I'm including below a draft of a response to the reform proposals
Dear Mike;
BTW what are the reform proposals being proposed? It would be
helpful to know what they are.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...>
wrote:
> I'm including below a draft of a response to the reform proposals
> which I'm thinking of distributing at the upcoming convention.
But
> I'd love criticism of any kind. I actually think my opposition
is
> futile; I would predict that the reformists will carry the day,
and
> the platform will soon be unrecognizable as libertarian; but it
seemed
> worth making a last effort.
>
>
> The Problem with the Reform Movement, and an Alternative Strategy
>
>
> The record of electoral success in the Libertarian Party makes a
> perfect target for criticism: The fact that nothing we have
tried has
> ever worked gives plausibility to any suggested change. I think
the
> likely truth is that there is nothing we could do that would
work-in
> the short term, and assuming no watershed events, which may
> conceivably happen-given all the well-known obstacles like ballot
> access. But there is a specific reason why I think the current
> proposed reforms cannot work, even as they embody the trend in
the
> Party for the past decade.
>
> The basic contention of the reform movement is that, by and
large, the
> American people are not ready for the more radical elements of
our
> platform. No argument there. In fact, it's not clear that
anything
> but a pretty mainstream platform has a chance of winning any
major
> office in the near future. But there are severe disadvantages to
> pretending to be more mainstream than we are.
>
> In the first place, our opponents are not so stupid that they
will
> fail to confront us with our original planks. At that point we
can
> either repudiate them-taking an overtly antilibertarian stance-
or say,
> "Well, yes, but. . . ." Both losing plays.
>
> The closet also makes a very poor podium. It is hard to
champion an
> exciting vision when we are afraid people will discover just
what that
> vision is. Compromises and halfway measures also don't inspire.
> Compare the emotional impact of Harry Browne's video of a
wrecking
> ball smashing into the IRS building with Ed Clark's white paper
> proposing to reduce the federal budget all the way back to the
level
> of the Kennedy administration (the equivalent of Bush I today).
The
> reformists presumably would have opposed William Lloyd Garrison's
> radical abolitionism, in favor of a gradualist program for
eliminating
> slavery, since the American people weren't ready for immediate
> abolition. But it was Garrison's radical vision-and his
insistence on
> having it all now--that brought about the change.
>
> Granted that the abolition of entitlement programs must humanely
take
> account of the transition. But there is no need at all for
gradualism
> with respect to victimless crimes like using heroin or moving to
the
> U.S.-and no excuse for it.
>
> Here is where the true conservative colors of the reformists are
> revealed. I have yet to see a proposal for reform of the
Libertarian
> Party in which sex and drug freedoms failed to figure
prominently as
> candidates for deletion-even though these are the very planks
whose
> implementation could be instantaneous and cost-free. Unpopular
> minorities whose rights are most in need of our protection are
thus
> left at the mercy of the bigoted majority.
>
> Herein lies also the key to why the problems delineated above
don't
> trouble the reformists. "The American people aren't ready for
it" is,
> in my observation, virtually always a disguised way of saying, "I
> don't really believe in it myself." There's no issue of
pretense or
> hypocrisy if the reform platform is all you actually believe in
or
> advocate.
>
> So the real issue is whether to change the Libertarian Party
into the
> Somewhat Libertarian-Oriented Party. That strategy would put the
> reformers in the position of having to distance themselves very
> strongly from planks which have been part of the platform from
the
> beginning-as well as setting them strongly in conflict with
members to
> whom these planks are precious. The very name of the Party,
with its
> traditional liabilities, would no longer even be appropriate.
Rather
> than taking on the baggage of associations which will continue to
> cling to the Party, would it not make more sense for the
reformers to
> work with a party already closer to their position? Few people
would
> have trouble choosing the party where they belonged. The
reformers
> would then be more appealing to respectable folk, and especially
to
> the big money on the Right; and the LP would be left with drug
users,
Hi Mike,
I enthusiastically agree with your argument that opponents would
immediately pounce upon the discrepancies between the reformed plank
and the original plank. I also enthusiastically agree with your
assessment that a party as the reformers propose would no longer be
the Libertarian Party. My personal disagreements are: (1) Your view
that incrementalism (which seems to be the main reform proposal) was
never envisioned by the party's founders (but, I am ready to stand
corrected on this). (2) Your statement which seems to insinuate to me
that the current party is primarily for deviants, since I have not
met a lot of deviants in the four or so years I have been active in
the party.
Were I preparing a response, I would focus on the fact that the
reformers want to change the basic character of the party by doing
away with the party's twin pillars: individualism and non-
aggression. I would not, however, dismiss the reformer's proposal for
a focus in incrementalism, i.e., taking bites at liberty-crushing
legislation and public policy one at the time.
More specifically, I think your response is a good thing, but I also
think that you will be playing into the hands of the reformers by
positioning the party as a group of politically ineffective
rabblerousers. I would tone down the writing.
Regards,
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...>
wrote:
> I'm including below a draft of a response to the reform proposals
> which I'm thinking of distributing at the upcoming convention.
But
> I'd love criticism of any kind. I actually think my opposition is
> futile; I would predict that the reformists will carry the day,
and
> the platform will soon be unrecognizable as libertarian; but it
seemed
> worth making a last effort.
>
>
> The Problem with the Reform Movement, and an Alternative Strategy
>
>
> The record of electoral success in the Libertarian Party makes a
> perfect target for criticism: The fact that nothing we have
tried has
> ever worked gives plausibility to any suggested change. I think
the
> likely truth is that there is nothing we could do that would work-
in
> the short term, and assuming no watershed events, which may
> conceivably happen-given all the well-known obstacles like ballot
> access. But there is a specific reason why I think the current
> proposed reforms cannot work, even as they embody the trend in the
> Party for the past decade.
>
> The basic contention of the reform movement is that, by and
large, the
> American people are not ready for the more radical elements of our
> platform. No argument there. In fact, it's not clear that
anything
> but a pretty mainstream platform has a chance of winning any major
> office in the near future. But there are severe disadvantages to
> pretending to be more mainstream than we are.
>
> In the first place, our opponents are not so stupid that they will
> fail to confront us with our original planks. At that point we
can
> either repudiate them-taking an overtly antilibertarian stance-or
say,
> "Well, yes, but. . . ." Both losing plays.
>
> The closet also makes a very poor podium. It is hard to champion
an
> exciting vision when we are afraid people will discover just what
that
> vision is. Compromises and halfway measures also don't inspire.
> Compare the emotional impact of Harry Browne's video of a wrecking
> ball smashing into the IRS building with Ed Clark's white paper
> proposing to reduce the federal budget all the way back to the
level
> of the Kennedy administration (the equivalent of Bush I today).
The
> reformists presumably would have opposed William Lloyd Garrison's
> radical abolitionism, in favor of a gradualist program for
eliminating
> slavery, since the American people weren't ready for immediate
> abolition. But it was Garrison's radical vision-and his
insistence on
> having it all now--that brought about the change.
>
> Granted that the abolition of entitlement programs must humanely
take
> account of the transition. But there is no need at all for
gradualism
> with respect to victimless crimes like using heroin or moving to
the
> U.S.-and no excuse for it.
>
> Here is where the true conservative colors of the reformists are
> revealed. I have yet to see a proposal for reform of the
Libertarian
> Party in which sex and drug freedoms failed to figure prominently
as
> candidates for deletion-even though these are the very planks
whose
> implementation could be instantaneous and cost-free. Unpopular
> minorities whose rights are most in need of our protection are
thus
> left at the mercy of the bigoted majority.
>
> Herein lies also the key to why the problems delineated above
don't
> trouble the reformists. "The American people aren't ready for
it" is,
> in my observation, virtually always a disguised way of saying, "I
> don't really believe in it myself." There's no issue of pretense
or
> hypocrisy if the reform platform is all you actually believe in or
> advocate.
>
> So the real issue is whether to change the Libertarian Party into
the
> Somewhat Libertarian-Oriented Party. That strategy would put the
> reformers in the position of having to distance themselves very
> strongly from planks which have been part of the platform from the
> beginning-as well as setting them strongly in conflict with
members to
> whom these planks are precious. The very name of the Party, with
its
> traditional liabilities, would no longer even be appropriate.
Rather
> than taking on the baggage of associations which will continue to
> cling to the Party, would it not make more sense for the
reformers to
> work with a party already closer to their position? Few people
would
> have trouble choosing the party where they belonged. The
reformers
> would then be more appealing to respectable folk, and especially
to
> the big money on the Right; and the LP would be left with drug
users,
Starchild:
Thanks very much to both you and Marcy for your prompt feedback.
I'm not sure why I'm not on the Grassroots list--maybe just because I
never specifically signed up; but I was obviously sympathetic when you
floated the idea. (I also just discovered that my e-mail has been
bouncing some list messages, so I'm not sure what I may have missed.)
If you'd like to go ahead and make changes to make the draft more
acceptable to the Grassroots Caucus, I'm confident your edits would be
comfortable for me, and I'd welcome the additional support.
Hi Mike,
I notice you are not on the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus list. If you are down with the Five Key Values, which I think you are (see below), I invite you to join and post your ideas there for discussion. Perhaps we can endorse them as a group. I would like the caucus to put out something to counter the attempts to water down the party.
It should come as no surprise that I generally agree with you. As usual, you make some terrific points. I particularly liked:
(1) "In the first place, our opponents are not so stupid that they will fail to confront us with our original planks. At that point we can either repudiate them-taking an overtly antilibertarian stance-or say, 'Well, yes, but. . . .' Both losing plays."
(2) "The closet also makes a very poor podium."
(3) "The reformists presumably would have opposed William Lloyd Garrison's radical abolitionism, in favor of a gradualist program for eliminating slavery, since the American people weren't ready for immediate abolition. But it was Garrison's radical vision-and his insistence on having it all now--that brought about the change."
(4) "So the real issue is whether to change the Libertarian Party into the Somewhat Libertarian-Oriented Party. That strategy would put the reformers in the position of having to distance themselves very strongly from planks which have been part of the platform from the beginning-as well as setting them strongly in conflict with members to whom these planks are precious."
To the extent I am critical, my feedback is actually somewhat along the lines of Marcy's, however. I think some of your language may play into the hands of those who want to water down the party:
(1) Saying the LP's record makes a "perfect target" for criticism and that "nothing we have tried has ever worked" sounds like an admission that we've been consistently trying a radical approach, which we clearly haven't, and that the party has had no success, which is truly false. We're one of the most successful alternative parties that has existed in America during the era of the Demopublican cartel.
(2) "It's not clear that anything but a pretty mainstream platform has a chance of winning any major office in the near future." It's not clear to me that LP candidates do any better when they run on "mainstream" platforms.
(3) Appearing to lump immigration in with "sex and drugs" freedoms, as if the personal freedom side of the equation is only about personal gratification; I would put more emphasis on social justice and standing up for the underdog.
(4) Saying the Libertarian Party name has "traditional liabilities."
On the other hand, it's probably somewhat unfair to essentially accuse them en masse of being Republicans in all but name. It appears to me that there are Libertarians who honestly believe the party can sound and act like the Republicans, and continue appealing mostly to people on the right, or even lean further in that direction, while avoiding both the GOP's anti-libertarian ideological baggage and its corruption by money and power, and that this is the way to attain a "big tent" party.
In my opinion these LP members are dangerously naive. Nevertheless I don't think most of them consciously intend to consign the personal liberty side of the libertarian message to the scrap heap. Most of them personally favor policies of legal drugs, sex, etc. Some of them even believe in the freedom of peaceful people to migrate. They just want to hide these policies away on a back shelf, figuring they will still be shiny and new when the time comes to pull them out and use them. Reality doesn't work that way. It's use it or lose it.
If you change nothing else, please put the word "respectable" in quotes.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>