Skip to main content

Imagine there's no LNC--it's easy if you try.... (With apologies to John Lennon)

The current venal and moronic conduct of the Libertarian National Committee and the Bob Barr campaign make it patently clear that this incarnation of the Libertarian Party is on the brink of disintegration at the national level.

Ironically, there are more potential Libertarian voters out there than ever, and in states like North Carolina, Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and--yes, even Delaware, the State parties are growing and earning both media attention and voter support.

Isn't it time to take back national control of the Libertarian movement from a group composed primarily of self-serving parasites?

How would this be done?

As I pointed out in an email answer to George Donnelly, the Libertarian Party does not--indeed, cannot--have a lock on the term Libertarian. In multi-party European democracies, for example, there are often distinct parties in existence as Social Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Christian Democrats, and/or Progressive Democrats.

A Libertarian Alliance [feel free to think up a better name] as a national umbrella would not be difficult to start, and it could act by doing something exceptionally libertarian: competing in the free market for the allegiance of the State Libertarian parties.

Moreover, it could be organized from the bottom up, with fund-raising decentralized to the States, who would be the primary conduits of cash to the national organization based on the willingness of the national organization to support the states.

George's work on the Libertarian candidates' website proves that we don't have to pay Communications Directors who can't communicate in order to perform legitimate party functions.

The DailyKOS and the netroots organizations being exploited so successfully by the Obama campaign prove that with our already existing network of blogs and social network pages we have the beginnings of a decentralized but quite effective movement.

Then maybe we'd have a website, a newsletter, and even a staff dedicated to electing State and local Libertarians or at least to supporting the insertion of Libertarian ideas and ideals at the State and local level.

The only good thing about the ongoing dissolution of the national Libertarian Party headquarters is that most people who might vote for Michael Munger, Allen Buckley, Scotty Boman, Jason Gatties, Tom Knapp, Eric Schansberg, or Mark Anthony Parks will never hear of it.

If the Libertarian movement is ever to be a significant influence in American politics, we have to change what we're doing, because aside from picking up the right-wing protest vote, what we're doing at the national level just ain't working.

Hell, at this point I'd even be quite happy if the new Libertarian Alliance decided in 2012 not to worry about running a Presidential candidate at all (or not more than a ceremonial/educational candidate), while concentrating on actually using the combined intellectual abilities of people like Dr Mary Ruwart, Dr George Phillies, George Donnelly, Angela Keaton, GE Smith,, Brian Miller, Michael Munger, and dozens more to figure out how to actually elect even a handful of Libertarians to the House of Representatives.

It actually could happen.

But only if we decide to make it happen.

Comments

George Donnelly said…
Em, my name has no business being placed among those others. Seriously, all I've done is run my mouth and make a simple website. :)

I like your idea. It's intriguing.

I've also been thinking about what the positive consequences of not focusing so much on the presidential race could be.

I wonder what the negative consequences of it could be though, especially for ballot access. There's probably a middle ground.

Good post.
John Famularo said…
The LNC inc, has applied for a copyright on "national Libertarian party" and "party of principle". I don't know where these stand at the moment.

However, I don't think that the party name should not be that important especially when you are contemplating a bottom up organization.

If the plan is to create a viable political entity in which “libertarians” would be comfortable, i think it would be unwise to use “libertarian” in the party name. It would only encourage debate as to what “libertarian” means exactly. You want to recruit doers not debaters. If you want policy debates join CATO or ISIL or FFF etc.

As the internet becomes more ubiquitous and multifaceted, managing a nationwide coalition of local activists becomes easier and less expensive.
Anonymous said…
The LNC would need to be able to defend the trademark in court. Commonly used words cannot be trademarked for exclusive use, and at the way its finances and support are cratering, LNC Inc. would not have the financial resources to attempt to enforce its "rights" anyway.
Thomas L. Knapp said…
The LNC was not the first entity to use the term "Libertarian Party" in commerce, nor has it, so far as I know, attempted to defend that term as its property in the 30 years or so that it has existed. Its trademark claim is entirely without merit.

The LNC is at most a custodian of the term "Libertarian Party" on behalf of the LNC's owners -- the state LPs which created the LNC and which can dissolve it at any national convention or disown it any time they like.
John Famularo said…
Tom Knapp said:
"the state LPs which created the LNC and which can dissolve it at any national convention or disown it any time they like."

I'm not so sure about that. Since the LNC, inc is a DC corporation AND a federal pac, it controls the bank accounts and pays the employees. Even if a national convention disavowed the LNC,inc how would they wrest control from the LNC.
That was the main reason I moved against Perry Willis and Harry Browne in 2001. The LNC was contemplating giving effective control of the Libertarian Party name and membership list by contract to the Browne organization.

Instead they had to go off and start downsizeDC.org to milk the suckers.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...