In my last Plumb Line (February 1979), I wrote of the problem that the space cadet wing of the Libertarian Party poses to the party’s continued growth and development. Looking at the problem more analytically, we find that this syndrome is part of a broader phenomenon.
All ideological movements begin as localized discussion groups, arguing over problems of high, abstract theory, theory seemingly remote from the practical political concerns of the day. This is a very important and necessary phase, but if any movement is to grow, it must eventually transcend that stage of development. In the case of the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party, many years were spent in refining theory, in elaborating the ultimate goal toward which we are working. Before we could progress to the next stage of growth, we had to resolve our theoretical disputes, either by convincing each other or by agreeing to disagree and going on to something else.
In the Libertarian Party we have happily resolved the various ideological issues and begun to transcend them. Most specifically, there were two major theoretical issues that needed to be settled. One was anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, a dispute that was solved in a detente hammered out in the 1974 national convention at Dallas. The two factions decided to bury their differences for purposes of political action, purging the party platform of all explicitly pro-government planks, and attacking government for its numerous illegitimate interventions.
Our ultimate goals, apart from basic principles about natural rights and individual rights, were simply not spelled out. This was an excellent resolution of the political problem, since, important as the conflict may be in the theoretical sphere, the likelihood that we will achieve even laissez- faire government in the near future is fairly remote. This settlement of the conflict has enabled anarchists and limited government people to coexist peacefully and harmoniously within the Libertarian Party ever since.
The next great step forward in the L.P. occurred at the New York national convention of 1975, when the second ideological conflict within the party was resolved. Specifically, the platform was stripped of its militarist and pro-interventionist elements, and the party was firmly committed to a noninterventionist foreign policy as the logical implication of libertarian principle. In the 1977 national convention at San Francisco, this victory for a noninterventionist foreign policy was cemented and expanded, and retrogressive attempts by a handful of pro-war interventionists were defeated with ease by the overwhelming majority of convention delegates.
With the major ideological issues thereby resolved, the Libertarian Party has been able to leap ahead and to confine its quarrels to strategic and organizational questions. These are healthy growing pains, for no ideological movement can make its mark on national politics until its ideological problems are settled and the major questions become tactical and organizational ones.
The major organizational conflict now within the Libertarian Party is simply this: shall the LP, without compromising one whit on its principles, grow and develop into a professional real-world party, influencing and eventually dominating the mainstream of American political life?
Or shall it remain not merely a set of discussion clubs, but a congeries of local, social affinity groups, bound together by ties that are more personal than ideological or strategic?
The space-cadet aberration is simply one aspect of the discussion-club, affinity group, “circle” stage of the libertarian movement. We have now shown, in countless ways, that we are strong and popular enough to transcend that stage, to move rapidly toward professionalism and real-world politics. For we must never forget the purpose of working in the Libertarian Party. The purpose is not to socialize, discuss science fiction, contemplate our dreams, or perform busywork. The purpose is to win, to transform America and eventually the entire world from a regime of statism to a world of liberty.
The California L.P. convention held in San Jose on February 16-19 was a fascinating example of the tension between these two broad tendencies within the party. In the opening debate on foreign policy between Tibor Machan and Roy Childs, Machan tried desperately to throw sand in the machinery by attempting to revive the old anarchist and interventionist debates. But since he characteristically tried to do so by repeatedly proclaiming his total ignorance of foreign affairs, the effect was almost ludicrous.
The convention ultimately centered around the competing candidacies for the L.P. Presidential nomination of Edward Clark and Wiliam Hunscher. Clark, whose phenomenal 377,960 votes for Governor of California last November comprised 5.5% of that state’s voters, is manifestly the best candidate the L.P. could possibly field. The nearly 400,000 votes — translating into millions of votes across the country — which Clark achieved without any compromise of principle make him the best possible candidate from any objective viewpoint. If libertarians want success, they must choose Clark.
There is a key difference in the two races. Clark’s candidacy, in addition to being professional, is strongly issue-oriented. Clark’s procedure is to uphold the pure libertarian goal of individual liberty while setting forth cogent and persuasive transition steps to advance toward that goal. Bill Hunscher, while undoubtedly a consistent libertarian, is apparently only minimally concerned with the issues of the day; his concern is to run as an entrepreneur who was successful in business competition and who therefore can lick the Democrats and Republicans. This is not the sort of campaign that Libertarians need or require. Of course, we want a lot of votes; but we want them not for personalities per se, but for persons who propound and convince the public of the libertarian approach toward the important issues of our time. On both counts: votes and public policies, Clark has shown himself to be the supreme vote-getter and the master of complex issues. Clark is clearly the right candidate for the Presidency in 1980. And that is why those forces in the party who are for growth, for real-world success, and for holding high the banner of our glorious principles, will go all-out for Ed Clark for the Presidential nomination this September.
