"Moderate" Revolution inside the LP?

In the Post-Election Report to the National LP, there are numerous problems pointed out with the NLP, and co-operation with the Badnarik Campaign, as well as our wonderful Vice-Presidential Candidate.

Given the large amount of libertarian leaning & libertarians on this board, I have several question and comments.
_____________________________________________________________

1)Do you consider yourself a "Moderate" or "Purist" Libertarian? (a.k.a. Should the party's platform be progressive eventually attaining the libertarian ideal, or should the platform be purely the libertarian ideal?)

2)Are you going involve yourself actively, by going to a State/National Convention?
_____________________________________________________________

I personally see myself as a purely liberty lover, and HATE it when a "purist" tells me I am not a libertarian, simply because I believe we should put our message in a logical action manner, versus a strict ideal platform.

You cannot propose to immediately kill off all of the current government programs and expect to be considered a probable candidate. You'll scare away more people then gain.

You say that's just fine, you didn't want those "not total liberty lovers" anyways?
Well, how do you plan to get anywhere when you scare away the horses who pulls the carriage? You have to taime them, gradually progress them in your favor.

Babies start with steps before they can run, it only makes sense to do the same politically.

And finally, YES I AM GOING TO GO TO L.P. CONVENTIONS! We need to make this party a viable party in a time when America needs it the most, NOW!
The "moderation" worked in Wisconsin with Ed Thompson, now lets apply that to the National LP!

Who's with me?

[edit on 11-30-2004 by BeingWatchedByThem]

Yes, "wonderful" is the word. That frickin' guy! The report was pretty honest, and a good stepping stone to starting a 2008 run. We hopefully can begin to depolarize the country since we will have (most likely) all new candidates for the Big Two.



Moderate, but only in the sense that a purist model will fail when applied (and that holds true of any political theory). We need practical, systemic, and systematic change, but yet we need to maintain the status quo, if not increase it (that would be a good portion of the point of all of this).



Yes. Simple as that.

It does get aggravating when not seen as a Libertarian because you might be worldly or practical.

We can not chop the legs off the infrastructure, and hope the system can recoup the loses with little to no strain on the economy, etc.

Change (evidentially unbeknownst to the average public), needs to be coupled with change in other areas.

For instance, to eliminate the Dept. of Education (very important to me), we would need to have a staged plan, coupled with a similar timeline for the elimination of the IRS and income tax.

This leads to a release of business and small business to conduct reasonable business practices so long as it does not harm people (i.e. the country or environment, which would in turn damage the people).

This would allow the growth that is needed to absorb the added burden of paying for schooling.

There is more to just that example, but time is short today.

1)Do you consider yourself a "Moderate" or "Purist" Libertarian? (a.k.a. Should the party's platform be progressive eventually attaining the libertarian ideal, or should the platform be purely the libertarian ideal?)

I have to disagree with the premise that having a strong ideal different than the current status will result in automatic problems for your party. In fact, as people and things get out of hand, populations tend to go with major political shifts. Some quick examples are the National Socialist party in 20th century Germany, and the Communist Party in 20th century Russia. The former was even elected democratically! Not that I want to compare the LP party with either of those, but many people can point out an overwhelming sense of friction and hardship (either economically, spiritually, or ideologically) occuring.

The problem of becoming moderate for many 3rd parties is that their platforms are easily 'gobbled' up by the larger parties. Those hanging on the a thread to the LP agenda are easily swayed when another party, who in their minds have a better chance of winning, adopts the moderate ideas. The major parties, however, stand little chance of adopting the more ideological platforms of the LP party, and as such, that is what distinguishes the LP party and makes it viable alternative in any political race.

To answer the question, I am more of a "purist," but I recognize most changes have to be done in steps. The moderate's goals typically fall short of what the philosophy covers. That is, while the philosophy may require small steps to get the ideal goal, a moderate's goal is one of those small steps. It is here we can really point out that a half-assed political system does not get us very far. For example, the communist countries typically only put half of what Marx suggested in their political theory (thus becoming Stalinist, or what-have-you).


2)Are you going involve yourself actively, by going to a State/National Convention?


I involve myself by putting doubts into the hearts and minds of other voters. I have found that intellectual discussions and debates do much more on an individual basis than mere gatherings of like minded folks or carrying around a sign. Nay, politics is a mind game, and you have to play on that court. It is just sad to see that 3rd parties are typically unable to play -- TV debates of all candidates running rarely occur.

-Radardog

I think I'm somewhere between moderate and purist. If you believe government is a necessary evil, if you vote for another to "represent" you in opposing will on another, you can't be considered a purist libertarian.

I definitely plan on bein a lot more involved starting in 2005, I think in general people are sick of politics still and the holidays are upon us giving me little time and energy right now. I plan on getting to the conventions, I imagine their quite interesting.

As for the Post Election Report, thanks for posting that, it was quite informative. All the Libertarians here should check it out. National Party leadership is, to be blunt, a #in joke. I can't believe Badnarik did as well as he did being a less than qualified candidate with a terrible running-mate; coupled with the absolute lack of leadership and assistance at the NLP level. The same basic cluster of people seem to have been on the top for the last decade. We need a change.

What I think should do is not necessarily change the LP platform, but add a tenet entitled something like: "Reasonable Actions to Meet Party Goals". Basically how to get from here to there without the nation dependant on government collapsing underneath us. That's what scares people about the LP, the fact we've been indocrinated to use and accept the government as a crutch. We need to say this is what we're ultimately going to do, but this is what we're going to do to get there. Badnarik's exit strategy for Iraq was an exit without strategy. The government just can't be swept from under peoples feet. It will just lead to miserable failure. Like I said in another thread, it's hard to hold libertarian ideals in a non-libertarian world!

I am a moderate with purests leanings because, as everyone else already said, you have to wean society off the Government Tit, to much at once would through our country and could cause a backlash that would make things worse.

As KJ said also, almost no system works in its purest form and ours is no different, I would not trust the LP to control ALL branches of Government no more than I do the Republicans. I think the answer is to wean us off the government and keep going till we strike the balance, which in my Ideal is a government strong enough to protect its citizens from foreign aggression, be the middle man in disputes between the states and little if anything more.

I am already active in both local and National levels and will continue till I die

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Amuk]

That'll be a long time buddy.

I don't mean to rain on your parade but:
1) Hitler was not elected, his party got a very small fraction of the votes and claimed a few seats on their equivalent of a congress. They made a opint of creating problem(disrupting meetings and so forth) and so to appease them their equivalent of a President decided to name Hitler their equivalent of a Vice-President. The "president" then mysteriously "fell ill" and Hitler blackmailed "congress" into passinga law that gave him absolute power.

2)The communist took control of Russia by leadinga revalution of the people against the monarchy during WW1. When did they get "elected" outside of their own "one party" elections?




You said that right. Every vote does count.

*Sigh*

Why do people doubt me?



Hitler was appointed within the law. The NAZI party was the largest elected party, starting with large gains in 1932.

"In the November 1932 Reichstag election, the Nazi Party dipped somewhat to 196 seats but this still put them way ahead of their nearest rivals, the Social Democrats on 121 seats.

...

He [Hitler] had the support of the Reichstag and his party was the most popular in Germany. On January 30th 1933, Hitler was summoned to Hindenburg’s chambers and sworn in as chancellor."

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

The electionin March, 1933 had the NAZIs gaining over 50% of the popular vote (hey, better than some US presidents!).

"
Communists 4.8 million votes
Social Democrats 7.2 million votes
Centre party 5.5 million votes
Nationalists 3.1 million votes
Other parties 1.4 million votes
Nazis 17.3 million votes "

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...




I only said the former was elected democratically into power (that meaning the NAZIs). Sorry for any confusion.

-Radardog

Yes, third parties have to distingish themselves or be "'gobbled' up" as you put it. But seeing the stark similarities in the Democrats and Republicans, it's not hard to distinguish youself. (Unless your taken over see Reform Party)



As do I, we can take smaller steps and still get a pure libertarian finished product.



Can you elaborate? I don't exactly follow 100%, so I won't comment.



Just look at the state of our Constitutional Republic, it's failing at the foundation. We need to fix it, by influencing the people. Teaching them that Libertarians are not just "gun-nut, drug-smokin', prostitute-lovin' anarchists", we are a positive force, a force of liberty and freedom.



I agree, one on one, is the easiest way to influence an individual. But political campaigns reach the people you can't one on one.



I Agree.
_____________________________________________________________

Further more, one of the things that attracted me to this party was the fact they admitted a Constitution existed, and was suppose to be followed. I feel this is a great hammer to hit the RepubliCrats with. People generally agree with you if you invoke why a certain law should not be passed, due to constitutional limitations.


P.S. Radardog, I know your right. Hitler was elected with a substancial amount of votes. A majority of Germans ELECTED their failure. (Pictures Bush, "Don't blame me, I voted for liberty.")

P.S.S. Mr. Bush: a popular vote of 51% is not give you a large amount of "political capital" as you pout, you're just happy you can not worry about another election.

"The moderate's goals typically fall short of what the philosophy covers. That is, while the philosophy may require small steps to get the ideal goal, a moderate's goal is one of those small steps. "

What I mean by this is that a moderate platform usually lists a specific step as the platform goal. While a realistic purist will put on the platform the purist goal and steps needed to obtain it.

For example, a moderate republican platform (which it currently is, economically) might say something like "We are for lower taxes." While a far right wing platform may say, "We are for little to no taxes, and will reduce taxes constantly to get it there." Obviously, the latter will scare the more timid away, but at the same time, gives a stark contrast.

Ironically, as the republican and democrat platforms get more moderate to include as many voters as possible, they are starting to sound much more alike. If you noticed in the Kerry and Bush economic debates, they did not disagree much with respect to future policies!

Well then call me a "realistic purist", I think there are the two camps who call themselves "moderates".
The "realistic purists", and "philosophical moderates". The "realists" call themselves "moderates" to distinguish themselves from the "idealist purists". The "philosophical moderates" call themselves "moderates" to show their differences between the "philosophical puristists".
_____________________________________________________________
This is how I see the major factions in the party, if I forgot one let me know. (let's not get started on Rands, etc.)

- Philosophical Purists (libertarian philosopicalists)
+ Idealists (Now)
+ Realistic Purists (Eventually)

- Philosophical Moderates
+ Moderates

_____________________________________________________________


And let me add that numerous economists, myself too, (an Econ. student) viewed both Bush and Kerry's Economic plans as disasters waiting to happen. Read the Financial Times and The Economist

I would consider myself a moderate as well.

I would also agree that you can't change the world over night. The change needs to be subtle to be accepted.

One of the things I think a lot of people over look is that our system of government is a Representative system. Those of our government were not put into those positions to do whatever the hell they want to. They were put there to represent the ideals and views of those who elected them.

I think what the LP can do is to take that ideal of representation back to a grass roots position. Let people know that we are there to represent them, and that we feel they know best what is right for them. The LP doesn't want to impose laws on them, they want to allow people to chose what's right for them. To me that is a basic principal of individual liberty.

How do we get to a point where people will become accepting of the LP ideals? I think you need to start locally. If you can get LP town consoluers, and county commisioners, those are the ones who most directly influence the daily lives of people. Once people see that the LP doesn't want to be as intrusive on their lives as the other 2, they will most likely remember the freedoms that have been developed locally.

They will also remember that candidate, when they run for a state or federal office.

I am moderate in my feelings..

But I got initially put off by the LP itself by the Purists harping that its thier way or the by-way. Not a way to get new members to start joining the party itself.

But then again.. I have a long standing mini-fued going on at FreeRepublic because of my Libertarian feelings also..

So I continue the fight to be a independent thinker.. no matter what party purist who attacks my beliefs.. LOL (LP. RNC, or DNC)

What I fail to understand is how divided the LP party seems to have become in the past three years. I changed my party affiliation in my home state last year (I am in the military) but the information I got from the state LP gives me the willies about whats going on in the national LP convention.

Personally, I liked Badnarik for speaking plainly on what he believed... Much more refreshing than Bush and Seat of the Pants Kerry (who has not been the champion of the military since I first joined 20 years ago).

[edit on 22-9-2005 by kitanis]

I tend to think most people are 'centrists', they tend to agree with points from both of the 'major' political parties and it becomes a case of 'who will do the least harm'? when you vote them into power which is one of the major problems.

Who knows, soon we might see a party which can at a grass routes level get the support it needs because I honestly believe the majority of people would back such a group. Pro-Abortion, Pro-Welfare State, Pro-Low Taxation, Anti-Gun Control, etc...but nobody has thought of bothering yet and the ones that have tried, are some of the worst public speakers you could imagine.