RichmondLiberty.org

by Robert Russo

       I'm interested in getting some opinions on this subject which I have never seen mentioned on this site but was covered extensively by columnist Carl Milsted on lpva.com, although the question is timeless.  Should the LP moderate itself so we have a more realistic chance of competing in today's world and the two-party game, or strive for purity even if it means never winning a national election?  The LRC is a group within the party (or some would say a manifestation of all common sense libertarians) which has given a name and a motion to the desire to change our platform from the party of principle to a party that's practical.  It proposes a renovation of our objectives to those "that can plausibly be enacted in the next term in office", and an upgrade of our appearance to make it more publicly acceptable and recognizable, saying "It is simply inappropriate for a political party that wishes to win elective office to suggest radical changes in government that non-Libertarians neither endorse nor even understand."*  They successfully laid down some of these "planks" at last year's national convention.  I have mixed feelings about it.

            Just reading the "old" platform as described on reformthelp.org reminds me of why I joined in the first place.  It is a thing of beauty, an absolute truth, and the more they complain about "purists" the fonder it becomes.  I have believed for the past decade however that we must adapt and appeal to the general public or none of our aspirations will become reality.  Milsted says "Whenever a likeable, moderate Libertarian candidate gets traction, the opposition party publishes a few zingers from the LP platform. Defeat of our candidate is then assured."**  I think the problem is that the LP serves two different functions, it is not just a party or a platform (which is the reason it is more qualified than any other party). The LCR suggests "Where libertarians disagree, the platform should be silent. The party should be a tool for all libertarians."**. In other words the LP should be a part of a libertarian society with wide goals, high ideals and full representation beyond any platform.

The LCR says it has come under fire by purists for not being true libertarians. Other moderate movements calling themselves neo-libertarians or "mainstream" libertarians are harsh toward purists and see them as the political enemy. This kind of infighting is crippling to a party and sews hatred and judgment within our cause. The LCR advocates using the caucus system and promotional booths at LP events to spread moderation which I disagree with. I have always felt the party needed a kick in the pants to get back on track, both in political success and a return to true libertarianism, and that this could be accomplished by a strong leader. An author, educator or celebrity who has earned public attention on his own merits outside the LP (not someone from within the LP with close friends but no public identity) so that the public can know libertarianism through him, not the other way around. It is the human personality in which purists and moderates can find common ground (along with independents, Green party etc.), because a talented representative is both radical in his views and moderate in his words, believing there is no contradiction, and not letting anyone feel left out. The presentable platform and the greater underlying agenda are both seated in him as he takes office, one foremost in his thoughts, the other in his heart. I was reminded of the words to a song I once wrote entitled "The Politician":

Where are your goals now you self-made fanatic?
And the ideals you held when you were young?
Where are your noble thoughts and convictions,
that were so in style when you first begun?
How did you get here lost in the jungle
of impressive words with no regret?
Did they just float away like so much aroma
or did you think them not the best you could get?
Woe to the soul of the politician!
Have mercy on the man who is forced to choose!
Will he ever succumb to his ambitions,
or keep his dreams alive even though he'll lose?

For those who have not yet seen reformthelp.org I would recommend it along with Carl Milsted's articles at http://www.lpva.com/Archives/Editorial/Milsted/20050403.shtml.

*http://reformthelp.org/
**http://www.lpva.com/Archives/Editorial/Milsted/20050403.shtml

Question of The Week: Do you believe using caucuses to reform the party would divide the LP and if this choice is forced upon us, would you support or oppose the LCR? Please send your thoughts to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians let us know. We welcome your input!