RichmondLiberty.org

I just saw your piece on richmondliberty.org. Good writing. I greatly
appreciate it when the opposition takes the time to look at our
positions and debate them in a gentlemanly fashion.

May I suggest this article for your contemplation.
http://reformthelp.org/strategy/nonElectoral/protest.php

Political Party or Protest Organization?
The Libertarian Party is operating under two conflicting business
plans. It is time to decide which business plan to pursue and create
another organization to pursue the other.
by Carl Milsted Jr.
Posted August 20, 2006
"Welcome to Bubba's Auto Parts and Day Spa, the one-stop source for
your car, truck, and personal beautification needs. We got yer rubbing
compounds and exfoliating facial scrubs, motor oils and scented oils,
paste wax and bikini wax. Relax in our steam room while we steam clean
your engine. Soak in beauty mud while we install new mud flaps on your
four-wheeler. And check out our specials on aisle seven: buy one Fram
oil filter and get a free loofah sponge."
Bubba has an unusual business plan—one that is not very appealing.
Both auto parts stores and day spas are viable businesses, but put the
two together and the results are...not pretty. The Libertarian Party
suffers from the same fundamental problem; it has two conflicting
business models operating under the same roof.
To some, the Libertarian Party is a true political party, an
organization dedicated to electing libertarians to public office. This
is the model codified in our mission statement.
To others the Libertarian Party is a protest organization. Its purpose
is to take a stand on the hard issues and to promote a radical
long-term vision. This model is codified in the membership pledge and,
until recently, in the platform.
Either model would work independently. However, trying to be both a
political party and a protest organization has been a disaster.
A political party needs to build a large coalition. It needs to shy
away from the more unpopular positions, focusing instead on those
libertarian positions that the voters are ready for today. A political
party needs to behave with a certain degree of decorum in order to
maintain credibility.
A protest organization, on the other hand, can thrive on controversy.
Outrageous positions, statements, and street theater can attract
attention and get people to think in new ways.
Put the two together in the same organization and both efforts are
hampered. A big tent dilutes the message. Radical positions and
outrageous street theater hurt the chances of the serious candidates.
The Libertarian Party needs to decide which role it should take. If we
are to be a protest organization, let's do it up! Let us stop wasting
money on 50 state ballot access requirements and paper candidates. Let
us put forth far out confrontational press releases and have a blast
doing street theater. Who needs credibility? PETA doesn't. Greenpeace
doesn't.
On the other hand, if the LP is to be a true political party, then the
membership pledge needs to go, and the platform needs to focus on
winnable near term goals.
Whichever way the LP goes, the libertarian movement needs another
organization to take on the dropped role. If the LP is to be a
political party, then we need radical protest organizations to turn
today's far-out positions into tomorrow's winning issues. On the other
hand, if the LP is to be a protest organization, then we need a new,
more moderate, pro-freedom political party to cash in on the successes
of the libertarian protest organizations and think tanks. These days,
the Democratic and Republican politicians tend to be more
authoritarian than the general public, so voter education alone is
insufficient.
Whichever way the LP goes, some will walk out. But a greater number
will walk in. A coherent business plan would make participation in the
LP more fun and more effective.
I think the LP should be a political party. Why have the overhead of a
political party in order to be a protest organization? Why bother with
petitioning and FEC compliance? Setting up a new protest organization
is much easier than setting up a new political party. And members of
the new radical protest organization(s) can continue being members of
the more moderate LP at the same time, just as many members of PETA
and Greenpeace are also members of the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, the LP has done much of its best work historically
as a protest organization. More importantly, there are quite a few
libertarians who grow quite hysterical at the thought of the word
"libertarian" being associated with an organization that is moderate
enough and compromising enough to win elections. Perhaps those of us
who want to do elect pro-liberty politicians should start a new party
under a different name just to avoid the acrimony.
So, which shall it be?