[LPNM-forum] "Purity" and "Pragmatism"

[Joseph Knight]

Submitted to New Mexico Liberty

-----------

I think the whole “purity vs. pragmatism” thing is
contrived. Purity, in the context of its current
intra-LP use, is a term used to denigrate those of us
who adhere to principle. Not that there is anything
wrong with purity. Most of us would not dilute our
wine with water. Sure, sometimes a spoonful of sugar
helps the medicine go down, but by adding sugar, we
take nothing away from the medicine.

I am a pragmatist. I believe in and attempt to
practice practical politics in the real world. What I
am not, is a reformer, at least not with regard to
philosophy. I don’t regard pragmatism as an antonym of
“purity.” I believe that, like sugar in medicine, we
can be practical without betraying principle.

I see no conflict between the two, nor do I see a
conflict between principle and incrementalism (so long
as the incremental movement is in the right
direction). Nor have I ever considered myself an
anarchist since I can envision a government that
doesn’t initiate force. I’m a lot more liberal and
open in the interpretation and application of the
non-aggression principle than many. If I were playing
“survivor” with Steve Trinward, L. Neil Smith, Mary
Ruwart, and Murray Rothbard’s ghost, I’d probably be
the first one voted off the island. 

I adamantly support – indeed, insist on – retaining
the non-aggression principle as our guiding core
value. Freedom is the absence of the initiation of
force. However, I also realize that there is no magic
button to push that would make us all free, all at
once. Freedom is the goal, incrementalism is the path.
If anybody knows of a shorter path, by all means post
a sign and I’ll take it. 

As a practical matter, I know that electoral politics
is quantitative by nature – whoever gets the most
votes, wins – and that every vote counts the same
whether it was cast in ignorance, motivated by pure
principle or as a protest against the other parties.
This raises the question of how we can expand our base
without sacrificing our principles. I think LPNM is on
the right track to the answer. We define membership in
two tiers. Anybody can join the LP in New Mexico by
simply registering as a Libertarian. But to be a
policy maker or spokesperson, one must “upgrade” their
membership to “caucus” status by signing the
non-aggression pledge (and meeting the other
requirements). The former has the potential to expand
our base, the latter has the potential to protect our
basic philosophy.

This brings us to the platform. I was (and remain)
opposed to the gutting of the platform. I believe that
we should have a bottom-line, principle-based position
on every conceivable issue. To do otherwise is
cowardly, morally deficit, and opens the door to the
LP being used to advance un-libertarian causes. On the
other hand, I fully recognize that our positions
strike the average voter as way too radical and this
renders the platform ineffective as an outreach tool.
The solution is to have positions, like membership, in
two tiers: a statement of practical, incremental
positions on key current issues and a statement of
philosophical, bottom-line positions on all issues.

The national LP has made two attempts to do this. The
first was to have a “program” on a few issues for
outreach and practical political purposes and a
“platform” as a roadmap to where we ultimately want to
go. I thought this worked well and I am disappointed
that LPUSA doesn’t do it anymore. The second attempt
was to require presidential candidates to submit a
“campaign platform” that would focus on current issues
and be briefer in scope than the party platform. This
didn’t work in ’04 because Badnarik simply submitted
the LP Platform as his campaign platform – and then
proceeded to stray from it. 

Well, what the national LP has thrown away, LPNM can
recover and fix up. The LPNM Constitution states that
“The Platform of the national Libertarian Party is the
Platform of LPNM, except that LPNM may, at any state
convention, delete any plank by a two-thirds vote of
the delegates voting, or add any plank consistent with
the Statement of Principles, by a two-thirds vote.” I
think we should restore to the LPNM Platform those
planks recently deleted by the national convention,
and will ask our next state convention to do so. LPNM
candidates can already run on their own platforms:
“Candidates for public office may run on their own
platforms. However, the Central Committee may disavow
any plank that is contrary to the Statement of
Principles or LPNM Platform.” I think we could go a
step further and have a short-term “program.” The most
expedient way to do this would be to collect current
CenCom resolutions into a single document. Again, the
LPNM Constitution states “The Central Committee is
empowered to issue resolutions expressing party
positions on various issues throughout the year.” 

We could also consider some changes in nomenclature,
for example calling our philosophical document (now
the “platform”) a manifesto and our lesser-scope
document the platform. Two different documents,
different in breadth (but neither inconsistent with
the non-aggression principle), is something for
everybody – whether we want to do radical outreach or
practical politics.

This brings us to serious candidates and public-office
holders who have to function in the real world and
work with various types of statist politicians to
accomplish anything. Some have suggested that to
actually hold office would be a violation of
libertarian principles but I reject that. I want to
elect Libertarians and I want them to move society in
a libertarian direction. I realize that we won’t be
successful by simple introducing the whole platform as
a single, sweeping ordinance. I think Mike Blessing
has the right approach for elected Libertarians in his
New Mexico Liberty editorial statement: “New Mexico
Liberty holds that Libertarian candidates,
officeholders or appointed spokespersons at all levels
of government or the Party should refrain from
advocating new or more restrictive laws, new or more
expensive spending programs, or new or higher taxes.
To paraphrase from the medical profession, ‘First, do
no harm.’” This gives our officeholders the ability to
decide, in their particular situation, where to start
dismantling the omnipotent state, but not to expand
it. That works for me!

Joseph Knight


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com