Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: The Libertarian Party Gets on the Ron Paul Bandwagon

September 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Over the weekend, the Libertarian National Committee made a bold move, breaking with party custom, to basically endorse the candidacy of Ron Paul and commit resources to help him in his Republican nomination fight.

LP executive director Shane Cory wrote in an email today:

We plan to use the Ballot Base to affect a Republican primary. To do so, we give up the following:
The use of a server that is not even moderately used during the political off-season.
An independent expenditure of $2,120 to purchase the New Hampshire voter files of registered Republicans.
Moderate use of staff time.

This appear to be a relatively small effort, but it is significant because it moves the LP closer to being a player in mainstream politics, much like the Conservative Party has done in New York for quite awhile.

Whether or not this particular effort helps Ron Paul, the change of strategy should help the LP in the long run because the precedent has been set for endorsing candidates in other parties. The other parties now have a reason to care about what the LP is up to -- individual candidates in the major parties could court LP support. For LP members (and potential members) the party now offers another benefit -- the chance to influence the major parties.

This setup, which looks somewhat like an interest group -- like the Sierra Club or National Rifle Association, could be the key for massive party growth in size and influence.

Maybe the party IS worth fighting for?

/KDR

Comments

Heh, I got a petition in the mail, from the Libertarian Party, for Ron Paul. I suppose there are folks out there that believe that, if Ron ran on the Libertarian ticket, they might actually pick up something like 5% of the vote! ZOMG!

Posted by: Tarvok | December 11, 2007 08:33 PM

Un-*******-believable.

Posted by: Tim Peck | December 12, 2007 07:22 PM

This is indeed a very wise strategy for the Libertarian Party. So, of course, the bureaucratic hippies who make up much of the party's activist base are screaming bloody murder.

Unless the LP decides to continue the path started in 2006, Ron Paul would do well to stay well away. The nitpickers will have a cow over his positions on immigration and abortion. And the very culture of the LP is at odds with Ron Paul; he fits in better with the Constitution Party crowd.

Posted by: Carl | December 13, 2007 10:50 AM

I agree that this was an expedient move for the LP, though I would quibble a bit with the title of this article; if my personal observations of the Ron Paul revolution is any indication, grass-roots Libertarians *are* the bandwagon, not simply on it. Their leaders are the ones trying to keep up, it seems. :)

Posted by: Bo Zimmerman | December 13, 2007 03:56 PM

I've never been accused of being a bureaucratic hippy.

The greater frustration within the LP is that 90% of what Paul advocates is what they agree with. The energy and hope is based on the possibility of success in a major party. Paul's inevitable failure there cannot be blamed on the LP.

Mr. Milstead would make it seem that our failure is due to the steely eyed conviction of zealots who would rather suffer defeat than budge on principle. The reality of third parties is far simpler, regardless of the 'issues' straw man assertions made so often.

Posted by: Eric Sundwall | December 13, 2007 05:05 PM

Eric S.: I was not referring to you when I said bureaucratic hippies. I don't know you. I was referring to my experiences at LP conventions where debates over rules of debate took precedence over debating issues of substance. I was referring to the fact that the party has excessive management infrastructure to the point where leaders have to hold multiple party offices. I was thinking of the LPVA SCC and the NoVa LP which put in immense efforts into bylaws.

That's the bureaucratic part. The hippie part is a reference to the LP drug war position.

Posted by: Carl | December 13, 2007 06:44 PM

As a member of the LNC and presumably the bureaucracy, one can understand why I take umbrage.

The drug war is a necessary component of a proper third party function, to drive issues that will otherwise be ignored.

The offices problem wouldn't be one with more money and people, it would just be a natural outgrowth of success, no ?

Posted by: Eric Sundwall | December 13, 2007 06:58 PM

Eric S.: If you are a member of the LNC, then you are the target of my compliment. I was complimenting the LNC, and aiming a potshot at the LP members who are taking the LNC to task for violating the bylaws.

The term "bureaucratic hippie" was aimed at the critics of the LNC within LP.

My own last position within the LP was webmaster at the county level. I was thus threatened with a judiciary committee action for starting a Ron Paul meetup group. This was the last of many straws, and concluded my association with the LP. The LNC is now in for similar treatment.

Posted by: Carl | December 13, 2007 07:38 PM

RE: The Drug Warriors

As a libertarian-minded-outsider, I totally agree the drug war is a colossal waste of money, an immoral intrusion on individual liberty, and a hideous enabler of police-statist tendencies. Having said that, the LP should not parade explicit support for drug legalization, imho, because of how it has historically played with the common voter. Consider divorce, sex with animals, or satan-worship -- they're legal, sure, but imagine the perception of an organization that made them explicitly central to their platform, mentioning it repeatedly in their literature.

Politically speaking, some things distasteful to the masses should be presented as necessarily politically tolerated, but not loudly and proudly supported.

Again, just a view from the outside; yours in liberty,
Bo Zimmerman

Posted by: Bo Zimmerman | December 14, 2007 06:49 PM