Tag Archives | Left and Right

Announcement of Candidacy for LPA Chair

I’m announcing my candidacy for Chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama, as part of a slate whose overall program is summarised as follows:

A slate of candidates will be presented for election at the upcoming state party convention on June 27th 2009.

Chair: Dr. Roderick Long
Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University
http://praxeology.net

Vice Chair: Matthew Givens
Former LPA Vice Chair and candidate for PSC
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com

Secretary: Steve Dow
Former LPA Chair and current At-large EC member

Treasurer: Jim Albea
Current At-large EC member

The individuals on this slate share a common vision and operating model for the LPA as follows:

1) Lean internal expenses. Dispense with maintaining an office in Birmingham and decentralize the administration of the party.

2) Focus on building and activating the membership base with less of an emphasis on fundraising.

3) Achievable 2010 electoral strategy. While not cast in stone, given the present barriers to statewide ballot access, the strategy would be to target a few local races where we have the best chance of having an impact.

The plan is to have this group of individuals and this agenda considered as a whole.

(See also this thread for some of the background issues.)

An additional part of the proposed vision is for the Chair to be concerned primarily with the formulation of policy statements and speaking to the press, rather than combining the roles of chief spokesperson and chief administrator as has been done in the past.

So, given my view that electoral politics should not be the primary focus of libertarian activism, why am I interested in this position?

Well, I’ve never bought the argument that electoral politics should play no role in political activism; quite the contrary. And in any case I don’t see the LP as being solely about electoral politics; it’s at least as much about political education and nonelectoral activism, or anyway it should be. The objection that activism via a political party will mistakenly encourage people to focus on political campaigns rather than on building alternative institutions is, I think, well-taken; but that danger has to be balanced against the party’s usefulness as a tool of education. And given that my prospective role would be centrally in the educational and vision-shaping side of the deal, I find the weights coming down in its favour; moreover, this would be a chance for me to promote libertarian ideals to an audience I don’t ordinarily reach, and to pitch them in the way I think they need to be pitched.

I’m also a longtime member of the Grassroots Libertarian Caucus, whose vision statement runs as follows:

We are a group of activists within the Libertarian Party of the United States, part of the global libertarian movement. Our caucus, founded in September 2005, exists to promote the following five key values for our party:

(I) BOTTOM-UP, NOT TOP-DOWN. We see a party that too often takes after the establishment parties and corporations rather than manifesting itself as a grassroots organization with revolutionary goals. We seek a decentralized Libertarian Party run by its members and activists rather than by a centralized clique of corporate-oriented professionals.

(II) POLITICALLY BALANCED. We see a party which has become too conservative in both style and substance. We seek to restore a balanced approach to Libertarian Party policy-making and outreach that strives to appeal to the political left as much as to the political right and emphasizes personal liberty no less than economic liberty.

(III) FUN, BOLD, AND FREE-SPIRITED. We see a party that has become too staid, timid, boring, and unimaginative. We seek a culture within the Libertarian Party that is bolder, more irreverent, more free-spirited, more creative, and more fun-loving.

(IV) RADICAL AND PROUD. We see a party that has become too ashamed of its own ideals, a place where “idealist” is too often treated as a dirty word. We seek a party in which Libertarians proudly share a sense of solidarity as radical freedom fighters in a larger movement committed to the vision of worldwide individual liberty expressed in the Preamble and Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party’s national platform.

(V) YOUTH-FOCUSED. We see a party that is largely failing to connect with young people. We seek a Libertarian Party whose style, structure, culture, and materials speak first and foremost to the younger generations who hold the future in their hands.

Now I’m part of a slate that’s calling for a more decentralised and transparent party structure, which fits in nicely with point (I) above; and my position as Chair, as that role is envisioned in the proposed program, would allow me to promote the values outlined in points (II), (III), and (IV). The game is afoot!

Agorist Demerit Count: scale broken

Libertarian Party of Alabama


Smoke Gets In Your Eyes

Bilbo blowing a smoke ringI saw Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute on the news tonight making an eminently left-libertarian point: while many tobacco companies oppose the new restrictions on cigarette advertising, the nation’s largest, Philip Morris, supports it – because restrictions on advertising benefit major brands at the expense of smaller, lesser-known brands that have more need to advertise. While Congress postures as an opponent of Big Tobacco, Cannon noted, in practice it consistently supports it, even through its purportedly anti-smoking policies.

Baptists and bootleggers, anyone?


The Atrocity of Hope, Part 6: Put Not Your Trust In Princes

ObushmaThe Obama administration offers a legal defense of “don’t ask, don’t tell” – on the grounds that it’s “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.” (In other words, the administration isn’t just delaying repeal, but is actively affirming the reasoning behind the policy – a policy our President Incarnate claims to oppose.)

The Obama administration offers a legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act – on the grounds that “courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum.” (Quite true – the Supreme Court did uphold anti-miscegenation laws, for example. Still, an awkward precedent for this administration to invoke, one would have thought.)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


Bartlett’s Quotation

The secret to building a successful political alliance is to direct loony insults at your potential allies.

Bruce Bartlett holding his knowledge of libertarianism

Or at least so a good many people seem to think, from Keith Preston on the right to, now, Bruce Bartlett on the left (well, using “left” generously to apply to this mainstream Republican apparatchik turned mainstream Democratic pundit). Bartlett opines:

[M]ost self-described libertarians are primarily motivated by economics. In particular, they don’t like paying taxes. They also tend to have an obsession with gold and a distrust of paper money. As a philosophy, their libertarianism doesn’t extent much beyond not wanting to pay taxes, being paid in gold and being able to keep all the guns they want. Many are survivalists at heart and would be perfectly content to live in complete isolation on a mountain somewhere, neither taking anything from society nor giving anything. …

[T]here is a theoretical case to be made for liberals and libertarians at least continuing a dialogue. But for it to go anywhere, libertarians must scale back their almost single-minded focus on economic freedom as the sole determinant of liberty. They must work harder to defend civil liberties and resist expansion of the police state whether it involves suspected terrorists, illegal aliens or those who enjoy smoking marijuana.

Libertarians should also be more outspoken about America’s disastrous foreign policy, which Obama seems to be doing very little to fix. … The main problem seems that neither liberals nor libertarians are up to challenging the loudmouthed bullies on talk radio and Fox News who equate anything less than a 100% commitment to the “war on terror” as treasonous.

(CHT Peter Klein.)

Y’know, I’m all for arguing that libertarians need to place more emphasis on the left-wing aspects of the ideology; and it’s certainly true that some elements (cough, the Libertarian Party, cough) of the movement have been stressing economic freedom at the expense of personal freedom. (Hence my agreement with Point 2 of the Grassroots Libertarian program.) But this Bartlett dude must be living in some sort of impervious energy bubble if he thinks libertarians haven’t been saying much about – haven’t, indeed, been at the forefront of discussing – civil liberties, abusive cops, the drug war, or the war on terror. I mean, who does he think runs Antiwar.com?


The Atrocity of Hope, Part 5: Thanks For Helping Me Get In Power, Suckers

Here’s what the defenders of Sotomayor’s nomination are saying:

Known as a moderate on the court, Sotomayor often forges consensus and agreeing [sic] with her more conservative nominees far more frequently than she disagrees with them. In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time.

So in other words, by making this nomination, Obama is stabbing his supporters in the back? Yay?


Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes