Returning the Libertarian Party to relevance

The report by the September 11 commission is missing one obvious way the U.S. government could reduce the chance of another terrorist attack, Libertarians say: Quit meddling in foreign nations.

"The intelligence reform needed most right now is a more intelligent foreign policy," says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. "Pulling U.S. troops out of nations where they don't belong would make America much safer than appointing a thousand new intelligence czars."

The present Libertarian party holds two positions relative to war. It holds that war, in general, is not a good idea, and specifically that the war in Iraq is a bad idea that should be ended as rapidly as possible. The latter position grows from the former; the Libertarian party does not call itself the Party of Principle for nothing. And it is also indicative of the problems within the party, in several ways.

Fundamentally, the Libertarian Party does not expect to win. The party, and their candidates in most cases, expect to make speeches about libertarian principles, collect donations, needle both of the parties in power, and generally try to attract attention from the media and the public. This is done primarily in the hope that attracting attention will result in votes, and votes will result in more attention the next time around, and more attention will result in more votes, until eventually the party can mount a significant challenge to the established parties.

This is a reasonable long-term strategy, except that it's been 30 years since the party was founded, and it hasn't worked. It's time for some new thinking.

Being "the Party of Principle" has its downside, especially when you consider the principles of the party. While they are good principles, morally and Constitutionally right, they are also unfamiliar and even radical to the majority of the public. (This shouldn't surprise anyone; the Founding Fathers were radicals even in their time). And the voting public is nervous about a party that talks about principles when those principles involve shutting down most of government. If you elect a libertarian as your Mayor, will you even have a government by the next election?

If you elect a libertarian as your President, will you have a nation left by the next election?

A Libertarian presidential candidate might proclaim that, if elected, he would shut down the IRS by executive order. That's a principled position. But there are millions of government employees and contractors who will ask, "But where will my next paycheck come from?" To the candidate, that's the point; government will have to shut down many of its unconstitutional operations when the revenue source for those operations is removed.

But telling millions of people they will be out of a job if you win is not going to get votes.

The same applies to the situation in Iraq. The Libertarian Party takes to heart the admonition of our Founding Fathers to trade freely with other nations, but form no entangling alliances. The foreign policy of the Libertarian Party is basically nonexistent: free trade, bring the troops home, and you're done. And that's the right policy in general.

But sometimes a specific situation requires actions contrary to the general principle. Just as surgery requires cutting the patient open, inflicting wounds in order to heal others, so does the situation in Iraq require specific actions contrary to the general principles. There are many reasons for this, but foremost among them is responsibility: the Libertarian Party did not make the decision to go into Iraq, but now that we are there, we owe it to the people of that nation to repair the damage we have done and give them a leg up to a proper democracy.

Like a doctor on the operating table, we as a nation cut the patient open. In doing so we assumed a responsibility to them. If we walk away now, the patient will die on the operating table, and it will be America's fault.

That, in large part, is why the Libertarian Party cannot afford to take the principled stand on Iraq in this election. We are the party of principle, and one of those principles is responsibility. By the same token we cannot endlessly proclaim our intention to eviscerate the government immediately upon election: such actions are in accordance with principles but demonstrate no responsibility.

If the Libertarian Party seeks to win elections, we must assume that we are going to win, and we must present a plan to the public: a plan for practical implementation of Libertarian principles. The general public will not vote for a candidate who promises to trash the IRS unilaterally, but they might vote for a candidate with a detailed plan to phase it out over time. The public will not take seriously a candidate who proclaims a unilateral retreat in the face of adversity, but they will listen to a candidate who understands responsibility.

Until Libertarians can demonstrate that they are trustworthy in positions of power, by advocating specific, gradual implementations of Libertarian principles, the general public and the media will continue to marginalize our candidates. It's not enough to proclaim our principles; we must also proclaim how we will implement them, and we must reassure the public that we can do so without throwing our nation -- or the Iraqi nation -- into chaos.