Give me your poor!
Posted in Liberty's Friend by R Lee Wrights on August 18th, 2008 by Mary J. Ruwart
Liberty’s natural constituents have always been the young and disadvantaged, not the established and the elite. Is the Libertarian Party, built on the activism of the “have-nots,” now snubbing its most ardent supporters?
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
- Inscription on the Statue of Liberty
The inscription on the Statue of Liberty asked not for Europe’s titled, wealthy, or elite, but those who benefit most from liberty—the poor and the oppressed. When the Statue was unveiled in 1886, it was common knowledge that the impoverished were freedom’s natural constituency.
In Europe guild membership was necessary to work at one’s chosen profession. Only the well-to-do or well-connected could hope to qualify, however. For the working poor, coming to America was the difference between putting their children to bed with full stomachs and watching them slowly starve to death.
Those with money or connections had no need to abandon their homes and seek a new and uncertain future half way across the world. The elite could afford to buy or maneuver their way into the guilds. Those who could do neither flocked to America’s shores hoping that Lady Liberty could deliver what their statist homelands could not. The youthful poor were especially motivated to take their chances in a new nation.
America became wealthy because, unlike other nations, its poor could work with little or no government interference. In any society the poor outnumber the rich. In the fledging U.S., with a population primarily derived from immigration, the poor were probably even more numerous. However, because they had freedom they could work their way from poverty to success—and most of them did exactly that!
Liberty’s natural constituency consists of the impoverished, the downtrodden, and the young. Statists know this well. In the early 1900s, after creating the Great Depression with the Federal Reserve, the enemies of liberty encouraged those whose livelihood they had destroyed to take government handouts.
To their credit many people simply refused. Was it a matter of pride as the history books claim or did they understand that the price of a free lunch was their liberty, their only hope for a better life? Was it an accident that the statist agenda of the 1960s began with a War on Poverty? Getting the poor to accept the dole seduced liberty’s most ardent constituents into sleeping with the enemy. When the impoverished are convinced that government is savior, rather than oppressor, liberty is doomed.
Not surprisingly, the Libertarian Party (LP) was started in 1971 by the young and not-so-well-to-do. These groups understood that liberty was their only political hope. Although money was scarce in the fledgling LP, activism was high. Over the next three decades a membership of a mere 10,000-30,000 individuals managed to run presidential candidates in almost all 50 states in spite of ballot access laws designed to thwart third-party success. LP candidates got 10-1000 times as many votes per dollar as their Democratic and Republican counterparts. The LP became our nation’s largest, most persistent third party because of the activism of less than 0.01% of the population. The LP elected hundreds of office holders and made its name a household word. By 2008 the media was so savvy about LP platform positions that it began criticizing LP candidates when they promoted contrary ones!
Successful entrepreneurs and the well-to-do were largely missing from the early LP. Instead, these groups “bought” their freedom to do business by jumping through costly regulatory hoops, lobbying for political influence, and becoming workaholics. Once they learned how to manipulate the system freedom seemed to be more of a threat than a boon. Clamoring for liberty would endanger the influence and power that they had worked so hard to gain. Just as liberty’s natural constituency is comprised of the poor, disadvantaged, oppressed, and the young (who often fall into the former categories as well), the successful and politically connected often falsely believe that freedom does not benefit them.
Thankfully there are exceptions. Many of the young activists who made the LP what it is today have become better off in the last couple of decades and now support the Party financially. Those accustomed to “working the system” are finally seeing the light and contributing to the LP. Money, however, can never substitute for the activism that is the primary province of the young and not-so-well-to-do.
While money is the mother’s milk of politics and by implication, Big Government, liberty is best nurtured by activists willing to put their life on the line figuratively, if not literally. In the fight for liberty, activism comes first and money follows.
Nowhere was this more apparent than with the Ron Paul campaign. Youthful activists took the lead, creating money bombs, slogans, and Internet presence for the former 1988 LP presidential candidate and 2008 GOP hopeful. Independently of the formal campaign, activists raised record-breaking sums of money for Ron Paul.
The money bombs were successful, not because of a few big donors (the maximum donation permitted by law is $2300), but because of thousands of small ones. The average donation was $100 or less. Thus, for every $2300 donation, some eighty-eight $75 donors, forty-four $50 donors, or twenty-nine $25 donors contributed.
In spite of record-breaking fundraising, however, Ron Paul’s campaign was not driven by money, but by activism. Many supporters quit their jobs to work full-time on the campaign without pay. Activism came first. The money followed—just as it did in the LP. Candidates who did not understand this have attempted their own money bombs and universally fallen short of their targeted goals.
Unfortunately the LP, like America herself, seems to have forgotten who brought her to the dance. The “Leadership” category under the “Our Party” tab at the LP’s website proclaims “one of the most important task that is expected from a board member of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) is to raise funds for the organization through a combination of personal contributions and funds raised through personal solicitations” (grammatical errors uncorrected).
The LNC is the governing body of the LP. Its job is supervising the National Office and conducting Party business between conventions. The recently-introduced idea that “leadership” is equivalent to fund-raising and that the LNC members are responsible for personally doing so is just another indication that the LP, like America herself, has lost its way.
The amounts shown for each person reflect only one-time monetary contributions to the national party or funds raised through the national party for ballot access. Pledges to the state or national party, direct contributions to a state’s ballot access drive, one-time donations to state parties, or donations to LP candidates aren’t included. Even as a measure of monetary contributions, the so-called “leadership” page is itself misleading!
The saddest thing about equating financial contributions to leadership, however, is that it denigrates the true impetus behind LP success, giving newcomers that impression that the size of their wallet is more important than the activism that they wish to contribute. Liberty’s natural constituency, the poor, the oppressed, and the young, are sure to be discouraged when they encounter this not-so-subtle hint that no matter how much time and effort they are willing to put into helping the LP grow, they will not be honored for their contributions, at least on the national level. The elitists in the LP have even coined a term to denigrate those idealistic enough to sacrifice livelihood for liberty and now call them “povertarians.”
Most current LNC members, whether or not they are well-to-do, have a long history of LP activism under their belt. Appropriate biographies of each would impress upon the membership the importance and value of running for office, participating in ballot access drives, and educating the public about the LP. However, only the bios of officers are presented on the LP leadership page and only one of these even mentions LP activism.
How sad! Since money follows activism, we can rest assured that fund-raising by the LP will continue to dwindle as activism is given second-class status. Dr. Paul showed us that if we put forth the message of liberty in all of its glory, the young and not-so-well-to-do will provide the activism—and the money—required. If the LP wants to prosper financially, she needs to appeal to her natural constituents. Like her symbol, the Statue of Liberty, the LP needs to remember who needs her the most. Her cry of recruitment should clearly be “Give me your poor!”
Dr. Mary Ruwart currently serves as an At-large member of the Libertarian National Committee.
Fundraising » Give me your poor! said,
August 18, 2008 @ 2:26 am
[...] Give me your poor! 18 Aug 2008 | 12:00 am | Category: Uncategorized Politics | AP | Huffington Post Wires wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptYouthful activists took the lead, creating money bombs, slogans, and Internet presence for the former 1988 LP presidential candidate and 2008 GOP hopeful. Independently of the formal campaign, activists raised record-breaking sums of … [...]
Thomas L. Knapp said,
August 18, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
Dr. Ruwart,
THANK YOU for this piece!
The purpose of money in LP operations should be to push the party’s message, gain support for that message, and translate that support into real change. The LNC seems to have fallen prey (not just this year, but for awhile now) to the faulty notion that the message is simply a malleable fundraising pitch.
Starchild said,
August 19, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
Excellent essay, Mary! I’m glad we have some leaders like yourself in the party who understand how wrongheaded, offensive, and contrary to the history of our party and movement it is to attempt to quantify leadership on the LNC in terms of how much money an LNC member is donating.
Less Antman said,
August 20, 2008 @ 2:28 am
Terrific essay: although our chance of attracting young idealists in 2008 has been diminished greatly by the current strategy of the national LP, the November post-mortem ought to begin with your article if the LP is to be relevant to the movement toward liberty in the future.
Mike Renzulli said,
August 20, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
I could not have said this any better myself.