Michael - You know, I generally respect Mr. Rockwell's
opinions, but when he says things like -
"the instability of the system gives rise to two types
of reformers: the moderates who want to work within
the system but end up defending it, and the radicals"
To me he comes off sounding like GW. As in - "You're
either with us or you're with the terrorists"
Then there are these lines - "History, I believe, is
on the side of the radical, for the moderate wants to
play it safe."
and
"If the latter prevail � and they often have in the
history of politics � it is only after having endured
the slings and arrows of the former. "
I would agree with him that history shows favorably on
the radical as the instigator of change. But are there
really many (if any) examples of where the radical did
not induce change by initiation of force?
This is a very curious point because in his example of
the fall of the Soviet Union, it is actually the
moderates that end up invoking change non-militarily.
The radicals then were actually the Soviet
hard-liners...yes?
The reason I think this is important is that the
Libertarian Party is somewhat in the moderate camp by
reason that we have agreed to play the game of
democracy or majority rule...at least by Mr.
Rockwell's definition of the moderate. And democracy
to me generally relates to incremental change by the
very nature that it is driven by majority public
opinion. Certainly the masses are sometimes fickle,
but does that mean the masses should also be
considered radical? That would seem to go against his
very polarized argument of humanity.
So to sum this up, I would contend that those
expecting the LP to be radical goes against it's very
core of existence. And yes, I think this is very much
related to our recent thread concerning the LP charter
and expectations for success, by the way. If we agree
that the LP should continue to fight for a dominate
role in US democratic politics, then really the
radicals in this sort of mix are the anarchists and
other groups who refuse to play by the generally
accepted democratic, social establishment games.
On the other hand, if the prevailing thought is that
the LP should continue to nip at the heels of the
other parties to gain greatness - now, or in the
future - then I say we stop bothering to run
candidates for office and concentrate all efforts on
anti-Democrat/Republican establishment propaganda and
activism.
What do you think?
cheers,
David
PS - I still strongly believe that the 2 party system
in the US will collapse within the next couple of
decades. I can definitely see evidence for a rise of a
new centrist/libertarian party in my lifetime. Granted
it won't be as pure philosophically as the LP but then
again, the LP today is not as pure as the
anarchists...
--- "Dr. Michael R. Edelstein"
<dredelstein@...> wrote: