This is a good and welcome step, and I applaud the members of the Libertarian Party of Florida's executive committee for their leadership (see article below, as reported by Paulie Cannoli of IndependentPoliticalReport.com).
In their resolution, they state that "those in leadership positions should be held by a higher standard of libertarianism then the membership or those registered to vote Libertarian." I would contend that being a party member is also a leadership position if a member is serving as a delegate and helping set party policy, but I think the Florida LP is correct in the broad outlines of what it is saying. Leadership should demand a higher standard of commitment to libertarianism and what our party stands for, and it is clear that Wayne Allyn Root does not meet that standard. Perhaps someday his views will be more libertarian than they are at present, but in the meantime, he should be removed from the Libertarian National Committee.
If the party were to adopt tighter ideological requirements for those who are leaders, decision makers, and staff in the party, or publicly represent the party as candidates, I believe that the Libertarian Party could afford to be a "big tent" party and welcome as *members* people like Root without jeopardizing its commitment to freedom, and it seems to me this would be an advantage to everyone. Under current standards, I think that even allowing W.A.R. to be a delegate is problematic. Consider what could happen to the party if a majority of LP national convention delegates held views like his and acted upon them.
I would be delighted to belong to a Libertarian Party whose ideological standards as set by its bylaws were so demanding that *I myself* was excluded from party leadership for failing to meet them. Delighted, because of the confidence this would give me that party leaders would stay true to libertarian principles and not sell out our ideals. I would gladly give up the ability to potentially vote changes in the party's stances on the small number of areas where I disagree with its policy positions and the right to represent the party as a candidate for public office, in exchange for a much stronger guarantee that the party will continue to uphold libertarianism in its broad outlines. It seems to me that such a tradeoff would be in the rational political interests of the majority of Libertarians who broadly support both civil liberties and economic freedom whether or not they score 100/100 on the Nolan Chart.
Even those of us who have reservations about the full and consistent application of the Non-Aggression Principle which is libertarianism would, in my opinion, be better off with a party that can be trusted to uphold this principle even in cases where we may disagree with it, than with a party in danger of watering it down or abandoning it.
Currently Libertarians often quarrel among ourselves because of the need to keep the membership libertarian in order to keep the party libertarian. When newcomers arrive, we are often quick to try to determine their ideological credentials and to argue with them on areas where their views are less than fully libertarian. This can be off-putting to people trying to learn about what we believe but perhaps not ready to assimilate the whole philosophy at once, and it would generally be more productive to educate such individuals slowly over time. However it is an understandable and justifiable reaction of current members trying to keep the party libertarian, to a situation in which a newcomer like Wayne Root can jump into a leadership role shortly after becoming a Libertarian regardless of how libertarian his views are. Clear, tight, and enforceable ideological standards for leadership in our party would go a long way toward ending the fractiousness in our ranks.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))