| | Hi, guys.
I had to weigh in here on this subject.
I, too, was very involved with my local Libertarian Party for a couple of years. Like Jordan, I certainly disagreed with the official 9/11 party stance, but I'd become disillusioned long before then, for many of the same reasons stated in the Neal Boortz quote (post #3-- thanks, Luke), and the ones Luke brought up himself. I originally only got involved with the party because I was under the (mistaken) impression that, as the political party whose ideas most closely resembled Objectivism, it would be chock full of mainly rational people who were, at least, familiar with, and admirers of Rand, if not actual Objectivists. I met, literally, a couple of people who identified themselves as such, and they were a hoot to be around. But the vast majority of the party members were, well, nuts. The older, seasoned "leaders" were mainly obsessed with the anti-government agenda (one of the more prominent party leaders would get into heated, profane arguments--publicly--about whether or not the local party should be required to officially join the national party; apparently, even affiliation with the national chapter of the same damn party had too much of a "big brother" feel for this guy). The newer joiners were mainly recruited from events like Hempfest--people motivated by some single issue that was close to their heart (legalization of prostitution, drugs, gambling, or the fantasy of the abolition of taxes, etc.) The sad fact is, the majority of Libertarians have nothing in common with each other except for the basic wish for the government to leave them the hell alone. The lack of a unifying moral philosophy among its members ultimately proved to be unsatisfying for me, and the conventions were definitely the place to experience this cacophony of ideas in all its glory. The guest speakers and their topics varied greatly (in both quality and relevance). I will never forget the time we were treated to a presentation by a guy who was invited to speak only because he survived Waco (read: Branch Davidian cult member). What did he talk about? What else?--he gave a brutal, first-hand account of that day's events, and then he reminisced about what an amazing, awesome, genius-prophet David Koresh was. Oh, and then he fielded religious questions from the Jesus Freak Libertarians in attendance, who were seriously interested in David Koresh's interpretation of Biblical scripture. The guy had no real political relevance, (because the only party he belonged to was the David Koresh Party) yet here he was, the Sunday brunch keynote speaker (he closed out the convention!)... only at an LP event.
As I mentioned before, the lack of morally philosophic unity made the party much less attractive to me, which, in turn, made it impossible to weather the other main problem it has: it's a third party, with no political power, so most Libertarian activism amounts to a whole lot of wheel-spinning. (Hard work + Donations = Virtually no chance of political success.) Libertarians don't hold fundraisers to assist candidates' campaigns; they hold fundraisers just for a chance to get them on the ballot. Getting elected to a local school or public library board is seen as a major election victory. Libertarians work just as hard as Democrats and Republicans, but their guy never wins. You have to be absolutely passionate about a third party in order to work tirelessly on its behalf for such a small return, and I just can't feel passionate about the LP. Objectivism yes, but not the LP. My sentiments about the LP are identical to Jordan's: I root for them too, but I'd never be involved with them again.
|
|
