Quoth Brian Holtz: ----- LOL. There's no "political power" up for grabs here. If anything, we LP leaders who support Paul are running the risk of weakening the LP in the short term, and thus reducing our own "power" (such as it is). It's much more accurate to say that some people are to a certain extent selling out the broader libertarian movement in order not to leak any sand from the little LP sandbox on which they want to keep their grip. And since unlike you I don't deal in coy elliptical allegations, I'll say I'm talking primarily about George Phillies (my current favorite LP contender) and Tom Knapp (my favorite LP radical). -----
I guess the first point to hit on there is the idea that either Mr. Phillies or myself have some kind of "grip" on the LP. Between the two of us, Mr. Phillies and I have held a state chairmanship (his, Massachusetts), an alternate LNC position (me, for a few months in 2001), one term on the (not at any time called into service) national Judicial Committee (me), and some state and local party positions. Neither of us has been an LP presidential or vice-presidential nominee. Neither of us has held an officership, at-large, or voting regional position on the LNC. The idea that the two of us together, let alone either of us separately, constitutes some kind of power bloc which has reason to be jealous of its prerogatives is preposterous. I decline to speak to Mr. Phillies' reasons for unhappiness with widespread support for Paul in LP ranks. His reasons are his own and any overlap between his reasons and mine are purely coincidental. My reasons for unhappiness with widespread support for Paul in LP ranks are several, none of which have to do with any attempt to preserve my non-existent Machiavellian grip on the LP apparatus: 1) It is my considered opinion that the Republican Party is a dead stick, in terms of both its general political future and its fitness as a vehicle for libertarian political use. Therefore, I consider any investment in the GOP to be a mal-investment. I certainly recognize the right of each individual to make his own investments of effort and wealth as he sees fit, and maintain my friendships with many Paul supporters notwithstanding what I consider their poor judgment in that respect ... but I'm not going to pretend that I think they're making a wise decision in helping identify libertarianism with the Republican Party by supporting a Republican candidate for president. 2) It is my considered opinion that identification of Ron Paul in particular as the standard-bearer of the libertarian movement in this election cycle, under any party banner, is a bad idea, for two reasons: a) I agree with his foreign policy positions, and I agree that the war on Iraq is the central issue of the election, but not being a Rothbardian I do not agree that foreign policy is the be-all and end-all. There are other "front-burner" issues (notably gay rights and immigration) for which I consider Paul to be a poor representative of the libertarian movement. As it happens, I also believe that those two issues are at their far point in public opinion from the "libertarian plumb-line" at this time, and are beginning, or will soon begin, to swing back in our direction. I prefer to see the libertarian movement representing itself on these issues in such a way that as public opinion begins to move back toward the "libertarian plumb-line" on them, the public identifies its opinions WITH the libertarian movement, and tailors its voting patterns and other political actions accordingly. b) While I do not wish it to happen, I still am fairly confident in my prediction that to the extent that Paul does well in the Republican primaries (I predict 10-15% in New Hampshire), the mainstream media will increasingly focus on his past statements and past and present associations which carry unsavory race-related connotations. The better he does at the polls, the harder they will hit him ... and I believe that there is enough "there" there to create a libertarian-movement-sized crater with his candidacy in the political earth. 3) It is my considered opinion that, while the LP's 2008 candidates have no chance of winning the presidency/vice-presidency and almost no chance of winning any US Senate or US House seats, 2008 represents a reasonably good chance for the Libertarian Party to pick up more lower-level elected positions than usual and to position itself as a "spoiler" with enhanced vote totals in a number of US Senate/US House/statewide races, and perhaps even to affect the outcomes in some states in the presidential race ... but that requires that libertarians recognize the opportunity and invest in the LP rather than in the Republican Party. Paul's candidacy is not, at the moment, conducive to that recognition or investment. 4) It is my considered opinion that political parties are competitive organizations and that it is both improper per se and an inherent conflict of interest for an individual holding a position of trust in one such organization to support a candidate seeking or holding the nomination of another such organization. In sports analogy terms, LP internal officeholders who support Ron Paul are effectively acting as Pete Roses. It may be that Pete Rose never bet against the Cincinnati Reds, but nonetheless the credible allegation that he bet on other baseball teams called into question his commitment to placing the interests of the Cincinnati Reds ahead of his interest in winning bets. None of these things have anything to do with any perception I have that I have some power in the LP upon which I must retain my "grip," or that I foresee having such power. At this time, it is not my intention to seek nomination or election to any national party office in Denver, nor do I see any situation in which my opposition to Paul's candidacy is likely to materially affect the convention's actions in advancement of my preferences on bylaws and platform issues. As a matter of fact, I suspect that Paul's candidacy, my oppposition to it aside, may positively affect outcomes with respect to my preferences regarding the disposition of bylaws and platform issues, and the outcome of the LP's presidential nomination contest. Regards, Tom Knapp
