Posted on 06/02/2002 5:58:03 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Maybe the perennial confrontations between the idealists and the realists of New Hampshire’s Libertarian Party test temperaments and drag meetings into the late hours, but “at least we have ideals,” not like the Republicans or Democrats, say the more impassioned Libertarian faithful.
And maybe the structure of the state party is loose and lean and the climate it cultivates decidedly non-authoritarian, but it was the Libertarians who expelled a Nashua man from their party because he advocated violence against police. Tom Alciere subsequently ran under the GOP banner and won a seat in the House before red-faced Republicans caught up with his reputation for making threats against the police on the Internet and, along with the Democratic House members, drummed him out of office.
Libertarians are making slow inroads in New Hampshire — very slow.
Don Gorman of Deerfield, a member of the Libertarian party’s national committee and a conductor of training seminars for Libertarian candidates, spoke of his concern about the pace.
“It’s kind of a bittersweet thing. I see the progress that’s being made, probably because of the seminars and those who attend them. The disappointment is, it’s taking so damn long. That’s what is sad to me.”
And why is it taking so long?
“You really have a hard time selling this concept of freedom,” he said. He addressed that concept:
People have the right to make decisions and either succeed or fall on their face, Gorman said.
“But where,” he asked, “did the government get the bright idea they have the authority to tell you you have to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle? This could lead to eventually being required to wear a helmet while driving a car. The genesis of that kind of legislation is ‘Big Brother knows what’s best for you.’”
Who knows what’s best for the New Hampshire Libertarians?
Purists and pragmatists
Libertarian groups consist of two sub-groups, the purists, or idealists, and the realists, or pragmatists. Gorman and other Libertarians say the two groups share the same ideals but part ways at times on how best to apply them in politically complex situations.
Does this dynamic discourage solidarity and cohesiveness?
“It’s not a problem,” Gorman said. “We need our purists because they are what keeps us pragmatists on track. I am a pragmatist. I am a politician. Purists are absolutely the worst people in the world to run for office. When I hear they are running I want to shut them in a closet!
“But what you need is their way of thinking about government. The difference between the purist and the pragmatist is where you draw the line,” Gorman said. “The pragmatist would not abolish the system of education as we see it now. The purist would in a heartbeat. The purists don’t understand the politics — the fact that there are some things you just can’t do.”
Gorman said he doesn’t think the Republicans and Democrats have many purists.
“They don’t have that solid anchor of philosophy. The Founding Fathers did, but the modern politicians put their finger in the air after being elected to see how they can get reelected. As a result, we are in this big screwed-up mess with the politicians.
“The Democrats are better at the purity angle than the Republicans,” Gorman said. “Most are for unions. They have no problem with giving all your money to the poor.” Individuals in a group
“I am a little disappointed in the pace at which the New Hampshire Libertarian Party is moving the government in a libertarian direction,” Gorman said. “Within the party itself we have to get our act together. These people basically are not politicians, they are individuals.
“Herding Libertarians is like herding cats,” Gorman said, so it’s not that easy to get them to speak in one voice in the interests of party unity.
But these kinds of problems are being addressed, he said, at candidate schools and other kinds of training.
And, he points out, Libertarians have an impact on elections even when they don’t win. When there’s a close race, the Libertarian candidate can decide which of the two major-party candidates to support and, therefore, affect the outcome, he said. (Purist Libertarians reject this practice.)
For instance, Libertarian John Lewicke filed in the 1994 2nd district congressional election, opposing Republican Charles Bass and Democrat Dick Swett, the incumbent. With Bass and Swett in a dead heat, and Lewicke capturing a trifle percentage in the polls, Lewicke threw his support to Bass and pulled out of the race.
Lewicke’s sacrifice may not have played that important a role in Bass’s win (Bass secured 51.4 percent of the vote; Swett: 46 percent; Lewicke — whose name was still on the ballot — 1.8 percent).
Nevertheless, Libertarians took a dim view of his unilateral decision to pull out and to endorse a candidate from another party. But the didactic Gorman points to that election as a case study on how the Libertarians can use even minimal clout to decide a race between the titans of the two major parties.
Gorman thinks a similar scenario will take place this fall.
“You know that (in the election for U.S. Senate) there’s going to be a horse race between (Gov. Jeanne) Shaheen and either (U.S. Sen. Bob) Smith or (U.S. Rep. John E.) Sununu. They’re going to be bringing money in to Shaheen in armored trucks and the same thing goes for Sununu and Smith. Old Georgie Bush is going to come out of Washington and say this is the best thing since sliced bread. Major artillery duels in the hinterland! The independent factor
“But the guy who’s going to determine the outcome of this race is Ken Blevens,” Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate seat, Gorman said, foreseeing a scenario similar to the Bass-Swett race.
Blevens, who lives in Bow, said, “I ran for the Senate — got 4½ percent of the vote — in the Smith-(Dick) Swett race six years ago and there was some controversy about election laws being violated by Swett and Smith. The Ballot Law Commission gave them a second chance and I didn’t think that was quite fair, but that’s life.
“I feel the Libertarian view is being accepted more by individuals, not necessarily by groups,” Blevens said. “As a Libertarian, I feel I represent the first part of the Constitution — the Bill of Rights. It’s the individual that counts, not the groups, not the majority. I have to continually remind people we live in a republic, not a democracy. . .
“The obstacle we have to overcome,” Blevens said, “is the notion that this government only recognizes two parties.” The system basically discriminates against other parties, he said.
Blevens said that the number of independents is more important from a political standpoint than the number of Libertarians — a little over 400 in dues-paying members.
“I was a Republican way back and always was a conservative. When I became an independent, it was a direction in which I think the state was heading. Now there are more independents registered in the state than Democrats or Republicans. People are just getting so upset with the two-party system, but there is only one party out there.”
(Many Libertarians view the Republican and Democratic parties as being so much alike they are virtually indistinguishable.)
“More people are making individual choices, opening more opportunities for Libertarian and third-party candidates. More people are becoming aware that the two parties by expanding government and control are detrimental to themselves,” Blevens said.
“I strive to be a purist,” Blevens said, “but I am reminded every once in a while how hard it is.”
Too independent?
The dynamics of purist versus pragmatist come into play when Libertarians are asked, “How can you achieve enough solidarity to win an election when there is all this disparity within the membership? Does independence get in the way?”
New Hampshire Libertarian Party chair Tom Kershaw said, “You probably would not find as much dissension as you did ten years ago. Maybe we have been better at building consensus or choosing which battles to pick.
“As far as independence getting in the way, I think it gets in the way if you want it to get in the way. If you want to be that particular, that taut, on what that issue is, you can miss the opportunity to forward your argument.
“The more stringent have just redirected where their efforts are,” Kershaw said.
Gubernatorial candidate John Babiarz of Grafton draws a parallel between the shaping of ideas in the still young 30-year-old Libertarian party and in the deliberations of the Founding Fathers.
“It’s almost like being in Philadelphia at the founding of the country,” Babiarz said.
“In Philadelphia there were a lot of people arguing their opinions on how to found this government. We have a lot of purists and pragmatists, and it’s a battle between them. You have to work within the confines of the system to change the system. The purists get upset. The pragmatists want to see victory. It’s a constant battle to keep this in place, but we manage.” What the party needs
What needs to happen in the Libertarian Party? Howard L. Wilson of Andover, who is running for representative to the legislature, has an answer.
“We need to elect a libertarian to a state office, preferentially the governor, and have candidates elected on a lower level, such as state representatives or state senators.
“Then I think the excitement level of the population will increase, because then we would have somebody on the mountain, as it were, using it as a pulpit.
“The Libertarian governor would probably do his damnedest to get as many of the needed changes in state law worked through the system as possible,” Wilson said, “especially if there was no supporting structure in the legislature.”
Party chair Kershaw would settle for a well-run campaign, good arguments on issues, and party growth as measures of success when his term ends in October.
“I think there has been a sense that we do get somewhat overlooked by the media,” he said. “But I guess we have to earn (media attention). The sense that we don’t get much attention leaves us kind of stuck in that perpetual third place without a good venue to have our points brought out to the public.
“If people found out more about the party they might find themselves more libertarian than they think they are,” Kershaw said.
Freedom for his way only? No parential choice for whats best for their kids? No wonder people don't grasp the concept.
Heck, why not vote for Hitler? Gee, no wonder no one votes for them.
How about the anti-christ? He'd do real well in the libertarian party.
Huh?
Do you really believe that government imposing taxes and laws constitutes "parental choice for whats best for their kids" ? I think Orwell wrote a book about that kind of thinking.
The LP supports maximum parental choice in every aspect of their children's lives. Get real.
Not school choice. Children spend most of their childhood in school. Shouldn't the parent decide which school is best?
Idealists should stay away from running for office. Duh?
Gun run schools (you call them public schools) are hardly choice. We favor the complete separation of school and state. The purists think this should happen tomorrow morning. The practical among us see a need for vouchers for a few years to allow the private school industry to build up its capacity.
Either way, full choice on all education issues is with the parents. No more political fights about spending, curriculum, evolution/creation, phonics/whole language or whatever.
I get the feeling that conservatives think that they have to diss libertarian ideas even when they agree with conservative principles.
Now there's a delema. Where does the Constitution say Separation of Church and State when it comes to homeschool, or public worship? It says government cannot dictate what religion we must be. Some are Baptist, some Catholic, some Methodist. If all are supported, how is it unconstitutional? The government does not chose which one for us, we chose. So, private schools should be funded ASAP. What's the problem? There's plenty out there. First come, first served until more are built. Who dictates the waiting period? Libertarians? How sweet of them.
Silly statement.
By whom?
Do we not fund public indoctrination now? Why not fund all educational institutions then? Private schools a well as homeschools. Heck, they're actually teaching their kids. Why not buy the better product as long as we're forced to pay?
You libertarians are so concerned about religion in schools, you'll allow thousands of indoctrinated robots to go through the failing system every year to prevent it.
What are the kids learning in public schools?
The liberal agenda includes world government (which will tolerate little to no U.S. interference), a world military (which will enter the U.S. at whim to quell a disturbance), a world court (which will impose law without U.S. Constitutional protections), world taxes (which will seize our money to redistribute to Third-World countries), and a world religion (Gaia be praised).
You'd rather fight school choice now because someone might pray, and allow this scrurge of America to grow. If you want a better government, why allow these kids to be trained for the next generation of voters when even the parents themselves don't want it? Is this the kind of government you want?
It's what the libertarianism fight against immediate school choice is allowing to happen.
You should be screaming for school choice any way you can get it! Iron out the little details later!
Yes a parent should be able to choose which schools-the same way they choose any other product in a capitalist society: via the free market. the best products will survive, the worst, schools like public school caliber, will not.
That's where freedom 'OF' religion as well as freedom 'FROM' religion comes in. It's pure choice! They should be able to say no to liberal studies on that basis. Liberalism is the opposite of Christianity. A patriot is the opposite of a socialist. None of those things I posted earlier would be taught unless the school chooses to do so, but the parents can say "No thank you. I'll go somewhere else."
NO, this is just a statement of practicallity. With vouchers available, so that parents would not have to pay twice, private schools will take up the students as fast as they can. Those who do not get in will have to stay in the public schools for another year or be homeschooled. That is the choice of the parents.
We are guessing that it will take 2 or 3 years to have room for everybody. How do you make that into us dictating the schedule?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.