| 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.
|
