Steve Kubby was a candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination in 2008, and the runner up for the party’s VP nomination in 2008 and 2000. He was also the party’s candidate for Governor of California in 1998. He is currently working on a new business venture in the medical field. Disclosure: I worked on his presidential campaign.
The Libertarian Wing of the LP
by Steve Kubby
For too long, euphemisms such as “Big Tent” and “Dallas Accord,” have served to marginalize hardcore Libertarians, silence principled opposition, and to drive large numbers of longtime members, out of the LP. As a result, somewhere along the line, our Big Tent became a Whore House instead.
Don’t get me wrong, I strongly believe we need both wings of this party to get off the ground. It’s just that I refuse to go along with the current fictional portrayal of hardcore, freedom-loving, out-of-the-closet, gun-toting, or pot-smoking Libertarians as the “Radicals.”
From my perspective, there is a mainstream Libertarian Wing that is forthright and honest in its message. When we campaign, we start with the most controversial issues first. In contrast, there is another, socially conservative wing that is advocating a radical departure from our principles and demanding a watered down, generic message that is supposed to win over large blocks of conventional voters, but has never done so.
Libertarians who defend the War in Iraq, oppose Open Borders, or just want to see the LP tone down it’s message, are entitled to their hold their own views and still be called Libertarians. However, when they seek to silence our Libertarian platform and sanitize our candidates, it is time to draw the line.
Unfortunately, many of our new friends from the GOP have insisted that we tone down the Libertarian message and water down our platform to make it more appealing to mainstream voters. That’s the same nonsense that destroyed the GOP.
The Recovering Republican view prevailed at the LP presidential convention and the majority of delegates backed two GOP refugees as their ticket. The Libertarian wing of the party may have suffered a defeat, but the results of this election show that the Recovering Republican wing of the party was a dismal failure at delivering the numbers or outcome they had promised. Thus, instead of $30 million, they raised just over $1 million. Instead of 5% of the popular vote, they captured 0.40% — only enough percentage of votes to rank 4th compared to other past LP presidential campaigns
In contrast, Obama succeeded because he used the Net to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, one hundred dollars at a time. Using the lessons of Howard Dean, Obama broke away from conventional political fundraising and created his own ground game. Is there any reason the LP cannot do the same?
Of course our GOP refugee friends have their own reasons why things didn’t go right for them, but they had their chance and the results are clear. Now it is time for the LP to adopt a truly Libertarian platform, elect a seriously Libertarian Executive Committee and sponsor real Libertarians for office.
Libertarianism works. It’s time for the LP to make a real commitment to real Libertarianism and give people what they want and deserve: Smaller Government, Less Taxes and more Personal Freedom. If our party can just focus on these simple but powerful ideas, we can overtake the GOP and replace it with what people really want and need.
I am aware that some Libertarians and most Anarchists want zero government, zero taxes and total personal freedom and I am happy to work side by side with such political allies. However, I want to restore the Constitution, not scrap it
Regardless of the details, an absolute commitment to shrinking all forms of government, reducing taxes at every opportunity and demanding the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us under the Bill of Rights, is what unites us as a party.
Actually what we call the Libertarian Party is really more like a watering hole for all who thirst for freedom. As such, we find an odd array of creatures, from every walk of life, all drawn together for a taste of freedom in an unfree world.
Are we doomed to nothing more than temporarily slaking our thirst, or are we prepared to show real leadership and stand up for our Libertarian principles, without excuses or apologies?
The choice is ours.
30 responses so far ↓
1 rdupuy // Nov 10, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Quote: “our Big Tent became a Whore House instead.
Don’t get me wrong”
I didn’t get you wrong, message received loud and clear.
You know for a politician, you have a remarkable lack of political skills.
In any event, your diatribe against Bob Barr supporters is way off the mark. I do support Open Borders. I am against the War in Iraq.
I also recognize that Bob Barr is not a GOP refugess, as you claim, but in fact, a genuine, heartfelt and very capable Libertarian Party member.
Fight for your candidates, which in this case, is just yourself…garner support. If you win the nomination, I’ll support you too, because there is no election cycle where we can afford to lose ground.
But I certainly won’t support you in your bid to get the nomination.
2 paulie cannoli // Nov 10, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I do support Open Borders. I am against the War in Iraq.
Then you aren’t who Steve is talking about there.
I also recognize that Bob Barr is not a GOP refugess, as you claim, but in fact, a genuine, heartfelt and very capable Libertarian Party member.
No contradiction between the two. I was a Democratic Party refugee once.
But I certainly won’t support you in your bid to get the nomination.
I would support Kubby again. Although, this time, if he runs we need to do a few things differently.
For starters, get in High Times before the convention.
3 Robert Milnes // Nov 10, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Steve, please do not confuse Recovering Republicans as Reformers. They used the Reform word to camoflage their agenda. Reformers welcome them as part of the Big Tent. But they want the whole tent to be used to reform the GOP! That includes dinosaur fossil Ron Paul who you deferred to around when you wanted to leave Iraq immediately including the keys to an arsenal of expensive National Guard equipment for the factions to kill for. Ron Paul is one of the Three Dixiecrat Conservative Amigos including Barr & Baldwin. Obama succeeded because he was groomed by the Democratic Party progressives to combine their vote with the vote black because you are black vote. Note that reportedly 70% of blacks voted for Proposition 8 in CA. So the black vote is not a progressive vote, just a manipulatable vote. We need the opposite- libertarians to seek out the progressive vote like GOP refugee Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912. Take the progressive vote including progressive blacks FROM the democratic party.
4 paulie cannoli // Nov 10, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Note that reportedly 70% of blacks voted for Proposition 8 in CA. So the black vote is not a progressive vote, just a manipulatable vote.
Much of that was Obama’s fault.
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/obama-nation-the-futures-so-bright-i-gotta-wear-shades/
5 VinceWylde // Nov 10, 2008 at 1:31 pm
There are multiple problems with your article, and I’m surprised you didn’t sit down and think them through.
1. Open Borders. Fine and dandy. Only trouble with this is any general from history, at any point, from any culture, will tell you this policy is suicide during war. Especially if you introduce an enemy who has no war code-of-ethics and will rape animals if they think it gives them an upper hand.
2. Failure to address scattered and disorganized party support. E.G.: Bob Barr was the candidate. Period. So why were so many Libertarians bloviating about Ron Paul? A. He wasn’t on the ticket as a Libertarian. B. Failure to vote with the party is counter-productive to our cause.
3. Marijuana. If you want people considering a 3rd party to vote Libertarian, we need to de-emphasize, not KILL, our support of legalization. One person I knew found four State Libertarian sites with that as their front page. Come on. Is this our most important issue?
We have plenty of Good ideas. We DON’T have 5% and we DON’T get enough coverage. If you ask me, these are by far bigger problems.
6 paulie cannoli // Nov 10, 2008 at 1:34 pm
None of those are problems. See also the previous article,
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/steve-kubby-wake-up-and-smell-the-ganja/
7 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 10, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I was mixed during the convention. I liked Ruwart, loved Kubby, but wanted Barr [for pragmatic reasons]. I like the idea of having our most accomplished candidate on top.
I did not support Root for VP, I wanted Kubby for that
I liked his line: “states don’t have rights, people have rights” well, something like that. I loved that line!
8 Robert Milnes // Nov 10, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“states don’t have rights, people have rights.”. Reminds me of ” There is no red states, or blue states. Just The United States…of America.” Or “Just say No.” Or “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall.” I call it “simpletonics.” Politicians say something simple that just about no one can disagree with. Makes them seem smart & hip & you want to vote for that. I do not do that.
9 Michael Seebeck // Nov 10, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Milnes, nobody outside you cares what you say anyway.
Fact is, and I’ll keep saying this until people stop with the philosophical pin-dancing, the LP needs to get off its collective behinds, stop pursuing “name” candidates for Presdient, and build the @#$%^&* party infrastructure up to get the basics down and done.
10 paulie cannoli // Nov 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm
the LP needs to get off its collective behinds, stop pursuing “name†candidates for Presdient, and build the @#$%^&* party infrastructure up to get the basics down and done.
Yes.
11 Caspian // Nov 10, 2008 at 7:44 pm
“When we campaign, we start with the most controversial issues first. ”
If Obama did that, we’d be talking about a record landslide win for McCain.
12 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 10, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Caspian,
Libertarians aren’t Democrats, and shouldn’t act like Democrats (or Republicans).
The Republicans and Democrats run the political gamut from “centrist/moderate” to “mild reform.” They’re only going to lead with controversial issues that either have a plurality/majority support bloc in opposition to a policy of the current administraiton, or else have huge “wedge” potential without threatening their bases’ loyalty.
The Republicans and Democrats also fill the center/moderate and “mild reform” niche. They can’t successfully be beat on that ground any more than a startup beverage company could hope to beat Coca-Cola and PepsiCo by anchoring their brand to a standard-formula cola.
If the LP wants to compete with the Democrats and Republicans, it has to be controversial, because it has to create new voter blocs which strongly support and prioritize positions that can’t be easily reached without moving from the center. It can only create those voter blocs by emphasizing those issues and those positions.
Ending marriage apartheid would have been a great issue for the LP to take a strong stand on this year. Instead, Barr argued that DOMA/states rights is “the essence of libertarianism,” and I’ve even heard that the California LP declined to take an official position on Proposition 8 (I seem to recall that my own state LP did the same thing a few years ago when I proposed that it oppose similar disgusting, evil, fascist hate legislation in Missouri).
Immigration would have been a good issue to hit, too, given the major parties’ utter subservience to the Know-Nothings. A pro-immigration-freedom party that emphasized the issue could have made inroads in several communities. Instead we mumbled the same “secure the borders” mantra as the others, only less convincingly.
13 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 10, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Seabeck:
The LP never seeked out Barr or Gravel. Maybe you should think before making entries.
14 TheOriginalAndy // Nov 10, 2008 at 11:59 pm
“Ending marriage apartheid would have been a great issue for the LP to take a strong stand on this year. Instead, Barr argued that DOMA/states rights is “the essence of libertarianism,†and I’ve even heard that the California LP declined to take an official position on Proposition 8 (I seem to recall that my own state LP did the same thing a few years ago when I proposed that it oppose similar disgusting, evil, fascist hate legislation in Missouri).”
Tom Knapp gets it wrong (again).
Here are the vote recommendations for the Libertarian Party of California on the statewide propositions that were on the ballot on the November 4th election. Scroll down to Prop 8.
LPC Proposition Recommendations — Nov. 2008
See the 2008 Libertarian Party of California recommendations for the statewide ballot propositions, below; and a selected list of Libertarian candidates on this page.
Propositon 1A: VOTE NO
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.
Proposition 2: VOTE NO
Standards for Confining Farm Animals.
Proposition 3: VOTE NO
Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program.
Proposition 4: NEUTRAL
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy.
Proposition 5: NEUTRAL
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation.
Proposition 6: VOTE NO
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws.
Proposition 7: VOTE NO
Renewable Energy Generation.
Proposition 8: VOTE NO
Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
Proposition 9: NEUTRAL
Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole.
Proposition 10: VOTE NO
Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds.
Proposition 11: VOTE NO
Redistricting.
Proposition 12: VOTE NO
Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008.
15 TheOriginalAndy // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:01 am
“Immigration would have been a good issue to hit, too, given the major parties’ utter subservience to the Know-Nothings. A pro-immigration-freedom party that emphasized the issue could have made inroads in several communities. Instead we mumbled the same “secure the borders†mantra as the others, only less convincingly.”
This is not true at all. McCain and Obama are both pro-amnesty, pro-North American Union, and pro-New World Order.
16 TheOriginalAndy // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 am
“2. Failure to address scattered and disorganized party support. E.G.: Bob Barr was the candidate. Period. So why were so many Libertarians bloviating about Ron Paul? A. He wasn’t on the ticket as a Libertarian. B. Failure to vote with the party is counter-productive to our cause.”
I’m a 12 year member of the Libertarian Party and I did not vote for Barr/Root. I do not blindly support any party. I cast a write in vote for Ron Paul/Gail Lightfoot.
17 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:09 am
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. The guy’s talking points are beginning to get a little kooky. They were good last year, but now… gold standard? Libertarians should support a nothing standard, free market currency.
18 TheOriginalAndy // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:38 am
“Libertarian Joseph // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:09 am
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. The guy’s talking points are beginning to get a little kooky. They were good last year, but now… gold standard? Libertarians should support a nothing standard, free market currency.”
This shows how little you know about Ron Paul. Ron Paul favors eliminating legal tender laws. He knows that gold & silver are in the Constitution and are historically what worked best for money, but he ultimately favors free market currency.
Ron Paul is a more hardcore Libertarian than anyone who sought the LP nomination this year, with the possible excpetions of Ruwart and Kubby, and Ron is a MUCH BETTER candidate than either Ruwart or Kubby.
19 Caspian // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:40 am
Knapp –
Kubby is the one to bring up how the Democrats campaigned, not me.
If by controversial issues, you mean ones that have passionate support on both sides, that’s one thing (seems to be what your post is suggesting).
I take Kubby to be saying something different – like start with your most unpopular, shock-value issue.
20 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:45 am
Ending marriage apartheid would have been a great issue for the LP to take a strong stand on this year. Instead, Barr argued that DOMA/states rights is “the essence of libertarianism,†and I’ve even heard that the California LP declined to take an official position on Proposition 8 (I seem to recall that my own state LP did the same thing a few years ago when I proposed that it oppose similar disgusting, evil, fascist hate legislation in Missouri).
Immigration would have been a good issue to hit, too, given the major parties’ utter subservience to the Know-Nothings. A pro-immigration-freedom party that emphasized the issue could have made inroads in several communities. Instead we mumbled the same “secure the borders†mantra as the others, only less convincingly.
Exactly!
21 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 11, 2008 at 4:03 am
Caspian,
Yes, but you’re the one who asserted that if Democrats followed Kubby’s prescription, they’d lose in landslides … and you’re right, but that illuminates a whole different point, the point being that the correct strategy for Democrats and the correct strategy for Libertarians aren’t necessarily the same strategy.
You write:
“I take Kubby to be saying something different – like start with your most unpopular, shock-value issue.”
Um, no. “Controversial” implies that there are strong arguments, and potentially dedicated voter blocs, on both sides of the issue. “Our most unpopular, shock-value issues” don’t fit that description (although they might still be useful for other reasons).
22 carolm62 // Nov 11, 2008 at 4:45 am
I’m surprised y’all see the Prop 8 issue as so cut and dried. When a few litigious gay persons started suing churches that didn’t want to be part of their marriage or adoption plans, they exposed a real threat to religious liberty. Instead of taking their wedding and adoption plans elsewhere they chose to bring down the aggression of government on those who disagreed with them. We see how this is playing out in Europe.
Which is it: religious liberty or marriage liberty? Do we side with only one or do we support both?
There would not be a conflict if government did not have it’s nose in a realm it did not belong….
23 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:10 am
Carol,
Naturally, libertarians support both — and Proposition 8 was inherently subversive of both.
The entire point of Proposition 8 was to suppress religious liberty by suppressing marriage liberty — to impose the standards of particular forms of Christianity on everyone, including those who don’t practice said forms of Christianity.
Prop 8 is no different than amending the California’s constitution to recognize religious freedom only for members of churches which endorse the doctrine of substantiation of the host, or that baptize by dunking instead of drizzling, or that worship on Sunday rather than Saturday, or that believe the world rests on the back of an elephant.
I do not know the exact texts of the various laws applying to marriage in California. In Missouri, however, the penalties are very specifically targeted: CLERGY who solemnize marriages not sanctioned by the doctrines of evangelical Christian sects, as written into state law, are liable for imprisonment.
24 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:33 am
Andy, state’s rights is something no libertarian should care about. It’s all about individual rights, “state’s rights” and “federalism” are imaginary products of statism.
Yeah, state control is better than central control, town contrl over state control is better, but that’s just to make it harder for the state to fuck everyone over.
25 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:43 am
Of course prop 8 is a cut and dried issue.
It builds a bigoted definition of marriage into the state constitution. This is by no means taking government out of marriage, just the opposite.
It’s no different than banning “interracial” marriages, or interfaith marriages.
It even invalidates marriages which already have been recognized. This measure is pure, 100% uncut evil. And Obama is to blame.
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/obama-nation-the-futures-so-bright-i-gotta-wear-shades/
There is still a way to stop it though, the California Supreme Court might rule that it is a revision and not just an amendment, which would require a 2/3 vote by the legislature to make it go into effect.
I don’t know if the judges would care, but Californians should start writing their legislators to do the right thing and stand up for marriage equality in case it falls into their hands.
26 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:46 am
Why not just get ri of mariage licenses? Sheesh!
27 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:46 am
rid***
28 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:47 am
That would be nice in the long run. In the short run, stop a bigoted definition of marriage from being added to state constitutions.
29 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:50 am
Yup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_New_Jersey
That’s my state. Everything BUT same-sex marriage lol. Liberals are supposed to be the progressive, tolerant ones? I’m sure they could pass what they want in this one-party state.
Millions of Californians just learned the failures of both direct and indirect democracy.
30 G.E. // Nov 11, 2008 at 8:48 am
Yes.
Leave a Comment