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 — ...

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici...