Is it Time to Question the Libertarian Party?

This letter from Karen Kwiatkowski who writes for Libertarian websites like LewRockwell.com. She questions the LP's commitment to Libertarian principals.

Open Letter to Mark Hinkle, Libertarian Party National Chair


Dear Mark,

Your email to me on March 30, 2011 expressed concern that in a speech I gave a few days ago, I criticized the Libertarian Party for becoming associated with pro-war rhetoric, and not sticking to libertarian principles. You asked, “…why level a critique against the Libertarian Party for the pro-war support of a minority within the Party?” and wanted me to name names.

Because the LP has taken a very public stand that it is a party founded and based on principle, not popularity, it makes itself vulnerable to criticism for appearing unprincipled. The 2008 LP presidential nomination of well-known conservative Bob Barr, and the promotion to Chair of the LP National Congressional Committee of the rabidly pro-war Wayne Allyn Root caused people of all political stripes to look at the LP and wonder whether the principle of the party was peaceful libertarianism, or just political experimentation and number-crunching.

These less principled Libertarian figures may have represented the minority view of the party, but their names are strongly associated with the LP, hence my criticism. In fact, even before the Barr and Root elevations within the party, in 2005, the LP published an “Iraq Exit Strategy” which called for troops leaving gradually, not coming home but instead being redistributed throughout the Middle East, and pouring in direct aid to Iraq’s nascent state-building efforts. This proposal was not at all libertarian. Shockingly, it was as interventionist and imperial as anything put forth by either a Left-Progressive or Right-Conservative think tank.

Wayne Root, in particular, is allowed by the LP to speak for the party, and honest libertarians throughout the American population and within the LP are turned off. You suggest that my criticism of these anti-liberty, pro-state LP voices are the same as criticizing the GOP for being pro-life because some minority members of the GOP are pro-life. But when the GOP fields candidates and spokespersons, particularly at the national level, they toe the party line, and they don’t suggest that there is “room” at the philosophical table. Our own LP table is already small. Embracing statists and nationalists quietly within the party is one thing; making them front and center as a leading voice of recruitment and policy means that these types of unprincipled non-libertarian perspectives become the LP in the minds of everyone.

Why haven’t we, as a party, asked Wayne to simply join one of the war parties?

I have a suggestion for the LP HQ strategists. The focus on vote-getting at the national level has led the LP into precisely the situation that you are noting today (a criticism of the party within liberty circles). I would love to see the party concentrate on supporting local elections of libertarians (which it does nicely), and in DC, to serve primarily as a rating and clearance site for Congressmen and Senators. Take your issues (http://www.lp.org/issues) and create a liberty friendliness rating on each issue for each congressman, much like the John Birch Society does on conservatism. (See http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=2151 ) or as the Heritage Foundation does for economic freedom in countries around the world. This type of approach would make our positions politically applicable and measurable, and a “Liberty “rating will be something many Congressmen will welcome and seek (or angrily react to). It would also allow many of us in the field to jump on it, further making the LP relevant. This way we remain a “party of principle,” with the added benefit of being a party that is listened to, and donated to, because it is loud, proud, and principled.

I also think, that beyond the fleas the LP gets from lying down with characters like Root, and promoting him, we should be careful about our other bedfellows in DC. The Cato Institute does fine work, but it is not as effective in gaining Libertarian friendly legislation and votes as is Jim Babka’s interactive and aggressive DownsizeDC, and nothing Cato has produced on constitutional foreign or domestic policy comes even close to what is done daily over at the Bumper Hornberger’s Future of Freedom Foundation in Reston, VA.

Mark, my fundamental sense of betrayal and anger at the LP for its 2008 shenanigans and for its lack of creativity in the fight for freedom at home is far deeper than anyone would imagine from my limited criticism of the party, mentioned briefly in a long talk. May I take your note as an opening for real change within the LP Central Committee and a real commitment to win the battle for hearts and minds across the country?


Sincerely,
Karen Kwiatkowski
ksusiek@shentel.net


Her criticism is warranted, the Libertarian Party cannot bill itself as the only liberty alternative to Republicans and Democrats with warmonger Wayne Allyn Root as it's main spokesman. The party is supposed to be the party of principals, not the party of lies and death, we already have two of those. Granted Libertarian candidates still have much more credibility than conservatives and liberals but they can't go down to their level in order to beat them.

Neoconservative Infighting

Well it's been a long while since Ann Coulter made any buzz so she decides to join the fray after Micheal Steele's Biden-esque gaff on Afghanistan. Here is a tidbit on her World Net Daily column:

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest. What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops? Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they’re not the ones setting military policy. The president is – and he’s basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins. Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?) I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too. Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we’re all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a “National Greatness Project,” too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president – and look how great that turned out! Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here’s mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.


One might think that Coulter is turning the corner and may start embracing Ron Paul's ideas but in reality she is trying to find something to remain relevant. Liz Cheney and Sarah Palin have stolen her spotlight as it seems. Like how during the Bush years Pat Buchanan was widely irrelevant until illegal/legal immigration came up as a front issue which has been his issue since his presidential campaigns during the 90s. AntiWar.com sums the noninterventionist reaction to her quite nicely


Cockerill asks if Coulter’s outcry “is progress or mere partisanship? Time will tell.” My gut is this is Ann lashing out at the enemy in her own Long War against the conservative elite at the Weekly Standard and National Review. It is Ann making sure that Obama completely owns the disaster in Afghanistan by rewriting current and past history on a fourth grade reading level. It is Ann making sure we don’t forget she is still around and is one tough broad.

But it is not a step forward, but a shuffle in place, her stilettos still kicking out at the usual “cretins” in her universe, a place where Bush is Popeye and Obama is Olive Oyl, and where Coulter spits, “no grass grows, ever.”

Granted I don't see any toughness in Coulter (or for that matter Malkin, Ingram, and other neoconservative women) who's entire shtick is to complain about the complainers. Same would go for the major women in liberal circles Rhodes, Maddow, Miller, etc. Get back to me when the warmongers fight in the wars they advocate instead of just screaming their heads off with the right talking points when they're out of power.

Make Liberty not W.A.R.

As much as I wish it wasn't happening it's happening. Not only is Wayne Allen Root just kissing up to Neoconservatives now it looks like he is now diving deep into conspiracy (think Alex Jones) territory. The Agitator (the personal blog of Libertarian writer Radley Balko has reported that Root will participating on what is being billed by the whack job right "The Trial of the Century". The charges is that Obama was some sort of super secret CIA spy who used his time at Columbia University as a cover to support the Afghan resistance against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan back in 1979 and yes plenty of birtherism is in this "case" too.

I can't say that I'm not surprised since like I mentioned since Obama's election Root seems hell bent on getting approval from Neoconservatives, Paleoconservatives and others of the Statist Right than opposed to show how they are wrong. This of course just brings a whole host of problems especially since Root is running to become Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. If Root becomes chair it will become just another arm of the Republicans and the party will be even less relevant. As any Libertarian knows, Conservatives are not interested in our ideas, just our votes. People like Root and Beck aren't Libertarian they are statist conservatives under a different name. I refuse to buy into the argument that they are making Libertarianism more appealing to people. As to who should be the LNC chair, I'm still in decision mode but I sure as hell don't want Root.

Should Libertarians and Conservatives work together?

It's a thought that has been floating around in Libertarian circles since the election. Hell even it's been discussed at my local party meetings. Some say that for the good of the country we are going to have to swallow our pride, others believe that conservatives deserve to wallow in the mess they created by betraying their so-called principals for power. One my own personal gripe is why should we trust them when all they do is just pay us lip service and if they aren't paying us lip service they will use the fear game of the Democrats being in power.

Peter Schiff gave a speech to a group of Connecticut Libertarians a few days ago saying that the only way to get Libertarian minded people elected is to infiltrate the Republicans. Some say that it's impossible due to the fact that the influence the big government Christian Right and Neoconservatives still have. Then there are the Paleoconservatives who are mostly composed of old Cold Warriors who believe in economic crushing protectionist policies. With these three different types of conservatives who support big government one way or another it's really no wonder why we are skeptical of this idea, despite the amount of respect we have for Peter Schiff.

In all of our differences the one single thing that unites us is taxes for the most part. Things aren't getting better and time is getting short. If we are to take back the country from the right and left wing statist we are going to have to make a choice and hope it's the right choice.

Here is the video of Peter Schiff suggesting the idea