Alicia Mattson, who chairs the national LP Platform Committee, sent me (and over 5,000 others) an e-mail today regarding the LP's survey of its membership on platform revision.
Here's what she says, in part:
What is profoundly clear from the results are that pragmatic Libertarians are in the ascendancy. Virtually every survey question was answered with large majorities favoring a common-sense rather than an ideological approach to Libertarianism as a modern American political movement.
Here are a few of the statements that garnered huge support:
When asked, "Platforms serve both internal and external purposes. Which of the following more closely represents your opinion about what should be the principal purpose of our party platform?" 81% of the respondents chose "Our platform should be more of an externally-focused document to market our party to voters," over "Our platform should be more of an internally-focused document to guide our candidates."
In other words, we will actually try to sell our ideas to voters, rather than engaging in tail-chasing, self-referential debates that gain us exactly zero new voters.
When asked, "Which of the following more closely represents your opinion about how much implementation detail should be included in our platform planks?" 68% said "We should include very little to no implementation detail. State only the general principles and leave it to our candidates to address how to implement them," over "We should provide comprehensive details on how to implement each plank."
In other words, we will no longer tie candidates who espouse greater personal and economic freedom to nutty ideas like the immediate abolition of Medicaire or public education.
You can read the entire outcome of the survey here.
Overall, I am very pleased with these results. If the LP national convention actually acts on these results, it might be a significant step toward creating a real, competitive political party based in pragmatic reality instead of absolutist ideology.
On the other hand, the radicals have a long history of stacking the convention delegations with enough votes to turn back any meaningful change.
To be honest, I'm going to watch this fight unfold rather than participate.
Instead of engaging in third-party infighting, I see my own self-appointed task as trying to preach common-sense, pragmatic Libertarianism to anyone in or out of Delaware who will listen.
Here's what she says, in part:
I want to thank all 5,047 of you who responded when I asked for your input.
I'm simply astounded and grateful that we have such a large number of people willing to help guide me with my Platform Committee duties.
As you'll recall, I wanted to find out what recommendations the Platform Committee could offer the national convention delegates that would have the best chance of winning the 2/3 vote required for adoption.
I didn't really know what to expect from the questionnaire results and was very anxious to see the statistics, as some of you also are.
What I didn't expect is how clear your answers would be. There were no questions for which the results were close to a 50/50 split.
What is profoundly clear from the results are that pragmatic Libertarians are in the ascendancy. Virtually every survey question was answered with large majorities favoring a common-sense rather than an ideological approach to Libertarianism as a modern American political movement.
Here are a few of the statements that garnered huge support:
When asked, "Platforms serve both internal and external purposes. Which of the following more closely represents your opinion about what should be the principal purpose of our party platform?" 81% of the respondents chose "Our platform should be more of an externally-focused document to market our party to voters," over "Our platform should be more of an internally-focused document to guide our candidates."
In other words, we will actually try to sell our ideas to voters, rather than engaging in tail-chasing, self-referential debates that gain us exactly zero new voters.
When asked, "Which of the following more closely represents your opinion about how much implementation detail should be included in our platform planks?" 68% said "We should include very little to no implementation detail. State only the general principles and leave it to our candidates to address how to implement them," over "We should provide comprehensive details on how to implement each plank."
In other words, we will no longer tie candidates who espouse greater personal and economic freedom to nutty ideas like the immediate abolition of Medicaire or public education.
You can read the entire outcome of the survey here.
Overall, I am very pleased with these results. If the LP national convention actually acts on these results, it might be a significant step toward creating a real, competitive political party based in pragmatic reality instead of absolutist ideology.
On the other hand, the radicals have a long history of stacking the convention delegations with enough votes to turn back any meaningful change.
To be honest, I'm going to watch this fight unfold rather than participate.
Instead of engaging in third-party infighting, I see my own self-appointed task as trying to preach common-sense, pragmatic Libertarianism to anyone in or out of Delaware who will listen.
Comments
It made me feel more comfortable with the national party. I will wait to see what happens, because the constant in-fighting about which direction to take when there is only one road to choose from is driving me crazy. I'm waiting to see what happens... maybe I'll renew my LNC membership then.
I'm still upset that they are not capitalizing on the supreme amount of disapproval in Washington, and use it to draw attention to themselves.
Maybe they're waiting until they see which knucklehead is running against the other, and work that angle.
Maybe they're too busy with in-fighting to realize they are squandering a prime opportunity.
If not "immediate," then someday? Someday abolish Medicare and public education if Libertarians had their way?
Dana,
Of course there are Libertarians who have more radical views that include these issues, just as there are Progressives who advocate fully socialized medicine instead of single-payer. And the business of winning elections is about building coalitions of people willing to travel down the same road together at least for awhile.
Medicaire does need to be reformed, and the role of the Feds in public education needs to be drastically changed. And the fact that you don't agree with me on that is what causes us to differ.
Ironically, as Michelle Obama said at DSU on Thursday, however, in many of these areas I don't think our differences are that great.