Confessions of an Increasingly Skeptical Libertarian Partyarch
Posted by Thomas L. Knapp on May 24, 2010 in Commentary • 6 comments
“The [Libertarian Party],” wrote Samuel Edward Konkin III in a footnote to the third edition of The New Libertarian Manifesto, “continues to co-opt idealistic young radicals, suck out their enthusiasm, disillusion them, and either drive them into pessimistic apathy or deliver them — radicalised and re-energised by their disappointment — to the welcoming arms of agorism.”
As the party prepares for its biennial national convention, to be held in St. Louis over Memorial Day weekend, that assessment strikes me as more accurate than ever.
For some years, I’ve maintained an uncomfortable posture — one foot in the agorist camp, one in the mudhole of electoral politics.
If Konkin’s always been right, then the last 14 years of work I’ve done in the political arena has been a waste of time and a distraction from more important work at best. At worst, it’s actually had a net negative effect insofar as continued libertarian participation in old-style politics tends to stunt the formation of the institutions necessary to the coming revolution’s success.
If Konkin’s always been wrong, then it’s possible that I haven’t wasted my time or efforts. Perhaps a political party can be instrumental in creating the conditions necessary to the birth of a free society. If nothing else, as I’ve held in the past, perhaps the Libertarian Party serves a useful purpose as a “birth canal” through which as yet un-radicalized libertarians travel from the womb of the body politic to the brave new world of a larger, radical freedom movement.
My suspicion — or perhaps it’s just a self-serving attempt to validate my own past actions — is that Konkin was always at least partly right, but only partly right, and that he’s becoming more right as events unfold: That is, the Libertarian Party is useful to some degree, but becoming less and less useful as it more and more firmly ensconces itself in the existing system.
I know that the LP assisted me in becoming more, not less, radical.
I entered the party as a Marine veteran, firmly convinced of the prudence of a “moderate interventionist” (a la Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick”) foreign policy; as a former drug warrior who favored legalizing marijuana but urged a “soft touch” versus the drug war; as a father who found the party’s (now long-deleted) “children’s rights” plank naive and embarrassing.
Within a few years I found myself marching against the US interventions in the Balkans and the Middle East; protesting the drug war in its entirety as an abomination and an imposition on the rights of all; and horrified by the state’s abuse of sexual legislation to persecute innocents of all ages.
As a matter of fact, within a few years I discovered that I had become a committed anarchist … at the same time that the Libertarian Party seemed to be hell-bent on transforming itself into a “center right” organization focused on attracting fiscal conservatives who favored a lighter touch of the Nanny State’s paddle to the body politic’s posterior.
It is not the purpose of this column to endorse candidates, bylaws and platform changes and such at this upcoming national convention. I don’t think, however, that I’m overreaching by noting that the candidates and proposals on the conventions agenda represent three distinct approaches.
One faction of the party proposes to complete the transformation of the LP into its new “center right” configuration. They’re fielding officer and national committee candidates who are committed to that course to one degree or another, and they are well-represented on the bylaws and platform committees.
Another faction of the party is internally focused not on ideology or externally on niche marketing, but on internal “good governance” matters. That faction has fielded a committed candidate slate, and tends toward “voice of reason” bylaws and “big tent” platform proposals.
The third faction is the party’s (mostly very demoralized) radical core. While it would be erroneous to write off the other two factions as “newbies,” the radical faction does have a more “Old Guard” composition. The radicals can reasonably expect to elect or re-elect a few national committee members, and are counting on the candidate for chair most of them favor to at least put up a damn good fight … but frankly it doesn’t look like a genuine “turnaround of the party” is in the cards this year.
And, equally frankly, I think this year may be the radicals’ last chance to salvage the party’s redeeming qualities and keep it even marginally useful as an instrument for the advancement of freedom. Full conversion to the “center right” would make the LP objectively an enemy of liberty.
Wish us luck.
Thomas L. Knapp is Senior News Analyst and Media Coordinator at the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org).
Rather than help me become more radical, the Libertarian Party helped divert my growing radicalism into corporate apologism, parliamentary nonsense, and other waste. Fortunately instead of clinging harder to failure, I became disillusioned and looked to broader ideas while refining, re-examining, and re-discovering those I had.
This needed at least some response … as Tom's RRND colleague, it's up to me, I guess … I joined the LP in 1972, was active until 1984ish, the again from 1995-2005 or so. Currently an observer; LP still has a purpose (unless it truly does choose to become GOP lite for real this time, in which case it's lost all meaning). I agree with Tom, it's unlikely that the hardcore takes the seats this time, but it gets closer each year to doing so. Keep waiting for the GOPers to wake up and realize how little they are taking control of, and go find another frogpond … But the LP has kept me pushing to promote "living liberty" as a way of being — even when they had no idea they were doing so; whether it was fighting MacBride over his running mate, battling for gay & children's rights planks or resolutions, fighting for the right Chair's race or the right Pres nominee, battling to save the platform, or even a stint on the LNC …. i keep on truckin' … just not this time around! (more fun to promote liberty with new agers & New thoughters at a camping retreat)
I have to disagree with a statement above.
In … some places I hang out, it is said "It Takes what it takes." Also "You csan't hear until you can here." and "You're not ready until you're ready."
(Hangs head in shame.) Yes. I am a membeer of Reduncacy Anonymous.
Seriously – Mister Knapp the things you have done and the campaigns you have waged have gone into making you who you are, which is, right now one of the most credible and experienced commentators, reporters and campaigners in favor of Liberty, in the Sam Konklin sense.
The LP contains the seeds of it own destruction and it's own lesson.
I guess that lesson is – there are men and women in suits who will throw away anything like a principle if you wave some money at their faces.
Because the LP is not self-supporting – the hand that holds the purse calls the tune.
It amuses me because I suspect that letting go of the delusion of the neccessity of government, and the fear of "the Enemy" is similar to… letting go of other things.
We say "You can live a long, safe and free life. Just let go of the Leviathan and drop off."
99 times out of 100, the answer comes back "Noooo! I'm too Scared!"
But I think that 100th person is worth it. I also think that trying to convince,,, the statists reminds us who we are and why we're active in things like C4SS, or Anti-War dot com.
you are a champion at keeping the flame alive. Don't let anyone take that away from you. YOU ROCK!
That being said, I think the National LP is beyond saving. But I have been wrong before., So Don Quixote, take up your lance and your shield and let's see what happens.
Have fun storming the castle!
I’ve put in more than a few years, as a supporter of Harry Browne, a Chair of the Allegheny County Party, and of the Orange County CA LP. Over time, I have become more radicalized, not less. I’ve come to the conclusion that the LP will inevitably be coopted by The Powers That Be before it ever becomes large enough and powerful enough to make any significant difference.
During the same period, I came to the conclusion that politics isn’t really the solution to our problems. Instead, we need to develop the individual and voluntary mechanisms to supplant the State. We need to educate our own, defend ourselves and the people we care about, and provide for our own “safety nets” – in short, we need to do for ourselves what the State claims to do.
When that happens, the State will be seen as a hindrance, not a benefit. Already nearly 3% of children are educated at home, with very impressive results; at the same time, the government schools are failing. Large numbers of Americans are arming themselves, and the phrase “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away” now has a tangible referent. People are discovering that faith-based paper is not a reliable store of wealth. People are re-discovering how to develop voluntary networks which cooperatively build solutions to their problems. At some point, this will be so widespread that all of us will jeer at politicians who offer to “keep us safe”, to “defend the dollar”, or “to keep us free.”
From Radicals for Capitalism:
Manuel Klausner, Reason Mag editor and 1972 LP candidate for Congress in CA: "while defending libertarianism in [a Libertarian Party] campaign context, he realized he could not rationally defend coercive taxation. In his case the LP, rather than watering down his hard-core libertarianism in the difficult electoral arena as some radical anti-party libertarians feared it might tend to do, radicalized him".