Steve Trinward Steve Trinward is "Soul Proprietor" of Trinwords.Com (wordsmithing and editing services) and a contributing editor for Rational Review.
|
Who Speaks for the
Libertarian Party? Errata:
To this writer's knowledge, these are the ONLY "errors of fact" in over 20,000 words of copy. If there are more, nobody has come forth with them to this date. I regret making each of these, and will continue to let go of perfection and strive for excellence in the future … - SAT
Who Should Speak for the Libertarian Party? By Steve Trinward Over the last several months, I've had a chance to observe a variety of different types of Libertarian Party gatherings: I attended the Libertarian National Committee meeting in Atlanta in October. I have participated in (and in one instance chaired) numerous LP of Davidson County meetings. I've debated on a variety of Libertarian discussion lists. I've hung out in countless informal groups -- over beer with fish and chips, or just a little fresh salsa -- discussing everything from election strategy to how to stop the income tax here in Tennessee. What has become more and more evident during all these deliberations is this: Very few people within the Libertarian Party seem to understand the variant purposes of the organizations that make up the overall structure. It is obviously time to address that: 1. The Libertarian National Committee? One of the biggest misnomers about the structure of the Libertarian Party has been the idea that the Libertarian National Committee should have either the jurisdiction or the power to be a political policy-making body. (This writer had been making the same incorrect assumption for most of his 30+ years in the LP environs.) Actually, the primary role for LNC members is that of a Board of Directors, for a not-for-profit corporation which just happens to be a political party. The primary mission of the LNC is therefore not that of furthering the progress of the movement for Liberty, but of preserving the existence and financial health of one large organization engaged in this pursuit, the Libertarian Party. Confusion over this has led to everything from the expectation that the body should produce resolutions and take positions on whatever issue is hot at time of their quarterly meetings. The unfortunate fallout from the last time they did do such a thing, with the Afghanistan War resolution last October, managed to please neither hawk nor dove among the libertarian world, and caused almost as many problems as it solved. Had they refrained from taking any position, as was their proper role, the whole mess might have been avoided. The reason for this misunderstanding of purpose may have something to do with the varying structure of the LNC, which has not only Executive Officers (Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer) and At Large Members (charged with "representing" the overall interests of the Party membership as a whole), but Regional Representatives as well (purporting to "represent" the wishes of the mostly geographically contiguous state parties in their jurisdictions. The problem is, most of that "representation" is merely that of a watchdog, to ensure that what happens for the good of the LP as a whole is not done at the expense of the region they represent. NONE of these people have been charged with interpreting what rank and file Libertarians think about this issue or that, and when they attempt to do so, they exceed their true authority, as well as often their fields of expertise! (The Afghanistan resolution proved this, as nothing else could!) The current effort to get a resolution condemning the Patriot Act may have similar bad effect, although the early drafts seem to whittle the question down to its simplest essence (paraphrased): "The Libertarian Party opposes the attempt to impose martial law on the United States, in the name of some nebulous War on Terrrorism …" One would think that something this specific, backed by strong language already present in the LP Platform, might be presented as an overall statement about liberty and the Bill of Rights and the Non Aggression Principle. The question still remains, though: What does the LNC have to do with making that statement? 2. The National Headquarters Staff How about the folks who do the day-to-day work of keeping the Libertarian Party afloat, maintaining and building its membership, and informing media and the general public about the doings of those fighting for Liberty? Some would say that these people are the closest to the frontlines, and have the best angle on what should be presented regarding current events, and the libertarian perspective thereon. However, those holding this position seem to forget that no matter how long they have been there, these are EMPLOYEES of the Party, not the spokespeople for its precepts. Although there is ample opportunity for presenting a Libertarian of current events, by extrapolating from the principled stances outlined in the Party Platform, there is NO room for the kind of "activist interpretation" of these positions for which the Federal courts have become so famous. The controversy last October, around the LNC's rather hasty endorsement of a detailed resolution of questionable validity (as an interpretation of the Platform's stance (albeit somewhat tacit) on "fighting Terrrorism"), is a perfect example of this. When the Staff could not get cover from Chairman Jim Lark on a definitive statement, it sought the same rubber-stamp from the LNC as a whole. The result was something nobody entirely liked, and cost the party some more defections, at a time when that was the last thing it needed. Bottom line: the National Staff cannot speak for all Libertarians, either. 3. The State Chairs Caucus The Conference of Libertarian Party State Chairs (a.k.a. State Chairs Caucus) met right in my own Nashville, Tennessee, backyard a couple of weeks, about five minutes from the airport, high on a hill overlooking the city, at the Embassy Suites-Airport Hotel. Nearly 40 states were represented, from Maine to Alaska, Michigan to Florida, California to Maryland. State Chairs, often along with their Executive Directors or Vice Chairs, drove, rode or flew in from all over the continent, with the specific purpose of comparing notes and offering ideas to further the cause of freeing up our society. That said, it was such a pleasure to see the Caucus -- led in part by several activists who also serve on the LNC, and by others who have done so in the past -- carry out strategy discussions, offer comparisons of successes and failures in the field, and brainstorm to find new angles to try out. This is their proper duty, and it should be carried out much more often than once a year, in this writer's opinion. But with all of this nice news about what works, what doesn't, and what might if given the chance … back to the question: Should the State Chairs Caucus be making policy statements for the Libertarian Party as whole? The answer I come up with is still NO! The task for this group of activism leaders is to compare notes, share successes and failures, and then go back home and make it work, by electing local libertarians and running issue referendum campaigns to change the laws and culture of the land. They have no business making pronouncements about this or that national or international issue; they are (or should be?) too busy building their parties at home, roots up! 4. The Candidates and Elected Officials? Maybe it is as simple as this: Those libertarians who are running for public office, and particularly those who actually get elected, should be the ones to interpret and present what "the libertarian position" on current affairs actually is. Well, perhaps this is so, as long as those elected officials confine themselves mostly to the issues on which their elected office has a Circle of Influence, and not just one of Concern. Perhaps a County Commissioner could be expected to speak out on local zoning ordinances, but (s)he could hardly pontificate on the pros and cons of a Strategic Defense Initiative, except in the most generic terms. The answer continues to evade us.
5. So Who SHOULD It Be? So we are back to the initial question: Who Should Speak for the Libertarian Party? Some who read this aren't going to like the answer, but in this writer's opinion, NOBODY should be attempting to speak for ALL libertarians, beyond the simple idea exemplified in the LP Pledge: the renunciation of the INITIATION of force as a means of settling disputes, or of otherwise attaining one's social or political goals. We tend to forget that words have specific meanings, and that the names of political parties are no exception. Some folks forget that the word "Republican" is derived from the Latin res publica, meaning "public thing," while "Democrat" comes from the Greek, where demos means … well, people, or public, while cratia translates as "rule." Thus, both major parties are specifically about what their derivation says they are: a "republican" (public thing) and "democratic" (rule of the people) paradigm, respectively. Those who think there is a substantive difference between so-called "representative government" and "democracy" are deluding themselves; both forms involve a majoritarian and oligarchic process, just a different country of origin. Neither one has much to do with anything but the process by which things get done; neither one challenges the conventional wisdom that such things have to be done by elitist "elected" ones. Similarly, parties with ideological or descriptive names are expected to stand for what they claim to: the Socialists believe in socialism as a desired societal form; the Communists want to make that a specific variant of socialism. The Greens are primarily focused on the environment (despite the attempt to spread the agenda by many within that group). The Reform Party came about because a lot of people sensed there was something wrong, and that "tinkering with the engine" could fix it; because the founders had no real alternative in mind, only "change" … they have been easy prey for opportunistic vultures (from all parts of the political spectrum) who wanted either to co-opt the party, or to take the money that "belonged" to it (Year 2000 matching funds, qualified for from the previous Perot II campaign), and run. Meanwhile, "libertarian" is just as specific and descriptive: as the dictionary antonym for "authoritarian" it transcends the conventional and limited terms -- liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, etc. -- with which it is often confused by the uninitiated. The only time we hear it correctly used, it is usually in conjunction with the Founding Fathers of what has become the nation-state of America. Even then, very few commentators seem to truly understand the connection to today's Liberty movement. As a party designation, "Libertarian" has come to be confused with everything from "libertine" to "extreme conservative" -- thanks largely to the fact that we cannot be pigeonholed into the usual boxes. We stand for economic freedom (deregulation, tax repeal, etc.) and the right to bear arms; we also stand for social freedom (from drugs to guns to freedom of association and movement); and finally, we want to bring the troops home and stop messing with the affairs of other nations. We put this under the umbrella of "non initiation of force" (in which we also include fraud and misrepresentation as forceful acts, since one is in effect restraining the truth in such dealings), and consider defense against such initiation to be the only ethical grounds for using such force ourselves. What this means is something open to interpretation, at least to a point. Some consider ANY aggressive act -- from firing a weapon at another all the way down to simple trespass -- to be grounds for defensive response. As one who tries to find a conciliatory approach to life whenever possible, this writer would disagree, and advocate the minimum amount of response necessary to counter the intrusion. (A polite request of, "Get out of my garden, please!" might thus be the first level of retaliation for a simple trespass! Holding a shotgun while making the request is entirely at the discretion of the 'requestor'…) If there is a larger level of response called for, it should not be coming from some deliberative body or strategy caucus, purporting to represent EVERYONE who believes in Liberty (and dons the label "Libertarian" in all its official or unofficial guises). It should be coming from the activists and candidates who are carrying the banner into the field and the voting booth. There should be definite boundaries established, and an effort should be made not to cross over those "lines in the sand" which separate us libertarians from the mass of manipulators and other authoritarians across the political spectrum … but by and large the best folks to present A libertarian perspective are the ones who are out there Doing Liberty. The very idea of a "national policy statement" should be anathema to those of us who value what Liberty really means. No matter how much we might like the simplicity of such a concept, the dangers are more than we should want to endure. My Liberty to swing my arms ends at the point where I contact your nose, whether or not I intended to strike you. My ability to define "the libertarian position" on an issue extends only as far as I can show it to be consistent with the principle of non-initiation of force or fraud. The rest is just the same kind of rhetoric the other parties engage in… SIDEBAR: Where the rubber meets the road With regard to the recent State Chairs Caucus, a few comments about the high points seem in order. This writer was not present for the entire conference, due to other commitments. However, in the time I was there I saw enough indications of growth and effective activism to convince me just how vital the LP is at its very roots. (Note: The list is far from complete, but it represents the broad range of "can do" activism around the country.) For example, there's the case up in Oregon, where State Chair Richard Burke leads the charge. When an anti-tax initiative failed to gather major media attention, from any of the big-city press, Burke jumped into his Toyota and hit the road, on a 7-stop "tax tour" of the state's smaller cities. At each stop, he held a press conference, did newspaper interviews and basically rolled that snowball bigger and bigger, until by the end of the loop, he was finding welcoming committees as he drove into town. This simple concept, of actually focusing on the places that the usual pols ignore, paid off in some major support for the LPO initiative. Burke also offered some advice during the discussion of how best to organize affiliate LP groups. "The way we see it, " he said, there are really two kinds of affiliates: the county and regional parties, which are political, and the interest groups, which are supper clubs mostly." He also recommended that as a county or other local affiliate party is being formed, writing letters to the editor of the local papers might be the best strategy to begin with, rather than immediately trying to recruit local candidates. Then, as the interest begins to grow based on the publicity you have generated, there is already an existing group to help with any campaigns that come up. A bit further north, in Washington State, a similar focus on the grassroots has helped to build a thriving party, with more elected Libertarians per capita than any other state party. Executive Director Jacqueline Bartels has been hard at work recruiting candidates, coordinating volunteers and managing the overall campaign strategy on a variety of levels. At the conference, Bartels stressed the value of social interaction among Libertarian activists: "It is so much nicer when the people you are working with are also your friends," she notes, not only since the work becomes more fun to do and share, but because in the event of conflict, it is so much easier to give a friend the benefit of the doubt. This recalls the famous Jefferson quote about never letting politics get in the way of friendship, though one suspects Jefferson picked most of his friends at least in part because of their shared world view. The state's King County Party Chair, Jesse Brocksmith, also spoke about his own efforts to empower folks in their own communities. "I go to the precincts and do what I can to get them going," he said. "IF stuffing envelopes is what it takes, I stuff envelopes. And some folks may say, 'Well. You're the county chair!" But I say, 'So what? I'm here to help you!' " Down South, in Georgia, this attitude extends to recruiting candidates and finding activists. State Chair Helmut Forren puts it this way: "When I go to recruit someone to get something done at the county level, I just ask once. The ones who get back to me are my leaders." Mark Mosley, the LPGA Executive Director also stressed the need for constant "positive strokes" in dealing with activists, to keep them aware of how valued they really are: "Almost 100 percent of the time," he noted, "even your best people don't know how good they are…" Massachusetts Chair Eli Israel, between pitches for his National Chair candidacy, also had some advice: "We have tried relentlessly," he said, "to drive the socializing aspect out of our political groups." He noted that the Bay State does also still have a monthly social gathering, which moves from house to house around the state, and serves that "social aspect." (Note: This writer recalls his own days in Massachusetts, the last decade of which was pretty much confined to the LPM(A) monthly Game Nights, which were the early version of what Mr. Israel referred to as now existing. The hard part there was to keep the "political aspect" in check; some folks had real trouble letting down their hair and just enjoying life among others with a similar way of seeing the world…) In Indiana, Chair Mark Rutherford and Executive Director Brad Klopfenstein have been moving the LP forward, in spite of the overall drop in membership at the national level. They also disclosed, to nobody's real surprise, that in the counties where the LP is active and doing things, the numbers are actually growing, or at very least holding steady. It is only in the counties where activism lie dormant that Indiana has seen any real drop in membership. Meanwhile, about one-third of the state's 92 counties have been organized since 1999. Kentucky, under the able leadership of Chair Donna Mancini, has been building county parties in several locations around the state. In her own home county, what was once about a half-dozen activists has grown just recently to a consistent group of 30-35. There has also been a time-honored belief in the Libertarian Party that, in order to get anything accomplished, it takes a massive group of people. However, judging from the experiences shared at the State Chairs Conference, nothing could be farther from the truth. "The optimal number for a team is five," said one attendee (whose identity missed my notepad). "In fact, 5-10 people can change the climate significantly." And Tennessee, my adopted home state, continues to grow slowly, building from county and local parties for the most part, while focusing the bulk of its public efforts on maintaining the battle-lines against the initiation of a state income tax. As a result, when there is a strategy meeting, or a public action, involving this ongoing issue, you will generally find a strong Libertarian Party contingent in the mix. We are being invited to speak out, and to share our strategies, with just about every anti big-government political force in the state. We are also in the process of working (often alongside the more libertarian elements of the two established parties in the state) to see that no state legislator goes unopposed this year, so that no 'free ride' state representative can decide that with no penalty in the offing, a pro-tax vote cannot hurt… That did not happen because of "who we knew" or some other mystical force; it happened because enough of us were willing and able to slog out to Legislative Plaza at five a.m. in May and June, often enough to create the momentum for others to join the fight. Then, when the chips were down, there was a core to build from to bring the thousands who protested and rallied in July and August, and thwarted the plots and intrigues among those legislators and senators (and Governor!) who sought to sneak one past the citizens of Tennessee. There's more than one way to be a political force to reckon with. |
