking on positions of responsibility in the party, whether at the state, national or local levels. In short, I would treat it like any other election and I would not yield the moral high ground to the Purists and their slippery slope arguments. Every slippery slope argument can be countered with a Pragmatic response that will move the party and the country in a Libertarian direction. We're the ones looking for converts, not heretics.

1 Comments

Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page