GordonUnleashed

Ethical Considerations Regarding Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party

November 20th, 2007 by Steve

About the general topic of Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party, my old friend and colleague Tom Knapp wrote:

It’s not about “party over politics.” I acknowledge that the Libertarian Party is not OWED the support of its members/voters, etc. It has to EARN that support, and if they find Ron Paul more attractive, that’s their call.

Party OFFICIALS, on the other hand, are in a different situation. It is not a matter of the party earning their loyalty — they implicitly stated that it already HAD earned their loyalty when they ran for that party office or accepted that party job.

If you can show me a state chair, LNC member, etc., who ran on a “I’ll serve the LP loyally unless Ron Paul runs, in which case I’m GOP for the season” platform, or the LP employee who has a “bear truth faith and loyalty to my employer unless Ron Paul decides to run on another party’s ticket” clause in his contract, I’ll be glad to acknowledge that that person is acting within ethical constraints by supporting Paul while retaining the office or the job. You can’t show me any such person, because no such person would have been elected on that platform, or hired with that contract requirement.

I had thought that statement was aimed at the Libertarian National Committee, or more specifically executive director Shane Cory, for their veiled promotion of Ron Paul in their Liberty Decides program. My former employer just informed me that he had spoken with Knapp on the issue and Knapp reportedly stated that he had aimed that statement at me, not the national office.

In general, I agree with Knapp’s assertions. During my period of employment for the Libertarian National Committee, I did not endorse, promote or support the Ron Paul campaign by word or by donation. Afterwards, I have become very active with the campaign and am contributing financially to it.

If Knapp is referring to my current position as a state Libertarian Party chairman, the situation is a bit different. While I was elected to this position in absentia, it was made very clear to the convention delegates (at my insistence and before they cast their votes) that I would be working diligently for the Ron Paul campaign during my tenure as chairman. This was included in my nominating speech and (if I recall correctly) witnessed by the Vice Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee.

My old friend wrote: “You can’t show me any such person, because no such person would have been elected on that platform, or hired with that contract requirement.”

Winning with an overwhelming amount of votes, I became the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Alabama on June 24, 2007.

Timeline of significant events:

June 17, 2007: Wrote letter of resignation
June 24, 2007: Became LPA Chairman
August 22, 2007: Publicly endorsed Ron Paul

Posted in Ron Paul, National Politics, Libertarian Party, Libertarian Movement

24 Responses to “Ethical Considerations Regarding Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party”

Third Party Watch » Blog Archive » Liberty Decides Updates, Feedback and Fallout wrote on 11/20/07 at 6:49 pm :

[…] also appears that Thomas Knapp feels that I am acting in some unethical manner because of my support for Ron […]
Chuck Moulton wrote on 11/20/07 at 7:32 pm :

Yes, I’ll vouch for that: it was made very clear to Alabama LP delegates that Steve Gordon would be working for Ron Paul before he was elected state chair.
Rich Paul wrote on 11/20/07 at 7:38 pm :

There are more things on heaven and earth than are drempt of in his philosophy.
RockHoward wrote on 11/20/07 at 8:27 pm :

Wes Benedict, current Executive Director of the Texas LP, recently stated to the State Executive Committee that he was not working for Ron Paul, but he did support him personally and donated $600 to his campaign. He asked them to vote him out of office if they had a problem with this. They declined to take that action.

Naysayers notwithstanding, the LP is adjusting. I prefer to think about “The Freedom Movement” anyway - as TK certainly understands having gone renegade himself at times.
Ron Paul Libertarian wrote on 11/20/07 at 8:40 pm :

The Libertarian Party, Constitutional Party, 9/11 Truther Party Fetus, Reform Party and the even smaller parties must not go up against a Ron Paul nomination. Their interests and philosophies are not best served at all if the Ron Paul Revolution loses. That being said, I can think of a few parties who do not have a composite interest in Ron Paul winning. The Green Party, of which Ron Paul does not believe in Global Warming, conservation, or federal provisions to protect nature and it’s kind of sad to see Ron Paul try to get some Greens for him…, Prohibitionists, which are completely and utterly out of date for any era, and Socialist U.S.A., which are direct opposite to everything Ron Paul stands for.

As for Knapp, I have got to say, the National Libertarian Party is not a national party. Not when they can not compete within a percentage of the Republican or Democratic parties in the general election for president and when they have no Libertarian Party followers in the House or Senate. They aren’t a shindig, a gettogether, or a come-on-over. They are probably a “meet me at the water fountain after school” until they start getting a voting block that can range in the millions and millions.

Ron Pual’s candidacy goes far beyond party loalty and into a realm of which mankind has better hope that Ron Paul is succesfull in any endeavor he meets.

The Libertarian Party better not be selfish with who specifically is supported, or it will be back to decimal percentages and no sway in the house or senate, in which they have not held anything major. Ron Pul has got to win a different party’s election … or there will be just more of the same disappointment for third parties that haven’t seen success since the Whigs…
Craig wrote on 11/20/07 at 10:19 pm :

This will really get interesting in any of the following scenarios:

A. Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination.

B. Ron Paul launches a third party bid as an independent.

C. Ron Paul returns to the House.

In the first case, I’m thinking just about everyone who is even remotely libertarian-leaning will be on board.

In the second, I’m guessing the LP would cross-endorse, or run none-of-the above.

The third case is either the best opportunity ever for the LP, or the beginning of the end. Ron Paul would leave behind a grassroots organization of probably 100,000 activists — approximately 5 times what the LP has ever had.

Where will they go?
Gene Berkman wrote on 11/20/07 at 11:13 pm :

I was re-elected as Riverside County Chair of the Libertarian Party in January of this year, and everyone knew I was involved in backing Ron Paul.

Now all the elected officers of the Riverside County LP are behind Paul, as well as any other activists in this county.
Thomas L. Knapp wrote on 11/20/07 at 11:15 pm :

Steve,

In my conversation with Shane, your name did in fact come up as an example of what I am talking about — individuals with an obligation of trust and/or fiduciary duty to the LP choosing to support the LP’s opponents in preference to the LP itself.

You were a good example both because your support for Paul is fairly high-profile (not many LP state chairs brag on their blogs about contributing $300 to their state’s Republican Party), and because it was in fact on your blog that I had made the comment in question.

However, you were not the ONLY example. You were ONE example. I offered the examples in question by way of explaining to Shane that I understand the position HE is in — the LP can’t credibly IGNORE Ron Paul, and other than some mild poor judgment with the image thing, he seems to have done a reasonably fair job of putting the party first without pissing off Paul supporters — and that the comment in question was not aimed at him.

As I also explained to Shane, I was just blowing off a little steam on the issue. Yes, you’re wrong. I know you’re wrong and you know you’re wrong … but apparently you can’t help yourself. Since I expect to be working with you (and other Ron Paul supporters) in the future, long after the Paul campaign is just a bitter memory, I don’t belabor the point day after day. But occasionally, when I’ve had enough whiskey to make me silly but not enough to get me drunk, I do feel the need to take a poke.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
Rob D. wrote on 11/20/07 at 11:41 pm :

“The third case is either the best opportunity ever for the LP, or the beginning of the end. Ron Paul would leave behind a grassroots organization of probably 100,000 activists — approximately 5 times what the LP has ever had.

Where will they go?”

I’m of course working along with others to make a RP nomination a reality. But hypothetically if he falls short, …here’s my 2 cents (as if I had control of the situation, ha!)

The Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, fiscal conservative Republicans (RLC’s), socially liberal dems (DLC’s), independents, and apathetic voters who are currently supporting Ron Paul…UNITE to form a 3rd party strong enough to contend with the current crop of power hungry politicians.

No, this wouldn’t be a Unity ‘08 idea…that’s a dud along with the OpenDebates project. All good ideas but nothing strong enough to be a contender.

We would also need to develop a MoveOn.org type site to keep the activism and grassroots community together.

Oh, we could all dream can’t we?
Robert Milnes wrote on 11/21/07 at 1:05 am :

Rob D., this is very close to what I’ve been proposing. Except leave out the CP & include the GP greens). An independent entity to coordinate the vote.(”…keep the activism & grassroots community together…”) The Progressive alliance would be a movement & in effect a third party.
Eric Dondero wrote on 11/21/07 at 9:58 am :

For the record:

Guy McClendon, Chairman of the Harris County (Houston) Libertarian Party is one of Ron Paul’s strongest and most vociferous backers. In fact, he was quoted as such in the Houston Chronicle the other day, and identified as Chairman of the HLP.

I’m not aware of a single Libertarian Party member here in the Houston area, who is pissed off at Guy about his close association with the Paul campaign.

Bigtime Houston LPers like Jeff Daiell and Kevin Tunstall are also Ron Paul campaign volunteers.
Eric Dondero wrote on 11/21/07 at 10:05 am :

Look what’s the big deal here Knapp.

Since its very inception, 1971, the Libertarian Party has been an offshoot of the Republican Party.

Fact: The Libertarian Party was founded by the State Chairman of the Colorado Young Republicans.

Fact: Every single LP Presidential candidate, save one, since 1972 has been a Republican. Three, maybe four, have returned to the GOP since.

Fact: Every single Libertarian State Legislator ever elected, in NH and AK, were Republicans. The Alaska LPers even Caucused as “Republicans” during their tenure in the Legislature.

The LP structurally serves a purpose in American politics similar to the Conservative Party of New York State. When the GOP of NY nominates a moderate squish the CP nominates an opponent for the general. The only difference is that the LP does it on a national basis.

Gordon’s supporting REPUBLICAN Ron Paul as an LP official. Big deal.

That’s like saying Herb London just endorsed Pataki for NY Governor.
Steve wrote on 11/21/07 at 7:45 pm :

Yes, you’re wrong. I know you’re wrong and you know you’re wrong … but apparently you can’t help yourself.

But occasionally, when I’ve had enough whiskey to make me silly but not enough to get me drunk, I do feel the need to take a poke.

Perhaps we should consume some of that whiskey together (it’s been far too long since we have)and debate the issue. I’m sure Hunter S. would approve.
michelle wrote on 11/21/07 at 8:00 pm :

As a county chairman in North Texas who also supports Ron Paul for the R nomination, I wanted to add my 2 cents.

I support candidates, not parties. That said, it is my responsibility in my little area of TX to help grow the LP. I’d like Kubby for our candidate but I think it’s foolish for me, at this time, to donate time and cash to Kubby’s campaign. Because the LP nominee will voted on at convention and not at the local elementary school, it also seems silly to push him out to the public right now.

Ron Paul may not be carrying a libertarian banner but he is bringing many libertarian ideas tons of press. If he doesn’t win the R nomination, there will be thousands of supporters looking for a political home. That alone could be worth millions to whomever the LP nominates.

I don’t think any of us are forgetting about the LP because of Ron Paul’s Republican Party candidacy. If anything, I’m seeing that Ron Paul’s reception by the public is energizing LP members.
Eric Dondero wrote on 11/22/07 at 10:26 am :

And Michelle, try to imagine for a moment those “thousands of supporters” looking for a political home after Feb. 5, and them glancing over at the Libertarian Party and seeing Mr. Dweeb himself —- George Phillies.

Not that Ron Paul is any sort of inspiring, messiah-like politician. But compared to Phillies? Paul is like an Obama clone.

If the LP doesn’t nominate someone like Wayne Root or Bob Barr, all those “thousands of supporters looking for a home” that you are talking of, will be extremely deflated with Phillies.

Admittedly, Kubby is half-way inspiring. He could attract a healthy chunk of those wayward Republicans. But he’s got some structural problems with his campaign that will prevent him from really being a serious contender. (Parole obligations prevent him from campaigning in certain states, ect…).

Additionally, many of the Paul supporters are pure Economic Libertarians. They’re looking for a Gold Standard, Anti-Fed, Abolish the IRS sort of guy. Kubby’s not particularly strong on those issues. Ironically, an Economics Professor type would do better for the LP in attracting much of the Paul supporters.

With Phillies, you’ll attract maybe 10% of those disgruntled Paul followers. The rest will either stay home, vote Constititon Party, or even hold their noses and vote for Rudy Giuliani.

With Kubby, you’ll attract maybe half of those disgruntled Paul followers.

With Root or Barr, you’ll get about 90% of them.

As a Giuliani fan, I’m hoping you all nominate that handsome devil George “Rock Star” Phillies.
Vote Al Goldstein! wrote on 11/23/07 at 1:06 am :

But he’s got some structural problems with his campaign that will prevent him from really being a serious contender. (Parole obligations prevent him from campaigning in certain states, ect…).

Wrong as usual.

Steve Kubby is on probation, not parole, and is free to travel to any state. This was a very temporary problem while his probation was being transferred from Placer to Mendocino County, and neither county took responsibility for issuing permission. Now that it has been transferred, getting permission is just a formality. Since then, he has traveled to Oregon, and would have gone to many more states if he had the money.

Additionally, many of the Paul supporters are pure Economic Libertarians. They’re looking for a Gold Standard, Anti-Fed, Abolish the IRS sort of guy. Kubby’s not particularly strong on those issues.

How so? Kubby IS an Anti-Fed, Abolish the IRS kind of guy. Truth be told, I don’t know where he stands on the gold standard, but it shouldn’t matter too much; I would be surprised if he was for the enforcement of legal tender laws.
Vote Al Goldstein! wrote on 11/23/07 at 1:10 am :

I’d like Kubby for our candidate but I think it’s foolish for me, at this time, to donate time and cash to Kubby’s campaign.

If you want him to be the candidate, it would be foolish not to. He has lost a lot of momentum in the race because he has not had money to travel to state conventions or advertise even on the level that Phillies is doing. If it’s not too late to turn that situation around, it will be soon. I like Kubby, but the campaign is moribund.

Because the LP nominee will voted on at convention and not at the local elementary school, it also seems silly to push him out to the public right now.

So you would always want the LP candidate to start from scratch at the nomination? That would not exactly put them in a good position against candidates who have been building support for quite some time by then. Nor does it bring as many new people into the party. Sounds like a blown opportunity.
Fascist Nation wrote on 11/23/07 at 2:37 am :

Thomas Knapp has been pissing and moaning abut the Ron Paul campaign since its inception. That somehow it is going to hurt the LP. I am not sure how Ron Paul can detract form the LP any more than the LP already has detracted from the LP. I just don’t see it.

First, clearly Ron Paul is currently the best. He is commanding more attention than any LP candidate in history. And he is not controlled nor beholden to the LP. Sweet.

He is clear on his ideas. And they are libertarian. Has a 19+ year voting record on them. Handles himself well in debate or questions. Comes across in the media well….on and on and on….He is a threat to the GOP and the corporate media, and corporate control of this nation. Hence the “racist” change, “too old,” etc. They wouldn’t be spouting garbage if he didn’t concern them. That is a good thing. If this is the best they have, then they don’t have crap…and he has been in the national limelight since 1976. If there was something in his past it has already been exposed.

And he will be finished for all intents and purposes at the end of March. His chances of winning the nomination are slim, not impossible, but slim. For him to have ANY voice at all after the final state primary, he will have to win at least one delegate. That would entitle him to attend the GOP convention, and have floor time. The prospects of him getting even a single delegate are not good. They are not bad, but not good. It could happen, but most likely won’t. So he is gone from the limelight.

Why does Ron Paul scare so many mouthy Libertarians (note the large L)? Because he takes away from their control, their money pot and their attention (exposure). Well tough titty! Having seen decades of LP activity, I can truthfully say nobody has ever given much of a damned about an LP candidate’s opinion until the general election is underway. And then it is only begrudgingly granted that a sliver of attention is devoted to the LP candidate.

Ron Paul has shown you how to be noticed, how not to just be nice and step aside, how to get your message out and get supporters to rally around your cause in a way that NO LP candidate has ever done. So don’t fight him. Emulate him you dunderheads!!!!

End of March, Paul is effectively gone, and who will fill his vacuum? He has a network of pissed off r3VOLutionaries who tried the election route — that didn’t work — what now? Be there to supply the answer.

Which leads to the next question: Which candidates will be worth a shit for the LP? There are damned few I can think of. Most are wimps who wouldn’t dream of supporting, much less defending the illegitimately discarded LP platform. Who instead want a kinder gentler Republican-lite LP..a real political party just like the other guys have. Fine by me. The Party is dying, and the sooner that happens the better.

But just in case someone is paying attention you get yourself an assured, ironed-assed individual who lives, breathes and eats the nonaggression principle, and who will dynamically articulate it without backing down or watering it down and the Paulites are yours for the taking. Serve up some Harry Browne and it is LP DOA . . . or, GOP-lite.
Eric Dondero wrote on 11/23/07 at 7:32 am :

Clearing up a couple factual errors from “Fascist Nation”:

1. Ron Paul has not received “more media attention” and “greater credibility” than any other libertarian candidate before him. Those distinctions go to Barry Goldwater, 1964 Republican Presidential candidate, and Ed Clark, 1980 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate.

2. Your calendar is off. Ron Paul’s campaign will be pretty much over on Feb. 6, the day after Super Tuesday. Giuliani or Romney will have clinched the nomination at that time. There will be nothing left for Ron Paul to do, except make some noises and disrupt the GOP National Convention in August.

3. The Libertarian Party is not “dead.” As a matter of fact, they just had a surprisingly good year with local elections, winning fully 17% of their campaigns. 16 Libertarians were elected to city councils, mayors, county supervisors, judgeships, ect… I give them a great deal of credit here. One of their best Election Years ever, in fact.
Eric Dondero wrote on 11/23/07 at 7:34 am :

Golly gee there Al. Sorry for my glaring error. Got it now.

Steve Kubby is on probation, NOT parole. Thanks for clearing that one up for me.
Vote Al Goldstein! wrote on 11/23/07 at 10:41 am :

Your error is that he is not free to travel, dumbdero.
Thomas L. Knapp wrote on 11/26/07 at 9:47 am :

Michelle,

You write:

“As a county chairman in North Texas who also supports Ron Paul for the R nomination, I wanted to add my 2 cents. I support candidates, not parties.”

That’s fine — but my point is that people who “support candidates, not parties” shouldn’t remain in positions in which they have an obligation of trust, or possibly a fiduciary duty, to do the latter even when it comes at the expense of the former.

Although I’d rather that members/supporters of the LP supported an LP candidate instead of a GOP candidate, that’s their call to make. They don’t owe loyalty to the LP. The LP has to perpetually keep earning that loyalty, and if it’s not doing so, then of course those member/supporters have, and should have, the prerogative of looking elsewhere.

LP officials, however, implicitly accept an obligation to put the good of the Libertarian Party, and its interests as a competitive organization, ahead of their personal preferences for candidates.

This obligation is most usually expressed by way of supporting the party’s nominee for an office whether that nominee was the candidate you preferred in the primary/convention or not. The current situation — officials of the state and national LPs supporting a candidate of one of the LP’s opponent parties — is so far beyond the pale that I’m embarrassed on behalf of anyone trying to defend it.

It’s. Just. Plain. Wrong.

With respect to Mr. Dondero, we’ve been through the “Kubby is on probation, not parole, and is free to travel” bit a number of times already. The only thing interesting about it is the question it raises: Does Mr. Dondero suffer from sort of organic brain damage which harms his memory, or is he just an opportunistic liar?
Jeff Daiell wrote on 12/8/07 at 10:07 am :

Mr. Dondero is only partially correct. I am supporting Dr. Paul for the Republican nomination. At this point, however, I still plan to vote for the eventual Libertarian Party nominee in the General Election, and am working diligently to make the Libertarian Party more successful, which I have made abundantly clear to Mr. Dondero. — Jeff Daiell www.JeffDaiell.com
Idetrorce wrote on 12/15/07 at 11:46 am :

very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce

TrackBack URI

Rants, Opinions and Blogosphere Banter

Ethical Considerations Regarding Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party

24 Responses to “Ethical Considerations Regarding Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party”

Leave a Reply

About

Bloggers with whom I'd like to hang out

Bloggers with whom I've hung out

Other places I blog

Archives

Categories

Meta