While checking out the national party's flawed plan for withdrawing U.S. government troops from Iraq, I recently discovered the blog on the national party website. The blog has become a spirited forum for the debate of the withdrawal plan, among other topics. Given the criticism of LP leadership often present there, I would not be surprised to see those leaders decide to shut it down or otherwise rein it in, so enjoy this high-profile venue for the free exchange of views within the party while you can:
http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000054.shtml
Here is part of one recent commentary that I especially appreciated, the beauty of its language second only to its clear and insightful advocacy of the importance of staying true to principle:
I would suggest that perhaps we are less free due to circumstances beyond the easy or immediate control of the libertarian party. That we are up against a mutifaceted and prevasive enemy which achieved overwhelming success BEFORE the party came into existence. I can understand impatience under the circumstances, but there is no direct causative correlation between the present status and any insistence on adherence to principle, in fact that is the only weapon we really have. The socialists in the early twentieth century did not achieve success in one generation, either,and it is basically their success that we struggle against. Additionally, they have effectively entrenched and consolidated their policies and imbued them with highly effective self perpetuation mechanisms. So you see our task is quite arduous and lengthy by nature. It should be noted the that the early twentieth century statists did not achieve success by casting principles aside in an attempt to obtain influence with the powers that be of the status quo,but rather by intransigent adherence to principle.No one would have supported them,if they didn't expect radical change. So if we expect to achieve radical change, the course of action is clear: popularize the change, don't try to obsure your agenda.Second, and I can only speak for myself on this, as your question,"what is the strategy" is quite broad,and largely covered in the first point.My strategy is to popularize liberty,the party being an essential element, as long as it stays true to principle(see my earlier post:July,18 2:18pm)I think it's important also to note that electoral success should not be the only measure.Third, we cannot provide a viable alternative to the r's&d's unless we distinguish ourselves by avoiding their main and fundamental flaws: inconsistency, and a valuing of political success above all else,which leaves no place for principle,and leaves them vulnerable to us successfully lumping them together and coming away looking better by contrast.As far as poster after poster suggesting we just need more of the same,I may personally be guilty of that, but several others (in particular"William" and David Tomlin) have expressed many new ideas that might merit consideration, but these are necessarily by nature concrete, practical suggestions, whereas I prefer to dwell on fundamentals and abstractions, and frankly there what is needed is not so much"more of the same" as consistency and continuity."Principles before Politics" is a bit innaccurate and impertinent, not principles before politics, rather principles as BASIS for politics.Finally, our way will, with perserverence, prevail, for while we are up against a monumental task, we enjoy the unique advantage of consistency and harmony between our philosophy and the mandates of objective reality and human nature. All our adversary's agendas must be coercively imposed and popularized through the spreading of misconception; while we need only adhere to the facts, and set people free as is their birthright.---Thank You, The Bikemessenger
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>