Divided We Fall

Fightin Words ^ | April 29, 2010 | Walter Scott Hudson

[Walter Scott Hudson]

There seems to be a false dichotomy in our political discourse, a choice between principle and pragmatism. In truth, there are three options. One can be dogmatic to the point of impotence, principled, but unrealistic. One can be willing to compromise anything for power, pragmatic without principle. Or, one can define their pragmatism within principle. The latter choice is the most desirable, for little good comes from unprincipled action, and nothing comes from impracticality.

The rise of the Tea Party, and broader liberty movement, has progressed through the Gandhian phases of being first ignored, then ridiculed, and now viciously attacked. Whether it will reach the final phase, and win, depends entirely on the capacity of its members to coalesce their effort around practical actions consistent with the principles they share - fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise. The single greatest threat to this capacity, in this writer's opinion, is the tendency of many within the movement to retreat into narrowly defined factions when pet issues or puritanical ideologies fall by the wayside.

Libertarian activist Corey Sax posted a note on Facebook late Wednesday which rebuked "former compatriots that have now... cheapened their standards." Sax seemed to refer to those in the liberty movement who became involved with the Republican party through the Ron Paul presidential campaign, or subsequent Tea Party phenomenon, and have since come to support comparatively moderate politicians. Sax expressed his disappointment with the leading Republican gubernatorial candidates in Minnesota, Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert.

Last night I listened to Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert, men who are almost political clones of each other, take jabs and try to convince a rag tag crew of anti-statists, anarchists, voluntarists, libertarians and Ron Paul Republicans about why the other guy wasn't up to the job of governor. They were arguing about an attack ad that Seifert ran that acknowledged a supposed DWI that Emmer was convicted of many years ago. As they were going back and forth like two bickering brothers, I asked, "Why are you two fighting about who has DWIs, why aren't you arguing about ending DWI/DUI laws? Why aren't you debating Marijuana decriminalization?" This brought the largest applause of the evening. The candidates said nothing.

If I was a delegate [to] the Minnesota GOP state convention this week, I would put forth a vote of no confidence. I am not a delegate, but if I was I would not support either of these candidates for governor. The idea that we can and should tolerate the war on drugs is reprehensible and barbaric. It is also evident of a mind that doesn't grasp that Liberty is a perspective not a "buzzword" to "rally the base". Liberty is a sacred oath, an ideal to be attained with sacrifice. When we stood together at the State Convention in 2008 and the RNC of that same year, we understood this. We did not cave in, we did not jump behind John McCain and we didn't not support Norm Coleman. This sudden frenzy about the rather mediocre policy positions of both Emmer and Seifert seems odd to me and I can't understand how people once inspired by the policies of Ron Paul could suddenly be seduced by these guys and their traditional vanilla [Minnesota] brand of GOP.

Pushing past the absurdity of anti-statists and anarchists considering gubernatorial candidates, let us focus upon the "voluntarists, libertarians and Ron Paul Republicans." If one truly cares about affecting liberty, and not merely preaching its virtues, does it not stand to reason one should focus their effort through institutions which can affect libertarian change? Sax states he is not a delegate to the GOP state convention. He does not state whether he attended caucus or pursued becoming a delegate. However, it seems evident Sax was at some point involved in the party, given his reference to the 2008 conventions. His candidate, Paul, did not then win the nomination. Now one of his issues, DWI/DUI, is not getting the kind of attention he feels it deserves. Sax's answer to these developments is to effectively boycott the party. He explains the intended effect.

Part of me hopes the GOP loses this race, even though it will hurt me. Even though it would hurt to see a DFL candidate win, I think that it might be the wakeup call that some of our people need to realize that we need to be supporting those who are sincere about ALL forms of liberty.

This is a sentiment common among folks passionate about their specific ideology. It is the sentiment which fuels third parties. It is the same brand of sentiment which gives us Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, and other spoiler candidates. It is principled. It is also impractical.

Consider the fact, which Tom Emmer has articulately acknowledged in stump speeches, that many principled conservative and libertarian voters refrained from participating in the electoral process in 2008 due to their disappointment with Republican governance. George W. Bush had not been a conservative president. John McCain was downright progressive. Disgusted with the options offered, many sat the election out. How has that worked out?

Would John McCain have signed Obamacare? Would the senate have been able to pass it last December if more conservative and libertarian Minnesotans had supported Coleman over Al Franken? Where has principled indignation and refusal to participate gotten us? The answer is not closer to liberty. I respectfully submit to Mr. Sax and those who agree with him, of which there are many, that the GOP may not be alone in need of a wakeup call.

I hope that someday we can all join together again and root for the same guy, a guy that we can all sincerely believe in.

That day will never come. There will never be a candidate who everyone sincerely believes in and supports on 100% of the issues. Clearly, not even Paul was that candidate, as evidenced by his failure to obtain the nomination. Holding out support in hope of the perfect candidate does not send the message Sax intends. It sends the message that libertarians don't vote, which makes them politically irrelevant.

As a libertarian, I plea with Sax and those who hold similar views not to take their ball and go home. The change desired may never come. But it certainly will not if those who desire it refuse to participate in the process. If one is dissatisfied with the candidates produced through caucus, the best solution seems to be recruiting like-minded folk to that process. Indeed, I am aware of many who, like me, caucused for the first time in their lives this year. I am personally familiar with two GOP candidates for state office who emerged directly from the liberty movement. A recurring theme among Minnesota GOP commentators has been the demonstrable shift over the years from producing candidates like Arne Carlson to candidates like Marty Seifert and Tom Emmer. The trend is headed in the right direction. We owe it to ourselves to endure for the duration, and keep our hands among those on the wheel.

[John O]

Excellent article.

As much as the radical libertarians fantasize about it, legalizing recreational drugs is not going to happen in this country for a very long time (if ever). They can either work within the system to elect the strongest (most conservative) republicans they can IN THE PRIMARIES, and then support the eventual republican candidate in the general, or they can be irrelevant.

The only way we can save our country is within one of the two major parties. The only way we can affect those parties is within the primary.

The democrats are for the most part mindless yet evil communists out to destroy eevrything that is good about this country. They cannot be reformed.

The republicans have at least a few elected conservatives and the majority of the party is mostly conservative. Half a loaf truely is better than giving the whole loaf and the entire wheat field to the enemy.