Below my signature, please find an open letter from Steve Kubby to his
fellow Libertarians, dated 12/01/07.
Best regards,
Tom Knapp
Communications Director
Kubby for President
Dear friends,
As "decision time" for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential
nomination draws closer, the gloves are beginning to come off. At the
beginning of my candidacy, I committed myself to running a "high road"
campaign and engaging my opponents on issues and experience, not on
personality. I intend to stick to that commitment ... but I also want
to ensure that my fellow Libertarians have the FACTS at their disposal
when considering their options.
Over the last few months, several of my fellow Libertarians --
Libertarians who backed and supported my campaign early on -- have
decided that another candidate, Christine Smith, better represents
them. The main reason cited for this change of heart has been my
endorsement of US Representative Ron Paul's campaign for the
Republican Party's presidential nomination.
It is not my intention to attack Ms.Smith here. So far as I can tell,
she's a fine individual who represents the Libertarian Party well in
her public communications and whose decision to seek our party's
presidential nomination has made the race more interesting and more
issues-centered. We are, however, opponents in the sense that we're
both seeking the same position and that only one of us can be "hired"
to fill that position. As it becomes more and more clear that Ms.Smith
and I both appeal to "the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party,"
I think that it's time to talk about our differences -- and our
similarities.
The place to start is, I think, with the issues. Ms. Smith's campaign
platform is thoroughgoingly libertarian, as is mine. The main
difference between us in that respect is that while her issues
positions have evolved in a libertarian direction over several months,
I have a record of taking libertarian policy positions and sticking to
them over the course of more than a decade of Party activism.
By way of example, I offer the issue of immigration.
I am, and always have been, a pro-immigration libertarian who opposes
the use of imaginary lines, drawn on the ground by politicians, to
limit the freedom of peaceful individuals. Don't take my word for it
-- do a little Googling. You'll find that my position has remained the
same, and that I've argued publicly and forcefully on its behalf for
many years. The position paper on my campaign web site was posted
nearly a year ago and has remained unchanged since.
Ms. Smith's web site also offers a stirring, thoroughly libertarian
take on immigration ... today. Only a few months ago, however, her
position on the issue was very different. Under a hypothetical
President Christine Smith of March 2007, "[t]he American citizens of
states and cities will have jurisdiction over non-citizens inhabiting
their communities" based on a "sovereign right to control the
influences and development of their society and its culture." Once
again, don't take my word for it. Ms. Smith's positions, now and then,
are easily accessible to anyone who cares to look for them.
I'm more than happy to see that Ms. Smith has gone from "states'
rights conservative" to "radical libertarian" on the immigration issue
over the course of only a few months. I'm not inclined to question the
sincerity of that conversion -- but contra her implicit claim to
constancy of view in a recent manifesto on compromise ("...
advocating freedom always on all issues. This is what I devote myself
to in my writing, public speaking, and now in this campaign"), it's
obvious that her ideas on what freedom is and how it should be
defended have undergone drastic revisions even within the timeframe of
her presidential campaign.
I'm glad that Ms. Smith is discovering the consistency and
applicability of libertarian ideas. That discovery is a fascinating
and enlightening journey, and one which never ends. However, I submit
that the first steps on such a journey are best taken in smaller shoes
than those we expect our presidential candidate to be wearing now, or
11 months from now.
I believe that my long-time advocacy of plumb line libertarian
positions on the issues, compared to Ms. Smith's recent and ongoing
conversion, differentiates us as candidates. If I may be so immodest
as to say so, I believe that it casts me in better light as your
prospective nominee. I'm advocating the same positions now that I
advocated a year ago and ten years ago, and I will be advocating those
positions a year from now and a decade from now. And I've established
a track record for turning those positions into public policy that
none of my opponents can match.
Now that I've covered a difference, I'd like to cover a similarity
WITH a difference: My endorsement of Ron Paul's Republican
presidential candidacy.
Yes, I have endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican Party's presidential
nomination. I've stated that if he seems set to gain that nomination,
I will withdraw from the LP contest and urge the LP to nominate NOTA
and endorse Paul in the general election. I know that that makes some
of my fellow Libertarians uncomfortable, or even angry, but I believe
that the course I've taken on the issue is consistent with the best
interests of the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party. I'm
not going to retract my endorsement, and I'm not going to apologize
for it.
Ms. Smith has also endorsed Ron Paul, numerous times. She's just done
so implicitly rather than explicitly. She's made public statements in
support of Ron Paul's performances in the Republican presidential
debates. She's lauded him for legislation he has introduced or
sponsored in the US House of Representatives. She has appealed to his
supporters to contribute to her campaign as a sort of "backup effort."
The two differences between us on this issue, as I see it, are these:
- I've put my money where my mouth is. I haven't just said nice things
about Paul -- I've formally endorsed him and publicly pledged to set
my own ambitions aside and do what I believe is best for our movement
if he succeeds. Ms. Smith has been far more laudatory of Paul than I
have, but has declined to give substance to her accolades. If Ms.
Smith believes the things that she says about Paul, I urge her to act
on that belief, make her multiple tacit endorsements of his candidacy
formal and explicit, and declare her willingness to stand aside if her
aspirations and his potential come into conflict.
- I cannot claim to have read or heard every word that Ms. Smith has
uttered during the course of her presidential campaign. However, in my
experience Ms. Smith's mentions of Paul have been singularly positive
and have omitted any mention of issues on which she and Paul disagree.
Specifically, Ms. Smith and I substantially agree -- and disagree with
Ron Paul -- on issues like immigration and same-sex marriage. Because
I believe these issues to be of great importance, I've made it a point
to emphasize my disagreement with Congressman Paul on them whenever I
discuss his candidacy and my endorsement. So far as I can tell, Ms.
Smith has given Dr. Paul a "free pass" on issues where we both agree
that he is wrong, and where I consider it the duty of a Libertarian
candidate to SAY he's wrong so as to minimize the association of
Paul's positions on those issues with libertarianism and with the
Libertarian Party.
To summarize: My endorsement of Ron Paul has been explicit, but
qualified. So far as I can tell, Ms. Smith's endorsement of Paul has
been tacit, but unqualified. Because several of my former supporters
have cited my endorsement of Paul as a reason for their decision to
instead support Ms. Smith, I urge them to look more closely. I believe
that Ms. Smith's position and mine on the matter are very similar, but
I believe that I have been more forthright, more consistent, and more
attentive to the important issues here.
After more than a year in the saddle of a presidential nomination
campaign, I remain committed to the freedom movement and to the
Libertarian Party -- and that commitment stretches back for years with
a consistency that I'm proud of. As our nominating convention grows
closer, it becomes more difficult to come to grips with one's
opponents without seeming mean or spiteful -- but come to grips we
must, and I'm going to do so even if some feelings get hurt. Part of
being a presidential candidate is standing one's views and record up
next to the views and records of one's opponents and saying "look --
I'm better." It's hard to do that sometimes. If I didn't BELIEVE that
I am the best candidate among those from whom you are asked to choose,
I wouldn't bother. I DO believe that, and I hope that upon examination
of your options, you'll reach the same conclusion.
Over the next few months, I hope to have the opportunity to talk with
many of you about my campaign and about why I believe that I am the
right choice for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination.
In the meantime, let's move forward as comrades in the cause of
liberty, keeping our eyes, ears and minds open so that we can make the
best choices for our party and our movement. Best wishes, and
Let Freedom Grow!
Steve Kubby
Libertarian for President
