Solutions for the Libertarian Party Part 2
Solutions for the Libertarian Party Part 2
Best ideas for a classical liberal party
“The party should be run for the benefit of our candidates by people who know what they are doing.” Kevin Litten
Early this year, I exchanged e-mails with Kevin Litten, the man who got me active in Iowa Libertarian politics. Without Kevin, there is no doubt, I'd never have run for public office, pushed public policy, served on the Iowa Certificate of Need board, or managed political campaigns.
Kevin provided some thoughts on how to fix the Libertarian Party. A few months ago, I published part one of his thoughts. Today, I am publishing part two.
Possible Solutions to Libertarian Party Governance
By Kevin Litten
Part 1:
This article is largely based on an article titled “The Broken Structure of the Libertarian Party,” by Andy Craig. You will find it immensely insightful and informative. Many of the problems facing the party today can be placed on what Mr. Craig calls “the delegate class.” I agree with him. The party is run by a select few, who largely select themselves, given this limitation how can the party be run better?
I joined the Libertarian Party in 1996. I’ve been a member in Iowa and am currently a member in Wisconsin. I’ve run for governor once and Congress twice. I’ve served in every state party position except for treasurer and at-large representative. The solutions I’m offering here are for state parties. All state parties are run differently. All state parties do not have the same problems. I hope that many state parties have overcome the problems I talk about. I believe that most have not and could benefit from the solutions outlined in this article.
The people who go to state party conventions select themselves. If they have the time, the money, the inclination, they go. Perhaps only 10 – 20 % of a state party’s members attend. Since they vote on how the party will be run, only a small number of members may move the party greatly in a direction apart from the mainstream membership. There are no consequences upon those members, only the party suffers for their actions.
I have no data to back this up, but I believe the average Libertarian Party member lasts two years. If they can’t change the world in that time they exit the party and leave the remaining members to clean up their mess.
One thing that many organizations do is to have a minimum time members must be active before they can vote. For the National Rifle Association that time is ten years. Some state parties have a 30 day rule so that members can’t join at the door. I believe this rule was put in place so that the state party can’t be taken over by a faction just walking in. It would take at least 30 days to get your veto proof majority together.
At least one state party has a 180 day rule. It is hoped that members will acquaint themselves with how the party has been run during that time; bylaws, platforms, procedures, etc. Yet there is no requirement they do so. In my state, Wisconsin, every year at state convention the Chair greets the members attending then asks how many present are at their first convention. Easily half of the hands going up will be first time attenders. The members least able to run the party are the ones doing so.
Indoctrination is a harsh word. Our party cannot philosophically force its members to believe or behave in a particular way. We can require them to observe the party’s functions before we let them vote.
So here is my first suggestion:
1) Before voting at convention all members must have attended at least one state convention before.
This should familiarize them with how things ought to be done. Some states have more of a shit show at their convention than others. Some states stream their convention live to the world, to show the world what a mess we are. A convention should be as orderly and well run as a state party’s web page. It is the face we show to the world. That is the goal we should strive for at convention. The adults must be seen to be in charge.
The Libertarian Party is notable in not asking for loyalty oaths. A loyalty oath is like the VFW or the Optimists reciting the Pledge of Allegiance before their meetings begin. There should be an oath that we all take together to remind us of what we believe in and why we are there. Loyalty oaths are a good thing. There are reasons all other parties use them, apart from giving the occasion some solemnity.
Should members be asked to recite them together at convention? I think so, but how about this for a start:
2) Before serving all party officials must swear that they have read the party’s bylaws, the party platforms, and any policy and/or procedure documents the party has.
So what to swear these to? How about the Constitution of the United States, the party’s Statement of Principles, “that we do this in opposition of the omnipresent state,” or even our goal of “setting the world free in our lifetime.” It would not be out of line to add that bit about “serving to the best of their abilities.”
Part 2:
The goal of a political party should be to get its candidates elected. We want our conventions to excite and enthuse our members. Our members generally don’t know enough about how a party should be run or has been run to make an informed decision. Most members don’t care as long as the party is being run well. So let us take this burden off their shoulders.
3) The party should be run for the benefit of our candidates by people who know what they are doing.
Ways of doing this include giving ALL party members who are eligible to vote the right to vote. Not just the ones who show up at the time and place of convention day. There is a proven wisdom in masses. The items to be voted on should be available to those voters sometime before the vote takes place allowing the voter to contemplate their choice. Members who do not give money to the party should not have voting privileges. If you don’t have money in the game, you should not have a say in how it is spent.
A group of selected delegates may be chosen by the party members to keep the bylaws and platforms up to date. This could be the party’s Executive Committee or an entirely different group. They should be informed, active members that have a history with the party.
The business of running the party could be conducted at the local congressional district level. Much the way that some states use caucusing to select their candidates. Those who show up have a say, those who don’t, well it depends upon the rules they chose. Their local representatives will run the meetings. Their vote, and it could be winner take all or some other method, will then go to the state convention. If an even number of districts exists then the officers of the party may vote as an extra district to break any tie.
There are permutations of the above. Essentially we are looking at all inclusive voting, super delegates, and caucusing. Any of the three would supply better informed, less extreme, more pragmatic governance of the party.
Jake’s Thoughts
One of the biggest criticisms I have had of the Libertarian Party for the past several years is the fact that a few delegates who often have never run for office but like titles often use social media to become “celebertarians” and find their way on party committees and boards. Their goals are often at odds with the larger party goals as bringing in new blood puts them at risk of losing their precious titles.
I would say the party is run more like a social club instead of a non-profit political organization. This is the same under the Mises Caucus control as it was under the more recent pragmatist-dominated party. Allowing more participation would likely help break up any social clubs and keep the party focused on necessary business.
There are certainly questions about opening up party governance too much, but I figure that issue is largely mitigated by the fact that most people who aren’t somewhat in the know or the game won’t bother to show up. I know that in Iowa, my former state, there are some state election laws that require the party to allow all registered voters access to decision making and while they don’t have to be donors, in six years, I am unaware of any issues that it has caused.
Comments will be open to all subscribers for this series. I welcome your thoughts and discussion.