Liberté, fraternité, ennui
—
The announced theme for this year's LP convention is "Unity." Unity is
universally acclaimed — no one has anything but praise for it.
Ideological purists speak of the wisdom of uniting as an ideologically
pure party, the pragmatists extol the virtues of uniting as a more
practical party, and every single-issue libertarian explains that
freedom will be ours if only we unite behind his favorite issue. The
focus on the theme lasts an hour or two, after which I don't hear
"theme" or "unity" again, although to my relief as a small "L"
libertarian, and my chagrin as a bored conference attendee, I see
nothing but amicable and mostly optimistic debate.
Dammit Jim, I'm a libertarian, not a gun-grabber —
Most of the exhibitors' booths — and there aren't many, maybe a
dozen — are from the type of group you'd expect to find at a
libertarian gathering: Advocates for Self-Government, the Free State
Project, Americans for Fair Taxation, Outright Libertarians, Students
for Saving Social Security, the Cascade Policy Institute. There are a
couple of unmanned tables with flyers promoting various candidates for
government office or Libertarian Party positions. And somewhat to my
surprise, the ACLU has a booth.
It looks as though the ACLU booth is getting a slightly wider berth than
any of the other booths — people are looking at the literature on
display without getting close enough to pick it up or be engaged in
conversation. I step closer and one of the staffers (As-sociate Director
and Chief Legislative Counsel of the ACLU's Washington Legislative
Office Gregory T. Nojeim, who'd been one of two speakers at Saturday's
"ticket only" breakfast) asks the other, "Do they know they can take the
literature?" With that, he excuses himself and leaves, smiling but
clearly somewhat frustrated.
The ACLU literature on display all relates to the Patriot Act. I ask the
ACLU guy (whose name for the purposes of this section is now Jim, with
my apologies for neglecting to read his large and prominent name tag)
what kind of response he's gotten. He says it's been quiet all morning.
I suggest that maybe people are unable to decide whether to laud the
ACLU's free speech work or upbraid its stances on affirmative action,
Title IX, or any of the other areas in which our groups are at odds, and
Jim expresses some surprise. His work relates mostly to the Patriot Act,
and he's not prepared to discuss other areas in any detail, although
he's quite willing to give me contact information for people who are.
Much as I'd love to spend the next 20 minutes or so agreeing with him
about the horrors of the Patriot Act, I decide my time would be better
spent almost anywhere else, thank him for his time, and start to
leave.
As luck would have it, though, one of the Washington state delegates
picks that moment to approach. He mentions that he regularly responds to
ACLU surveys about which issues are important to him, and he wants to
know why the 2nd Amendment never receives any ACLU support. Again, this
isn't Jim's area, but he does know that the ACLU board views gun
ownership as a collective, not an individual, right. The Washington
delegate points out that the overwhelming consensus of historians
contradicts this view, and Jim, who mentions that he studied history in
college, counters that historians view history as whatever they want it
to be. Realizing they're at an impasse, the delegate asks how the board
is elected, and Jim offers him his card, explaining that he doesn't
know, but he'll be happy to find out.
With that resolved, I return to the convention proper.
Time out of mind —
On several occasions, I approach a delegate who's stepped out for a
cigarette. Most of them are willing to talk, but only off the record.
Hoping to learn something, I agree to that restriction, and end most of
the conversations wondering why people with nothing controversial to say
insist that they not be quoted on issues they're not discussing. I also
wonder why the senatorial candidate who promises universal health care,
an end to the "rich-poor divide," and (by some unspecified magic) "no
more global warming or Katrinas" imagines he'll appeal to
libertarians.
I wonder the same thing about another (presidential)
candidate who pledges to "make everyone meet a weight requirement to
earn their individual tax deduction," and to subsidize organic fruit and
vegetable farming, except for corn and wheat, which "are used to make
fattening foods." This man, incidentally, needs campaign contributions,
which he notes are not tax deductible. Not even if I meet my weight
requirement?
Anchors away —
At the moment, a proposal to amend the wording of one of the platform
planks is being debated. The plank refers to the national debt as "an
anchor that will burden future generations"; the proposed amendment will
change that to "an anchor that will haunt future generations." Several
delegates speak in favor of the proposed change; then one delegate
opposes it for the simple reason that "anchors don't haunt." I salute
that delegate.
| David Beito is associate professor
of history at the University of Alabama,
and author of "Taxpayers in Revolt" and
"From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State."
|
|
Impractical pragmatists
—
A Gallup poll just found that two thirds of all Americans support withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Nearly one third want to leave immediately, a position more extreme than that of Howard Dean. The poll also revealed that a pitifully small 2% of Americans want to send in more troops.
Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party, acting in the name of pragmatic reform, has dumped antiwar and anti-intervention planks from the platform. The result, of course, is to cut the LP off from this growing American antiwar majority.
It is hard to imagine how such an isolating decision can be justified as a practical reform to reach more potential voters. Even so, that is what the Portland reformers claim they are doing.
It is natural to wonder to what extent "pragmatism" is just a pretext by pro-war elements to advance a purely ideological position that fewer Americans than ever now hold. If this is the case, why are antiwar libertarians so quick to concede their opponents' claims to be non-ideological? Shouldn't they instead insist that it is they, not the Portland reformers, who are doing the most to hold aloft the flags not only of principle but also of pragmatism?
|
|
|
