Portland, we have a problem. The July 1-2, 2006, Libertarian
Party National Convention in Portland, Oregon, is over, but the
repercussions will be felt for years. A small, well-organized
group of pragmatists and conservatives -- the LP Reform Caucus
-- attempted to oust the original heirs of the Libertarian Party.
First, the usurpers attempted to abolish the LP pledge, arguing
that it is simply too shocking for the general public. They failed,
but barely. Next, through a parliamentary procedure, the Reform
Caucus successfully gutted the LP national platform from over
60 planks to about a dozen. Little remains, not even the venerable
plank opposing foreign interventionism.
With typical political thinking, this small discordant group
dismisses anyone favorable to the platform as “anarchistic,” predisposed
to stopping any “Big Tent Libertarian” outreach ventures.
Unable to abolish every plank in one full sweep, the reformers
plan to recruit new LP members from the ranks of other political
parties, specifically from the religious “Constitution
Party.” With these Bible-thumpers as card-carrying LP members,
they hope to finish off the remaining platform and pledge at
the 2008 convention.
So what are some of the principles that must go? First and foremost
is the non-aggression principle, which is considered the main
threat to an election-oriented populism. If libertarians would
simply throw away this principle, explaining LP policies on taxation,
the drug war, foreign policy and military intervention would
no longer be a campaign nightmare. The LP would now be free to
advocate all sorts of government programs and interventions since
taxation would no longer be considered a violation of human rights.
Voters would no longer fear that someone out there actually believes
an individual’s property does not belong to the state.
In essences, these reformers are attempting to turn the LP into
a “pragmatic” party in order to bring it into the
vote-getting political mainstream. And yet, the founder of the
Libertarian Party, David Nolan, has repeatedly said that he and
the early founders were more interested in the educational opportunities
available through a campaign for office. To them, actually winning
an election was secondary.
But should the Libertarian Party bases its success solely on
achieving political power? Should we seek political power as
the end-all? One Reform Caucus leader echoed this sentiment by
arguing that the LP must “win elections at any cost,” which
comes close to the Machiavellian notion that the “ends
justify the means.” To him libertarian principles were
an impediment to greater LP election victories.
If libertarians discard or hide their principles, they will
have no maps to take them where they had set out to go. They
will be ideologically naked in a political world that has little
regard for individual autonomy. Like clothes, principles provide
a fabric with which to cover one’s vulnerable parts. Without
principles, most people would be susceptible to the seductive
and corrupting influence of a political system only interested
in its own survival at the expense of taxpayers. Any electoral
victory by a non-principled “Big Tent Libertarian” would
be hollow and meaningless. He or she would simply become part
of the systemic problem of an overreaching government.
Without strong principles, the Libertarian Party might as well
as change its name to the Conservative Party or the Reform Party.
If the Libertarian Party wishes to remain the “Party of
Principle,” it must have some.
- - - - - - - -
Editor and contributing author of Facets of Liberty: A Libertarian
Primer, L.K. Samuels is the Northern California Vice Chair of
the Libertarian Party and Vice Chair of the Monterey County LP.
He was a delegate to the 2006 LP Portland convention.
