by George J. Dance
This May, 1,000 or so Libertarian Party delegates will gather in Austin, Texas, to pick the party's nominee for President. It promises to be a contentious convention. LP members were divided as never before by Gary Johnson's two runs as nominee, and remain divided on whether the party should continue to run campaigns like that, or radically change direction.
On paper, the party had its most successful presidential campaign ever in 2012, and an even more successful one in 2016. Only once before 2012 had a candidate for POTUS even come close to a million votes (in 1980, the year David Koch financed the campaign from his own pocket). Gary Johnson's campaigns both topped a million votes, and the 2016 campaign - despite the most bipolarized election of this century - topped 4 million.
Yet, to many, the 2016 Johnson campaign was a disaster. In their view, Johnson was the least libertarian candidate for the nomination, and his campaign platform the least libertarian message the party could project. Delegates will be seriously questioning where the LP should go from here. That should include even revisiting the question of what a Libertarian Party is. What is it for? Why even have one?
My definition: The LP is a vehicle for accomplishing libertarian political ends by democratic means. While each libertarian has their own preferred "political ends", there is substantial agreement on those, which the LP has used to create its Platform and Statement of Principles. By democratic means, I mean attracting members and donors, and running candidates and campaigns, in order to gain sufficient votes to influence public policy. Perhaps the LP will never gain enough votes to win; but one does not need to win to change policy.
In the words of Libertarian strategist Tom Knapp:
David Bergland ran probably the most absolutist campaign in party history: great on all the ends. But he attracted just 250,000 votes: bad on the means. Gary Johnson's campaign was absolutist on maybe 3 issues, gradualist on most, and even contradicted the platform on an issue (private discrimination by race or sexual orientation): not as good on the ends. But he attracted 4 million voters: much better on the means.
It is important in 2020 that the Libertarian candidate's campaign be consistent with the ends: changing policies in line with the Platform and the Statement of Principles. But it is also important that the party keep the 4 million people who voted for it, and do all that it can to attract more. The LP delegates need to consider both the ends and the means.
This May, 1,000 or so Libertarian Party delegates will gather in Austin, Texas, to pick the party's nominee for President. It promises to be a contentious convention. LP members were divided as never before by Gary Johnson's two runs as nominee, and remain divided on whether the party should continue to run campaigns like that, or radically change direction.
On paper, the party had its most successful presidential campaign ever in 2012, and an even more successful one in 2016. Only once before 2012 had a candidate for POTUS even come close to a million votes (in 1980, the year David Koch financed the campaign from his own pocket). Gary Johnson's campaigns both topped a million votes, and the 2016 campaign - despite the most bipolarized election of this century - topped 4 million.
Yet, to many, the 2016 Johnson campaign was a disaster. In their view, Johnson was the least libertarian candidate for the nomination, and his campaign platform the least libertarian message the party could project. Delegates will be seriously questioning where the LP should go from here. That should include even revisiting the question of what a Libertarian Party is. What is it for? Why even have one?
My definition: The LP is a vehicle for accomplishing libertarian political ends by democratic means. While each libertarian has their own preferred "political ends", there is substantial agreement on those, which the LP has used to create its Platform and Statement of Principles. By democratic means, I mean attracting members and donors, and running candidates and campaigns, in order to gain sufficient votes to influence public policy. Perhaps the LP will never gain enough votes to win; but one does not need to win to change policy.
In the words of Libertarian strategist Tom Knapp:
“Winning elections” or “maximizing vote totals” are the LP’s means, not the LP’s ends.The end is not the Platform itself, but changing policy to align with it. Policy change could be either an immediate matchup (absolutism) or one of a series of incremental moves toward it (gradualism). Sometimes an absolutist policy may be best to adopt, sometimes a gradualist one. One consideration is the end: which option is closest to the platform? The other is the means: which option will let the party gain and keep the votes needed to actually influence policy?
The LP’s ends are about changing policy to match the party’s platform and Statement of Principles.
David Bergland ran probably the most absolutist campaign in party history: great on all the ends. But he attracted just 250,000 votes: bad on the means. Gary Johnson's campaign was absolutist on maybe 3 issues, gradualist on most, and even contradicted the platform on an issue (private discrimination by race or sexual orientation): not as good on the ends. But he attracted 4 million voters: much better on the means.
It is important in 2020 that the Libertarian candidate's campaign be consistent with the ends: changing policies in line with the Platform and the Statement of Principles. But it is also important that the party keep the 4 million people who voted for it, and do all that it can to attract more. The LP delegates need to consider both the ends and the means.
Nice article, but you knew I would disagree - slightly. Keeping the "4 million" voters would not be valuable if you attracted them with socialist carrots. But I understand your "ends and means" argument. BTW, Harry Browne was the most absolutist and the BEST candidate LP ever had.
ReplyDelete