January 16, 2008
-
Purity and Pragmatism
Purity and Pragmatism
by Joseph KnightI think the whole “purity vs. pragmatism” thing is contrived. Purity, in the context of its current intra-LP use, is a term used to denigrate those of us who adhere to principle. Not that there is anything wrong with purity. Most of us would not dilute our wine with water. Sure, sometimes a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, but by adding sugar, we take nothing away from the medicine.I am a pragmatist. I believe in and attempt to practice practical politics in the real world. What I am not, is a reformer, at least not with regard to philosophy. I don’t regard pragmatism as an antonym of “purity.” I believe that, like sugar in medicine, we can be practical without betraying principle.
I see no conflict between the two, nor do I see a conflict between principle and incrementalism (so long as the incremental movement is in the right direction). Nor have I ever considered myself an anarchist since I can envision a government that doesn’t initiate force. I’m a lot more liberal and open in the interpretation and application of the non-aggression principle than many. If I were playing “survivor” with Steve Trinward, L. Neil Smith, Mary Ruwart, and Murray Rothbard’s ghost, I’d probably be the first one voted off the island.
I adamantly support — indeed, insist on — retaining the non-aggression principle as our guiding core value. Freedom is the absence of the initiation of force. However, I also realize that there is no magic button to push that would make us all free, all at once. Freedom is the goal, incrementalism is the path. If anybody knows of a shorter path, by all means post a sign and I’ll take it.
As a practical matter, I know that electoral politics is quantitative by nature — whoever gets the most votes, wins — and that every vote counts the same whether it was cast in ignorance, motivated by pure principle or as a protest against the other parties. This raises the question of how we can expand our base without sacrificing our principles. I think LPNM is on the right track to the answer. We define membership in two tiers. Anybody can join the LP in New Mexico by simply registering as a Libertarian. But to be a policy maker or spokesperson, one must “upgrade” their membership to “caucus” status by signing the non-aggression pledge (and meeting the other requirements). The former has the potential to expand our base, the latter has the potential to protect our basic philosophy.
This brings us to the platform. I was (and remain) opposed to the gutting of the platform. I believe that we should have a bottom-line, principle-based position on every conceivable issue. To do otherwise is cowardly, morally deficit, and opens the door to the LP being used to advance un-libertarian causes. On the other hand, I fully recognize that our positions strike the average voter as way too radical and this renders the platform ineffective as an outreach tool. The solution is to have positions, like membership, in two tiers: a statement of practical, incremental positions on key current issues and a statement of philosophical, bottom-line positions on all issues.
The national LP has made two attempts to do this. The first was to have a “program” on a few issues for outreach and practical political purposes and a “platform” as a roadmap to where we ultimately want to go. I thought this worked well and I am disappointed that LPUSA doesn’t do it anymore. The second attempt was to require presidential candidates to submit a “campaign platform” that would focus on current issues and be briefer in scope than the party platform. This didn’t work in ’04 because Badnarik simply submitted the LP Platform as his campaign platform — and then proceeded to stray from it.
Well, what the national LP has thrown away, LPNM can recover and fix up. The LPNM Constitution states that “The Platform of the national Libertarian Party is the Platform of LPNM, except that LPNM may, at any state convention, delete any plank by a two-thirds vote of the delegates voting, or add any plank consistent with the Statement of Principles, by a two-thirds vote.” I think we should restore to the LPNM Platform those planks recently deleted by the national convention, and will ask our next state convention to do so. LPNM candidates can already run on their own platforms: “Candidates for public office may run on their own platforms. However, the Central Committee may disavow any plank that is contrary to the Statement of Principles or LPNM Platform.” I think we could go a step further and have a short-term “program.” The most expedient way to do this would be to collect current CenCom resolutions into a single document. Again, the LPNM Constitution states “The Central Committee is empowered to issue resolutions expressing party positions on various issues throughout the year.”
We could also consider some changes in nomenclature, for example calling our philosophical document (now the “platform”) a manifesto and our lesser-scope document the platform. Two different documents, different in breadth (but neither inconsistent with the non-aggression principle), is something for everybody — whether we want to do radical outreach or practical politics.
This brings us to serious candidates and public-office holders who have to function in the real world and work with various types of statist politicians to accomplish anything. Some have suggested that to actually hold office would be a violation of libertarian principles but I reject that. I want to elect Libertarians and I want them to move society in a libertarian direction. I realize that we won’t be successful by simply introducing the whole platform as a single, sweeping ordinance. I think Mike Blessing has the right approach for elected Libertarians in his New Mexico Liberty editorial statement: “New Mexico Liberty holds that Libertarian candidates, officeholders or appointed spokespersons at all levels of government or the Party should refrain from advocating new or more restrictive laws, new or more expensive spending programs, or new or higher taxes. To paraphrase from the medical profession, ‘First, do no harm.’” This gives our officeholders the ability to decide, in their particular situation, where to start dismantling the omnipotent state, but not to expand it. That works for me!
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==“Do not be afraid of enemies; the worst they can do is to kill you. Do not be afraid of friends; the worst they can do is betray you. Be afraid of the indifferent; they do not kill or betray. But only because of their silent agreement, betrayal and murder exist on earth.”– Bruno Yasienski, “The Plot of the Indifferent” (1937)
Greenhouse Gasses
by John Trever of the Albuquerque Journal
13 December 2007
