Steve Trinward Steve Trinward is "Soul Proprietor" of Trinwords.Com (wordsmithing and editing services) and a contributing editor for Rational Review.
|
Getting Outside the
Box Theories on how the Libertarian Party can gain a toehold in the political arena range from the inspired to the absurd. Some folks have maintained all along that our true purpose is to supplant one of the existing major parties. Many of these LPers have attempted to out-Republicanize the GOP, seeing this as the Duopoly branch most vulnerable to attack. On the surface, it's hard to argue with their target-assessment; there is still the widespread illusion that the Republicants actually stand for Liberty, but are merely being thwarted by those socialistic Demoncraps, and that if Libertarians spent more time "acting mainstream" we would attract all those disillusioned GOP voters to vote for the "real thing." However, this seems to fly in the face of current reality, whereby the more autocratic the GOP leadership becomes, the higher the President's popularity rating soars. Meanwhile, the record shows that even when both houses of Congress were dominated by Republicants (after the so-called "revolution of 1994"), the budget continued to grow, Cabinet Departments marked for extinction in the rhetoric were expanded in the reality, and "business as usual" continued apace inside the Beltway. Others hold firm to the idea that the only real purpose for the Libertarian Party is to stand stalwart on the principles of Individual Liberty, Non-Initiation of Force, Personal Responsibility and Voluntary Community on which both the Party and the word "libertarian" are based. Ventures into the political realm are seen by these activists as quixotic adventures in soapbox education, and any "effective" campaign (the kind that gets poll numbers and eventually votes) is viewed as a potential form of treason to the cause. Getting elected, for some of these folks, is tantamount to joining the enemy, becoming just another "guard on the Gulag train," and disqualifies the successful office holder from further consideration as a real libertarian. Meanwhile, to many of these folks, running for such an office, and campaigning on any issue -- short of an immediate end to all taxation, full legalization of all drugs. and the abolition of at least every statist policy, department or law which cannot be justified by a strict reading of the Constitution -- and by tomorrow, dammit! -- is grounds for excommunication from their Church of True Liberty. An example of this is the current wrangling in Arizona over the Barry Hess for Governor campaign: Hess, who in the last two years has run both Presidential and U.S. Senatorial races, is trying to use the state's Clean Elections laws as a fundraising and campaign tool, refusing to "just say no" to the matching funds program -- although he has not said he WILL take the money, either. Hess believes that refusing to participate is passing up a publicity vehicle, and that it is meaningless for him to categorically refuse to even attempt to qualify for the matching funds. At least until he has collected the requisite contributions, he says, he has no standing from which to condemn them. His critics (most of whom are no longer even officially affiliated with the Libertarian Party), deny the validity of this approach, and some even predict that when the time comes, Barry will simply take the money, anyway. With positions like these defined as the extremes, it remains for other Libertarian activists to find a valid common ground. If we are to satisfy those who crave action NOW, while not entirely losing the support of those who see this as a struggle of a lifetime or more, we must find another path to walk. But what if we are looking in the wrong direction? What if the answer lies, not somewhere between those two positions, but on some vector leading entirely elsewhere? What if we need to think, not only of pushing the envelope of conventional political thought, but also of smashing that envelope entirely, and veering off in some entirely new direction? Oddly enough, one of the most intriguing ideas may have risen from this very Arizona blood-feud. A few weeks ago, Gary Fallon, a longtime hardcore libertarian and LPAZ activist and candidate, announced his challenge to Hess for the LP of Arizona (, Inc.) Gubernatorial nomination. It was then disclosed in passing on the LPAZ discussion list that there had been a plan afoot to put forth fifteen different Gubernatorial candidates, one from each of the state's counties, and let them all fight for the nomination, but that insufficient interest and/or candidates had killed the idea. In Arizona's case, this was less about providing a unified LP front than with challenging Hess's perceived heresy in waging a campaign of what some consider to be questionable, er, "purity." But let's explore the implications: What if a state Libertarian party did something like this intentionally, with a cooperative effort and an eye to the potential for positive consequences? First off, a few refinements: like most wild-hair ideas, this one contains a kernel of truth, but first the surface must be scraped a bit. For example, in most states, having one candidate per county would be impracticable: Tennessee, for example, has 95 counties; Massachusetts has 99. Many other states are similarly divided into more than a handful of county-lines. But what about one per Congressional district? In most states this would be a manageable number: Tennessee has nine seats in Congress; Massachusetts has 11, last I checked. In fact, there are probably about 30 states for which this could be an answer. Instead of focusing on declaring and running for all those congressional posts (the vast majority of which are still pretty much beyond our reach?), why couldn't this be a way to build up grassroots support, right under the noses of the Demopublicans? Why not use a Governor's race to build that local machine, with a roster of candidates who are well-known and respected within their own communities. Then, pick the best of the bunch, offering a clear alternative to the Duopoly's Tweedle Twins in November, with an already energized cadre of active campaign supporters spread all over the state? Now consider the economics of it all. A good portion of the cost of running a campaign is logistics: travel, lodging, meeting hall rentals, etc. If the pre-primary focus was simply that of getting voters in your own district to be aware of your presence, most if not all of this could be eliminated. Speaking at the Kiwanis Club, Chamber of Commerce, company picnic and a few home parties could supplant the need for big venues, costly rentals, hospitality suites and the like. It would also cut down on travel time and other ancillary costs in both time and money. Campaigning locally, among those same friends and family, would be the focus; the only goal, developing better and stronger support in your own neighborhood and business community than the other candidates for the nomination could muster. In any state where the LP has both ballot and party status, and where candidates are being selected by primary, this seems a natural: Imagine the spectacle of a number of regional "favorite sons and daughters" showing up to campaign and debate (all Libertarian, all the time), and then facing off in the primary, to determine who gets the nod -- as well as the active campaign support of each contender and her/his supporters. A state where ballot access and/or official party status has still not been attained would probably be better off getting that done first. Tennessee, for example, would need to approach this process in steps: 2003, run the petition drive (now that we've figured out that we actually CAN) to qualify officially; 2004, run local, state and Federal campaigns, and prepare for the next phase; 2005, recruit and prepare candidates for the Governor's race; 2006, implement this new plan. Given the requirement here for a party to achieve and then maintain a 5 percent vote statewide showing in the final election, and the fact that there are only three such offices in Tennessee (Governor, U.S. Senate and President), this seems like a no-brainer: How much easier ways are there to create such support, than by building local support in every part of the state, during the process of choosing the candidate who runs for the office? For a party like the LP, which at least allegedly stands for a higher set of principles than mere electability, this probably should have been tried a long time ago. The only real condition on such a plan would be the general agreement of all concerned that, once the voters had spoken at the primary polls (or the delegates in convention), each runner-up would throw not only her own support, but that of all his campaign workers, behind an all-out push to November. Each would-be nominee would only commit to that 8-10 weeks of "crunch time"; any other campaigning would be at the candidate's discretion. (Of course, without some degree of pre-primary campaigning, success in the primary might be a bit difficult.) Picture if you will: A dozen or so Libertarians, all declaring candidacy for Governor of the state, before hometown crowds of people who already like and respect them. A media blitz -- hitting each local paper, TV, radio and the Internet -- from all points. Then, a statewide press campaign, announcing the pact among them all to back the victor, because "we are all Libertarians in this race, and we trust one another to uphold what we stand for." The possibilities seem endless. (Meanwhile, in those states where candidates are merely endorsed by convention, this could still be turned into a pretty big excuse for publicity -- leading to a convention debate among the contenders, perhaps, or at very least some widely varied platform presentations, before the convention made its choice.) And now comes the most wonderful part of the scheme: the power of multiplication. Each would-be nominee brings an already active campaign organization to bear on a sudden rush to November. If each organization now continues, back home on its own turf, promoting the now-statewide LP candidate for Governor, the effect is clearly multiplied. When the LP nominee travels to that district, it is to appear alongside the local favorite also-ran, at larger rallies and speeches, with the full support of those already existing local campaigners. As in most successful network marketing plans, the Credibility of personal contact gets carried over to the Expertise of the nominee, who has already shown superior ability to build a campaign and get out the vote in her own bailiwick. The work of market forces is pretty obvious. Meanwhile, the multiplicative effect at the polls might also be felt. If each of those who voted in the primary could convince even a few among their own friends or family to support the LP candidate in the final, those high-number barriers for ballot-retention might be a thing of the past. Again, using the Credibility plus Expertise approach, there could be a bridge built between and among those local contacts to produce greater vote-totals, while showing both the value of cooperation to the local activists, and greater credibility and viability to the voters and the media for the next round. (Meanwhile, the possibilities for building lasting local relationships, with activist groups and civic organizations, would be pretty much unlimited. Getting people out to support a visible campaign, with specified goals, is a lot easier than mustering bodies for smaller, less significant events.) Are there problems here? Yes, admittedly so. First off, there would probably have to be some general agreement that the candidates for the nomination would concentrate on core issues: taxes and spending issues; educational reforms; probably gun rights in most states; perhaps medical marijuana; etc. There might need to be a consensus established, that each would-be nominee would agree that making a major campaign plank out of an issue which still engenders strong debate among Libertarians would essentially be off the table for this effort. Abortion or children's rights are the most obvious issues, but perhaps even advocating (absolute and immediate) decriminalization of all illicit drugs might be considered too divisive for a lot of stomachs. If a candidate felt the burning desire to be a lightning rod for controversy, this would not be the right race to enter. (Frankly, this should only be a problem with those who can't see the larger picture; the potential here for party building is undeniable.) Second, there would need to be a commitment from each contender to run more than the usual paper campaign. The pre-primary effort could be low-cost as has been noted, but it could not be casually undertaken. Anyone joining this little conspiracy for Liberty would have to guarantee at least some availability and ability to generate a buzz and some support, and then to be able to transfer that support to the nominee, to get out the bodies for campaign rallies and Election Day. Finally, as noted before, the commitment to mutual support of the primary winner would have to be clear and unvarnished with any conditions or other attenuations. If a plan like this has a chance of working, it has to grow out of mutual commitment of all concerned to row the boat in the same direction, at the same time and cadence. There's no room for individual egos, or "marquee" campaigns or any of that. (Which may in the final analysis be why nobody has ever tried this before?) Is all this practical, or even possible, in a movement and party with the diversity the LP has? Who knows? Only attempting it will tell the story. In some states there is barely enough civility among factions to get them to show up at the same convention annually, so it may not be viable there. In others, however, there may still be enough sense of camaraderie to pull something like this effectively. In those states, where the LP is still focused on the prize, and where individual egos can be set aside -- in the name of greater liberty in our time, and more libertarianism in our lives -- it just might work! It is all too clear that what we have done for over 30 years has had only limited effect on moving America and Americans toward a paradigm of individual liberty, personal responsibility and voluntary community. As the saying goes, "If we keep doing what we've been dong, we'll keep getting what we've been getting." Thinking that is outside the box of conventional and traditional electoral politics is long overdue. |
