The irascible Francois Tremblay has issued an open letter to the Libertarians over on his site. I, of course, couldn't resist a response. While so many have sought to interpret and agonize over the recent results of the Libertarian National Convention, it does seem like all sides pile on without undergoing any of the pain or agony of the actual process that those of us on the inside the party feel when we look at the greater evils of the world. 
Think tanks, pundits, theoreticians and general anonymous blog critics all have these great ideas and attitudes. But if they aren't implemented (or even attempted) in a certain way or done with the right intent, they tend to fall into the trap of blaming the political process which creates so many of these problems. Granted the LP is a small batch brewery in a world of Budweisers and Miller Lite, but why attack the people who at least try ? In my estimation the puerile responses seem quite immature and achieve no sense of unity that this obvious parody seems to imply.
Dear FT,
Thank you for the encouragement of the Libertarian Party in the political process, your insight on the futility of such engagement is something that insiders have fought about for years and will most likely continue to do so for years to come.
Given the state of ballot access, media coverage, our own campaign's financial woes and a lack of candidates, it's hard to imagine a more disengaged political scenario already. At play in the fields of tyranny indeed.
I've never been convinced of the arguments against political action based on past success (failures in this case) or the idea that continuing to do so year after year somehow is analogous to some sort of platitude developed and espoused by the fellow who brought us Relativity.
Without going into a palaver about the historic role of third parties in the context of the American system, I would suggest that ours is not a project based on false hope or unsuitable ambition. We often suit up for battle and charge windmills with full knowledge that our failure is imminent. Consider the party as Senor Quixote's steed Rocinante and the riders the few who are capable of such risk within the brutal arena of electoral expectation.
While I applaud the efforts of market anarchist theorists as yourself (I'm a proud contributor to a least two Market Carnival efforts recently), I often wonder the fear and loathing of your own for those of us whom seek this curious talisman of discourse. Certainly it is of our own choosing, expense and will. Short of not extending proper principle and perspective, I cannot see what harm it does to the leisure of the theory class. Even Mr. Block recognizes, in a recent LRC posting, that the value it extends throughout the entire libertarian franchise is something that even Hayek acknowledged in the course of the decade upon decade of struggle that this effort must surely accept and undertake.
Ron Paul has certainly been a boon to all those whom have never been exposed to the likes of Mises, the horrid reality of the Federal Reserve and numerous other ideas and principles that have been the life bread of this particular pop of the movement. While many bought into the hype of the ethereal world of the POTUS quest, I would suggest even RP himself knew of the probabilities of the latter's pursuit and is still likewise pleased that his recent book effort has been so well received by many who undertook the journey.
While there are many within the LP itself who believe that electoral success needs to come with some expense to principle and theory, I can assure you that many of us continue to labor in the putrid piles on political pavements with no such lyrical yearning or misguided expectation. Ours is a visceral hatred for the evil which you so rightly identify and revile. Ours is a practical struggle for attention and acceptance in a world that cannot recognize us as serious, when a simple electoral device like single plurality districts continue to haunt us through the misgivings of one founder (Madison), who believed that factions were in fact that evil. Yet we rise as the noble locals (like Madison envisaged) who oppose those two dominant factions, who indeed rose from that design.
Thus we are consigned to such an absurd existence like Sisyphus knew through Camus. Yet we cannot accept the mush and tides of pluralism as they make intellectual hay and that become the hope of scrambled eggheads who refuse to confront power to it's face and speak truth to it. Perhaps we will always fail and turn back down the hill accepting that absurdity, but we do not conclude that any alliance however beautiful or secured will be the source of anything so pathetic as the real hope of success.
Sincerely,
Eric Sundwall
Chair
Libertarian Party of New York
I would say your stance is "noble but misguided," but after Bob Barr's nomination, I don't think anyone really takes that rhetoric seriously any more.
Perhaps if Bob Barr were the end all in LP functions and politics this might resonate with me. However, there are many who still work within the party who hold dear to the critical and overarching principles. To give up or throw the towel in based on one candidacy seems more than 'misguided' to me, it seems lyrical & immature.
These continuing relationships among members over the years are under represented in blogs, essays and general criticisms of the party. They are part of the camaraderie, blood sweat and tears that make up the struggle of the American third party. Certainly if it were simply a matter of filing a simple fee in order to qualify for the ballot (as it is in Canada) than even a politically savvy market anarchist could run inspired and pure rhetoric campaigns without diluting the message.
Unfortunately in order to do any kind of battle in that arena, the party structure becomes a necessary evil. Even the limited success of the LP over the years has attracted the 'misguided' who believe they can actually make a real difference or even 'win'. Thus the pragmatic and 'success set' types have become a majority within the club and often produce candidacies based on perceived expediency and possibilities of success.
The 'radicals' almost had their day in Denver. That should not be forgotten. As they withdraw and lick their wounds, it would be even more tragic if they started to leave en mass. That would signal the end of principled and logical resistance to the state in terms of party politics. Thus in my own case, I could easily rid myself of the burden of compromising within the game if you will and return to an agorist or anarchist existence. I do not think that random advocacy, essay, book or blog writing would be anymore effective to average people than the occasional descent into the political trenches where a chance to meet people one on one or even debate a horrific statist candidate might prove as effective.
Bottom line, I don't see why advocacy should be mutually exclusive from party or political action.
Thanks for the comment, I'm honored.
Dear Eric,
A thoughtful response and arguably a commendable attitude. Still, I have to ask, if you are possessed of "a visceral hatred for the evil" as you say, why do you persist in your quest to join that evil?
I suppose I would say that I'm not particularly possessed to be an elected member of any representative body, so much as a component of the resistance to it in their own arena of combat.