Reinventing Libertaria

The Washington Dispatch ^ | May 27, 2003 | Gary Cruse

[gcruse]

---

Reinventing Libertaria

Should the Libertarian Party, a party that barely shows up on political radar as it is, be further split? Has the LP written itself out of post 9/11 America? In a country moving perceptibly to the right, does a retrenched, leftist Democratic Party open up middle ground for its own replacement to the right?

As a small 'l' libertarian, I increasingly find myself at greater odds with the LP than I am with conservatives. When social conservatism is replacing the Tenth Amendment (the powers not delegated to the United States ...are reserved to the States) with any number of Commandments, a party of individual liberty and responsibility should be highly visible. The Democratic party has been equally contemptuous of the Tenth when that party has been in power. Are the pieces there for assembling a real party of Liberty?

The Libertarian Party might be poised to make such a run, but not in its present incarnation. A couple of planks in the party platform are serious anachronisms and must be dealt with first.

Completely out of step with America today,a'foreign policy of non-intervention and peace' sticks out and resonates with recent anti-Iraqi war sentiments. Isolationism was almost a necessity when the oceans made dealing with the rest of the world more nuisance than blessing, but not any more. Anti-terrorism cannot be a winning hand without the cooperation of nations capable of harboring future Osamas. As to an announced policy of peace, let the lambs be silenced. There is an insidious, woolly-headed thinking among the naifs of society who are willing to settle for lack of conflict, for now, and call it peace, without regard to the wolfy machinations on their doorstep.

France and England had a treaty with Poland to come to each other's aid if attacked. When Germany invaded Poland, the treaty was enforced to the extent that war was declared but nothing else was done, bringing about the Phony War that allowed Hitler to gobble up someone else (it's always someone else who needs to sacrifice for the common good) while Poland's friends worked to restore the 'peace.' We used to call that appeasement, but now it's peacekeeping. The subtle shift in emphasis from defending what is worthwhile to redefining 'necessary' as 'expendable' isn't negotiating, it is surrender. Well, maybe it's negotiating. "I'll give you everything you want, but that's my final offer," might be dressed up enough to dance with, if you're that desperate.

As road maps go, expecting Israel to give up the Golan Heights, a strategic sacrifice of elephantine proportion, for useless promises of peace from those who unfailingly call for her extinction, secures a peace that passes understanding, not to mention overtaking credulity. The Libertarian Party's notion of peace is appeasement in Birkenstocks.

The other disconnect I have with the LP platform is the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, which, coming from the Libertarian Party of Texas is a 'kick me' sign I wouldn't want to wear around the Alamo. I'd still be laughing at that if I didn't know they were serious as a front yard fiesta del tercer mundo.

Can the Libertarian Party even coexist with War on Terrorism? The party platform seems singularly incapable of keeping suicide killers out of the country or doing anything pre-emptively to stop the creation of terrorist cadres not already here. The primary mandate of sovereignty is survival, a principle easily translated into libertarianism's recognition of the individual, with his full complement of rights and responsibilities. At the national level, this is vaporized without border control and amounts to shattering the individual writ large.

That's why I got the 'L' out of Libertarian in favor of raising a little 'l' of my own. Being a libertarian may be a step in the direction of conservatism, but being a Libertarian puts me in the pocket of people out to kill me.

As constituted, the LP will remain off the political radar, and small 'l'ers will agonize over how far down the ticket the silliness has to be before one can safely vote for it. So far, dog catcher is not far from the ceiling. A party rethought without these suicide clauses might do well as the major parties peel away from each other. The Republicans look to have a lock on 2004, so there's plenty of time to get a new dog ready. This one won't hunt.

---

Gary Cruse is a steely-eyed photofinisher in Texas.

[gcruse]

Ping for the possible.

[dix]

Sounds worth reading. 9/11 is when I split with The Libertarians.

[bassmaner]

Very astute points - this Libertarian is considering going small 'l' for exactly the reasons you cite.

We cannot "secure the blessings of liberty" if we're not secure from attack by foreign invaders, be they Arab terrorists or Mexican wetbacks.

[gcruse]

Agree completely.

[Jack Black]

great article. who runs the L party? Does Harry Browne own it outright?

[Dan from Michigan]

That's a big reason why I'm not a "L"ibertarian either. The other reason is that a 3rd party isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon.

I don't see the greens, US Taxpayers/Constitution, Reform or libertarians winning hardly any partisan seats. In Michigan, they hold none. I don't see them running any real campaigns, and the only one that was an actual campaing got 5%. The greens got 5% in East Lansing where they worked hardest. I don't see them breaking 10% at all in a 3 way race.

The best thing possible is to change the closest party in views towards what the party ought to be. Be Pragmatic without selling out. Ron Paul is a Republican. Leon Drolet is a Republican. I am also a Republican.

[dark_lord]

The small "l" libertarians just ought to form a new party. Of course all the good names are taken - American Party, Constitutionalist, Constitution, Conservative, etc. The "States Liberty Party" is also taken. But the "States Rights" party is available. Of course, it does have that anti-civil rights odor attached to it. :-)

[Servant of the Nine]

Libertarianism has to stop at the border if it is to survive.
It may be a lofty ideal here, but the only way to deal with the rest of the world is as they would deal with us if they could.

Seal the borders to illegal entry.
Limit legal entry.
Trade fairly with those who reciprocate.
Preemptively destroy any who wish us ill.

So9

[Dead Corpse]

RLC.org. Too many in the LP have mistaken "non-initiation of force" to be an advocacy of pacifism. This is patently bullshite.

[Sparta]

This small "l" libertarian has already told the Libertarian Party to go screw themselves. I'm a registered Republican. I think the best way for libertarians to have policy influence is to work within Republican Party through the Republican Liberty Caucus and Congressman Paul's Liberty Committee. It sucks though Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo (two of the most freedom loving Congressmen) are targeted for defeat by the RNC.

[gcruse]

You know, that's a great question. There doesn't seem to be a groundswell to change the platform or get rid of him at all.

[Sparta]

who runs the L party? Does Harry Browne own it outright?

I'm thinking its also a Communist/Islamist front, just like ANSWER.

[gcruse]

State's rights does sound like code words anymore.
The Tenth Amendment could be repealed and it wouldn't
make any difference.

[gcruse]

Heh. Goldwater shines through. ;)

[r9etb]

A good article.

I would add, however, that the libertarians are at least as marginalized by their take on social issues. To put it bluntly, normal people know far too many self-interested assholes to buy in to the libertarian dogma concerning self-interest. The society called for by libertarians does not seem to differ materially from the lifestyles practiced by Hollywood stars -- and the comparison is not flattering.

Whether people can put their finger on it or not, the unease about self-interest has real roots. We can see all around us where untrammeled self-interest causes problems for others. (Consider, for example, the sexualization of our society -- and see how it has affected little girls, most of all.)

Limited government relies on the expectation and requirement that the exercise of self-interest be accompanied by the exercise of self-restraint. When self-restraint is not forthcoming, then the society at large has a right (and responsibility) to restrain those who do not play by the rules.

There is also a fundamental assumption that one man's pursuit of self-interest is not harmful to others -- which is not true.

The problems you've noted are based on libertarians' fundamental (and wrong) assumption that most people agree with and play by the same set of rules. Open borders or isolationist foreign policies are all fine if the folks outside our borders are willing to play by our rules. Similarly, the existence of limited government assumes that people are, by and large, self-policing on "the basics."

The question is: how does one institute the sort of self-limiting impulses in a society that does not practice it already? This is the libertarian dilemma.

[Sparta]

There doesn't seem to be a groundswell to change the platform or get rid of him at all.

Go to Liberty Forum, a so-called Libertarian message board, and lurk there for about twenty minutes. You'll know why the LP is in the state it's in today.

[gcruse]

Too many in the LP have mistaken "non-initiation of force" to be an advocacy of pacifism.

Wow.  Great point.  Call it the Birkenstock wing.

[ctlpdad]

I don't agree.

[Snuffington]

Are the pieces there for assembling a real party of Liberty?

Yes, but those pieces do not include the formation of yet another "third" party.

Seriously, if one is incapable of forming a meaningful and influential faction committed to liberty within an existing party, attempting to do so while undertaking the additional and very formidable task of building a new party is not a likely path to success.