Are the Portland Pragmatists Impractical Idealists in Disguise?

by Liberty and Power

A gallup poll just found that two thirds of all Americans support withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Nearly one third want to leave immediately, a position more extreme than that of Howard Dean. The poll also revealed that a pitifully small 2 percent of Americans want to send in more troops.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party, in the name of pragmatic reform, has dumped the antiwar plank from the platform. The result, of course, is to cut the LP off from this growing American antiwar majority.

It is hard to imagine how such an isolating decision can be justified as a practical reform to reach more potential voters. Even so, that is what the Portland reformers claim they are doing.

It is natural to wonder to what extent the justification of"pragmatism" is a pretext by pro-war elements to advance a purely ideological position that fewer Americans than ever now hold. If this is the case, why are antiwar libertarians so quick to concede their opponents' claims to be non-ideological? Shouldn't they instead insist that it is they, not the Portland reformers, who are doing the most to hold aloft the flags not only of principle but also of pragmatism?

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Bill Woolsey - 7/13/2006

Bolton is so clever! Ha! Ha! Grab your wallet.

I was appointed to a planning board and served three years. Later I was elected and then reelected to a town council.

I didn't follow any of Kuznicki's approaches. There wasn't much abolishing of this or that. But on zoning issues, I was the sole voice that brought up property rights, and I voted consistently in support of the rights of property owners. My policy was to support zoning restrictions when there was an injury to neighbors or maintain legally defunct covenants (defunct because they were superceded by zoning and so not maintained.) While that was my policy, it never turned out to have practical significance. I ended up with a pretty consistent record of supporting property rights against zoning restrictions on a case-by-case basis.

Usually, I ended up voting against public spending. I didn't advocate having none. It is just that so many of my proposals for less were defeated that I usually ended up voting against the final budget. (Some reductions that I proposed were implimented in those budgets.)

My experience is that a libertarian can be elected to local office and can do good. But it is frustrating. While my campaign slogan of "keep government small" resonated with many voters, none of them seemed to show up to council meetings. The regulars and occassional attendees usually wanted government to do something. And while I voted with the majority much of the time, there were a great many 4-1 votes after we heard a bunch of citizens describe how important some pointless policy would be. Usually, it wouldn't really cost much. Or the one of two people whose property rights were to be violated didn't even bother to show up, probably because they knew which way the wind blew already, and didn't want to be jeered by the other citizens.

What is odd, however, is that after doing that for two years, I ran for reelection and in our mulitple candidate race (vote for four, the top four vote getters have seats,) I got the most votes.

Still, it was a bit depressing.

The town was abolished because of a suit by the city of Charleston, so my second term was cut short. It has now been reinstated. I am undecided about returning to office.

I must admit that I have little use for libertarians who seem best able to make smart-aleck remarks about grabbing their wallets or that if you can't get 50% + 1, why not get .5%. My term for such people is "political masturbaters."

Perhaps Bolton is doing some kind of useful scholarship. I know my political activity has interfered with my research!

But I am glad people like Bolton steer away from libertarian political activism. The sad reality is that too many people have views little different from his, but show up to Libertarian Party conventions and influence the procedeedings! I have a bit of hope after the last one, that the tide is finally turning.

Bill Woolsey - 7/13/2006

What happened is that there are introductory sections for three sections of the platform--roughly personal liberty, economic liberty, and foreign policy. After that introduction, there were planks.

The bylaw that allows delegates to vote up or down on each plank has been interpreted to not include these introductory sections. So, they all remain unchanged.

Apparently, all the foreign policy planks were repealed, leaving the introduction alone.

I think it is unfortunate that it remains.

I believe that Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea should each have planks, favoring withdrawal of forces from the first two, and opposing war with the second two.

Unlike many reformers, I think a long platform is fine, but would make each plank into something like an oped piece arguing for the position on the issue stated by the plank.

Roderick T. Long - 7/12/2006

> Can anyone link a copy of the
> new platform? I've had nothing
> to go on but hearsay for the
> last few days, and it's driving
> me nuts.

It didn't go online until today. Here is the new platform, and here is the old one for comparison.

Turns out the new one hasn't scrapped military noninterventionism completely; it still says:

"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration."

So that's better than what was originally reported. But I still like the old version better.

Jason T. Kuznicki - 7/12/2006

Craig --

Regarding your first point, it sounds like your real problem is with politics in general, not with the LP or with anything it might or might not do. If you sincerely believe that <em>no one</em> can <em>ever</em> resist the temptations presented by holding government office, then you are both 1) more cynical than I am and 2) more cut out for a revolution than for politics.

Regarding your second point, did you read what I wrote? I already offered several steps that libertarians elected to local government might take. These include forbidding eminent domain, repealing zoning laws, and doing all they can do to end the war on drugs. I could easily add more, such as supporting school voucher programs and cutting property taxes.

Note that many real-world politicians have indeed supported these goals, that they are entirely doable, and that they would result in increased liberty for all. Why any of this would be a bad thing is beyond me.

Craig J. Bolton - 7/12/2006

(1) Obviously we have different perceptions of reality. My view of someone with "political experience" is to grab my wallet. Do you really want to appeal to those who have a different and positive reaction?

(2) So, you want libertarians in power. Great, exactly what are they going to do when they obtain power? Something popular like think of more goodie distribution programs, or something unpopular, like take bread and milk from starving children. Doesn't seem to me that a libertarian can win at that game - from the inside. Why do you believe differently?

Bill Woolsey - 7/11/2006

If 15% to 20% of the voters regularly voted Libertarian(which is a very optimistic scenario, I admit,) then it would be clear even to the mass media that there is a market for libertarian opinion. Those providing such opinions would be able to both influence and educate the minority that already leans libertarian, they would also receive more attention among the 80% to 85% who foolishly hold to other sorts of views.

While we cannot be certain what would happen, I believe that having a substantial minority of the population self-identify as libertarian, rather than conservative or liberal, would have a very positive impact on the marketplace of ideas.

There is nothing to prevent various varients of libertarian thought from promoting their ideas within that market.

Generally, I don't think libertarian scholars should be in the business of finding and promoting a libertarian plumbline. We should just be promoting this or that truth, as best we can see it.

Those who are in the business of describing what it means to be a libertarian, should keep things inclusive--a general direction for change relative to the status quo. It should be understood that different libertarians have different notions about the nature of the ideal end state, and further, be accepted that some libertarians don't really have some ideal political order worked out.

No central body, and certainly not a political party, should be laying out the true libertarian line and excommunicating people for deviationism.

It is my opinion that all of us should look more for allies than heretics, but when we wish to draw the line, we should just do so as individuals and not have some scheme of voting to determine the proper boundaries, much less the true libertarian position on all issues.

That followers of Ayn Rand would take the Libertarian Party in the wrong direction isn't too shocking. I suppose there is Hospers to blame a bit, but most of the people were amateur intellectuals. The objectivist high priesthood steered clear.

Rothbard, on the other hand, was a libertarian scholar who tried (and partly suceeded) in making the LP into something almost as bad as the communist party. A party line for everything, and, rhetorically at least, purges of all deviants.

I believe, in the U.S. today, a libertarian party can play a useful role. But not one build on a Leninist model. While those protecting the various traditions introduced by neo-objectivists (for no real good reason) and then completed by Rothbard consciously following a leninist strategy, have no idea what they are doing.

But the result isn't very useful. My view is that .5% of the vote is just too little to provide for an educational role. The LP is ignored, and it does little to promote any varient of libertarian thought.

Anthony Gregory - 7/11/2006

I think another problem that the LP has not helped on is that Americans buy into this misconception that the right is for smaller government, even if only on so-called "economic issues," and the left is for so-called "personal liberty." Libertarians shouldn't try to position themselves as some kind of logical mixture of left and right. The Republicans and Democrats are both hyper-statist parties with virtually nothing to differentiate themselves from each other on any big issue. Are the Democrats calling for legalizing drugs and prostitution? Are the Republicans calling for abolishing the Federal Reserve?

Jason T. Kuznicki - 7/11/2006

15-20% of the vote would do two things.

First, it would entice the two major parties to adopt more libertarian positions, improving conditions slightly in the short term.

Second, it is highly unlikely that this 15-20% would be distributed evenly throughout the country. On the contrary, we would be far more likely to see libertarian enclaves develop, places where LP majorities could govern small towns, counties, perhaps entire states. This would have two good effects: Libertarian candidates would gain valuable political experience, making them credible to those who reflexively dismiss "fringe" groups. And the people who lived in those areas would benefit from local laws that favored freedom (zoning restrictions and eminent domain are two that leap to mind, to say nothing of the war on drugs).

Craig J. Bolton - 7/11/2006

Really. since when has 15-20% of a vote won an election in this sort of electoral system? So what's the point of getting 15-20% rather than 1-2%?

Craig J. Bolton - 7/11/2006

Exactly right, except for the part reading "once the LP performed an educational function." When was that?

Bill Woolsey - 7/11/2006

I believe that LP candidates for Congress should take a position on Iraq. I also believe that they should call for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

I agree that saying nothing about Iraq would be foolish for any candidate for federal office. And while there are some Libertarians who actually support remaining in Iraq, I wouldn't support nominating any of them for federal office. Maybe for state or local office, but only if they were take the sensible approach of keeping their mouths shut about issues not in the purview of their prospective office.

I don't believe that it is essential that the National LP have a platform that says anything at all, much less one that says something about Iraq.

However, I favor having a platform that calls for a withdrawal from Iraq. While such a platform would be good, it isn't essential. Having candidates who compaign on withdrawing from Iraq is essential.

So, I think I agree with Beito's substantative opinions about what the LP should be doing regarding the Iraq situation. I also think this is the majority position among Libertarians.

Where Beito went wrong was in his interpretation of what happened at the LP convention. While there may have been some delegates who believed that the LP should be neutral regarding Iraq because it is too controversial, that wasn't why the foreign policy planks were deleted.

The basic rule for the platform is that it takes 1/2 to delete and 2/3 to add.

There was no plank on Iraq to delete. There were general statements of the Rothbard line of foreign policy that were deleted.

Further, at the beginning of the convention, each delegate is given a form that allows them to vote to delete any plank they want. These are turned in early in the convention, and then the votes are tallied.

There is a platform committee that considers changes in various planks. There is debate about proposed changes. Voting at the convention allows deletions with 50% but additions require 2/3.

The reform movement adopted a strategy of voting to delete each and every plank. This would result in the LP having to start from a blank slate.

I wasn't at the Portland convention, but that is how I voted at all of the conventions I have attended over the last decade or so. Very few people agreed with my approach. Most planks received 95% favorable votes with the only ones getting, say 70% were abortion and the like, reflecting differences in understanding of the "true libertarian" plumbline.

My understanding is that my traditional approach gained many adherents recently, but they didn't make up a majority of the delegates.

So, in combination with other groups with other purposes, nearly all planks were repealed. The few that survived had few dissenters.

Before those votes were counted, however, the convention considered proposals from the platform committee for changes. Some of these changes were made.

Any plank that is changed by the convention remains, even if a majority voted to delete it earlier.

Beito's analysis suggests that some single intelligence developed the platform with a purpose. In this situation, the document is clearly the unintended consequence of many people seeking different purposes.

Jason T. Kuznicki - 7/11/2006

Can anyone link a copy of the new platform? I've had nothing to go on but hearsay for the last few days, and it's driving me nuts.

One thing I can say, though, is that the old platform was a sprawling, clunky mess, and that it contained at least one serious internal contradiction regarding the status of children in a libertarian society. I can't say that the new one was an improvement -- I'm as mystified and dismayed about the new Iraq stance as anyone else -- but the old platform sure didn't do us much good either.

David T. Beito - 7/11/2006

Even the most milktoast moderate Republicans and Democrats feel a political necessity for their parties to take some sort of official stance on Iraq, even an evasive one. The LP reformer approach of saying nothing at all is actually worse than taking a moderate position.

David T. Beito - 7/11/2006

Bill Woolsey misunderstands. I have no problem with tempering "absolutist positions." That is not the issue for me. I am fairly sympathetic to taking a more pragmatic approach. I am not a "purist," at least when it comes to the party.

My main point in writing the blog is to point out that in purely pragmatic terms the LP is making a strategic mistake by ignoring one the leading issues of the day: the war in Iraq, a war that most voters now reject.

Woolsey seems to view Iraq as just another issue that can be safely ignored in a platform, like, for example, children's rights. This is simply not true. Even the Republicans and Democrats recognize a responsibility to deal with Iraq in their official statements.

It is simply unrealistic to believe that voters will seriously consider a party that refuses to take a position on such a hot button issue. To believe otherwise is the precise reverse of true pragmatism, at least if you define pragmatism as winning more voters.

M.D. Fulwiler - 7/11/2006

"I think getting 15% or 20% of the vote for a moderately libertarian program is better than .5% for Rothbard's plumbline."

A "moderate" libertarian is like a "moderate" wife beater.

Bill Woolsey - 7/11/2006

Beito simply misunderstands.

The reformers had a strategy of voting for the repeal of each and every platform plank. They accepted that there would be no platform if they succeeded. For the time being, the only "platforms" would be those of the candidates. Perhaps at some future convention, a new platform could be developed, one that would emphasize libertarian reforms.

A rapid (or immediate)withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be an incremental reform. Not invading Iran would be a similar proposal. This would be as opposed to the existing approach of claiming that no intervention is justified ever. (This leads to libertarians needing to provide "education" about WW2 and the cold war.)

There were other reformers who followed a different approach. Any plank that included absolutist language (like no intervention ever, no taxation, whatever,) they voted to repeal. Those that either lacked such language, or else the reformer felt confortable being absolutist, they supported.

Finally, there were those who supported absolutist language on everthing, they just disagreed with the specific language. For example, those who rejected the pro-choice version (and want absolutist pro-life language really.)

These three groups made up a majority on many planks. Only a few survived.

Personally, I don't support an absolutist isolationist foreign policy. But I do favor withdrawal from Iraq and oppose invading Iran. There are a good many other places I favor withdrawal from and oppose invasion of, but I feel no need to have the LP platform cover all of them. I believe sticking to the issues of the day is important.

Others who agree with my preferences regarding the platform do favor an absolutist noninterventionist position, but they don't want to put that in the platform. Like me, they see no need to cover all bases either with specifics or generalities. Instead, they believe in having the platform take a noninterventionist position on key issues of the day. Say, withdrawal from Iraq or not invading Iran.

Gregory just gives the educationist version of purism.

The pragmatist (or realist) approach doesn't pretend that the majority wants to implement Rothbardian anarchism. It is rather to give voice to the substantial fraction of the American voting population who favors more personal and economic liberty. I believe that peace is equally important.

Our view is that the way to appeal to people who want more personal and economic liberty isn't to try to educate them on what it would mean to implement complete and consistent personal and economic liberty. It is rather to call for these things in general terms as well as to promote specific reforms that reduce the size and scope of government while opposing various proposals to increase the size and scope of government.

In my opinion, the platform was a bit of an albatross, but really what is important is candidates who articulate the proper message. The "party platform" isn't really all that important.

In my opinion, the LP platform was simply an arena in which various factions of the radical libertarian movement could battle it out, rather than simply accepting that these "battles" should be dealt with as part of the marketplace of ideas.

Rothbard got most of his views adopted. What a great victory for plumbline!

In my opinion, a libertarian political party can play a useful role in American politics today, but not by trying to education the American people about radical libertarianism.

In the U.S., we have a right that supports smaller government in general, (and has failed horribly to deliver) and advocates enforcement of traditional moral values and crazed interventionism.

The left supports similar crazed interventionism, is less interested in draconian enforcement of values, but believes in larger government.

I think there is room for a political movement that rejects the rights proposals for stamping out sin, opposes the neo-con project of remaking the middle east, and promises to stop increases in the size of government and even roll back some of the recent increase.

The LP has instead insisted on claiming that no intervention is ever needed, that government should be rolled back 90% in the next four years, and all drugs and sex and so one be completely legal.

I think getting 15% or 20% of the vote for a moderately libertarian program is better than .5% for Rothbard's plumbline.

Anthony Gregory - 7/10/2006

They have no idea what they're doing. They have some fantasy that the LP will get elected and move America in a libertarian direction, and that this will happen by tricking the now-unlibertarian American population into voting for something they don't want.

Most Americans aren't libertarians. Only a tiny fraction of Americans come close. If we want a freer society, we need more people to be libertarian in their beliefs. The LP used to serve an educational function, taking advantage of the attention given to political parties to get the message across. Now, all it does is water down the meaning of libertarianism in the naive hope that people will vote for it. Bah. If voting could change anything, it'd be illegal. If we want the US government to be less oppressive, the culture has to change. And you don't go about doing that by watering down one of the premier examples of libertarian thought. After all, if even "the libertarians" aren't calling for legalizing all drugs, guns and voluntary sexual acts — if even "the libertarians" aren't demanding a radical retraction of the US empire — if even "the libertarians" aren't agitating for a totally free market — then who else is going to do it? The reformers appear bent on moving American culture in a statist direction, starting with the organization most recognized by the public as supposedly fighting against that trend. Ugh.