Yesterday, I attended the LP WA convention at Titlow Lodge in Tacoma. There were about 40 attendees, and five presidential candidates. The event was covered by Tacoma public access TV.
Here are some of the highlights.
The business meeting was pretty uncontroversial, with the convention delegating candidate vetting and National Convention delegate selection to the Executive Committee. The LPWA gets 33 delegates to the national convention, and many signed up to go to Denver at the end of May.
We passed endorsements for two initiatives (unanimously):
I-1000 Death with Dignity, which is similar to Oregon's assisted suicide law. Later in the program, the representative from this campaign gave a moving account of her husband's death from cancer, and got a standing ovation. I was in tears.
I-985, Eyman's congestion initiative won unanimous endorsement.
A yummy fajita lunch was served.
There was a marvelous presentation by a speaker from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.) Graphs and charts were displayed showing how major increases in spending and incarceration have yielded no reductions in drug use, or quality, while street prices have declined along with our civil liberties. The speaker advocated legalization, but disappointed the Libertarian crowd by calling for federal production, control and distribution of drugs.
Next came a presidential candidate forum with Mike Gravel, Michael Jingozian, George Phillies, Wayne Allyn Root, Mary Ruwart and former LP Prez. candidate Bob Jackson serving as a representative for Bob Barr.
My personal reactions are as follows:
Mike Gravel is a passionate, grandfatherly fellow, who is only about 60% libertarian in philosophy. His major issues are getting out of Iraq, instituting a national citizens' initiative and socialized medicine. I think he is running as a Libertarian in order to gain 48 state ballot access, though I think that in about eight states his running in the primary as a Democrat may disqualify him from the ballot. Though his Senatorial experience would be valuable in winning voters, his non-libertarian positions will probably prevent him from getting the (L) nomination. Mike had a lot of good practical advice for the LP, which we should listen to. For instance, social security privatization will scare away most of the elderly, and that even if we elect a Libertarian as president we will still be blocked by congress.
Jingozian is a smart, internet entrepreneur. He is an "OK" speaker, but through no fault of his own has an odd name and an odd face. I liked all of his forum answers, which were very libertarian, but not his desire to make English an official language of the US.
George Phillies is an economics professor, and a very smart and very libertarian person. But there is something about him that makes you think "odd." It is superficial, I think, but something the LP needs to keep it's distance from. I wonder if some speaking coaching could eliminate some of his superficial quirkieness...
Wayne Allyn Root is a fast talker and an exciting, energetic and passionate speaker. He reminds me a bit of Aaron Russo. He is a gambling entrepreneur from Las Vegas. HI disagreed with his immigration policy, which is a bit closed; a lot like Ron Paul's. I liked his energy and his passion, and he was my second choice. He might come across as a bit of a "used car salesman" but his libertarian philosophy is expressed with sparkle and humor. He wouldn't be a bad choice. It seems like he is more of a fiscal conservative, than a socially tolerant libertarian.
Dr. Mary Ruwart was my favorite. She is the author of "Healing our World in an Age of Aggression" and has written for numerous libertarian websites and newsletters. She comes across as a little scripted, but her answers are wonderful. She literally wrote the book on short answers to tough questions for Libertarians, and would have a ready answer for any interviewer's question. I think she is the closest thing to Harry Brown. She needs to get a speaking coach to get her to sound less "scripted" and to put more passion in to her speaking.
Bob Jackson spoke for Bob Barr. Like Mike Gravel, Barr has experience in Congress and this would add a lot to his credibility as a candidate. He comes from the right, while Gravel comes to the LP from the left. Barr will have trouble gaining the LP nomination because of some of his past votes, specifically for the USA PATRIOT Act and the Defense of Marriage Act. For me, this pretty much rules him out. I'm sure we would lose the GLBT vote if we nominated him. He just doesn't have credibility with me that he is really a libertarian. I think he has too much faith in the efficacy of government planning. But I suspect that he has a lot of influence with the Libertarian National Committee, and might gain the nomination in spite of the rank and file.
Christine Smith sent a statement which was read. She sounds like a true Libertarian, but l was left with too little information to decide what I think of her as a candidate.
The convention ended on time and everyone pitched in to help clean up the lodge. Kudos to Rachel Hawkridge and all those who helped her run a marvelous convention.
It is so refreshing to be among good libertarians who don't want to force their policies on you or tell you how to live your life via the law. I am so glad to be back with my friends in the Libertarian Party.
Posted by FreeSk8 at April 20, 2008 12:37 PM | Email ThisThat is me. I wrote the blog entry above.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 20, 2008 01:03 PMLately the LP has been running candidates who push "lefty" policies when there is an incumbent Democrat, or when the Republican is the lesser of evils from a libertarian perspective. We can run as fiscal conservatives as well, if that suits our strategic purpose. The idea is that in close races we can tip the race in the direction that advances liberty.
A socially conservative Republican is more likely to face a fiscally conservative Libertarian, and a fiscally liberal or hawkish Democrat is likely to face a socially tolerant or dovish Libertarian.
Without Ruth Bennett's candidacy for WA governor in 2004, Rossi would not have come as close. Ruth ran on marriage equality, and only advertised in one Seattle area GLBT publication. She tended to do better in the same counties where Gregoire did better.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 20, 2008 01:52 PMThat's an interesting strategy. So, by the LP putting up the "socially tolerant" Ruth Bennett, the LP's strategy was to defeat a fiscally liberal Democrat, not a socially conservative Republican?
Posted by: Michelle on April 21, 2008 12:41 AMIs it Guthrie number 1 who became a delegate for Ron Paul at the Republican convention or was it Guthrie number 2 who attended the Libertarian Party convention?
Or was it Guthrie number 3 who may or may not have passed himself off at the Democrat convention as a Democrat?
Sheeeesh!!!
Posted by: swatter on April 21, 2008 08:44 AMSo, yes, it was an attempt to defeat a fiscally liberal Democrat. It almost worked.
I think that is a rational strategy, and we did it while supporting our own principles.
If, in another context, there is a socially conservative Republican whom we perceive to be the worst of two evils, then we may run a fiscally conservative Libertarian.
The question is, how will the two big, old parties react to this strategy? I think it will only make a difference in tight races, and it is hard to predict which races these will be.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 21, 2008 02:33 PMAnd I argue that Bruce Guthries number 1 and 2 are the same as well. Here is why:
I voted for Ron Paul in the Presidential primary, and signed the statement that requires me not to participate in the presidential nominating process of any other party. So, when I attended the LPWA convention above, I did not nominate any delegates to the LP National Convention in Denver in May. I also did not vote for any delegates. This was easy, since no delegate vote was taken. Those interested in becoming delegates signed a list, and the Chair was delegated (by vote of the convention attendees) with the power to decide whom should be able to become delegates. There was supposed to be a straw poll, to report the local popularity of the five (or six?) candidates who spoke at the convention. I had resolved not to participate in this straw poll, but the straw poll never actually happened anyway.
So, other than listening to the LP candidates, I did not really participate in the part of the convention that had to do with nominating presidential candidates. There was extra room in the hall, so I did not prevent anyone else from participating.
I voted on other business that came up at the convention, but I don't think this conflicts with my oath not to participate in the nominating process.
My becoming a GOP Caucus delegate added no additional restrictions to my behavior beyond the oath I signed on the primary ballot envelope. Before going to the LP WA Convention, I resigned as a Republican, and sent an e-mail to that effect to the local GOP.
The Libertarians seemed happy to have me back.
So all of these Bruce Guthrie's are one and the same. My integrity is preserved.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 21, 2008 02:47 PMI care little for what is written in your book, but if you are impugning my integrity in public, then I am owed an explanation for exactly what you think I have done wrong.
In what way have I lied, broken an oath or promise or misrepresented myself?
Name specifics, or do not make accusations.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 21, 2008 04:20 PMThe belief you have that you were bound to the nominating process only is in error. At the least, you broke an oath.
What part of "participate" did you not understand?
Posted by: Camille on April 21, 2008 05:12 PMIf my understanding was in error, then I apologize, but I still don't think it was. If I misinterpreted the oath then it was an error of understanding, not an intentional breach of my oath.
Anyway, in what way has the GOP been harmed? I increased their convention attendance numbers, which makes the GOP look stronger. My favorite candidate, Ron Paul, did not get elected, nor will we be likely to send a single delegate from the 43rd district who is a Ron Paul supporter. I have not harmed the McCain faction.
My participation was a total bust. It had no effect. I was clearly not welcome at the GOP convention. I know regret that I did it.
If anyone should be unhappy with me it should be the Libertarian Party, for my act of disloyalty in supporting a Republican. For that, I am deeply sorry. I guess what it shows is that I am not as partisan as some are. I am more loyal to the cause of liberty itself than I am to any faction or political party.
I think that we need good people fighting for Liberty within and without the Republican Party. Some prefer to remain a minority within the GOP. I'd rather be in the majority within the LP. Small "l" libertarians can disagree about which makes the most sense.
But this blog post was not supposed to be about me, it was supposed to be about the LPWA convention, and the candidates running for the LP nomination. I think it will be a fascinating race.
Attacking my character is a sort of ad hominem argument. It does not carry any weight in an argument about the Libertarian positions on the issues. It does not matter with regard to election tactics or strategy. I think of personal attacks as more suited to the progressives at Horse's A**, than to the conservatives here at Sound Politics.
Which Libertarian candidate would earn the most votes? Which candidate would "take" more votes from the Republican, and which from the Democrat? Will the race be close enough that the Libertarian candidate could decide the outcome of the race? Which candidate do you support? These were the kinds of things I had hoped would be discussed in this forum.
Oh, well. I have been disappointed here at SP before.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 21, 2008 05:57 PMFirst, if you were a delegate at the 43rd caucus, whether you were on the ballot or not, your vote had the potential to harm Republicans by eliminating them from consideration to State Convention. Since the first three ballots eliminated the low vote getters from futher consideration, the question has to be-would they have been eliminated if your vote was missing? Would they have been elected without Libertarian interference in the GOP?
Second, would your, and other Libertarian votes at convention have altered the platform into something unrecognizable to Republicans? This harms our candidates so that you can make whatever point it was that you wished to make.
I wish you well in your majority position in the LP.
Posted by: Camille on April 21, 2008 07:03 PMIt is clear that we, our money, and our message of limited government are not welcome in the GOP.
Enjoy your small tent. It is something we Libertarians know all too well.
Oh, and good luck selling the Iraq war to the general electorate in November of '08.
You'll need it.
I predict a Democratic Party victory in the White House, and increasing majorities in both houses of Congress. Why? Foreign policy interventionism and lack of fiscal conservatism among elected Republicans.
The GOP has lost it's way, and for a time, I had as well. I am so happy to be back with the Libertarian Party. It is great to be back in a party I can feel good about.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 21, 2008 07:57 PMIn my book for a large portion of our party, libertarians are welcome in the Republican Party. It is your home. Reagan said libertarianism is at the heart of the Republican Party. When GOP candidates fail to stand for the principles we share with libertarians, we lose a big voting block. Just like when these candidates fail to stand for the social conservative principles, they lose us social conservatives as a voting block.
Granted, we don't see eye to eye with you on all of the social issues, but I welcome the healthy debate and there is so much else we do agree on. (ie: glad to see the LP endorsed Eyman's initiative, but very sad to see they endorsed the Assisted Suicide initiative).
And I admire Libertarians for their committment to principles over winning at the expense of principles.
On the other hand, if what many of our elected Republicans stand for was put into our platform, it would be a "platform unrecognizable to Republicans" except that it would be the things we say we oppose. The tent is getting smaller, and if it continues at this rate, it will collapse. But I don't think it will. Our party is going through a battle, and in the long run, I believe we will emerge as the great coalition that stands for what our Founders did: Small government that is limited to protecting the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (property) and it will once again, welcome libertarians and their committment to Liberty, and continue to protect Life and Property.
Posted by: Michelle on April 22, 2008 12:43 PMI hope you feel welcome to join the Libertarian Party as well!
Great post. I agree with everything you are saying. I disagree on some of the positions i think but I beleive we agree on the general direction the GOP needs to go and that unfortunately it is headed in the wrong direction (torwards destruction). I hope and beleibve it will fix itself (with help from Paulites). If not something (possibly the LP) will replace it. But I think eventually the GOP will come around.
Oh and thanks for reminding me about the assisted suicide initiative. I kept meaning to post a blog on that!
Posted by: Lysander on April 22, 2008 05:44 PMFor instance, I would guess that the vast majority of Libertarians would never consider engaging in the following activities:
prostitution
recreational drug use
excessive alcohol use
excessive gambling
abortion
same sex marriage
assisted suicide
And yet, in spite of the fact that most Libertarians do not favor these things for themselves, they do not favor making any of them illegal.
Perhaps they see that making them illegal does not work to stop them from happening.
Perhaps they see that in spite of the fact that they may not favor them, they understand that one can engage in any of them without harming anyone else, and that government violates our liberty when it prohibits peaceful, if immoral activity, or creates victimless crimes.
Perhaps they see that there are other ways to reduce the incidence of self-destructive behavior (and I personally do not count same-sex marriage in this category, though some do) that work better than prohibition.
There are many social conservatives within the Libertarian Party, but the difference between the Libertarians and the Republicans is not that the Libertarians condone immoral behavior, it is just that they refuse to advocate solving these kinds of social problems using prohibition.
If a friend of mine was visiting a prostitute, or using recreational drugs, or drinking too much, or had a gambling habbit, I would do my best to persuade my friend not to do these things because I care about him and I don't want him to hurt himself. But I would also defend his right to engage in these injurious activities as long as those he did them with were willing, and of age.
The church has a big role to play in this regard. This is a role that must not be conceded to the government, or churches will all suffer.
The government is not our nanny as the Democrats would have it. We own our own lives and our own bodies, and we get to choose whether we eat too much and exercise too little or drink alcohol, etc. The government should treat us like adults, not as children like Hillary Clinton would do.
It is our job as individuals to care for those we love, and to persuade them peacefully. But government is force, and we may not resort to force against peaceful people, even in a good cause. Contrary to the assertions of the liberals, the ends do not justify the means.
Government must be limited, or we are down the road to socialism. Granting government the power to crack down on drug users just gives the government the power to violate our financial privacy and search peaceful people. It is power we should not trust to politicians, be they R's or D's. There are better ways to reduce drug use.
Many Libertarians believe our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property were given to us by God. If you really believe that, then allowing the government to violate our liberty, even in the cause of protecting us from ourselves, is a violation of God's law.
I think that this is why Reagan made the quotation that you refer to above. I look forward to the day when the GOP will join the LP in living up to Reagan's beautiful words. I fear that many GOP politicians have been corrupted by the lust for power and have lost their way. Ron Paul is a notable exception.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 22, 2008 09:40 PMPersonally, I favor a law that makes abortion in the last trimester illegal, except in the case of significant risk to the life of the mother. But there are pro-choice and pro-life Libertarians. It all depends on when you think the right to life begins. I think that thoughtful, sincere Libertarians can disagree on this point.
Some Libertarians want to severely limit immigration, at least until the welfare state can be made less of an attraction to foreigners. Others want no limits on immigration by peaceful people. There are good Libertarian arguments on both sides of this one, but I tend to favor immigration because it is good for the economy and defends individual liberty.
Some Libertarians think the war in Iraq was justified by the defense needs of America. Others don't. I'm in the latter camp.
But all Libertarians are against the creeping socialism that has gripped the US since FDR. In that, and in many other areas, we are on the same side as Republicans.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 22, 2008 09:48 PMYour life is YOURS. It is a gift from God. It does not belong to the government, or to society, or even to your family, unless you choose to regard it that way.
Suicide may be immoral, but it must not be illegal, since the government's attempts to prohibit it would violate our God-given right to liberty.
When we ask a physician to help us end our lives, it is a physician's right to refuse to help us, or to help us. Forcing a physician to do either via the law is a violation of the physician's liberty as well.
So, as in drugs and prostitution above, let us persuade our loved-ones not to commit suicide. But we must not resort to using the force of the law.
And what are we going to do if they try? Put them in jail? Are we going to put physicians in jail, just for helping us, or for carrying out the wishes of the patient? Don't we need more physicians, not fewer?
My wife of 17 years died at the end of 2005 after an eight-year battle with breast cancer. She chose to fight to the very end. This was her choice. Her pain was blunted by good drugs and excellent palliative care. She could also handle levels of pain that would cause most of us to give up long before she did.
But it was her body, and her life, and her right to give up whenever the pain (or the loss of her mental faculties that the pain relievers brought) became unbearable. She should have had the option. She also should have had the option of medical marijuana. Who would I have been to fault her for taking her own life?
But the government violated her rights by denying her the choice. This injustice was the result of insufficiently-limited government. Who do they think they are, telling her what she could and couldn't do at the end of her life?
Persuade them peacefully, but don't resort to force.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 22, 2008 10:05 PMWow! You both bring up so many points that I am so tempted to engage in here.
But in case you didn't know, the REVOLUTION is still on (if you know what I mean)! And no, I'm not dillusional in thinking we will pull of a victory in the conventional sense, but know that this is long term, and what we're doing right now for the cause of freedom will have lasting effects. I have limited time to get into the details of these issues, and Bruce, I have already with you a little bit through e-mail. But I do check SP for local political news, and though I don't have time to get into the debates I like to here, I just wanted to chime in to this discussion, and let you know that the GOP is not all what you are seeing examples of above. The leadership is that way, but by and large, the people at the grassroots level are not.
I don't think I'll be joining the Libertarian Party unless something drastic happens to the LP and the GOP. I am not a "one issue" Republican, but I believe in protecting life first. It is a non-negotiable for me. There are certain other issues I take seriously too, and I find that the traditional Republican principles are most compatible to my philosophy, including a non-interventionalist foreign policy. The roots of Reagan's Revolution were in such a policy via Barry Goldwater and Phyllis Schlafly's "A Choice, Not an Echo", that traces the rift in the party and favored Robert Taft (whom Ron Paul recalled in one of the debates). Heck, even George W. Bush campaigned on such a policy.
Posted by: Michelle on April 22, 2008 10:44 PMAgain, good libertarians can disagree about which strategy makes the most sense.
I wish you good luck! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 24, 2008 10:09 AM