Stand Up for Liberty! Table of Contents
Stand Up for Liberty!
Chapter One
The Ultimate Objective and Grand Strategy
SUMMARY
Where are we trying to go?
Our objective is the Libertarian Society, a nation with small government, low taxes, and obedience to the entire Bill of Rights.
How are we going to get there?
Our path is electoral action: elect office holders who move America in the Libertarian direction.
As tactical maneuvers, we could also engage in non-electoral actions:
Non-electoral actions are valuable tools. Non-electoral tactical maneuvers are no substitute for contesting elections and electing libertarians in office.
How do we put libertarians into office? How do we get a position that lets us put Libertarian policies into effect?
OPTIONS: The three options for victory are:
Each Victory Option may win for us. See below for more:
NEEDS: No matter which approach we choose, we have the same needs: The Alphabet, the Numbers, the V's of Victory.
The Alphabet A-B-C-D-E gives us
A-B-C-D-E: Activists and Specialists do the party's heavy lifting. Ballot Status, different in each state, lets us run people for office. Running people for office requires Candidates (people who win elections) and Dollars for campaigning and party-building. Enrolled Libertarians are our supporters, the people who register Libertarian, join local, state, or national Libertarian Party organizations, or Stand Up for Liberty! by supporting Libertarian campaigns and special-interest groups.
Through the Alphabet, we'll get the Numbers
The Numbers are the bricks and mortar from which victory is built. Before we win, before we put libertarian policies into effect, we need the numbers:
The Numbers: Numbers are the foundation of a modern party. There are half a million elective and appointive political offices in the United States. Before we can capture them, we need all the numbers.
The numbers get us the V's of Victory. The V's of victory are
The V's: Volunteers do the vital work of the party: getting out the vote, stuffing envelopes, collecting petition signatures, distributing signs, and going door-to-door. Voters are the people of all parties who finally choose to Vote Libertarian! and decide that we win. Victories are the token of success, something we need to accumulate as we go along to prove we can win and to keep our supporters with us.
Discussion
What Resources Do the Victory Options Need?
Each victory option needs the same ingredients for success: the Alphabet, the Numbers, and the V's of victory.
In the Conversion Option, other parties find it worthwhile to copy our ideas. They find it worthwhile because we are threatening their incumbency. To threaten their incumbency, we need to be seen as an electoral threat: a party that wins at least some elections. To win at least some elections, we need the Alphabet, the Numbers, and the V's.
In the Capture Option, our activists join one of the two major parties. They make that party ours. Capture needs a massive effort to get activists to attend caucuses, win primaries, and convince voters that a libertarian Republican or a libertarian Democratic Party is as supportable as a conservative Republican or liberal Democratic Party was. Because real American political parties are democratically run, Capture requires convincing their tens of millions of supporters to become libertarian. To capture a major party, we need the Alphabet, the Numbers, and the V's.
In the Self-Reliance Option, we run candidates, convert voters and elect a Libertarian Party majority from sea to shining sea in every level of government. Self-Reliance demands that we create a political organization as strong as the Democratic and Republican organizations. To win through Self-Reliance, we need the Alphabet, the Numbers, and the V's.
Note the similarity between the three victory options. No matter which option we pursue, we always need the Alphabet, the Numbers, and the V's.
Conversion needs fewer political resources than Capture. Capture, in turn, needs fewer political resources than Self-Reliance. If we win through Conversion or Capture, we need fewer resources than if we win through self-reliance. However, there is no guarantee that it is possible to win through Conversion or Capture.
In 1999, we don't have enough consultants, PACs, interest groups, office- holders, candidates, volunteers, or money to generate the votes we need for victory. No matter which option you support -- no matter which option works in the end -- we need far more of the Alphabet, the Numbers, and the V's before we elect a Libertarian majority in America.
I gave the numbers for the difficult path - the Self-Reliant Path to Libertarian Victory. That's the path I expect we will follow before we win. If we're lucky, an easier path will be good enough, and we win sooner. That's great if it happens. Stand Up for Liberty! gives plans for winning by means of Self-Reliance. Easy victory should be recognized as an unexpected bonus.
The rest of this chapter discusses the Victory Options. I close with a short history of third party movements. Chapter Two presents paths to victory: how the Libertarian Party can achieve the Alphabet and the Numbers needed for the V's.
Discussion: Victory Options.
Let's consider Conversion, Capture, and Self-Reliance more carefully.
CONVERSION: There are historical precedents for victory by conversion. In the 1910's and 1920's, the Socialist Party started electing mayors, state legislators, and Congressmen. After a while, many socialist ideas were put into effect by the Democrats and Republicans. The Libertarian Party could try to do the same. We could try to drive the other major parties in the Libertarian direction.
Methods for conversion are straightforward. Many Democrats are already libertarian on social freedom issues. Liberals are often open to utilitarian (``look! it works!'') arguments. They are wide open to conversion to libertarian ideas on economic freedom issues, because libertarian ideas work in the real world. Many Republicans support small government, low taxes, and patriotic restoration of the Constitution. They are wide open to being converted from the party that makes promises about their causes to the party that enacts their causes. Many of them will also be open to the argument that if you would not trust Uncle Sam to rummage through your wallet, you would also not want Uncle Sam searching your bedroom.
However, Socialist ideas became compelling because Socialists won elections. The Socialist Party threatened the incumbency of elected public officials. Borrowing from the Socialist platform was a survival tactic; it separated the Socialists from their winning advantage. The tactic worked! Few Socialist Party members hold office any more.
A slight variation on this theme works in New York politics. In New York, fusion is easy. Ballots have a line for each major party. A candidate appears on the ballot line of every party that nominates him. Many people who would not vote for a Democrat or a Republican will vote for the same person when he appears on the Liberal line. The New York Liberal Party dragged New York politics leftward, but not by electing its own people. The Liberals succeeded by endorsing Democrats and Republicans. The liberals also succeeded by running spoiler candidates to split the left vote and defeat people they disliked. More recent New York third parties (Conservative, Right to Life) mostly emulate Liberal Party tactics.
What lessons do Socialist and Liberal Party successes have for us? Socialist ideas were copied because socialists were winning elections. Liberal platform stands were adopted because Liberal candidates were deciding elections. To repeat the Socialist success, we need a party machine that elects many mayors and aldermen, significant numbers of state legislators, and at least some Congressmen. To repeat the Liberal success, we need a party machine that can effectively endorse Democrats or Republicans. In 1999, we don't have a party machine like that.
It's fair to ask: will the Democrats and Republicans copy our ideas? We don't promise bigger bureaucracies, more spending and patronage, or new laws to benefit campaign donors. We promise the end of these traditions. It sounds challenging to persuade Democratic and Republican incumbents to change their coats. How can the two parties of high taxes, huge government, and contempt for the Bill of Rights possibly copy us?
Conversion is viable because America has a secret political party, the party to which almost every elected official belongs. In 1998, that party surfaced in a western state. The Democratic and Republican U. S. Senators ot that state began making joint appearances. They said they were showing that Democrats and Republicans can work together for our Republic's good. They were actually campaigning for the secret political party, the Incumbency Party, the party whose sole platform plank is ``Re-Elect Me!''. When re- election requires copying our ideas, our ideas will be copied.
CAPTURE: There are historical and modern precedents for political victory by capturing a major party. The Republican Party was founded as the anti-slavery party. It won in 1860, but not by turning individual voters into Republicans. The strategy had already failed in 1856. The Republicans elected Lincoln because they captured the Whig Party.
A modern example of capture is seen inside the Republican Party. In several states, local and state Republican organizations have been captured by Christian Coalition and other patriotic traditionalists. The capture was done above the board by old fashioned politics. Supporters of right-wing moralizing studied election laws, appeared at caucuses and polling places, and elected their people to party office. In many cases, they did this without telling their opponents in advance. Sometimes they found attractive candidates who supported their positions, and ran those candidates on innocuous platforms. To the broader public, these people were attractive aspirants for office. The public impression was true, but incomplete. Behind the scenes, the traditionalists knew who their friends were, and quietly supported them.
In the 1960s, conservative Republicans used the same strategy to purify the Republican Party of its liberal wing. Until the 1960's, the Republican Party had had a strong liberal wing, with prominent Republican Governors, Senators, and other political leaders of liberal inclination. The conservative wing of the party concluded that conservatives were the majority at the grassroots. They concluded that in order to win, they needed to topple their party's liberal deadwood so that new conservative growth could thrive in the electoral sunlight. They launched primary campaigns, targeting liberal Republicans for defeat. The possibility that a Democratic candidate could beat a split Republican Party was viewed as an acceptable short-term loss. They succeeded. In 1960, a liberal Republican Governor of New York could summon the Republican Presidential candidate and dictate terms for support. By 1996, there were no prominent liberal Republicans. Conservative Southern Republican Governors picked Bob Dole for President.
Can we capture fractions of the other parties? There are already lots of groups trying to capture our opponents. The Republicans are pursued by Christian traditionalists and Main Street business interests. The Democrats are pursued by government employee unions. Both parties are pursued by everyone who feeds at the Federal and State troughs. That's a lot of competition, all needing to be beaten before we could even put our candidates in front of voters.
Some libertarians are trying to capture the other two major parties. The Republican Libertarian Caucus and the Democratic Freedom Coalition each strive to import our ideas into their party. If they win, great! However, in a Republican or Democratic setting, there is no selective advantage to being a Libertarian. You're one more party faction. Libertarian Democrats and Republicans may win elections. They won't easily give us the Democratic Libertarian Party of the United States.
Individual Libertarians have run successfully as members of other parties. 1988 Libertarian Presidential candidate Ron Paul returned to Texas and entered the Republican Congressional primary in his district. He ran against a turncoat Democrat who had turned Republican after being elected to Congress. The Republicans poured millions of dollars into defeating Ron Paul. Ron Paul reminded voters that he had been their Congressman, once upon a time. Ron Paul won the primary and won the election, giving us a libertarian Republican in Congress. However, Paul shows no signs of being interested in developing a Libertarian caucus in Congress. One Ron Paul does not get us the Republican Libertarian Party.
A variation on capture is provided by the fusion campaign, in which a candidate is the nominee of several parties. Fusion has been important to Libertarian state legislative candidates. Except in Alaska, these Libertarians ran on multiple ballot lines, most recently (Neil Randall, Vermont) as Libertarian and Republican. It was clear to everyone that our candidates were primarily Libertarians. However, they captured a second ballot line, which contributed significantly to their victory margins.
A fusion candidacy keeps your vote from being split. It may pick up voters who automatically vote for your other party. Fusion is only legal in some states. The other major parties don't depend on fusion. In the long run, we can't depend on fusion, either.
Capture has several serious flaws. For starters, there's a long line of groups already waiting to capture the other parties. If we try to capture, we'll be one group among many. We'll sacrifice the unique advantage of being a real political party, a marketable party name that actually corresponds to a platform. Besides, you can't do Capture in secret. Many Americans would be offended if someone tried to take over their own party. Witness the difficulties the Christian traditionalists have after they capture county and state committees. Their opponents hound them for skulking behind the scenes, accusing them of secretive political conspiracies. Fair or not, the charges are damaging. I don't recommend trying to capture another party.
SELF-RELIANCE: There is no real historical precedent in the United States for marching out and starting a successful political party. Plenty of people have launched third parties. The parties of Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Wallace and John Anderson are one with the snows of yesteryear. The parties of George Wallace and Ross Perot are fading rapidly. The closest you can find to a party created by self-reliance is the Republican. They floundered until they absorbed the fragmenting Whig Party.
As an approach, self-reliance is easy to explain. We are going to start a new major political party using the same election laws that the Democrats and Republicans often obey. We will have candidates, supporters, campaign committees and funds. We have the same objective of winning election.
As an approach, self-reliance is easy to defend. We aren't trying to corrupt their politicians into supporting our ideas. We aren't sneaking around behind people's backs trying to steal the party they worked hard to build. We're simply trying to do what the Democrats and Republicans have already done -- become a major party.
No one has successfully launched a third party before. So what? If our ancestors only did the things their parents had done, we would be staring across the Bering Sea and the Atlantic and the Rio Grande, gazing at an unpopulated America. Doing something new is as American as apple pie and maple sugar. Our parents did something new, and we can, too.
Discussion: Historical Aside -- Has Anyone Been Here Before?
Hasn't anyone built up a political party from ground zero before? When the Constitution was adopted, the founding fathers believed that America would not have political parties. Indeed, as soon as political parties appeared (election of 1800), the Constitution suffered catastrophic failure. The Presidential Election of 1800 went to the House of Representatives because the original Electoral College scheme did not work with partisan elections.
Our original parties symbolized the interests of two of the founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists faded from electoral significance. After a period ('Era of Good Feelings') of one-party government, the two parties resurfaced as the Democratic Republicans and the Whigs. The Democratic Republicans became the modern Democratic Party. The Whig Party crumbled. The Republican startup failed in the election of 1856. If not for the incredible political ineptitude of President Buchanan, the Republicans would likely have gone no further. Instead, Buchanan drove much of the Whig Party political apparatus and membership into the hands of the Republicans, leading to the two parties that have endured to this day.
In the 20th century, a long series of third parties have appeared. Most have gone by the wayside. Some, such as Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party and John Anderson's Presidential campaign, were one-man efforts that vanished with their candidate. Henry Wallace's Progressive Party was somewhat more substantial. George Wallace's American Independent Party and Ross Perot's Reform Party rose beyond their patron founder, running candidates for Congress and other office and establishing functional parties in some states. In the United States, explicitly ideological parties are rare. In post-WW1 America, the socialists elected Congressmen and state legislators. Recent ideological parties include the Greens (environmental activism), Natural Law (religious), U.S. Taxpayers (conservative), and of course the Libertarian Party. All of these parties have one thing in common: none of them have thrived or taken power. Yet.