Skip to main content

Libertarian may be the wrong name for a political party

This is not exactly news, but a comment in response to a Peter Orvetti post on moderate libertarians at Independent Political Report got me thinking about it again.

Erik Geib says

I still feel like most of this in-fighting wouldn’t be so severe if the party simply weren’t named after a philosophy.


There are reasons that the Democratic Party is not named the Liberal Party or the Progressive Party, which is the same reason that the Republicans don't call themselves the Conservative Party.

When I break it down I get two main reasons:

(1) Because not all Democrats are progressive/liberal, and not all Republicans are that conservative. Instead, the parties are (or at least were in the case of the severely wounded GOP) vehicles for groups of political fellow travelers to use to win elections at all levels of government. Because of the way they are named (see the item below), they can accommodate Democratic Senators that are as conservative as Bayh or Carper in the same party with Dodd or Kennedy. The Libertarian Party, however, gets tied up in endless what kind of Libertarian are you and who are the real Libertarians, you're not distractions to the point wherein it implodes and convinces the American voter that they are definitely not ready for prime time.

(2) The names themselves--Democrat and Republican-- are perfect for political parties, wherein Libertarian is fatally flawed. We are a Democracy and a Republic [at least in some non-purist sense], so both parties can lay legitimate claim in that sense to being about all Americans. Libertarian is the name of an ideology, not a party--by definition a sub-set [and a fairly damned exclusive one at that] of the total populace. For a third party to be effectively organized around generally Libertarian principles, as the Dems are oganized around generally liberal principles, it needs a different name.

The problem is that the remaining good names are problematic. Somebody in the thread I quoted suggested Liberty Party, and I have always thought that Constitution Party, Federalist Party, and even Reform Party had good points. Problem: you've got to be able to turn the party name into an adjective--Democrat or Republican--and the only way to do that with Liberty Party is ... Libertarian!? Not gonna work.

Constitution, Federalist, and Reform names have already been taken by people whose ideas--in many ways--are not quite what we'd be looking for.

Freedom Party? Oops--too much like the Freepers.

Free Market Party? Too much economics and not enough individual liberty.

Civil Liberties Party? Possible, because civil libertarian, strangely enough, does not have quite the baggage attached to it that plain Libertarian does.

Jeffersonian Party? I'd kind of like it because I am an unreconstructed fan of TJ, but in the current time the image of Sally Hemmings pretty much cuts away at everything.

Bull Moose Party? Don't tempt me.

Thomas Paine Alliance? You'd get called Pains

Common Sense Party? Too much Glenn Beck association for me.

Objectivist Party? Hello Ayn Rand. Goodby votes.

Civil Resistance Party? Stolen from Venezuela. Better give it back.

Constitutional Union Party? Too Statist for a lot of Libertarians--too Civil War-era for a lot of other folks.

Limited Government Party?

Indepedent Citizens Party?

Obviously I need some help here.

But you knew that already.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why not the TR party?
Anonymous said…
Tea Party?
George Phillies said…
Liberty for America

We're "Americans".
Bowly said…
Your comment about civil libertarians made me chuckle, because as a Rothbardian type I always assume that a "civil libertarian" doesn't care about economic liberty or gun ownership.

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 ...