Portland and the LP Platform: The Perfect Storm
Posted in Sound Off Soapbox by R Lee Wrights on July 26th, 2006 by George Squyres, Chair, Platform Committee
Since the Libertarian National Convention held in Portland July 1&2 ended, my inbox has been filled with everything from media inquiries wanting a copy of the new platform, to laments about the implosion and death of the Libertarian Party to simple inquiries about what happened in Portland that resulted in the removal of 56 planks from the LP Platform. With much of this I can tell you quite a bit of what has gone on, a few parts I can speak to as one who has worked on the project of redeveloping the platform since before the ‘02 convention in Indy and with the rest I am only speculating as an individual and your guess is as good as mine.
First, there is more disinformation out there than fact, so to clear up some confusion, let’s get the facts straight. There were only six planks retained unchanged from the original Atlanta Platform. Those were (old numbering) I.1 Freedom and Responsibility, I.4 The War on Drugs, I.10 Freedom of Communication, I.11 Freedom of Religion, I.13 The Right to Privacy and I.16 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. These now appear in the Portland Platform, along with nine planks that were passed by the convention delegates. Five of those nine were consolidations of twelve previous planks, while four were rewrites of individual planks that the Platform Committee considered high priority.
The new planks that are consolidations (and the old planks that were consolidated into them) are I.2 Crime and Victimless Crime, I.4 Property Rights (III.9 Resource Use, IV.C.3 Unowned Resources, and IV.D.3 Space Exploration), I.8 Reproductive Rights (I.20 Women’s Rights and Abortion, III.5 Population), II.2 Corporate Welfare, Monopolies and Subsidies (II.6 Monopolies, II.7 Subsidies) and II.3 Public Services (II.9 Public Utilities, III.13 Postal Service). The four planks that received rewrites were IV.1Immigration (I.18), I.9 Sexuality and Gender (I.22-renamed), II.1 Government Debt (II.5) and I.7 Conscription (I.17-renamed). This is the complete Portland platform.
One comment is necessary by way of explanation. The Platform Committee did not want to either get rid of the section 3&4 headings, or leave them without planks which would be confusing. So in renumbering the planks we chose to relocate a few so that each section heading was preserved and included at least one plank. We agree that Immigration as a Foreign Issue is a stretch, but simply put it was the best solution we could reach, and it is what is to be expected when you are tasked with making chicken soup out of chicken shit.
Many have proclaimed that the platform has been gutted, that the LP has been taken over by NeoCons and that Liberty has been abandoned. Indeed some have already gone out and started a new political party. While that battle cry of “gutting the platform” has become overused to the point of triteness, there is no question that we have some gaps in the platform. That being said, we actually have a pretty good spread of issues and positions on them. Particularly topical today are both Immigration and Gay Marriage. The new Immigration plank was first published last July in LP News, received over 90% positive feedback and support and is largely unchanged since then. I gave the Sexuality and Gender plank to a leader of the GLBT community here in Flagstaff upon returning from the convention and the response was that it was fantastic and hit the core of the issue. We may not have everything that we want in the Platform, but what we do have is mostly pretty good. So to say it has been gutted is hollow. As I have said to many, a platform with 15 to 20 planks DONE RIGHT could end up being the best platform the party has ever had.
To answer those who have asked me what I thought caused the “cataclysm” in Portland, I can give no simple answer as there are many things that have been festering for quite some time. The only point that to me has become very clear over the past few years is that at the root of the problem, unseen by virtually everyone but affecting all parties involved, has been our Bylaws on Platform Debate. Written 35 years ago and not significantly changed since then, they restrict change in the platform to convention and far worse, restrict debate to a single plank at a time. This guarantees that effecting change to the platform is difficult at best. Over the years the platform has grown, adding plank after plank in what founder David Nolan described as “collecting like barnacles on an old ship.”
This is born out by the events in Atlanta where we made the greatest Platform advance in the party’s history, but only after suspending the rules so that we could deal with more than one plank at a time. Had we not done that we would never have been able to impose the new format onto the platform. Unfortunately what the format has shown in the two years since Atlanta is just how much change is needed and how hamstrung by the current Bylaws we actually are in trying to effect that change.
The Bylaws also do not allow us to use the technological tools such as the Internet that are now available to us. For the past two convention cycles we have done an end run around this by setting up a website for Platform debate and discussion so as to expand the involvement of party members and increase the amount of input and transparency. We took the contributions received there and used it in our discussions, but when I asked at the convention how many had availed themselves of this opportunity, I saw no more than thirty hands in the whole room. Until we make this a part of the debate within the Bylaws it will remain a tool that few pick up.
The recognition that the platform needed significant change has been longstanding. Unfortunately this need has always run afoul of the cultural issues internal to the LP. Any change has been seen by one faction as an attempt to gut the platform and “sell out principle for short term electoral success.” The resistance to change has been seen by another faction as zealots guarding the sacred tablets of the temple. The refusal to even consider that other Libertarians are just as principled or just as pragmatic as you are, that whatever disagreement you may have with them doesn’t hold a candle to the disagreements you have with Republicrats, never seems to enter into the consciousness of those who consider the platform an important document.
A Republican rancher friend who is a heavy hitter with the Republican State Committee here in Arizona once told me that he was a libertarian. I asked him why he didn’t join the Libertarian Party, and his response was telling. “When the argument was over as to whether Bush or McCain would be our candidate in 2000, Republicans who had moments before fought bitterly with one another over the nomination closed ranks behind our candidate. Libertarians don’t know how to do that or understand why it is important. Until they learn that they will remain impotent. When they learn, I’ll join.”
If you ask me the conditions that caused the event in Portland, the inability to recognize that there were only Libertarians in the room was one of the main causes. One of the Platcomm members, at the ad hoc meeting right after the closing gavel, said swiftly that we needed to come up with a plan to “get those planks back into the platform.” I responded then and since that we needed to listen to people far more than we needed to take action. Upon reflection he later said that the reform group had been saying the same thing for quite some time, but that we hadn’t listened to them. I would take it a step further and say that many were not considering that faction of the party as legitimate.
So the stage is set thusly: The factions in the party refuse not simply to listen to each other, but to even consider that each is legitimate. The reformers consider the purists as sociopaths who want the LP to be nothing other than a protest organization, and who don’t want to win office as that success would leave them without something to protest. The purists consider the reformers as spineless Republicrat wannabes who will do anything to gain power, ready to sell out principle and whore themselves to gain a few votes. In the midst of this is another faction that doesn’t accept either of the other factions but continues to, as Ken Lindell put it in his recent article in Liberty, “jockey for position in an utterly powerless political organization.”
Add to this that the platform has long been considered the battleground where somehow political success is going to be won or lost. Getting the platform right is the silver bullet that will propel our candidates to success! Once the other faction has been banished from the platform, America will rush forward in a return to freedom. Yes, I know this sounds silly, but too many believe that this is where the rubber really meets the road. It has long been obvious that at a certain point one of these groups would organize and do something to achieve their goals.
Add one more major piece to the puzzle and you have the makings of a perfect storm. The platform retention vote is the one mechanism in the Bylaws that tried to create a situation that would allow us to remove planks when they had outlived their usefulness. But it had never once removed a plank that was due for it. Most delegates had blithely just either not voted in it, or just marked “Retain All,” while chatting about something else. It did not adequately serve the function it was intended to because most didn’t consider it more than a formality or really care. But the mechanism was there, that if used adroitly could allow one group to make their voice heard.
The last ingredient is that this was an off-year convention which traditionally has lower attendance. Further, the LNC had placed the convention in Portland, a more costly and less accessible destination, not because, as some of the conspiracy theorists contend, they were trying to support one faction, but as recognition of the Oregon affiliate which had been so successful. The result was that the attendance was the lowest at a convention since 1973.
The Reform Caucus, a group that in its own words
“…is a coalition of freedom lovers who want to have an effective libertarian party, one which is designed to win elections now in order to turn the tide from ever increasing statism to more liberty,”
decided to do some real politics. They got out the vote. For that they have been criticized as being corrupt and devious. If getting out the vote is corrupt and devious, then we have a real problem if we are to call ourselves a political party.
The results of all this was the perfect storm. The LRC mailer that went out to anyone who was listed as a delegate had said they wanted to get rid of 39 planks. They came to the convention with somewhere around 75 delegates, not enough to control the vote, but certainly enough to influence it. The meeting they held before the convention, however, was packed. The real truth was that they had shown up with only about 25% of the delegates, but they had energized more than 50% of those attending the convention. More than enough people outside of their caucus agreed with them that it was time for drastic measures if the platform was ever going to be truly changed. Atlanta was a step in the right direction, but more than 50% of the delegates in attendance agreed that it was not enough.
In the face of this, it is hard to maintain the position that they were acting alone any more than you could say that when we win an electoral office we did it without the voters. An election cannot go the way it does without the support of the electorate, and the retention vote could not have gone the way it did without the support of the delegates. To say it was only because of low attendance ignores political reality.
The question we are left with, the one that I posed to the Platform Special Committee members, is “Where to From Here?” Most of our members wanted to spring into action doing everything from rewriting the platform from whole cloth as many have suggested is now appropriate, to revisiting the format for modification. I suggested to the committee that now is not the time for action, but the time to listen to as many of our party members as we can hear. If the party is going to learn from this event, and benefit from experience, rather than to blindly rage on like a mindless beast, then now is the time for listening and learning. It is not a time for action or we will only suffer the same explosion in a few short years.
But some are already planning to get enough votes to the next convention to reverse the vote and reinstate the Atlanta Platform. As I stated previously, some have already gone out and started a new political party where true freedom lovers can fight for liberty. Some are planning how to achieve their next victory. Some are planning how to use the LNC and staff to essentially negate what happened, despite the fact that the LNC does not have the authority to do that. Four years on that body has taught me that the LNC will ignore the rules whenever it finds them inconvenient.
As I have said, 15 to 20 planks DONE RIGHT could well be the best and most effective platform the party has ever had. As long as the format is in place we have the discipline necessary to write planks that are true to principle yet which force us to come up with real steps for our candidates to advocate in solving the problems our country faces. The Platform Committee is looking at the next two years as an opportunity to find the balance that we know can be achieved. However we cannot achieve that success in a vacuum, and we know that success with the platform is not a silver bullet. At most it is one brick in the wall.
When the debate in the party is over who is a legitimate Libertarian rather than what it will take to implement our policies, those policies will never be implemented. Each of us has to ask what it is that we truly want from participating in this political party, and each of us has to answer. Personally, if a successful candidate implements the policies we advocate, I don’t care what letter follows his name. I don’t care about the persuasion of the individual. I want the result, not the glory. If the result is not achieved, then it doesn’t matter which of us is the “legitimate Libertarian,” we are both failures.
James Anderson Merritt said,
July 27, 2006 @ 10:03 am
The most common argument I heard for changing the platform was not that “fixing it” would turn it into a “silver bullet” on behalf of our candidates, but rather that the flaws in the platform were being used effectively by opponents as “silver bullets” AGAINST our candidates: that the platform actually prevented electoral success, and was often an embarrassment to them. I personally thought that was an excuse. I’ve seen the “embarrassing” parts of the platform be adroitly sidestepped or even vigorously, effectively defended by good candidates who went on to win (or, at least, to lose nobly in races they never could have won, anyway, platform or no). I’ve seen bad candidates who blamed the platform for their failure, but who, in my opinion, could not have won if the LP’s platform were simply, “freedom, motherhood, apple pie, denny crane.” My basic requirement is that whatever platform we DO have, should NOT compromise libertarian principle; I don’t need it to cover every possible issue or question that might come up during a campaign. I was surprised that we retained, without rewriting, the “cult of the omnipotent state” preamble, which many, in my experience, have judged to be “over the top.” I think there is probably a better way to phrase the same sentiment, which will appeal to practical Americans who simply want to prune government and enjoy more freedom in their lives. I will probably offer some suggestions about that at the official platform website between now and 2008.
Don Wills said,
July 27, 2006 @ 10:29 am
This article is the best, most complete and factually correct telling of what happened in Portland that I’ve yet read. (FWIW, I was there.)
bill wald said,
July 27, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
The Rs and Ds write a platform which is totally ignored until the next election. The only time I remember a party running on a platform was the “contract with America.” The Rs won both houses and ignored half their contract withe the excuse that legislation would be vetoed.
The Libertarian platform should be 100% principles with 0% real time proposals.
Daniel Ong said,
July 29, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Testing 1-2-3
I don’t see any comments yet (with three articles posted) and this blog has apparently replaced the online “newsletter.” This blog may be an improvement, as my complaint with the newsletter was that articles didn’t have any date attached to them, and there was no indication of when articles were new or when they had replaced “stale” articles (date of writing (or posting in the case of a blog entry) helps establish context as well as indicate if an article is new to the reader).
I was also a delegate (for the first time) and have some comments ready for posting but first want to see if and how comments get posted. I sat next to David Aitken (also on the platform committee) on Sunday and have known him (or of him) for 20 years (I’ve been a Colorado Libertarian for 30 years). I’m also a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus and will be listed on my statewide ballot (again) this November as a “Jeffersonian” as well as a Libertarian candidate.
Andrew Horning said,
July 31, 2006 @ 10:53 am
This is so deeply sad to me. If it were up to me I’d post the existing U.S. Constitution as the party platform. It’s the best compromise ever written, and it’s the Law.
But just as sad as the fact that we don’t have the Rule of Law in the USA is the fact that the Libertarians won’t settle on any course of action whatsoever.
They/we present daily proof that a libertarian society can’t work, and that’s not what we want to prove.
Failure is an option. Indeed it’s the one most often chosen by free people.
kevin o'connell said,
August 5, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
While you make it clear you support the changes made at the 2006 convention you neglect one very important point regards the events that occured.
At all the past conventions the delegates were given copies of the Platform in their delegates package so that they would be prepared to make a vote on plank retention and proposed changes.
There is no by-law requirment to give delegates copies of the Platform though there may be a resolution passed by the LNC. Still among the contents listed for the delegates package for the 2006 convention was a copy of the Platform. This is confirmed at http://www.lpconvention.org/votermaterials.shtml which is the list of Delegate Voter Materials included with all registration packages.
The delegates lack of copies of the Platform added to confusion which the organized effort of the LRC took great advantage of.
Find who removed the Platform from the Delegates information packages, that is the smoking gun.
Daniel Ong said,
August 10, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
For a short parallel account of some of the details of convention actions, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/49960
I was a first-time national delegate, after being Libertarian for 30 years and attending some state conventions through the decades, but only becoming an LP activist two years ago when I decided to run for office. I decided to attend this convention primarily to support the Libertarian Reform Caucus’s goals, but also to have a long-delayed visit to family in the Portland area and get some dental work done by my brother-in-law, whose new office this fall will be just a few blocks from the LP Oregon office (airfare was a gift from other relatives and family hosted me, so my trip cost was little more than the cheapest delegate package, airport parking, and light-rail fares).
I did not print out and bring a copy of the platform with me since I was traveling by air and a copy was already promised http://www.lpconvention.org/votermaterials.shtml and paid for as part of my delegate materials (I had limited internet access at my relatives, and hotel internet access appeared prohibitively expensive). I pointed out the lack of a copy of the platform in my delegate’s notebook to registration staff when I checked in Friday afternoon prior to the LRC meeting and again on Saturday. I was not about to vote to retain any planks I couldn’t read or review immediately beforehand. I twice voted not to retain any existing planks using the ballot platform retention procedure, since I believe the overall platform needs an overhaul, although I generally voted to accept planks resulting from convention deliberation (there seems to be a different dynamic to open convention voting (herd mentality) vs. ballot voting (individual contemplation, although I witnessed some “let me copy your ballot” action)).
As one of his first actions, party Chair and convention presiding officer Mike Dixon said he would extend business sessions both days (Saturday and Sunday) until 6 p.m. to accommodate the amount of business to be conducted. It is beyond me why a majority of delegates would vote to adjourn early Sunday afternoon almost immediately following the official announcement of final platform retention results after paying hundreds of dollars to attend in the first place. I voted against early adjournment and was prepared to stay well into Sunday evening to address the resulting platform “gaps.”
As a first time delegate I was struck by how utterly cumbersome and time-consuming the Robert’s Rules of Order procedure was to deal with platform proposals, as demonstrated on Saturday afternoon. Certainly, improvements in the procedure are in order, although specific changes in procedure might not be allowed by bylaws changes until 2010 unless suspended by 2008 delegates for platform deliberation then.
I never got around to registering for the online LP platform discussion forum but will be most interested in following the committee’s work prior to the next convention. All day Sunday I sat next to David Aitken, also on the platform committee, whom I greatly admire and respect for his long-term active involvement in the LP at local, state, and national levels, and who has invested countless hours in platform study and http://lpplatformreform.blogspot.com/ revision proposals. The LP platform discussion forum appears to be shut down, at least for new participants, although the LP Bylaws forum appears to still be open.
It has been claimed that LRC had no replacement proposals following the “gutting” of the platform. We had a proposal http://www.reformthelp.org/caucus/build/manifesto.php representing the consensus of voting LRC members with a list of planks to delete and replace. If given the chance, I would have moved for the rules to be suspended and our recommendations be adopted as a whole (other than individual planks already addressed the previous day and those retained) to expedite the platform revision process, despite my differences with various individual LRC plank proposals and wording.
Of course, in hindsight we should have had complete printed copies of our consensus proposal for every delegate to read, but this would have been a large undertaking, given that the convention staff and/or the platform committee couldn’t even manage to provide the promised copy of the existing platform. Other than this huge blunder, the rest of the convention went fine, and many thanks to the convention staff and volunteers for a fine effort. I’m particularly grateful that there was actually room to walk between seated delegates and tables, usually crammed in by hotel convention staff like sardines. I wish it had been made clear, however, that paying for the opening evening reception was optional, although I thought it was classy that both the major party candidate and representative for the current Oregon governor appeared in person to welcome delegates.
My vote twice against retaining all planks was a combination of factors, including a protest vote against not being provided a promised and paid for copy of the current platform, and a way to express my support for the LRC despite our not being able to reach the 2/3 margin necessary to eliminate the open-to-interpretation pledge.
There seems to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that the LP platform is much slimmed down now, and doesn’t specifically address many current issues, although the structure and introduction to each section remain. Thomas L. Knapp’s new Boston Tea Party http://www.bostontea.us/ is an attempt to demonstrate the effectiveness of a minimal platform (one sentence) and limited program list for what possibly amounts to an independent caucus within the LP for the time being.
Again, blame, if any, for reducing the overall size of the LP platform should be placed at the feet of the majority of delegates who voted to adjourn early without addressing the “holes” remaining in the platform given the success of the ballot retention vote effort to trim the platform (LRC members were a distinct minority of delegates).
P.S. I’m glad my test comment finally appeared. Comments appear to replace the old forum and are tied to each individual article posted.
Hammer of Truth » Is the LP a Political Party? said,
September 5, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
[...] Lew Rockwell just beat up on the Libertarian Party. The main thrust of his article is about changes to the platform at the Libertarian National Convention, but I’ll leave that issue alone. Brian Dougherty covered the issue for Reason magazine — and he was actually in Portland, unlike Rockwell. Additionally, George Squyres, who chairs the Platform Committee, has provided his perspective twice (1, 2) about the issue. Here’s the point of Rockwell’s which bothers me: But you know what? The LP was not founded to get people elected to office. It was founded to oppose the regime and educate the public, and use elections as the vehicle to do so. The American system of government and elections is set up and managed to accommodate two parties. The idea of becoming a third party was only to underscore the evil and trickery of the system. [...]
Mike Renzulli said,
September 6, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
If the new AZLP platform is any indication, the path Mr Squyres wants to take the LP down is anything but a libertarian one. I have had nice conversations with George in the past and appreciate the hard work he has done in the movement as well as the LP but when I attend the 2008 convention as a delegate, at this time, it is unlikely that I will back his proposals to change anything in the LP platform and I will work to restore the platform language dumped in Portland. If people want to make the LP into a party that can elect Libertarians, thats fine by me. However, dumping our party’s principles and the platform language that reflects that is not an option. Doing so makes us no better than the Republicans and Democrats whos proposals we squeal at during every opportunity. People want a choice. Not an echo.
James Babb said,
September 6, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
If you are a candidate, and the LP platform made you lose your race, please post something.
I’m still waiting to meet such a person.
Jim
Robert said,
September 7, 2006 @ 7:12 am
All this wrangling over the LP platform is an insignificant detail compared to a much more important question: whether it makes sense for libertarians in the USA to have their own political party at all. The degree & breadth of policy change since the last successful political party in the USA (the current Republicans) came about have been enormous. Incomes have been taxed, wars have been started & stopped, Social Security & Medicare came in, liquor has been prohibited & un-prohibited — all without any significant impact by the formation of any party for those purposes. Even the draft was imposed and un-imposed, and can you name a policy whose impact on individual liberty is more profound? If such significant policy changes can take place, and can change in both directions (as shown by several examples) without need for a political party dedicated to such purposes, what makes you think libertarians benefit from having a party?
The net result of the Libertarian Party has been to neutralize many libertarians politically. It has distracted them from being effective in weighing in on gov’t policy. An effective political organiz’n is one that makes its participants MORE influential than the average person for a given amount of effort; LP has made its participants LESS influential than the avg. person for a given amount of effort. Someone who does ALL hir political activity via LP can be completely and safely ignored by all persons in positions of political influence; for everyone else, the amount of that person’s activity channeled into LP is the amount that can be ignored by the rest of the world.
Jay Edgar said,
September 7, 2006 @ 9:17 am
To Jim who asked if the platform ever caused a candidate to lose a race. I can’t say this is the case, more a lack of funding and effort on my part.
I have had the part of the old platform thrown in my face that stated the we would get rid of ALL taxation. It was a bit too extreme and impossible to defend as a rational platform. I’m glad to see that part of the platform gone. I never had any other problems with the old platform.
I like the new platform. I’ve used quotes from it already in online discussions. It is quite more useful and realistic.
Steve Trinward said,
September 7, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
Bravo to George for stating the situation so clearly. If the LP ever gets to the point where it lays out the principles and the overriding “party stance” in the SOP and Preamble, as well as in the intro paragraphs … and has individual planks ONLY on the current election issues that require rebuttal from pro-liberty folks … it MIGHT actually serve a real purpose. Anyone within the LP ranks who can’t take the 16 fairly GOOD planks we now have and, by combining them with the more general statements in the remaining text, derive and present a consistent libertarian (anti-force and fraud) position on pretty much any issue that arises … needs to do some more homework! State and local groups would do well to role-play with their potential candidates, long before they consider endorsing them; someone who cannot think on her/his feet and deflect or explain the criticisms … either should not be running for public office, or needs staff members who can teach the basics, long before considering a windmill-tilt, let alone a serious run for election.
gail lightfoot said,
September 10, 2006 @ 11:08 am
Who among us actually quotes the LP Platform verbatum? I certainly don’t. Generally, discussions of party or politics occur when you least expect it and your own understanding and choice of words are what inspire the listener to learn more or not. For the most part, voters are already committed and getting them to give up that committment is very difficult to say the least. Those who do, do so without our help. It is when they find themselves unhappy to the point of giving up old ideas that they turn to new ideas and perhaps join us rather than some other group. We can only be grateful for those who not only join but stay, like us, for the long haul.
BTW: Where are the LP leaders from the 1970s and 1980s now?
gail lightfoot
LP candidate for CA Secretary of State, 1998, 2002, 2006
Carl Milsted said,
September 17, 2006 @ 8:40 am
Gail, I will tell you who quotes the platform (or at least used to): Staff! It had been common, nay mandatory, practice for staff to quote the platform when making a press release or other announcement on issues of the day. The platform formed the basis of our outreach message.
For those who claim that it is a matter of money, the platform affects this variable. While the average voter may not sit down and read a platform, core activists often do — or at least read propaganda materials based on the platform.
See http://www.quiz2d.com/stats to see how far people interested in a new political party are willing to go in the libertarian direction.
CongressCheck said,
June 28, 2007 @ 4:32 am
What would you do if you
Knew all of the things we knew
Would you stand up for truth
Or would you turn away too
And then what if you saw
All of the things thats wrong
Would you stand tall and strong
Or would you turn and walk away
http://www.freestate.tv