GordonUnleashed

Treehouses, fratricide and a sometimes dysfunctional libertarian movement

June 30th, 2007 by Steve

When I was a kid, my brother and I were extremely competitive and fought with each other quite a lot. We also liked building treehouses. We could have built separate treehouses, stealing boards and nails from each other and staying up late to guard the fruit our individual efforts. Alternately, we could have worked together and built one treehouse of which we’d both be proud. With one option, the project would likely never even be completed. However, by combining our efforts, talents and resources, the final product would be of significantly superior quality. Fortunately, even as grade school children, we were mature enough to chose the latter option.

For a political movement which is dedicated to non-initiation of physical force, most libertarians certainly don’t mind the initiation of verbal force. In an ideal world, this force would be aimed at people like George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Nancy Pelosi - and almost (there are some exceptions) everyone who makes their living influencing public policy in Washington, D.C. However, some libertarians prefer to spend their rhetorical bullets in a fratricidal manner, aiming at their allies as opposed to their enemies.

Constructive criticism…

In the milder cases, the bullets may be intended as constructive criticism. As an example, I’ve written something for public consumption and/or been interviewed by the media about something libertarian virtually every day for years. It is a rare day that I’ve not been accused of appealing too much to the right or too much the left. Periodically, I’ll even be accused of both for the same press release, article, blog entry or interview. I’ve been accused of plotting a Republican takeover of the Libertarian Party and accused of being a shrill lefty for engaging in radical protests.

For the last few months, people have been calling (generally demanding and sometimes yelling) or e-mailing the national office of the Libertarian Party demanding that they support the Ron Paul for president campaign. Guess what folks? They can’t - it’s an obvious matter of bylaws and internal policy.

Sometimes people need to better understand the role, environment or resources of a libertarian organization before attacking it. As an example, I remember recently writing a press release about gay rights. In this case, the attack came because I used the word “homosexual” to describe GBLT people. This wasn’t meant to disparage the gay community, but to use a word with which most of the general public identifies. The release wasn’t targeted just for the gay community, but for public consumption. Everyone knows what a homosexual is, but GBLT sounds more like some sort of bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich to most folks.

I’ve played a significant role in several major blogs over the years. All of them had open comments. I’m frequently accused of stifling free speech because someone’s blog comment was rejected, though. However, I’ve only rejected three or four blog comments in my life. For those of you who don’t run blogs, you may not be aware of something called comment spam. It’s very real and very significant. If you were blocked, it was probably because you had a dozen links in your post, used the word “Viagra” or “Cialis”, or because the thread had been closed for some reason. There is no conspiracy afoot, of which I’ve been involved, to deprive people the opportunity of expression.

People complain that the Libertarian Party needs to spend a lot of money on television advertising. I don’t know anyone in the national office who disagrees. But there simply ain’t enough money to mount an effective advertising campaign. Instead of complaining about it, people could get off their asses and produce and run their own advertising. They could begin a project to raise a few hundred thousand dollars for television advertising. Instead, they’d prefer to bitch to the national staff while actually doing nothing constructive.

Sometimes people need to give others a reasonable chance, too. When the announcement came out that Bob Barr was joining the LNC, I already knew the battle I’d be facing. People were screaming at me daily about Barr being a drug warrior or a homophobe. However, I knew some other facts that I couldn’t disclose at the time.

I’ve personally talked with Barr on quite a few occasions. We’ve spoken at the same events, attended the same functions, he’s been by the office multiple times, and we’ve had drinks together a couple of times. He’s far from stupid and clearly knows the libertarian position on these issues.

When we announced that Barr was on the LNC, I knew that he was talking with MPP’s Rob Kampia about defeating, ironically, what’s known as the Barr Amendment. But it was premature and I couldn’t announce it. More recently, Barr wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal calling for the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Barr has done more to eliminate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with one opinion piece than all of the people who yelled at me about him being a homophobe combined. It wouldn’t surprise me if his impact is similar with medical marijuana, as well.

While I’ve outlined some of the milder examples of libertarian fratricide, I’d like to say that it sometimes does cause real damage. For example, people often accuse the LP of being weak on message. However, such attacks only encourage the behavior the attackers would like changed. What happens in reality is that being under constant fire encourages people to take the path of least resistance - resulting in output that appears watered-down and bland.

There are other forms of damage, too. Everytime libertarians frag their institutions and organizations, there is the potential that they will persuade someone to leave the group, no longer support it financially, or worse. I’ve lost campaign endorsements from reasonable people over unreasonable attacks, seen people cancel donations and pledges over inaccurate or distorted information, and seen people leave the LP after being attacked for relatively minor differences of opinion.

I’m not suggesting that people shouldn’t be critical of the LP or other libertarian activities. There is certainly plenty of room for constructive criticism. However, there are effective and impactful ways to criticize and there are clearly damaging mechanisms.

To begin, a private phone call or e-mail is generally a lot more helpful than some sort of public attack. Criticism on the Internet, even on e-mail lists and Yahoo groups, is public and generally remains that way forever. Why not at least first try to fix a percieved problem quietly and behind the scenes as opposed to attacking in a public forum?

When such issues are handled quietly, one of two things generally happens. The first is we sometimes fix whatever the problem is. We all make unintentional mistakes and most of us are more than happy to solve whatever the problem may be.

In other cases, sometimes the person complaining didn’t have complete information. With private, personal contact, he/she might find out there’s a bona fide reason of which he/she wasn’t aware for whatever is currently at issue.

It’s one thing to have civil debate about political issues. It’s fine to have disagreement over the direction of the movement. Misleading, uninformed or inaccurate attacks always cause damage and rarely correct any problems.

Eating our young…

In the last few paragraphs, I described controversy with people who are normally well-intentioned and generally nice people who do work hard for liberty. Many of them are personal friends. There are more extreme cases out there, too.

There are some people who spend most of their time personally attacking others in the movement. I’ve been called everything from a Republicrat to Satan. I’ve even had one libertarian threaten to punch me in the face for my very limited role in bringing former Congressman Bob Barr to the Libertarian National Committee. How’s that for non-initiation of force?

While I admire a lot of things about Murray Rothbard, he was well known for his very destructive personal attacks against people within the libertarian movement. Fortunately, Rothbard is better known for his many positive accomplishments. In today’s libertarian movement, most of those using Rothbard’s tactic of personal destruction aren’t accomplishing anything except driving the most productive people away.

Rules for engagement

Let’s face reality. As libertarians, we tend to be rather opinionated about our ideas and we express these ideas strongly. We’ll spend more time debating the nuances of an idea than in actually implementing that concept into public policy.

There are other areas of strong but reasonable disagreement within the libertarian community. Currently, abortion and immigration policy serve as the obvious examples. If someone wishes to cut taxes and spending, opposes our intervention in Iraq, believes in the right to keep and bear arms, thinks online gambling should be legal, favors medical marijuana laws, opposes the Kelo decision but disagrees with me about some minor issue, I’ve got two choices. I can either work with this person on all of the issues we have in common or I can spend my time attacking him because of whatever nuance separates us. If I choose the latter option, we’ll be utilizing our energy and time against each other - accomplishing nothing and creating unnecessary friction. If I choose the more honorable option, we’ll get twice as much accomplished - and in a positive direction.

Of course, there are times when disagreement and conflict are necessary. For these cases, I’ll suggest the following rules:

1) When possible, try to handle disagreement quietly and outside of the public arena with a goal of actually resolving the problem.

2) If the problem can’t be resolved privately, it may be time to go public. However, try to frame the debate in as friendly a manner as possible. Friendly debate is generally productive but bitter attacks generally harm all parties involved - and often cause additional collateral damage.

3) Try to understand your opponent’s point-of-view. He or she is probably a decent person doing what he or she thinks is right. In some cases, you may be surprised to learn that, if you were wearing the opposition’s shoes, you might actually take their position on the issue of the day.

4) Never, ever, ever engage in a program of personal destruction of an ally. If you are going to use such tactics, save it for the real enemy. It’s a lot more productive that way - and you don’t burn bridges which might be useful in the future.

5) Many things reported as scandals actually aren’t. However, real scandals do need to be exposed. If you are intending to expose some sort of scandal, get your facts straight and don’t speculate.

6) Remember, while you may disagree with someone today about some particular issue, you may be working with that same person in the future on a different issue. Don’t burn bridges over what could have been a simple friendly debate.

I don’t care if someone is an anarchist or a minarchist. I don’t care if someone is a libertarian or a Libertarian. I don’t care if someone is a radical or a reformer. I don’t care about some obscure platform position or whether someone’s signed a pledge or not. We’ve all got many common goals, and the most likely way to achieve them is by working together whenever possible. Alternately, we’ll continue to get the government we deserve.

Posted in Articles, Libertarian Party, Libertarian Movement

46 Responses to “Treehouses, fratricide and a sometimes dysfunctional libertarian movement”

Stuart Richards wrote on 06/30/07 at 5:30 pm :

Good to have you back in the blogosphere! Damn good.

And I fully support everything said here. Circular firing squads don’t work.

Also, popping blog comment cherry.
Austin Cassidy wrote on 06/30/07 at 5:31 pm :

An excellent message.

Hopefully some people will read this and take it to heart.
michelle wrote on 06/30/07 at 5:35 pm :

Great post Stephen!
paulie wrote on 06/30/07 at 5:39 pm :

What everyone else said!

Hope we’ll see more of you on LFV now too.

I’m in Alabama until Monday, let me know if you’ll be in B’ham before then.
paulie wrote on 06/30/07 at 5:40 pm :

What the heck? Do your comments post newest first?
Steve wrote on 06/30/07 at 5:45 pm :

Paulie — sorry about the comment sequence. Just tweaking some technical issues at the moment and I just changed the time zone info. I think the problem is now resolved.
G.E. Smith f/k/a undercover_anrachist wrote on 06/30/07 at 6:58 pm :

I’m sure you will be missed at the LNC, but I’m glad to have you back and actively blogging. I’ve missed your posts at HoT.
Rich Paul wrote on 06/30/07 at 8:34 pm :

Thank you for some good words and ideas! We Libertarians should never turn our backs on those who disagree with some Libertarian positions, but yet are willing to “vote Libertarian until they are too free”. Ideas are important. But developing the perfect utopia in our minds without moving toward it is a waste of time and effort.
Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic wrote on 06/30/07 at 9:10 pm :

Steve, I agree 100% with the theme of this post.

I look forward to working with you more closely now that, at fate would have it, we’re both apparently “back in Alabama.” I met you at last year’s Massachusetts state convention, but since have moved back to my hometown of Huntsville. I have been trying to get more involved here locally, and to my bemusement have ended up as Huntsville District Chair, so I guess we’ll be in contact more often now.
disinter wrote on 06/30/07 at 9:56 pm :

Gordon rocks.

Nice blog!
wes benedict wrote on 06/30/07 at 10:58 pm :

Right on Steve! I’m with you on this one! We gotta come together and Root out the troublemakers!

Let’s start with Sean Haugh. He’s asking me to resign from the LNC just because I gave some green to Ron Paul! Holy Paulie Cannoli!

I say we take Sean and Stuart Rich his head off. Austin Cassidy can Third Party Watch while Steve Gordon’s Sean’s eyes out. Kubby Timothy from West Virginia can give Sean the dueling banjos treatment right before Allen Hacks him and Carl Milsteds Sean to GE Smithereens! Sean, had your Phillies yet? Don’t you Dondero talk to me again you Kn@ppster or I’ll personally LibertyMix your Dasbach down the Redpath to China!

How’s that for teamwork?
Jason wrote on 06/30/07 at 11:13 pm :

I completely agree with you, Steve.
disinter wrote on 07/1/07 at 12:02 am :

Tell Haugh screw off.

The LP should be 100% behind Ron Paul; lifetime member, previous LP prez candidate. Instead the LP is afraid to offend the fringe minority.
Ken H wrote on 07/1/07 at 12:03 am :

I am glad to see you start this blog, Steve. I will checking by often to read it.

Your article is spot on.
Chuck Moulton wrote on 07/1/07 at 3:09 am :

Great post, Steve! I agree 100%!

It’s good to have you back blogging again.
Bill Wood wrote on 07/1/07 at 6:54 am :

Please forgive me for this quote “Mega Dittos, Steve!” Great to see you still going the distance for the cause of Liberty.

Bill
Loretta Nall wrote on 07/1/07 at 8:06 am :

BRAVO!

And Welcome Home!
Steve wrote on 07/1/07 at 10:58 am :

Thanks, guys, for all of the support and nice messages.
Carl wrote on 07/1/07 at 10:58 am :

Great stuff!

Alas, too late for me. I have been successfully purged. Purists rejoice!
Otto Kerner wrote on 07/1/07 at 2:56 pm :

Question: do libertarians really fight over “minor issues” and “nuances”? If so, that’s just plain dumb. I wouldn’t put it past us, though: I observed a certain level of small-mindedness when I was in the party. However, I suspect most disputes come down to something that one of the parties involved thinks is important issues. For instance, I was active back when Vermont ran Neal Randall out of the party for voting against civil unions. Even though I was in favour of gay marriage, it just didn’t seem like something worth fighting over to me, so I e-mailed the main guy in Vermont. You know what, he actually seemed to think that it was a major issue, not a nuance or anything of the sort. I can’t really blame him for fighting over it in that case.

Also (in response) to one of the comments, has anyone in the LP ever really turned their backs on a voter for not being libertarian enough? I would think that anyone with a half-liter of sense would realise that there’s no point even in turning away a party worker, regardless of what they believe in (unless, I suppose, their opinions are so distasteful as to create a public relations problem just by having them around), let alone a voter. The important thing is that the leaders and candidates of the party should be actual libertarians.

Lastly, regarding Ron Paul, I suppose it’s correct that the party bylaws prevent the LP from directly endorsing Paul. Anyway, I doubt it would help him very much if they did, and it might hurt him. On the other hand, there’s no excuse for the party leadership not to do anything they can do to at least make sure the party doesn’t obstruct his campaign. Anything else constitutes just the sort of destructive infighting that this post inveighs against.
Christopher Jagge wrote on 07/1/07 at 10:47 pm :

Ditto Steve. Welcome back. Let’s get to work.
Sandra wrote on 07/1/07 at 11:27 pm :

Gordon fucking rocks and I’m glad to see him leaving the LP and rejoining reality. He can impregnate me any day, or use a wrapper. I’ll be happy either way.

About GBLTs, I always thought they were greasy bacon lettuce and tomato sandwiches.

About telling LP members about reality, I’ll once again say Gordon freakin rocks. First blog enty here and it already does.

Please run for president.
Timothy West wrote on 07/2/07 at 7:06 am :

I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why I kept trying to bang a round peg in a square hole -
in an organization that does not even allow my views to be officially recognized by it’s governing body.

Which might be understandable if I was a communist…but the LP can’t even bring itself to support our own Constitution and Bill of Rights.

the cost to benefit ratio of being anything but anarchist in the LP is too high for me to wait until the 08 convention. If I was in better shape, I’d have stayed around and see what happened.
disinter wrote on 07/2/07 at 12:07 pm :

West - Join the Republicrats already.
Rob Power wrote on 07/2/07 at 2:33 pm :

Good to have you back in the blogosphere, Steve.

I’m sorry if you felt attacked by our suggestion that “gay and lesbian” is a preferable term to “homosexual”. The critique was solely out of frustration that the LP has a more gay-friendly platform than the Democrats, yet due to our communication gaffes is seen by gay voters as less friendly.

I hope you and others who feel attacked by the “left libertarians” will attend my presentation in Denver on how to talk with gay people. I will explain that not being “politically correct” doesn’t make one a bigot, but that communications are far more effective and trusted by minority communities when using the right terminology.

But as for Barr, please read that entire WSJ op-ed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118169740244033382.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep&apl=y

and tell me honestly whether you think the man is anywhere close to supporting equal rights under the law for LGBT people. As someone very close to the Barr/MPP deal told me, “Bob Barr is in the business of promoting Bob Barr, not promoting liberty.” That same person told me that the only way we’d get Barr to change his tune on same-sex marriage was to pay him $100,000 as a lobbyist or consultant. Based on the comment, I assume that’s what his fee was for coming out in support of medical marijuana.

That’s not libertarianism. It’s mercenary politics. And we libertarians don’t have the kind of cash it takes to win in that game.

Again, I’m sorry you thought we were attacking you over the “homosexual” comment. It truly was meant as constructive criticism.
Phillip Conti wrote on 07/2/07 at 4:19 pm :

The main reason why people get involved in these skirmishes is because of the real lack of tangible success that libertarians have achieved. A long history of failure and very little hope of success turns the whole movement into a large debating society.
disinter wrote on 07/2/07 at 4:45 pm :

I don’t care if Bob Barr was paid $100k to lick George Bush’s balls. He still brings more to our cause than a bunch of so-called “Libertarians”, who don’t understand the implications of having the federal government decide the issue as opposed to leaving it up to the states (as Barr advocated), crying constantly about nothing.
Creech wrote on 07/2/07 at 5:16 pm :

Good to see you with your own blog. The LP seems to be dominated by people who don’t believe its job is education. But if they won’t do it, who will? What libertarian organization exists at the grass roots level to educate their community on libertarian ideas and solutions?
Mr. X wrote on 07/2/07 at 5:18 pm :

Excellent post Steve and welcome back to the realm of unofficial public comment.

Yours truly,
Mr. X
Steve wrote on 07/2/07 at 5:20 pm :

Creech,

Education is important, but a key role of the LP is winning elections. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called a political party - but a grassroots educational organization. However, unless our views become consistently the most popular ones out there, a whole lot of education will be required.
Steve wrote on 07/2/07 at 5:24 pm :

Rob,

1) What’s wrong with self-promotion? Politicians who don’t self-promote are called losers. Businessmen who don’t are called bankrupt.

2) I placed the Outright example under the constructive criticism header and I took no offense. It was just one of many examples I provided.

3) The press release in question wasn’t aimed at a minority audience, but a majority one.

4) Until the LP gets some more “mercenary” politicians, consultants, experts, etc. they are going to continue to lose elections. It’s called the real world.
Steve wrote on 07/2/07 at 5:26 pm :

Again, thanks to everyone for the nice words.

And Sandra, do I know you? Wanna swaps pics or cell phone numbers or something. Gotta go, my wife just walked in the room.
Gordon Unleashed - Homeland Stupidity wrote on 07/3/07 at 12:08 am :

[…] Only four posts so far, but it looks like it’ll be worth adding to your daily reading. His first post is a good, if lengthy, commentary on some various issues facing the LP […]
infojunkie wrote on 07/3/07 at 7:18 pm :

1) When possible, try to handle disagreement quietly and outside of the public arena with a goal of actually resolving the problem.

There are some Libertarians who will accuse you of harrassment or hiding something if you try to write to them privately about a disagreement instead of writing to the list.

There’s no winning, with some people.
Brian Woodard wrote on 07/4/07 at 8:51 am :

Glad you are back! You probably don’t remember but I met you during Loretta Nall’s campaign.

Hope to see you @ a “Free The Hops” meeting.
Steve wrote on 07/4/07 at 9:33 am :

Brian, I remember you — and hope to see you soon!

Free the Hops!
The Crossed Pond » Gordon Unleashed wrote on 07/4/07 at 11:25 am :

[…] and pragmatic voice within the Libertarian party, now has his own blog. He opens things up with a must-read post regarding Libertarians’ fratricidal tendencies. If there’s a path to victory for the […]
Clay Shentrup wrote on 07/4/07 at 7:52 pm :

You’d do well to talk about the most important issue in the world for third parties:

Getting Range Voting!

http://reformthelp.org/issues/voting/range.php
wes benedict wrote on 07/8/07 at 2:09 am :

More about Clay Shentrup’s hype here (get range voting or die?):

http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-hereby-reject-cult-of-omnipotent.html
DavidW wrote on 07/11/07 at 12:14 am :

I believe a few have been trying to preach this message in the recent past, but it just wasn’t taking. I hope this post does.
Starchild wrote on 07/11/07 at 5:08 am :

Random Notes:

• I feel I agree for the most part with both Steve Gordon’s essay and Otto Kerner’s mildly dissenting response (comment #20).

• Sandra, I don’t think they’d let Steve be Alabama state chair if he’d actually left the LP (#22). Also, if he does turn out to be unwilling to impregnate you, I’m sure there are plenty of rappers who should be up for it, for instance Too Short, a noted philogynist from Oakland, California: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/too+short/freaky+tales_20139249.html

• As a certified (B) member of the GLBTQ community, I side with Rob Power on the use of the word “homosexual.” These days it is mostly fit to be used only as an adjective (e.g. “homosexual attraction”) and rarely even then, unless you are clearly being campy or satirical (e.g. “the dreaded ‘homosexual agenda”‘). Think “negro” or “colored person” for a good parallel. I don’t think it’s necessary to use the full GLBT or GLBTQ acronym every time you talk about a group of people who aren’t straight, but when one is writing something of consequence (like a press release), it should probably get at least one initial mention (followed by the terms it stands for in parenthesis if you’re writing for an uninformed audience), after which I think it’s fine to mix it up with terms like “gays and lesbians” or “the queer community.” The people who care about such things the most tend to see it as more inclusive and up-to-date than the other alternatives.

• Steve, you ask what’s wrong with self-promotion (#31). If I started posting on here about my Viagra and Cialis mail order business, I have no doubt you’d find an answer to that question real quick, even if I protested that it’s in the interest of the libertarian movement that I make lots of money! Like your blog, the Libertarian Party is also a “forum,” of sorts — it is a forum for people who want to promote liberty. If someone is using it mainly to promote him or herself rather than liberty (not that I’m here accusing anyone in particular of this), there is, to use your words, “the potential that they will persuade someone to leave the group, no longer support it financially, or worse.” In the context of the LP, I am first and foremost a freedom activist, not a politician or a businessman.
Sean Haugh wrote on 07/12/07 at 1:19 pm :

This is the email apology I had sent to Wes and published at LFA:

“Howdy Wes! I wanted to apologize to you for my blog comment that you should consider resigning from the LNC. While I still disagree with you on your donation to Ron Paul’s campaign, saying you should resign over it was rude and extreme. Good Libertarians can disagree on strategy while maintaining the same goal, and frankly we are all trying our best to wrap our heads around how we can welcome what Ron Paul’s campaign is doing to spread the message of Liberty while staying loyal to our own party. You personal record of accomplishment, and that of the Texas LP as a whole, in growing and supporting the Libertarian Party is so strong that it can survive the occasional disagreement in strategy. Thank you for all you do for the party in both Texas and across the country.”
Daniel wrote on 08/10/07 at 3:24 pm :

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Treehouses, fratricide and a sometimes dysfunctional libertarian movement, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
GordonUnleashed » Blog Archive » The oxymoronic libertarian movement? wrote on 08/14/07 at 1:27 pm :

[…] Mark Hendrickson wrote an accurate but scathing review of the libertarian movement which highlights what some of us already know. […]
Third Party Watch » Blog Archive » 2008 LP Convention: Gunfight at the LP Corral? wrote on 12/5/07 at 1:02 pm :

[…] agree with Murray Rothbard on many political issues, I’ve found his tactic of directing personal attacks against his internal opposition counterproductive. Some Radicals use the same tactic to destroy the […]
The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Picking at Festering Libertarian Scabs wrote on 03/12/09 at 1:19 am :

[…] By e-mail request, I’m linking to something I wrote some time ago dealing with the same general topic. Share and […]

TrackBack URI

Rants, Opinions and Blogosphere Banter

Treehouses, fratricide and a sometimes dysfunctional libertarian movement

46 Responses to “Treehouses, fratricide and a sometimes dysfunctional libertarian movement”

Leave a Reply

About

Archives

Categories

Meta